Lowell_Skoog
-
Posts
2524 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Events
Posts posted by Lowell_Skoog
-
-
Folks on the fence about this issue may be interested in the thread over on the TelemarkTalk website, which has remained lively a bit longer than the one on CC.com.
http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?topic=2576&forum=1&20
-
OK, here's a shameless plug to get this thread back on the daily topic list.
-
Here's my letter:
======
May 22, 2002
Jennifer Zbyszewski
Methow Valley Ranger District
Winthrop Office
24 W. Chewuch Rd.
Winthrop, WA 98862
Internet jzbyszewski@fs.fed.us
Subject: North Cascades Heli-Skiing Permit
Dear Jennifer,
I would like to comment on the proposed special use permit for North Cascades Heli-Skiing, Inc. (NCHS). I write as a long-time backcountry user in the permit area, particularly along the Highway 20 corridor. I made my first climb of Silver Star Mountain on snowshoes in 1976 and have skied along the highway every year since 1979.
My comment objectives are:
1. Continue to provide guided, back-country helicopter assisted skiing.
2. Minimize conflicts between helicopter-assisted skiers and backcountry skiers when Highway 20 is open.
3. Manage conflicts between helicopter-assisted skiers and backcountry skiers when Highway 20 is closed.
4. I have no objections to the Alternative 2 proposals regarding the Barron Yurt, Panther Basin Hut, and guided Nordic skiing in the Pasayten Wilderness.
I am not satisfied with any of the alternatives described in the Environmental Assessment (EA). I believe that Alternative 3 is more restrictive than it needs to be, while Alternative 2 would expand helicopter skiing too much.
My biggest concern regards extending the season for helicopter skiing. As mentioned in the EA, helicopter operations have typically run from mid-January to near the end of March. This has limited conflicts between helicopter-assisted skiers and backcountry skiers because Highway 20 is typically closed during this period. The EA proposes extending operations from December 1 through April 30. This change would increase conflicts to an unacceptable level, especially in spring. The following Department of Transportation website lists opening dates for the highway since 1974:
http://www.wsdot.wa.gov/regions/NorthCentral/Maint/Area3/nc2002/NCHistory.htm
More often than not, the highway has opened in April. For years, the opening of Highway 20 has been regarded by backcountry skiers in much the same way hunters and fishermen regard their Opening Day. It is the prime season for backcountry skiing along the highway, especially for skiers from the more populous west side of the mountains, who have a hard time getting there in mid-winter. Extending the helicopter skiing season into April would result in an unprecedented number of user conflicts. I recommend limiting the helicopter season from December through March.
My second concern regards the use of a second helicopter. In winter, when Highway 20 is closed, the highway corridor is the primary destination for backcountry skiers from the Methow Valley. Mid-winter use by backcountry skiers has grown rapidly the past few years, mainly due to the adoption of snowmobiles. Backcountry skiers now use snowmobiles in winter much as they use cars in spring--to reach departure points along the highway from which to begin ski tours. I believe the growth in such use is greater at present than the growth in helicopter skiing.
I feel that if NCHS is to use two helicopters, they should operate just one at a time in the Highway 20 corridor. The permit area for NCHS includes areas away from the corridor that are less popular with backcountry skiers. I support the use of a second helicopter in these areas only. The proposed mitigations for Alternative 2--that the second helicopter would be used for exclusive parties only and that the maximum number of skiers per day would remain 25--do not seem like mitigations to me. There are no limits on how often such exclusive parties would fly, and doubling the number of helicopters would halve the ability of backcountry skiers to avoid them, regardless of the number of skiers those helicopters carry.
It's hard for me to say whether the Alternative 2 proposal for 1,050 client days will be a problem. My feeling is that the length of the season and the second helicopter are bigger issues. If they can be accommodated within the limits that I recommend, then 1,050 client days may be acceptable.
I thank you for this opportunity to comment on the NCHS special use permit. I look forward to your decision.
