Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance

Sounds good! 

Here's a little list of gated areas that have frustrated me over the years. Many of these have already been mentioned. Of course some of those might have legitimate reasons for being locked, and many are probably outside the realm of immediate possibility. One can dream though, right?

Gates on Cascade River Road. I can't even count the number of times I've walked the last few miles on dry pavement. Also, plowing that road would be incredible.

Mowich Lake road: often gated until well after the snow is gone on the road. I've ridden my bike up there several times when it was gated, and there was no snow in sight.

410 gate and sunrise road

Skyline divide road

Twin lakes road: Not sure if this is the case anymore, but it when I lived in Bellingham a few years ago it often had a big snowbank plowed in front of the road entrance. The road would often be clear for several miles other than that. I asked the forest service and DOT about the snowbank, and if I remember correctly they said it was more of just a convenient place to put the snow. They said it was fine for me to go and shovel it out and drive over it, which I did a few times. Even if the snowbank isn't an issue anymore, getting some plowing up that road would be absolutely amazing.

It'd be great to get the paradise gate unlocked a few hours earlier in the morning, and maybe stay open later at night.

Twin sisters road (from the northern side). I know this is more of an issue with the logging company than a governmental agency. However, Having that road open would open up a pretty incredible area for skiing and other recreational opportunities.

It'd be cool to have the west side of HWY 20 gated higher up. Probably fairly unfeasible due to avalanche danger and other reasons. However, it'd be pretty rad to have snowmobile access to Washington Pass similar to what the east side has.

Colchuck lake road.

Louis,

Thanks for laying out a sweet "wish list." Many of these areas are on our radar already.

From north to south:

Twin lakes and Skyline divide road are our main priorities on the 542 corridor. The local sled groups feel similarly, and we are trying hard to get the attention and engagement of the FS and hopefully the DOT. If you're interested in supporting this project, send an email to Erin Uloth, the District Ranger for the area, at euloth@fs.fed.us. I'd welcome any users here reaching out to her and letting her know that you use these areas and access there is important to you. I would say that these roads are probably the most likely places for us to change the status quo, maybe in the entire state.

Twin sisters road I will look into a bit more, I am familiar with the area but we hadn't put it on our list yet.

West Side highway 20 is unfeasible to due to avalanche hazard- it has actually been moved further west in some years due to avalanche and rockslide hazard.

Cascade River road: We (the various CBA founders) have also spent much time walking on this dry road. Basically, the park doesn't have the resources to even closely monitor it, much less plow it, so it is often arbitrarily closed. This is extremely frustrating, and we are hopeful we can make some headway on this road in particular because of the incredible nature of the terrain up there. It is an underutilized resource for sure. Odds are this will be a long, uphill battle involving high-level funding problems, which is depressing.

Colchuck lake rd: I walked this entire road, dry, the day before it opened last spring. Brutal timing. We met a FS crew that had driven up there and talked to them about the road a bit. Apparently opening that road is bureaucratically very dense- I think local law enforcement is involved, many papers have to get signed, etc. We are planning to weed into that thicket a bit more next spring, as I think winter plowing of this road is threatened by avalanches and a huge long shot. Expediting the opening, or moving up the gate to temporary higher spots as the snow melts, would be more of a priority here.

MRNP roads: Again, lack of funding and resources at a high level. Right now, we really are hopeful to just get some better information out there about the state of these roads. It is often unclear which gates are locked and which are not. hopefully more to come on this soon.

All of the areas that you mention are already accessible, and have been for years, by snowmachine, or walking. The problem is not lack of access points. The problem is soft backcountry users.

If you are trying to start a backcountry alliance, that means making a voice for skiers, and splitboarders, and bootpackers, and snowshoers, and xc skiers, and snowmobilers, not just the lycra clad rando community of guides. WWA is an inclusive voice for all winter land users, not just the high-brow seattalites that want access for their 2 days off work from amazon. Start hiking earlier, stay out later, quit your job. All of these solve the problem of getting to places you can already get too.

