St. Helens ski

[telemarker]

A buddy and I are going up St. Helens on Saturday,5-10, conditions look great, lotsa sun, good turns. Anyone interested in going, let me know-PM me, leaving from Marblemount parking area around 8am. I go every year, be happy to accommodate anyone who hasn't gone.

[Winter]

I was there on saturday with about 350 of my closest friends, five dogs, at least a half dozen 'bilers on the summit rim and NO bikinis. WTF? Great conditions but what a zoo.

 

[ 05-12-2002, 07:47 PM: Message edited by: Winter ]

[To_The_Top]

And Sunday the zoo continued...looked like the hike to Muir on a good day. Snow was good, skiing good, no snowmobiles but lots of people skiing in dresses and several dogs hiking the mtn. Oh yah, a naked guy too--sheesh

TTT

 

[ 05-12-2002, 11:27 PM: Message edited by: To The Top ]

[scot'teryx]

Way too many people up there on saturday

 

 

so sunday must have been messed up.

Good snow except down at the bottom where it kinda sucked, but made it all the way to the parking lot.

 

saturday morning at 5am looked like a dead concert.

[Mike_Collins]

Hey Scott,

Do you still count it as an ascent even if you didn't make it to the top? I went to the top of St. Helens on Saturday and didn't see any other bootprints up there. Everyone else hung out at the party on the rim.

[Rodchester]

I went up with a few buddies on Sunday. Yes it was a circus...but I think that is the point. Just a group gathering, skiing/boarding down in dresses to celebrate our moms.

 

The conditions were great. The skiing down rocked too. I took my skis of at the parking lot.

 

Anyone expecting a wilderness experience on Helens is high on crack.

[hasbeen]

I was there on Saturday, too. I can't add anything to the prior posts -- lots of people, lots of sun, lots of snow, lots of turns, lots of grins. But there were also lots of snow machines... We were sitting around the rim and, unbelievably, some 'biler charged right up and over the crest, about 18 inches (I am not exagerating) from a couple of guys sitting around soaking up some sun. The 'biler then turned behind them, again about 18 inches away, and went along the cornice ridge, behind me, too, and stopped a ways away toward the summit. In about five minutes, another one came charging up the same track.

 

The climbing ranger came over to chat and asked us if any of us felt like our safety was compromised by the 'biler's actions. The folks the 'biler went closest to said they felt a little uncomfortable. The ranger then said that if we didn't like the situation we should write to the head of the monument and to the Region 6 forester in Portland. I am going to do so and I urge all of you who believe that snow machines do not belong on the summit of St. Helens to do the same. You can get the necessary addresses off the Gifford Pinchot web site.

 

In defense of the 'bilers, the ranger said they were pretty decent guys who were actually quite contrite about the whole thing. The ranger said that they couldn't really see where people were sitting as they crested the ridge and felt real bad about coming so close but that by the time they actually crested the ridge, it was too late to change direction... Believe what you want but even if this is true, it further emphasizes the inappropriateness of snow machines in a place like the St. Helens summit. I know this subject wa recently flogged to death so I am just writing to urge like mined folks to write letters. The ranger seemed to think it would really do something.

[Mike_Collins]

What frosted me further about the 'bilers is that climbers have to pay the $15 climbing fee to be past 4,800' but not the snowmobilers. That info came right from the ranger himself. I wrote my letter yesterday to the headquarters.

[b-rock]

If some 'biler came 18 inches from me, he'd get a friggin' ax to the head. Dumb shit.

[Self_propelled]

In defense of the 'bilers, the ranger said they were pretty decent guys who were actually quite contrite about the whole thing. The ranger said that they couldn't really see where people were sitting as they crested the ridge and felt real bad about coming so close but that by the time they actually crested the ridge, it was too late to change direction...

 

That's like saying "you know I'm sorry I almost hit that group of school children in the cross walk... I was swerving around someone who was stopped in front of me and couldn't see what was in the other lane!"

 

There is a place for snowmobilers...its somewhere in North Eastern Montana!

[Tom]

Ron Judd wrote this article in the Sunday Times.

[pete_a]

I was on St.Helens on Sunday doing the annual ski in a dress Mama's day trip with about twenty of my buddies. I was the telemarking freak in the pink dress and cowboy hat.