Sincerely,
Lowell Skoog
1524 NE 88th
Seattle, WA 98115
lowell.skoog@alpenglow.org
[ 05-23-2002, 08:49 AM: Message edited by: Lowell Skoog ]
-
VB and Stefan are talking about administrative and emergency uses of helicopters. For these uses helicopters are obviously preferrable to snowmobiles. They're quick, they only touch the ground once, and then they're gone. I don't have a problem with using them for these purposes when necessary.
But that's not what the NCHS permit is about. It's about recreational use. There are plenty of places along the North Cascades Highway where snowmobiles cannot go. The west side of Granite Creek north of Rainy Pass is one example. They are blocked by the creek. Helicopters can and do go there. That's just one difference.
The argument that all machines should be treated the same just doesn't make sense. They're not the same. If they were then the Wright brothers wasted their time.
Just to be clear, I'm not arguing that helicopters should be banned. I'm arguing that they should be limited. I foresee major conflicts in the next few years if we don't do this. The Wasatch mountains provide an example. I'd like to see backcountry skiers and heli-skiers stay on good terms with a small heli-skiing operation in the North Cascades. I don't want things to get to the point where a "Heli-Free Wasatch" sort of backlash is inevitable.
-
By the way, the EA is not available on the Okanogan NF website. I requested information from Jennifer Zbyszewski and she sent me a copy. That's why I posted my extract here. I'm sorry I waited so long to get around to it, but there's still time to comment.
-
I basically agree with Matt Firth. I plan to write a letter this evening and I will post it here after I send it to the Forest Service.
I disagree with Stefan that all motorized activities are equivalent. Helicopters are far more intrusive because of their speed, range and visibility. I don't feel it is necessary to eliminate helicopter skiing, but I believe that its growth must be managed to balance the interests of different user groups.
-
The Methow Valley Ranger District of the Okanogan and Wenatchee National Forests will decide whether to issue a five-year special use permit to North Cascades Heli-Skiing, Inc. (NCHS). NCHS has proposed changes to its special use permit. The NCHS proposal is presented in the ranger district's Environmental Assessment (EA) as preferred Alernative 2.
==== Comments must be postmarked by May 28, 2002 ====
Please return comments to Jennifer Zbyszewski, Methow Valley Ranger District, Winthrop Office, 24 W. Chewuch Rd., Winthrop WA 98862. Comments can be e-mailed to "jzbyszewski@fs.fed.us". If you have questions, you can phone her at 509-996-4021.
The remainder of this message consists of material extracted verbatim from the EA. I've extracted items that I think are of most interest to backcountry skiers. To the extent that this extract may not fully represent the issues involved, I take responsibility.
Maps of the EA are available from the Methow Valley Ranger District. I haven't seen the maps yet.
Lowell Skoog
Seattle, WA
lowell.skoog@alpenglow.org
---- Extract from the Environmental Assessment ----
PURPOSE AND NEED
The first heli-skiing special use permit on the Methow Valley Ranger District was issued in 1982. NCHS took over the business in 1988, and has held special use permits covering every year since then. The number of client days has varied over the years, between 198 and 663.
The analysis area includes the proposed permit area included in Alternative 2. The area includes approximately 33,900 acres in the Twisp River drainage, and approximately 259,200 in the Upper Methow drainage, for a total of 293,100 acres. [As far as I can tell, the area used by NCHS is not changing, but they may designate new runs and landing zones. -LS]
The company requested a total of 1,050 client days (priority and temporary), which would be a combination of alpine and Nordic skiers
The company is currently operating under a short-term special use permit for 550 client days. This permit will expire on May 31, 2002. The company has averaged 407 clients each season over the past ten years, ranging from 198 in 1992/1993 to 663 in 1999/2000.
The Okanogan National Forest Plan (1989) encourages a variety of recreation activities including winter recreation, consistent with management area direction... This desired future condition for the Methow Valley Ranger District includes service partnerships with outdoor recreation and use groups, such as North Cascade Heli-Skiing, Inc., where activities are compatible with other resource objectives.
