Introducing Cascade Backcountry Alliance

To be clear, I agree with everything Charlie wrote in the first paragraph of that last post.

And I might even make this group  a target  for a slice of my yearly donations, as I've done for over two  decades running with a  local hiking access oriented non-profit organization (which  is the  subject of ongoing attacks on both intentions and results from  some  members of the hiking community - I think this  is inevitable for such  a group). But frankly here I differ from Charlie - I won't do so before I see some effort to better clarify goals and non-goals for their project work. And I honestly  don't believe it would be heavy lifting or very time consuming. I  think that  in well  under a  half hour one or more of them could  take a very good stab at that right now (I bet it will take less time than  making that donation  link go live  ). If the group is not clear enough on their goals now to do it in ten minutes, the extra twenty (or so) would  be time well  spent for  all of them, even for the benefit of their own efforts (aside from  engaging folks  like me). For my part, based on having watched many group efforts either succeed or fail,  I see this  as an important piece of foundational  work that would  build my confidence that this group has a shot at using my $ well, and  in ways  that I'd like to  see it used.  And depending  on the need (which would of course also have  to be  clearly  articulated), I might also  be game to kick in  time.

I'm willing to put my time where  my typing fingers are - if you want some help articulating your goals, I'd be up for coming to  meet with your crew  to facilitate a discussion with the aim of producing such a list  to  be used internally and shared  publicly.  FWIW I have been fairly well  paid for doing such work (among other  things), and have  also very recently helped to guide such a process as a member of a volunteer board of an "adventure education" non-profit which just went through a periodic revision and renewal of its overall  strategy  (this non-profit company has been a leader in "adventure-based learning" for over 40 years and understands how important this foundational effort  is). If you have any interest, PM me and we can discuss  how long a meeting  might be worthwhile toward this end.

To be clear, I agree with everything Charlie wrote in the first paragraph of that last post.

And I might even make this group  a target  for a slice of my yearly donations, as I've done for over two  decades running with a  local hiking access oriented non-profit organization (which  is the  subject of ongoing attacks on both intentions and results from  some  members of the hiking community - I think this  is inevitable for such  a group). But frankly here I differ from Charlie - I won't do so before I see some effort to better clarify goals and non-goals for their project work. And I honestly  don't believe it would be heavy lifting or very time consuming. I  think that  in well  under a  half hour one or more of them could  take a very good stab at that right now (I bet it will take less time than  making that donation  link go live  ). If the group is not clear enough on their goals now to do it in ten minutes, the extra twenty (or so) would  be time well  spent for  all of them, even for the benefit of their own efforts (aside from  engaging folks  like me). For my part, based on having watched many group efforts either succeed or fail,  I see this  as an important piece of foundational  work that would  build my confidence that this group has a shot at using my $ well, and  in ways  that I'd like to  see it used.  And depending  on the need (which would of course also have  to be  clearly  articulated), I might also  be game to kick in  time.

I'm willing to put my time where  my typing fingers are - if you want some help articulating your goals, I'd be up for coming to  meet with your crew  to facilitate a discussion with the aim of producing such a list  to  be used internally and shared  publicly.  FWIW I have been fairly well  paid for doing such work (among other  things), and have  also very recently helped to guide such a process as a member of a volunteer board of an "adventure education" non-profit which just went through a periodic revision and renewal of its overall  strategy  (this non-profit company has been a leader in "adventure-based learning" for over 40 years and understands how important this foundational effort  is). If you have any interest, PM me and we can discuss  how long a meeting  might be worthwhile toward this end.

Jim,

I think we would have some interest in this but I also think we are talking past each other a little bit, which is easy to do over the internet. You might want to have a look at our "projects" page here , which I think pretty clearly states the goals we have. I'll quote here for the click-averse:

STEP 1: improve the user experience at heavily trafficked backcountry access points.
-Encourage mutual respect and community by promoting some basic backcountry etiquette provisions.
-Maintain a good relationship with resorts, and make the business case for uphill travelers using resort resources.
-Limit the number of cars that take up resort parking, and advocate for and expand carpooling options.
-Help shape resort infrastructure to limit user conflict.

STEP 2: distribute the impact of backcountry users to different areas.
-Plow additional trailheads and roads.
-Improve community knowledge about what access points are available and what resources they can use to explore new areas.
-Present a united political voice to government agencies during planning processes.

Perhaps this page should be re-labeled, as I see the distinction you are making between projects and goals. Goals attempt to complete the mission, projects attempt to complete the goals. I appreciate the examples you've provided above of some more specific goals relating to the Kendall plowing project. I would be curious if you have some examples of documented goals from other organizations such as the WTA (or similar) that you could share. It would likely be helpful.

Regarding funding, which sort of ties in to all this: There's a reason we aren't asking for money.
Basically, we have a cart and horse problem. We are trying to get a sense of where the horse will go before we build the cart too elaborately. You all are understandably trying to decide how the cart looks and who is driving it before you hitch your horse up. The transition out of this initial size-up is sort of happening right now, but it will continue to be messy as we depend on tenuous new relationships and ever-limited resources. We don't want to ask people for funding without projects that have more clearly defined budgets, outcomes, and abilities to meet our stated goals. That IS the reason the funding link isn't live yet. We get the point of doing the background work before we ask people to plunk down the money.

We also get that trust is a big thing in asking for community effort. Our bylaws, articles of incorporation, certificate of incorporation, and fiscal sponsor agreement with WWA are all now published on our website at www.cascadebackcountryalliance.org/governance . I'd like to note that this is pretty far beyond what you get with most other nonprofits, including the WCC, WTA, and NWAC.