I printed up and passed out 120 flyers explaining the current status of snowmobile access and the f***ed up permit situation on the mountain. Almost everyone I gave a flyer to was shocked to hear 'bilers didn't have to pay shit in the springtime. I think I got a lot of folks riled up and motivated to write some letters!

[willstrickland]

Thanks winter, very well crafted. I'll stick one in the mail.

[sketchfest]

That is an extremely well crafted letter, good job! Maybe if enough of these go out the FS might take another look at all user fees.

[Winter]

Hey folks -

 

Here's a letter written by a friends of mine. Send one in if you're pissed off.

 

Forest Supervisor

Gifford Pinchot National Forest

10600 NE 51st Circle

Vancouver, WA 98682

 

Monument Staff

Mt. St. Helens National Monument

42218 NE Yale Bridge Rd.

Amboy, WA 98601

 

 

RE: Snowmobiles on Mt. St. Helens & Recreation User Fees

 

Dear Forest Service and Mt. St. Helens Monument Staff:

 

I am writing to complain about the disturbing proliferation of: 1) snowmobiles on the upper reaches of Mt. St. Helens, and 2) recreational user fees, including fees which do not appear designed to protect the resource.

 

Snowmobiles are loud, polluting (especially when equipped with two-stroke engines), motor vehicles which do not belong in an area that should be managed for its scenic and wilderness qualities. As a mountain climber and skier, I am also concerned that snowmobilers may be more likely to trigger avalanches when ridden on the upper reaches of the mountain.

 

I hiked and skied Mt. St. Helens last Saturday and generally found it to be a wonderful experience -- except for the presence of half a dozen snowmobiles on different approaches to the summit and at the summit itself, including the summit site used by climbers and skiers.

 

While I support various uses of our public lands, some are clearly more intrusive and damaging to the resource and other peoples’ experiences, and need to be restricted to appropriate sites.

 

I also resent being forced to purchase multiple, expensive permits to use my own public forest and mountain lands -- especially when these monies are not even being used to protect the resource. To simply walk up Mt. St. Helens, I am expected to pay a total of $20 to $81 (see below). What are the climbing fees and Northwest Forest Pass being used for, if not to protect the resource? To build gigantic trailhead parking lots or fancy visitor centers? The last thing Mt. St. Helens needs is development that facilitates even greater numbers of people on and around the mountain -- the level of use is already excessive.

 

Unlike hikers and climbers, it does not appear that snowmobilers are required to purchase an additional permit to ride on the upper slopes of Mt. St. Helens. This is simply inequitable.

 

Of course the public shouldn’t be charged large fees to simply walk or ski its own lands in the first place. But it is especially infuriating to be charged these fees, and then watch other users degrade your experience. As a citizen and native of the region, I consider it my birthright to be able to exist on our public lands in a manner which is non-commercial, non-consumptive, compatible with maintaining the resource for future generations, and non-dependent upon excessive development. And if paying my taxes doesn’t further earn me the right to exist on my own public lands, what does?

 

In conclusion, I ask that you: 1) prohibit the use of snowmobiles on the upper reaches of Mt. St. Helens, 2) eliminate general purpose recreation user fees, and 3) provide a detailed accounting of how existing recreation user fees in the Gifford Pinchot NF are being used.

 

Thanks for listening to my concerns. I look forward to hearing back.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

(NAME AND ADDRESS)

 

CC. Senator Patty Murray

Senator Maria Cantwell

Senator Ron Wyden

Representative Earl Blumenauer

The Mountaineers

The Mazamas

 

Addendum:

 

To simply walk up Mt. St. Helens, one is expected to pay the following:

 

Northwest Forest Pass: $5/day; $30/year

Mt. St. Helens Climbing Permit: $15/day; $30/season

Additional Snowpark Permit in winter months: $9/day; $21/season

[Pumice_Pounder]

Before you send your letter to your senators and congressman:

 

Mt St Helens climbers DO NOT need a Northwest Forest Pass. They get a parking pass with their permit so that they do not need to buy a NWFP.

 

Right now, you don't need any parking permit because it's after snow park season. The season ends some time in April. So if you climbed in May, you did not need a snow park permit.