-Twin lakes road crosses incredible slide paths. That is why it is closed by the DOT. If your alliance 'opens' that blockade and someone dies, it would be libel

-Skyline rd is already accessible to within a few miles of the TH all winter, get there earlier

-All of your other goals are trivial and unrealistic. You are addressing the problem of overpopulation in the ski community by outsourcing the problems rather looking at the source

How about access off the mountain loop? That whole highway pass gets shut down and is way closer to all of the arc'teryx techies crowding every mountain pass and dead end road. What about those gates? What about access off the newly paved m. fk snoqualmie?

Or just buy a $500 snowmobile and $500 truck to carry it and get out there, like everyone who enjoys the areas you are trying to ruin already does.

NB: I'm not involved with the CBA.

How about access off the mountain loop? That whole highway pass gets shut down and is way closer to all of the arc'teryx techies crowding every mountain pass and dead end road. What about those gates? What about access off the newly paved m. fk snoqualmie?

Aha -- herein lie some shared goals among essentially all recreationalists.  For the Middle Fork, we're gonna need a lot more lowland snow.

Regarding the winter-user population growth: I don't think anyone can stop that, nor would we want to. Every winter traveler, sled, ski, or snowshoe, is someone who will vote to keep our mountains and forests undeveloped. We all feel the pressure of increased use across the Cascades, even in hidden stashes. Federal and state lands are everyone's, including each of us.

A lot of us would love to have the time to spend making multi-day jaunts deep into the Cascades, but it's also good to be able to put food on the table and spend time with our families. Indeed, the only reason I don't do more multi-day trips is the simple fact that I like my job. There are a lot of very "hard" skiers who can't free up enough time to fully utilize their skill, talent, and fitness.

If every ski-touring Seattleite turned up at a trailhead with a snowmobile and a trailer, snowmo access issues would be far, far worse, Parking in Sno-Parks would be impossible.

Crowding is becoming a safety issue of its own. The impact of density grows like the number of interactions, which is roughly the square of the number of people. It is starting to impact skiers and snowmobilers alike, as seen in the Hawkins Mountain accident, the Baker near miss, and the Kendall Peak accident.  One of the several ways to mitigate that hazard is simply to spread people out.

Thanks for being fired up about access. I think all of us are.

Expect passive aggressive like calling you whiny (sp?) or saying you are not being cool..not fun.. ...

Not saying you are being p.a.
..

CBAlliance,
First off thanks for stepping up to try and build a collective voice to support access to our mountains.  I am for this completely and am willing to assist with my time, energy, and money.
It seems to me that your view of the permit holder's ability to restrict access is much more liberal than mine.

I'm curious how you interpret the following language of the SUP:

E. Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby authorized.
F. Area Access. Except for any restrictions as the holder and the authorized officer may agree to be necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized structures and developments, the lands and waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes. To facilitate public use of this area, all existing roads or roads as may be constructed by the holder, shall remain open to the public, except for roads as may be closed by joint agreement of the holder and the authorized officer.

And from "Additional Seasonal and Year-Round Recreation Activities at Ski Areas" 2343.11, specifically the part about season long closures being inappropriate, which is what Crystal Mt. Policy specifically states.


6. Ensure that holder operations comply with Forest Service regulations (36 CFR 251.55(b)) and permit terms and conditions for non-exclusive use and that the ski area remains open to the non-paying public for all lawful uses that are not inconsistent with the holder's rights and privileges and public safety. Document in the operating plan authorized restrictions on use by the non-paying public, and require the holder to post these restrictions in locations where they would be effective in informing the public, for example, on the ski area's website and on site at a primary entrance or public information facility. In most cases, it would not be appropriate for restrictions to preclude all public use during the ski season other than by those purchasing a lift ticket or paying for other services.
Thanks,
-Kneel