ALTERNATIVE 1
Objective:
Have no guided helicopter assisted skiing on the Methow Valley Ranger District.
Description:
This alternative would not re-issue a special use permit to North Cascade Heli-Skiing, Inc. There would be no permitted guided helicopter assisted skiing on the Methow Valley Ranger District.
ALTERNATIVE 2
Objectives:
* Continue to provide guided, back-country helicopter assisted skiing,
* Increase client days to allow for increased demand, and improve the financial stability of the company,
* Allow use of the Barron Yurt and Panther Basin Hut for overnight accommodations,
* Allow guided Nordic skiing in a designated area in the Pasayten Wilderness.
This alternative would issue a special use permit for a 5-year term to North Cascade Heli-Skiing, Inc. The permit would allow 1,050 client days per year. Nordic and alpine skiers would be guided along routes identified on the map in the analysis file.
The permit would allow the Barron yurt, T38N, R17E, Section 27, to be used for over-night stays each winter until April 15th. The yurt has a capacity of ten people (eight clients and two guides) per night. The permittee would be allowed to guide Nordic skiers into the Pasayten Wilderness in the vicinity of the Barron yurt. Refer to the map on page 10 for location of the Barron yurt, and permitted guide area within the Wilderness.
A hut in Panther Basin, T37N, R20E, Section 9, would also be used for overnight stays. The hut has a capacity of approximately eight people per night. Refer to the map on page 10 for the location of the hut.
ALTERNATIVE 3
Objectives:
1. Continue to provide guided, back-country helicopter assisted skiing,
2. Do not increase client day beyond the number in the 2001/2002 short-term permit,
3. Allow only one helicopter to operate at a time in the highway corridor,
4. Allow use of the Barron Yurt for overnight accommodations,
5. Do not allow guided Nordic skiing in the Pasayten Wilderness.
6. Do not allow use of the Panther Basin Hut.
Description:
This alternative would issue a special use permit for a 5-year term to North Cascade Heli-Skiing, Inc. The permit would allow 550 client days per year. The company would be restricted to only using one helicopter at a time in the Highway 20 corridor.
The permit would allow the Barron yurt, T38N, R17E, Section 27, to be used for over-night stays each winter until April 15th. The yurt has a capacity of approximately ten people per night. The permittee would not be allowed to guide Nordic skiers into the Pasayten Wilderness. Refer to the map on page 10 for location of the Barron yurt, and permitted guide area within the Wilderness. The hut in Panther Basin would not be used.
MITIGATION FOR ALTERNATIVES 2 AND 3
1. The operating season for the permit would begin no earlier than December 1st, and end no later than April 30th. This would mitigate possible impacts to backcountry skiers and snowboarders when Highway 20 is open by ensuring there are no helicopter-assisted skiers competing with them for runs.
2. The second helicopter (allowed only in Alternative 2) would only be used for exclusive parties, or special projects such as filming or avalanche control. This would mitigate potential effects to backcountry skiers and snowboarders by limiting the time two helicopters are operating at the same time.
3. The maximum number of helicopter-assisted skiers that would be allowed per day would be 25 (20 clients, and 5 guides), even on days when a second helicopter is operating (Alternative 2 only). This would mitigate potential impacts to backcountry skiers and snowboarders by controlling the number of helicopter-assisted skiers.
11. The number of people on guided Nordic ski trips into the Pasayten Wilderness would be limited to 12 to be consistent with the Forest Plan, as amended (Alternative 2 only).
