March 16th, 2020 ALPENTAL Uphill Travel

I guess I'm reading the order differently from some of you, i.e., you can drive wherever you need to go for certain specified purposes (essential occupations, medical care, food, etc.) and can walk or ride a bike for recreation. It seems pretty clear to me that the governor didn't intend to tell us that we can drive wherever we want in order to ski, bike, swim, hike, climb, windsurf, paraglide, or pursue [inserrt your favorite form of recreation here].

But apparently that's not as clear to others as it seemed to me. I suppose that if enough people drive to and from their favored recreational sites, the order will eventually be clarified--I'm guessing in the direction of more restrictions, not less.

I've been reading about lockdowns which allow walking or bike riding within a kilometer or two of home. That doesn't sound like much fun to me. Other places (in Europe, so far) allow people out of their homes on foot only if they're carrying affidavits--and sometimes evidence--that they're buying food or medicine. Think that won't happen here? Hell, I never thought things would go as far as they already have, here in the land of the free.

My main interest here isn't to stake out some sort of high moral ground; I'm really mainly interested in forestalling more restrictions. There are only a few places locally where trails of any sort are still open, and I'd like them to stay that way. People are angry, and one angry passerby blaming all those carefree recreationalists for his/her lost job or dead grandma can create a lot of trouble for the rest of us.

I doubt I'm going to convince anyone to see this differently. That's ok. I don't mind eating an appropriate serving of crow if it turns out I'm wrong, either. We'll see.

Mark

It's called a stay-at-home order.

If you listened to the governor's speech when the order was issued, it was clear (to me at least) that for essential exercise he meant walks, bike rides, etc, near home. Also, it's not just Washington:

[size=12pt]How Skiing Through a Pandemic Can Create a Community Crisis[/size]

www.nytimes.com/2020/03/29/sports/skiing...alanche-warning.html

quote:

"It is not a competition to see what you can get away with," said Polis, who had ordered the resorts to close on March 15.

"If you need to recreate and you love our outdoors," he added, "do it in communities close to your home. This pandemic is not a vacation. It's not the time to drive two or three hours from Denver to mountain communities, many of which are reeling from the crisis."

With all due respect Lowell it is not well written policy and is clear as mud. Seattle has world class skiing at about an hour's distance or less. Not the 2 and 3 hour I70 bandwagon that CO deals with. It is not explicitly stated and absolutely left up to interpretation, demonstrated here.

Those remarks are that of Polis and not Inslee. It was a remark in passing offering guidance only but is questionable how well it applies in the context of Washington State. "Close to home" can be anything around here. There is no reason to get frustrated at folk who interpret this differently.

As a personal opinion, if you are on a tour, cause a scene, and place strain on our SAR and community medical teams you are not acting in the best interest of your community.

Frank:
Well said.

On principle I agree with all of this but this is not what we are seeing practically. People aren't going in small groups, skiing safe, terrain, in isolated private areas.

People are congregating in mass on top of red mountain, skiing on top of each other. People are aggregating at destination and ski objectives. People are skinning up in mass on Sessel. Summit west and lot 4 parking lots full on weekends where resorts aren't running. I saw 6 people skinning up in the rain on Sessel last saturday via webcam.

Judgement, mountain etiquette, and actual covid concerns aside, local and state governments see this activity and feel pressured to further lock things down. So while I agree with everything you said on principle I get where Lowell is coming from as well. The majority of people going up there are skiing the same objective, with moderate to large group size. A smaller but growing majority are getting into the BC for the first time.

My fear is the "Scene" will pressure policy makers to lock things down further. The first major SAR incident we have in WA this year may very well end skiing all togehter in this state.

Exactly. Regardless of one's interpretation of the governor's "Stay At Home" orders, I believe we are on the verge of a far more severe shutdown. Personally, I'd prefer not to contribute to that.  In fact, I'd prefer that the rest of you not contribute as well.

I'd even prefer a total, explicit, enforced shutdown of all driving to outdoor recreation to what I fear is coming--a total, explicit, enforced shut down of recreation itself. In Bellingham, Galbraith and the city parks are still open; state parks are closed but as far as I know still allowing use of trails but not facilities; on DNR land even use of trails is forbidden. This is just a beginning. In Chamonix (so I read), you can still take a walk or bike ride, but only within a kilometer of home--backed up by police enforcement and requiring written statement of intention, plus proof.

I'm not hearing anyone changing their minds about this based on arguments here and elsewhere on the web, although I hope I'm wrong about that. I do think it's worth listening in on other discussions, including the ones going on among people not so invested in maintaining access to outdoor recreation. Some of those people are the ones making policy--now and for the future--and they're not really listening to all the protestations of positive intent or self-serving analyses of the governor's week-old orders. They're just looking for reasons (call them "excuses") to prevent us from leaving our living rooms.

Once again, I'll be glad to be wrong about any or all of the above.

Mark