Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance

Thanks for all your work and time!  I think your group is correct to focus initially on USFS, where the chances for skier-friendly access improvements seem greatest.
   
I don't care much for the aroma, but I smell changes coming in our National Parks' winter operations from Zinke's latest scam.  I'd expect additional fees for plowing, parking, and other traditional basic services fairly soon.  It looks as though motorized recreation advocacy groups will dominate his process, so it could lead to snowmobile tours, winter RV & sled camprounds, who knows, maybe even renting buildings out and cat-skiing at Paradise (Edith Basin & Paradise River headwaters are gerrymandered out of the official Wilderness):

"Interior Secretary Ryan Zinke is moving to form a Recreation Advisory Committee to develop suggestions not only on how "public-private partnerships" can improve access and infrastructure on public lands, but also on how to generate more user fees to support sustainable operations."

"We used to have a Bureau of Recreation - we're bringing recreation back," Secretary Zinke said. "So I've hired a former Navy SEAL captain to evaluate our public lands and look at the recreation opportunities, so the American public can enjoy our lands."

www.nationalparkstraveler.org/2017/11/in...uggest-new-user-fees

themontanapost.com/2017/11/02/the-case-against-ryan-zinke/

and one collision is probably enough to threaten access for all.

How so ? Plenty of collisions and injuries happen every weekend at Alpental and the other ski areas. Also Washington state law explicitly makes the descending skier responsible for any collisions.

The resort has been exceedingly generous in its handling of the traffic lot 4 receives from non-paying customers.

Huh? The land is USFS public land. If the resort were to try to exclude the public from using that route (which has been in use since before Alpental existed) they would need to get the forest service to agree to changes in their special use permit.

How so ?  Plenty of collisions and injuries happen every  weekend at Alpental and the other ski areas.

There really aren't too many collisions/injuries at Alpental, especially compared to the other areas up there. But I've accosted numerous people skinning up the middle of the runs on weekends, a few times with their unleashed dogs. Once they told me they didn't know the area was open. The spandex must've been too tight.

There really aren't too many collisions/injuries at Alpental, especially compared to the other areas up there. But I've accosted numerous people skinning up the middle of the runs on weekends, a few times with their unleashed dogs. Once they told me they didn't know the area was open.  The spandex must've been too tight.

Point is people get hurt pretty frequently at lift served ski areas -- Those sleds get used with some frequency -- more frequently at Summit West and Central than Alpental I would agree.

Awesome! Thanks for all the work in getting this going. I'm in full support of the projects outlined on the site. Especially the ones related to some of the "arbitrarily" locked gates around the state. What are some good ways for us to get involved and help out?

Thank you for taking concrete steps on advocacy. It's a comparatively thankless job -- thank you.

I'm not certain that we need representatives to speak for us, but we absolutely need catalysts to get everyone to speak and advocate in a timely fashion as backcountry usage grows.

Looking around the CBA website, I don't see anything relating to the leadership, structure, bylaws, and financial statements. Transparency may be of critical importance when inspiring solitude-seeking skiers to coalesce as a group.

In particular, before donating to any such group, I absolutely need to know what that money might do, how decisions are made, and who is making those decisions. Such documentation needn't be complex, just clear and accurate.

Thank you again!

Charlie,

Thanks for the input. You raise some good points. Regarding someone speaking for you: I really want to emphasize that we are not trying to dictate an agenda or speak arbitrarily. We want to serve as a mouthpiece and a conduit. You tell us what to say, we try and pass that message on to other organizations. The key here is that we present a somewhat organized and united front on different issues. It is much easier to engage with government entities and advocate when we act as a legitimate group. That said, we also want to encourage people to provide their own direct input during e.g. public comment periods and other times when more voices are better. To this end, we hope to keep people informed about when they should speak up, and provide tools (contact info, etc.) to do so.

Regarding the website and transparency: we've built a "who we are" page which you can check out here . Both you and Andrew suggested this, and it wasn't our intention to be obscure- we're just small and new, and have day jobs. If you'd like to view our articles of incorporation, you can look at them here .

As far as our bylaws: as I said to Andrew, I don't want to publish them until I am certain they are correct- we have a draft but are still trying to ensure they are fully compliant with Washington State law. Believe me, I would love for this documentation to be clear and simple. It inherently isn't, due to the legal requirements of the document. We will not be asking anyone for money until this document is out. We also hope to finish electing an official board soon, but we want to make sure that we get a effective and representative mix of people to serve. Our budget is also a bit of a cart and horse problem right now- we don't know exactly what projects will cost because we are still talking to the Forest Service and other entities. Any project we solicit donations for will have a published budget estimate.

Anyways, it is all a bit of a slog, but we are striving hard for legitimacy, and advocacy isn't thankless: you just thanked us!

Conrad