EXISTING CONDITION
The first places the original permittee (who began business in 1982) took clients were the Silver Star, Varden, Cutthroat, Willow, and West Fork Cedar Creek drainages, and Liberty Bowl (west side of Liberty Bell). As the business expanded, new runs were identified further west in the highway corridor. These new runs, and the areas first used by the original permittee, have been the established helicopter-assisted skiing areas since the late 1980s and early 1990s. These are the same runs used today. The approximate location of several landing spots and runs are identified on a map in the North Cascade Heli-Skiing folder in the analysis file. The maximum number of clients the company has taken skiing on any give day has been 20, with 4 to 5 guides, due to the capacity of the helicopter. The past permits did not limit the number of helicopters the company could use at one time, however, only one helicopter has been needed to provide service to its clients.
The number of client days has been strongly influenced by weather and snow conditions, but has been on an upward trend since 1989. The demand is expected to continue to increase, based on this past trend.
The operating season has varied each year depending on snow conditions and the number of clients. Generally speaking, the company begins operations in mid-January and ends near the end of March.
DIRECT/INDIRECT EFFECTS
Alternative 1
If the Forest Service does not issue the special use permit to North Cascade Heli-Skiing, Inc., the company will go out of business. This alternative would not meet the purpose and need described beginning on page 1. None of the helicopter assisted backcountry winter recreation activities would occur. There are currently no private individuals with helicopters participating in any of the activities.
Alternative 2
This alternative would continue the service provided by the permittee, and give people the opportunity to participate in helicopter-assisted backcountry winter recreation activities. The total number of client days would not exceed 1,050, and would not reach that number immediately. The increased number would allow the company to continue to provide the service as demand increases over the next five years.
The landing spots and runs would not necessarily change as a result of this alternative. The additional client days could extend the season for helicopter-assisted skiing to begin no earlier than December 1st, and end no later than April 30th (refer to mitigation measure #1 on page 12).
The company might operate more than one helicopter with this alternative. A second helicopter would be used if a private group wants exclusive use of a helicopter and guide, or for special projects, such as filming or avalanche control. Even when a second helicopter is operating, there would be no more than the current maximum of 20 clients and 5 guides per day. Refer to mitigation measure #3 on page 13. The second helicopter would improve overall safety since it would be available in the event of a search and rescue operation, or mechanical problems with the first helicopter.
Overnight stays at the Barron yurt and Panther Basin hut would benefit the business. The demand for overnight stays is increasing, and having two overnight facilities would allow increasing the number of trips available. Guiding clients on Nordic trips into the Pasayten Wilderness from the Barron yurt is critical to the success of overnight trips in the area. It would give the company the chance to guide clients on Nordic trips with opportunities for solitude and tranquility.
Alternative 3
In Alternative 3, the company would be allowed 550 client days. This could jeopardize the viability of the business, which depends on an adequate number of clients to offset the operating costs. The permittee has invested in this operation over a period of time in anticipation of growing the business. Operating costs (such as helicopter rental and liability insurance) will continue to increase. The price charged to clients would have to be increased as a result, and could lead to further limiting the market of people who can afford to pay for the helicopter-assisted skiing. Holding the company to 550 client days would not allow it to operate with a big enough financial safety-margin to sustain operations in the future.
Only allowing one helicopter to operate in the highway corridor at one time would nearly eliminate the possibility of the company serving an exclusive party and other clients at the same time. The highway corridor is one of the most desirable locations, and the company would likely have to choose between the party and other clients, to only have one helicopter in the corridor. This would reduce revenue for the company.
NON-MOTORIZED RECREATION
Existing Condition
People enjoy non-motorized forms of winter recreation in the analysis area. The most popular are backcountry skiing and snowboarding, and snowshoeing. There are also Nordic skiers who prefer to ski on un-groomed Nordic trails.
Backcountry Skiing and Snowboarding
The relationship between backcountry skiers and snowboarders, and the helicopter-assisted skiing business has developed over time. When helicopter-assisted skiing started in 1982, very few backcountry skiers or snowboarders ventured into the analysis area. The popular highway corridor and Harts Pass areas are very remote in the winter, and snowmobiles of that era were limited in their capacity to take riders into ungroomed areas. Backcountry skiers and snowboarders almost exclusively climbed directly from the ends of plowed roads, skiing the slopes that could be accessed from these limited spots.
