Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance

"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."

Kneel,

Thanks for your support and encouragement. It means a lot. I am not a lawyer, so I don't want to say I am an absolute authority on these things. However, I think you are getting at the broad provisions for other use that affect the ski area, and wondering how they are able to regulate their terrain so tightly. I believe that the sentence above is the key point here- the permit holder does have rights and privileges, as well as a mandate to maintain public safety. This is all theoretical. I think the practical point is that ski areas absolutely have the right to close areas to travel when they have safety concerns. If they are doing avalanche control work, which they have a right to, and some unwitting traveller gets hurt, that's on the ski area. So they close it.

I acknowledge there are all sorts of things that occur in the name of "public safety" that are weak facades for access restrictions. I don't think the public safety concerns of ski areas fall into the realm of hand-waving bureaucracy. I think they are very real, and worth respecting.

Again, thanks for your input. If you feel you have a significantly different interpretation of the language you posted, I'd be curious, but I think we are probably both speculating here until we get a lawyer on the line.

Thanks,
Conrad

For example the Okanagan- Wenatchee National Forest just had a comment period concerning the renewal for a number of Outfitter permits including issuing  new 10-year permits to North Cascade heli ski and North Cascade Mountain guides.

I would be interested to know how the CB Alliance responded to that specific recent scoping letter detailing current special-use permit plans.

CBA the fact that you didn't respond to my contention that your organization is set up to accommodate commercial use interests, I believe serves to confirm that fact.

I'm not sure that your Puppet Masters are going to let you respond to any of my posts.


One of the biggest safety issues in the mountains these days are guides killing clients and themselves.

It's no secret around these parts that I have an ongoing advocacy concerning transparency, accountability and safety measures to mitigate the impact of commercial use on, well everyone else.

And yet you remain silent on these issues, why?

Hi,

I didn't respond to you because I'm really pretty baffled about what you want me to say. It's not the mind-control drugs of my lizard-people overlords. From my perspective, some people were having a nice discussion in a room, and you barged in to insult and heckle me, and then shout about your own concerns.

I understand you think that guides are regularly either killing clients or nearly so, and then lying about it. Other than to tell you it makes me feel bad that someone would think I am an insane egomaniac, I'm not sure how to change your mind on this. You would think I am merely lying to serve my own purposes, and that the statistics don't reflect reality. I strongly encourage you to start a thread about this. Or, form your own nonprofit. There are many places in which you are welcome to lead your own discussion and espouse that viewpoint. I'm not going to discuss or debate it here with you. Our mission is not to make the backcountry safe per se. Rather, we'd like to make it easier for people to spread out (something that might be useful if you feel other parties are a hazard), and help people who are going to crowded areas have a better experience (something that civility plays a large part in).

If you can refrain from openly disparaging my profession and me (I have no interest in insulting carpenters), then I would love to have a civil discussion about the concerns you have raised. If you feel that anyone involved with the ski industry should not be involved in the CBA, I'm going to suggest to you that a)people who like skiing and are passionate about the outdoors often end up in the outdoor industry and b) repeat what I said earlier: "We do not represent the interests of any of these institutions as the CBA. We are all avid recreational skiers who want to help address the needs of the recreational community. While obviously the industry benefits from more skiers and more backcountry users, the point is that we as recreationalists have a political voice- for-profit entities already have the means and resources to advocate for themselves."

If you're unwilling to take that statement at face value, I'm not sure what else to tell you. Maybe you could come meet and talk to some of us in person, and you would be less conspiracy-minded or vitriolic towards us. It seems pretty easy to insult and dismiss people from behind a keyboard.

Let me invite you to make some relevant points:

What input would you like us to have on the scoping process happening in Okanogan-Wenatchee NF right now?

Do you think that the mere existence of for-profit entities on public lands is philosophically problematic? Should we take some sort of stand on this issue?

Do you think individual action is always more politically ideal, or would you consider that not everyone with shared interests always has the time to advocate for every single thing they believe in on an individual level?

Thanks,
Conrad

P.S. I appreciate you posting the uphill travel policy for loup-loup, and I will add it to our website as well.

It's kind of like an oil industry Insider who is appointed to the Environmental Protection Agency who touts the benifits to the people of piping tar sand oil underneath the Missouri River, when the reality is that the benefit is to the person who owns the pipeline.

Strawman much?

To your earlier point: yes forums are like town hall meetings. You seem to be filling the role of the angry crank who shows up to every meeting to shout people down while not offering anything constructive.

Freeski's post reminded me of another good wish list access spot. It would be great if the CBA could convince the DOT to plow Hwy 20 from Mazama to the Cutthroat Creek turnoff all winter long.  I don't think there are any avy paths that cross the highway between those points, so it would just be a cost issue.  Maybe we could crowd source the funds for an "experimental" season of plowing?  It would provide everyday access to such local favorites as Delancey Ridge, Shangrila and all of the the fantastic skiing around Cutthroat.  It would also facilitate day trip human powered access to Silverstar, the Wine Spires and even Washington Pass.

Freeski's post reminded me of another good wish list access spot. It would be great if the CBA could convince the DOT to plow Hwy 20 from Mazama to the Cutthroat Creek turnoff all winter long.  I don't think there are any avy paths that cross the highway between those points, so it would just be a cost issue.  Maybe we could crowd source the funds for an "experimental" season of plowing?  It would provide everyday access to such local favorites as Delancey Ridge, Shangrila and all of the the fantastic skiing around Cutthroat.  It would also facilitate day trip human powered access to Silverstar, the Wine Spires and even Washington Pass.

A local told me that this is already going to happen this year? That's all rumor, if someone has more concrete info please let us know.

Excessive or highly repetitive "ranting" or "venting" post will not be tolerated and may be deleted without notice.
As a member of this community you agree to post relevant topics.
As much as possible, your topics should be backed by facts, photographs or URL's where additional information can be found.
Excessive posting on similar topics, or excessively "calling out" others in this community are actions that are likely to have your posts or your membership deleted.