John Speth

I made a half hearted attempt about a dozen years ago on that route. It's a lot like hiking the Swift Creek route but with no trail (lots of ash, pebbles, etc). I made it to about 7K feet but turned around due to an oncoming flu. I don't think there are any hazards on that route that you can't see from a long distance. That's my opinion because I didn't climb higher to confirm it.

Nine pages of palavering and no meat How do you regulars tolerate it? My amateur rocket science background yields this specific info after watching the OPB show: The upstream end of the canyon is accessible from road 4220 about a half mile past the PCT parking lot at the north end approach to Jeff Park. Coordinates are 44.7652, -121.8328, the river where it bisects a straight line from Davey Lake to Slideout Lake. It also looks accessible via road 4220 from road 46 out of Detroit. 4220 is a nasty bumpy road near the PCT parking lot. I have no idea of the state of road 4220 between Davey Lake and road 46. The map says the waterway is the South Fork of the North Fork of the Breitenbush River. I couldn't find a North Fork of the North Fork. USFS has a link now: http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/willamette/recreation/?cid=fseprd490206 (I wish they'd lose that corny name) Ok now. Who's been in it, near it etc? Post pics or stories. Be specific.

Maybe true but that's not the bigger problem. The bigger problem is that the FS is slowly giving away public access to a public resource. The more they whittle away at access permissiveness, the harder it will be to reverse it when it becomes too much. I would like to see ski areas allow uphill access in corridors where the uphill public would use them. The corridors would be defined to eliminate uphill vs. downhill conflicts. The Timberline climbing corridor on Mt Hood is a good example. The way Mt Hood Meadows does it is how it shouldn't be done, IMO. My point is that I think the Area Access condition is non-negotiable. It's a basic concept: the ski area is permitted to operate a ski area on public land. If that busines endeavor interferes with the Area Access condition they must provide reasonable accomodation where possible. they just aren't trying very hard because they are in bed with the FS. John Speth

I hear you, jlag. In my previous posts, I didn't mention what I believe to be the be root of all this friction: it's the ski area's new Falcon GT Avalauncher. Shortly before Meadows started using their Howitzer, they declared no-uphill. It was clear to everyone that no-uphill was declared so that the ski area could protect itself against legal problems due to injuroes caused by their avalanche weapon. Dave Rathbun's (Bachelor GM)statement quoted by this threads' OP coincidently states they also started using a new avy control system. I doubt the no-uphill declaration and the acquisition of new avy control equipment happening at the same time was a mere coincidence. The new no-uphill policy appears to be a business risk reduction strategy with FS approval. It also violates the use permit. And the feds are ok with it. The guys at CRAG recommend a peaceful approach in which the ski areas provide climing corridors. A better idea than a fight. However if the climbing corridors amount to a few crumbs like Meadows gives, it's not so good. John Speth

Steepconcrete quoted troysmith80 and wrote: "I said i'd be willing to used closed areas under the condition that they are not patrolled or regulated. He said that doesn't really work because when it comes down to it, if somebody needs help out ther, the patrol IS going to go try to help them--waiver or no waiver. In doing so, the patrollers may expose themselves to danger." That's the attitude (the ski area's) that is paining me like a thorn in my foot! Because it's functionally punitive. The ski area doesn't want to be in a position to spend money (staff ski patrollers diverted) to rescue non-customers. So they declare "no-trespassing" in the ski area (which is public land, BTW) and they have FS approval. And it all violates the Area Access condition of the permit. That position is understandable from a business perspective but it violates the permit and the gov allows it. That's not the purpose that public lands are designated for - public access is, not public closure. Plain and simple. John Speth

The problem of closure of public land under lease to operate a ski area is not limited to Bachelor. Last year I had email and voice discussions with parties on both sides of the fence regarding Mt Hood Meadows declaration of no uphill travel. I even "tested" the enforcement system there. The Ski Area Permit is issued by the US gov. It will always state that "the lands and waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes". It's called the Area Access condition. We all know climbing and hiking is lawful so it would seem the ski area has no standing to legally declare no uphill traffic. The problem comes when one reads and tries to interpret language elsewhere in the Ski Area Permit and in the Ski Area Operating Plan, which is created by the ski area and approved by the US gov (the Forest Service). This language suggests that considerations for safety will override other aspects of the agreement. A ski area lawyer would argue that public land (the ski area) is covered as legally closeable under that language. I would argue that public closure should be excluded under that language (IOW, if they can't assure safety for uphill travel folks, they can't operate legally because it violates the Area Access condition). We outdoor snow country non-motorized recreationist were left out of the secret horse trading between the US gov and the ski area that gave them the green light for no uphill travel so the US gov naturally sided with the ski area. I believe that this backwards no uphill declaration needs to be confronted with a violator arrest followed by a challenge in court to get charges dropped due to breaking the Area Access condition. Hood River county cops (covering Meadows) are supposedly willing to arrest or issue citations. It sounds like the cops who cover Bachelor are not. I'm NOT a lawyer but I recommend the arrest and court challenge be coordinated with a passionate lawyer (like someone from the CRAG Law Center, an org that advocates for outdoor public land access). That's my history with this troubling situation. I think if we just hike somewhere else, they'll continue to roll over us in other ways. Informal (like STFU) and legal (like court) push back is the way we'll stand our ground. You can contact me at johnspeth@yahoo.com if you'd like to discuss it privately. John Speth

Update on MSH from Climber's bivouac: The road (and woods) to Climbers Bivouac is snow free as of Sunday November 30. There was a little bit of old snow/ice/slush in the wooded areas of the trail and spotty snow most of the way up from tree line to the top. It was perfect climbing conditions for MSH: cool, clear, little wind, no special equipment necessary. Me and maybe 30 others were there to take advantage of the very late season access. The window for access to climber's bivvy is sure to close fast. JJS

Hi- I'm thinking of climbing Diamond Peak via the Rockpile trail in the next couple of days. Does anyone know of anything about current conditions? How about the forest fire nearby? Is access to the Rockpile trail from the Oakridge side affected (basically, the west side of DP)? Thanks, JJS