Some time around the mid-1990s, this relationship began to change as backcountry skiers and snowboarders started using snowmobiles to travel to the base of slopes in the highway corridor and Harts Pass, and climb to the top of slopes from there. They found unused slopes between those that were being used for helicopter-assisted skiers, and felt little competition for unmarked lines because there were so few backcountry skiers and snowboarders.
A combination of substantial increases in capability of snowmobiles, and quickly increasing number of backcountry skiers and snowboarders began to put pressure on the backcountry in the mid- to late-1990s. More skiers and snowboarders were using snowmobiles that could carry them further into the backcountry. This increased the number of backcountry skiers and snowboarders competing for empty slopes and unmarked lines. The competition increases each spring after Highway 20 is plowed open. Since North Cascade Heli-Skiing, Inc., has rarely operated before the highway closed in the early winter, or after it opened in the early spring, backcountry skiers and snowboarders have been able to spread into areas used by helicopter-assisted skiers. This has reduced competition between members of these groups.
---- End of Extract ----
[ 05-22-2002, 07:31 AM: Message edited by: Lowell Skoog ]
-
Congratulations. Glad you had a safe trip.
I remember being relieved when I heard my brothers had climbed that face successfully. I always thought it looked insecure and their description didn't dispell the notion. My brother Gordy was the driver behind that climb, although a number of people had their eyes on it.
Was this the second ascent? I haven't heard of others, but I'm not all that well connected to the grapevine.
-
Today's Seattle Times had a tiny notice of the death of Chester 'Chet' Ullin. There were no details of his life, but I'm pretty sure he was the father of Gary Ullin, who was killed in an avalanche in the Pamirs in 1974. That story was told in Robert W. Craig's book, "Storm and Sorrow in the High Pamirs."
Chet Ullin was himself involved in an avalanche tragedy many years earlier. In July 1939, Ullin was an assistant guide for a party of 25 students from Western Washington State College making their annual climb of Mount Baker. Hot weather released a huge avalanche on the Roman Wall that killed six students. Ullin said it was "like lifting a table cloth and we were the dishes." It was the worst mountaineering accident in the Pacific Northwest for many years.
In a 1964 Bellingham Herald article, Ullin explained his reasons for going back to the mountains. "It may sound silly, but they were my friends--some of them close friends. Somehow, I think they would have wanted us to keep climbing. A mountain is a beautiful, powerful thing and you have to have respect for it."
The 1964 article described Ullin as a supervisor of teaching materials for the Bremerton public schools in Washington. I found a site on the Web indicating that he had two other sons who still live in the Puget Sound area. I don't know anything more about him, but his passing seems noteworthy. If anybody knows more about him, I'd be interested to hear it.
-
Congrats. Glad you made it safely.
It was a great morning for spring skiing, if a bit warm for ice climbing. We saw you guys on the summit. I figured you might have climbed the east couloir, since you were on top by 9 am.
-
The cornice skiers were another party. We skied up one of the nearby peaks from the other side and could see them from the top.
-
Interesting question. I've done two or three shows at the North Face over the past 15 years. Typically I put a show together at the request of some club, then the store manager hears about it and asks if I'd be willing to show it at the store. Typically the managers have been nice guys, so if I'm not too busy I say okay.
The North Face does pay for speakers. But I make my living as an engineer and the speaker's fee doesn't cover the time I put into it.
Am I a sellout?
[ 05-10-2002, 04:42 PM: Message edited by: Lowell Skoog ]
-
I'm concerned that they'll build more than just campgrounds. Some years ago the Wenatchee NF hardened trails for dirt bikers in the Mad River area. The last winter or two the Okanogan NF has allowed snowmobile rentals to operate on USFS land up the Chewack River. (I don't have first-hand knowledge of these activities. I've just heard about them.)
