Uphill policy in Ski areas

Hi all;
Backcountry skiing is popular. Getting to our beloved backcountry via the established access points like mountain passes and ski areas is also very popular because, well, you can actually get there.
Sometimes this creates a bit of conflict because bc skiers want to recreate on public lands and feel that seemingly restrictive uphill policies from various ski areas infringe on their basic rights of roaming the land.
I would like to speak to that.
When a ski area obtains a "Special Use Permit" from any Forest Service District, they have to go through a pretty painful process of submitting an Operating Plan among other things. Owning a guiding service, I am familiar with these hurdles. In this Operating Plan you have to state most and foremost how you are going to keep the resource intact and keep the public safe. Once this document has been approved, the Forest Service entitles the concessionaire to enforce the agreed upon rules on their terms and this is important to remember. This may mean that in order to ensure public safety during avalanche control, there have to be temporary closures of certain areas.
This makes a lot of sense, since this is the most efficient way to assure access for the recreating public as quickly as possible when (for example) doing avalanche control. If now the Dept of L and I gets involved because a ski area cannot assure safety for the public while doing avalanche control, you are uncorking a potential chain of events that we do not want to mess with.
It could mean that suddenly ski areas don't get to use explosives and have to therefore close areas for a longer time to ensure safety.
Furthermore, the Federal Land Management agencies hate the prospect of getting sued and I have personally seen them make very non-nuances safety decisions in order to avoid that potential. It could mean that they could just categorically shut down all uphill travel period in a particular Special Use Permit Area.
I really don't think that the bc community wants to go there.
Personally, I would like to advocate for strong communication with the various ski areas and trying to partner in increasing safety for all. This means basically that we need to be compliant on their turf. Remember, it is their Special Use Permit. It is crucial to realize that there would no bc ski industry in Washington without the ski areas. No shop would survive without the important ski culture contribution that our local ski areas bring to the bigger ski industry picture.
One thing that I agree with is that we could use more access to back country ski terrain. Here is where I would love to focus our energy. Washington State offers literally thousands of square miles of skiable backcountry terrain and only a small portion of it is accessible with a reasonable effort. If we could convince the Forest Service to keep a few more access points open (speak plow a few more roads), we would be a lot further along.
I have flown over our beloved Cascade Range for many hours during the making of the Washington ski touring book and I can assure you that the possibilities are endless.

Martin, thanks for this post. I think it's very important that we respect the safety measures put in place by the ski resorts, even if it means we have to go a little more out of our way to earn our turns.

Do you have a suggestion for who we can contact to lobby for more plowing?

Probably the best way to do it would be to contact Mike Schlafmann. He works out of the District office in Mount Lake Terrace office I believe. Before this happens we should maybe organize ourselves and come up with a common message.

I think the community needs to organize itself more for this kind of initiative to succeed, in order to focus the message and eventually focus funds. There are some nice examples of this happening on the East Coast. The densely forested terrain there means ski touring is only really possible on gladed runs and a few natural avy paths in the White and Adirondack mountains. The initiatives I know of are:

granitebackcountryalliance.org/
www.rastavt.org/
the last has been incorporated into an older organization for nordic/backcountry skiers in VT:
catamounttrail.org/

These initiatives could be models for some of the advocacy groups skiers in the PNW need. For us, it would be less focused on trail building and more on road access during the winter months.

I'd love to get involved in something like this.

I'd like to see a group effort put forth to get a spot or 2 opened up. I think getting people to agree on one or two places would be the biggest hurdle at this point. What are the places you would suggest Martin?

If we could convince the Forest Service to keep a few more access points open (speak plow a few more roads), we would be a lot further along.
I have flown over our beloved Cascade Range for many hours during the making of the Washington ski touring book and I can assure you that the possibilities are endless.

Yes, indeed. We do need a collective effort of conscientious backcountry skiers to organize for road access/plowing. It's been done before with other mountain sports around here.... With the popularity of bc skiing in one of the more wealthy areas of the world, the possibility for perhaps even a co-op to form to assist the state in accomplishing such a goal seems feasible. Growth is inevitable, we are seeing it everywhere including the hills, and this state is overly tight about recreational expansion/huts/etc. I lean rather on the side of conservationist for sure, but there is room to open.