Once we have a bank account (probably soon), we will start publishing fiscal information. Obviously we currently have a $0 balance.

Regarding your skepticism of our first goal: I don't think your heavily trafficked roads analogy is accurate. The solution to too many cars is fewer cars: better public transportation, carpooling incentives, and infrastructure alternatives. The solution to too many skiers isn't fewer skiers. We can't stop em. It's already an exorbitantly expensive niche sport. And yet the masses show up. We also can't just close i-90. It's a desirable transportation corridor. Similarly, I like skiing in the passes. The terrain is good, the snow is good- I don't think people want to lose that access even if they are willing to look for solitude elsewhere. So yes, we have to make it easier for people to go to different places- but we aren't going to hope that it's the stick of restricted access that drives them there.

We also get that trust is a big thing in asking for community effort. Our bylaws, articles of incorporation, certificate of incorporation, and fiscal sponsor agreement with WWA are all now published on our website at www.cascadebackcountryalliance.org/governance . I'd like to note that this is pretty far beyond what you get with most other nonprofits, including the WCC, WTA, and NWAC.

Awesome -- thank you! Perhaps-important PM to follow.

Thanks for the thoughtful  reply "CBA" (sorta wondering what *human* I'm engaging  with... but that's  OK_.

Yes,  those "steps" are a decent start - I may have glazed over them on my first view of your web site because they appeared to be "execution details"  (listed as "steps") rather  than higher level  goals,  from  which "steps" might follow. And they do mush together "goals"  and "action plan" a bit, which I  have  found is not ideal. IMO a really good set of goals would  be relatively concise (particularly  for  a new organization that will  likely have  to  pick and choose carefully  where  to  try to have  impact!!), would be very useful  for ranking competing possible projects (would plowing the PCT  TH be better than expanding the existing  Sno-Park along the road that runs past Gold  Creek, for instance), and would have  some relatively  concise backup explanation  that  helps everyone understand *why* these are the  goals as well as that helps remove some of ambiguity that tends to  be inherent in  one-line goals. And the goals would very clearly telescope into  the  organization's "mission," and reflect its "values." I can look  for some other  examples but may not get  to  it for a week or so. In the meantime, you  could do worse than emulate the  template provided by this "strategic plan" from the WTA (easy to find on  their site,  but for  the type-and-browse averse: www.wta.org/our-work/about/our-work/strategic-plan-2015-2020 - also note its location  under "about us"  which is relatively standard). I like the way they give  their overall  vision and mission,  and lay out three clear and concise goals, and then have  a page for  each  goal on which they dive a bit deeper into what they call "objectives"  (I think of them as sub-goals) and some explanation of the thinking behind the  goals.  Very good public format for this sort of strategy plan document. And there's very little there about actual execution plan, but there's enough detail to  be able to infer a fair bit about likely  execution steps. And it looks to  me as if it will  be a very  good tool for prioritizing possible work  streams.

With respect to my traffic analogy,  those  "solutions"  to  too  many cars have almost never reduced the number of cars on any  given road/highway and that's my point. Neither  does building more roads or highways. What  I learned while studying urban planning is that the roads will stay full so  trying to reduce the congestion  there  is a fool's game.  Doesn't mean you  shouldn't do things like build mass transit infrastructure if you want to  allow *yet more* people to  transit through an urban region; but it does mean that reducing congestion on key  roads is rarely a project success  metric (with the exception of certain types of road revisions that resolve heinous and typically archaic designs of things like urban highway interchanges that are dangerous and for which much better designs exist that could fit into roughtly the same footprint; Boston's "Big Dig" was  a good example and relates to our on  viaduct which  is of the  same construction as the road that tunnel replaced - putting  the through-traffic on  a tunneled highway has kept within-city travelers off the road and  on  surface streets so now the  highway  flows much better  through the  city w/o so much on-off traffic). If you  think I'm  advocating  for a strategy that tries to limit numbers or restrict access, we are indeed talking past each other.  I'm simply suggesting that, whatever you  do, recreationalists are STILL going  to park at Lot 4 and over at West (unless and until the ski area implements some sort of restrictive policy which may or may not violate their lease  or tax arrangements). Trying to stop  that through extra lots  will at best offer very transient wins given the continuing and somewhat striking growth  of outdoor recreationalists hereabouts. So if plowing the PCT lot nets more overall  "new ski tourer days" possible on great terrain which  has  capacity for that  load than any of the other  similar-cost options around the Pass area, great. It's number one then. I'm  simply suggesting that proximity  to the  ski  areas shouldn't nudge that project any higher in the rankings (and in  fact, the fact that "access" already exists for that  terrain, one might argue for nudging it downward a bit). I  hope that  helps clarify what I  meant with  that  analogy. And I'd also hope that having opened a  new lot there wouldn't make it *easier*  for  the  ski  area to  start restricting parking access to non-lift-holders (this is coming from  someone who has a seasons pass up  there most seasons, fwiw). Perhaps I'm missing some value to "buidling goodwill with the ski area" but I'd be very wary of overly banking on that for any project that isn't both a "give" and "take" there, and which wouldn't persist past a change of corporate intention or ownership.

We will be holding our first event on Wednesday, February 21st at Ascent Outdoors in Ballard. If you'd like to show up, make your voice heard, and drink some free beer, we'd love to have ya. Click on the photo to RSVP.