As Congress cuts funding and forces forest managers to rely on fees, developments like this could become more and more compelling, especially if they draw people who are more willing to pay than muscle powered users. This would make the forests less and less attractive to anybody but the motor-heads. People like Harvey Manning have complained about this sort of thing for years in the Mountaineers hiking books.
-
Okay, I agree it's not productive to frame the debate in partisan terms. My point was to contrast Maria Cantwell's statements (which people here said had no content) with the position of other politicians whose position is known. We know that Bush is pushing to make the fees permanent.
Partisanship aside, what do you think of Cantwell's concern: "Over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised." Does this sound reasonable?
-
Going back to the original letter from Maria Cantwell, I'm surprised that so many people think she didn't say anything. Here it is again:
quote:I am concerned, however, by studies showing that the fees result in reduced access to public lands, and I am also interested in learning if the program has led to reduced federal appropriations for maintenance. I am also worried that over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised. Finally, and most critically, if the program is to continue, coordination of the fee system between lands owned by different agencies must be improved.These are all reasons for her to vote against the program. Can you imagine George Bush or any of the House Republican leadership saying this? I don't think so. We should flood her with letters hammering on these points.
My biggest concern is Cantwell's second sentence, "That over time the program would cause local land managers to favor creating higher impact recreational usage facilities because of the higher amounts of fee revenue raised." That's exactly what the backers of the program want. They want to manage the forests as a recreational money maker, for Uncle Sam and his private "partners."
-
Seems like glen may be talking about thru-hikes rather than peaks. Here are a few ideas. Some include glacier crossings and/or car shuttles. I've only done a few of these.
* Church Mountain to Yellow Aster Butte.
* Ruth-Icy traverse, either out-and-back or drop into the Nooksack cirque and come out that way.
* Traverse from Sibley Pass to Eldorado Creek, optionally climbing Eldorado Peak on the way.
* Climb Sahale Peak from Boston Basin and descend Sahale Arm. (Not an enduro hike, but very nice.)
* Ptarmigan Traverse. This was crossed in a day on foot back in the 1980s before my brother and I did it on skis. I don't know the names of the guys who did it.
* Chiwawa Mountain loop, up via Spider Gap and Lyman Glacier, down via the south side.
* Snoqualmie Pass to somewhere around Cooper Lake (on the crest trail).
* Chinook Pass to Corral Pass. Or Chinook Pass to White Pass.
* Sections of the Wonderland Trail.
Trail runners sometimes do much longer days but it sounds like you're talking about hiking.
-
The angle wasn't vertical, so from an ice climbing perspective it shouldn't be too hard. But it was thin ice over rock, so who knows? It reminded me of those neat pictures that Dan Cauthorn's party took on the east face of Cutthroat Peak a few years back. Up high the angle kicked back and I couldn't see it, but then there were roofs higher, so the exit is an unknown.
-
No, I guess that wasn't the New York Gully. It was a big honking dihedral just east of the Slot Couloir. Quite a bit of ice in the corner. I don't know if anyone's ever climbed it.
-
A friend reported good ski conditions in the Slot Couloir on Mt Snoqualmie last week. He said, "You could do it in three hours easy." So I headed up Sunday after lunch.
Alpental was open and looked crowded. I left the parking lot around 2 pm and skied up the west flank of the peak. I tagged the summit then traversed through scraggly trees to the top of the couloir. (Back in 1985 I climbed this route carrying skis but never went back to ski it. Thanks to Jan Kordel, Steve Martin and Martin Volken for showing the way.)
The snow in the gully was lumpy but forgiving on skis. From Thunder Creek basin the Crooked Couloir looked well filled and not so lumpy. The New York Gully had a surprising amount of ice in it. Could April be a good time to climb this route?
On the west flank (Phantom Chute) the snow was sticky but not bad. I got back to my car at 4:30 pm, confirming that this trip makes a nice Gilligan ("a three hour tour").
[ 04-29-2002, 02:49 PM: Message edited by: Lowell Skoog ]
-
NOW READ THIS: I just called the Mt St Helens National Volcanic Monument office and asked whether snowmobiles are allowed on the summit of the mountain.
