Seems like the Leavenworth "locals" haven't quite cornered the market on hostility.
I believe most/all the quotes above were responses to hot headed replies. When I read them, any mockery or hostility was a bit in response to the accusations being hurled.
To me it is unclear whether it was the LMA or the FS that initiated whatever this program is.
I do see that they say they LMA have filed for 503c:
http://leavenworthma.blogspot.com/p/finances.html
For me the worst of the Icicle has been when I had to submit to the terrors of the pay campground hosts and their misinformation. The best has been climbing out there without seeing another soul. I'm not a part of the LMA or even know much about them, but I'm good friends with a number of the people starting it. And a couple of them...well I don't see them as the types that want to limit access to those carrying an LMA card or some other crazy notions.
I do think climbers need to be engaged with land managers, and work with them to preserve access. I thought this was just another case of that, and I have seen it work very well before (the WCC comes to mind, Index to name one example).
So someone please explain (not with wild speculation or theory) why this is construed as "locals attempting to limit access to outsiders"?
Again, I have nothing to do with the LMA other than I'm friends with some of the people starting it.
As far as "more government regulation of the resource" and any outcry over that...well I get that, and understand that, and I agree to some point. I mean one reason to get outside and go climbing is to get away from The Man. And since I'm not privey to everything going on in the Icicle, I did think that self-regulation was working pretty well to this point, so I'm unclear as to why it is necessary.