They are.
I asked whether they are restricted anywhere in the Monument and was told they could not go into the blast area. So I said, "In other words they can go anywhere that people on foot can go?" The answer is yes.
-
Two friends and I skied Mount St Helens on Saturday (4/20). Unlike the thirty or so other parties on the mountain, we started from the FS-81/83 road junction. Everybody else started at the Marble Mountain sno-park. FS-81 was gated and snow covered. There's five feet of snow at the FS-830 turnoff, so it'll be a while before you can drive much closer to the mountain.
It was cloudy with poor visibility as we climbed above timberline, but we broke out of the clouds around 5500 feet. The cloud sea covered all the roads and clearcuts. It was the prettiest day I've seen on Mount St Helens.
Our approach put us west of Monitor Ridge, while everybody else (apparently) was east of it. We hardly saw anybody else and when we skied to the true summit (8363') there were no other people or tracks. Most climbers turn around at the top of Monitor Ridge (8281'). Unfortunately, snowmobilers were also reaching the crater rim at that point. This is the first time I've seen that. Anybody know if it's legal? (See discussion on the Climbers' Board.)
As we were admiring the crater from the east saddle, two F-18s flew through. It seemed like I could have hit them with a snowball, they were so close. The skiing was mediocre up high but great corn below 7000 feet.
-
I'm not saying you should buy a pass. It's probably better to make them enforce the program than to give in. But it may cost you and I don't have any confidence you could win in court.
-
I received a notice from the Cle Elum ranger district last summer and ignored it. I later received a couple of letters and ignored them. Then I received a summons to appear in court in Yakima. I thought, uh-oh, they're getting serious.
So I went to the wildwilderness.org website and started reading. My conclusion was that, unfortunately, the USFS has legitimate authority from Congress to enforce this program if they want to. It appears that the Cle Elum district was doing so last summer. People have tried arguing technicalities, like they weren't recreating and so on, but I don't think the courts take that very seriously. The "demo" part of fee-demo is about how the program will be administered, not whether we like it or not. I paid the $50 fine instead of going to court.
My bottom line: Like it or not, USFS has the authority to bring you to court and throw the book at you. I believe we have to fight the fees in the political system. The legal system is stacked against us.
Note: I'm not a lawyer and I haven't talked to one.
-
I'm not a snowboarder, but I think a snowboard should be more secure on steep icy terrain than skis. I believe that recent descents in the Alps bear this out, but I don't have details.
To me, it makes sense that two legs driving a single edge should be more powerful on ice than two independent skis. Think of mono-point crampons, by analogy.
Also, a snowboarder can wield a real ice tool in each hand rather than simply holding self arrest grips. A snowboarder can "downclimb" on the toe side of the board while secured with two ice tools. A skier can't very well do any of these things.
Other posters have noted that the St. Elias party climbed very quickly to the summit and may have been poorly aclimatized. Their descent at sunset could have led to mistakes due to being pressed for time. And, of course, they could have decided to walk down instead of skiing.
I'd like to offer another idea that could, perhaps, have changed the outcome--they could have belayed each other. My guess is that belayed skiing was never part of their plans. It is contrary to the prevailing style in steep skiing today. Yet skiing on belay is no less challenging than skiing unroped. (So, it's not like it's cheating.) It is probably more challenging, due to the rope management skills required. And it can be safer. The main reason steep skiers reject it is for reasons of style. That's unfortunate, to my mind. Especially if it leads to an outcome like the Mount St. Elias tragedy.
[ 04-17-2002, 05:48 PM: Message edited by: Lowell Skoog ]
Deaths on Rainier
in Mount Rainier NP
Posted
Very sad outcome. It's hard to resist attempting the climb when you arrive from out of town and have only one chance. But there's a long history of people getting caught on this route after setting out in mediocre weather. I recommend waiting for a bomb-proof forecast before trying Liberty Ridge.