 

In the winter, until sometime in April, the State of Washington pays for the snow park, not the feds. When you buy a snow park permit you pay the STATE, not the forest service. Then the STATE pays qualifying agencies (i.e. the Forest Service) to plow snow, clean the shitters, etc. The deal is, if you get money from the state snow park program, you must require a state snow park permit. So it is the STATE that requires the snow park permit. Also, if you have Oregon plates, you can use an Oregon snow park permit. The annual SP permit's a hell of a lot cheaper in OR than in WA. The snow park program has been around for way longer than fee demo.

 

'Bilers DO need a permit after May 15. That's the way the Gifford Pinchot regs read. They DO NOT need a permit before May 15.

 

I fully support and encourage climbers' writing letters to make things better and more fair. Some of the details of some fee programs are bogus (i.e. bilers' not needing the same permits as climbers, and climbers' needing a snow park permit AND climber permit for a couple of weeks). However, it never ceases to amaze me how some of you bitch and moan about fees. Who are climbers? In general, they are doctors, lawyers, surgeons, software engineers, etc. You people drive to the mountains in Land Rovers, Lincoln Navigators and other assorted behemoths, tote $900 worth of ski gear up a hill, and then you have the gall to bitch and moan about paying a few bucks to go hiking or skiing. You know who gets your money? Mostly temps who make from $8 to $11 per hour. No fancy federal health benefits, no stock options. They clean your outhouses, clear you trails, pick up your trash, throw your dogs' shit off of ski trails, answer your phone calls, run your visitor centers and God only knows what else. It has always cost money to run forests and parks, but now your elected officials refuse to fully fund the programs that you use with your taxes. Instead, they fund those programs with fees.

 

Tell your elected officials what you want out of your public land (clean bathrooms, clear trails, resource protection, decent roads, service, accountability, whatever) and tell them how you want them to pay for it.

[Rodchester]

PUMICE POUNDER:

 

You wrote:

 

"Who are climbers? In general, they are doctors, lawyers, surgeons, software engineers, etc. You people drive to the mountains in Land Rovers, Lincoln Navigators and other assorted behemoths, tote $900 worth of ski gear up a hill, and then you have the gall to bitch and moan about paying a few bucks to go hiking or skiing."

 

Boy is that a presumptious and incorrect statement.

 

I happen to be a lawyer, and just because I am doesn't mean I should have to pay fees. What kind of BS logic is that?

 

And I take it you don't climb much....I know very few lawyers and doctors that climb. My climbing buddies are carpenters, teachers, painters, mechanics, and a shit load of them make 8 to 11 dollars an hour...when they work.

 

You sound a bit bitter. Get over it.

 

NO ONE SHOULD HAVE TO PAY IF THE FEE ISN'T PROPER. NO ONE.

[To_The_Top]

PP

If you took time to look at trailheads for climbs around here you will see beater Subarus, old japanese cars and maybe a token Explorer. At St Hell I had the pleasure of skiing down while others (with car keys) walked down, so I waited a long time to see things. I saw way too many new Cummins Ram Trucks with turbo sleds in trailers, talk about $900 skis, well they had multi grand sleds with them, and they didnt have to pay one cent, smoked out a lot of people, and added to a ton of noise on the mountain.

Most climbers I know are living paycheck to paycheck with extras going to climbing gear when on sale or buying overseas.

I pay for the stadiums in Seattle while I couldnt care less who is playing who, other than planning my commute around these events.

It is not fair that we have to pay extra, and have less impact than others.

TTT

[RedMonk]

PP-

tell ya what....i am a far cry from a doctor.... i sell off anything i can to buy gear.... work for the sole purpose of climbing and i make $8 an hour.... i am a university student and every available dollar goes to climbing. i think that the majority of "climbers" are just guys who love climbing.... 'dirtbags' who go into restaurants proud to smell and look like shit and let all the rich tourists drining the land rovers scoff at them....i dont see taht many land rovers (any) parked in the castle rock parking lot or at index....but mabe i am just missing them.... when do you climb and see this....let me know...."booty call" starving student wants to know....got some primo booty this weekend later PP

 

[ 05-26-2002, 10:24 PM: Message edited by: RedMonk ]

[Self_propelled]

I recently sent an e-mail to the Gifford Pinchot Ranger expressing my views on their "management" of the volcano. Just last week I received a response. But not a free, paperless e-mail response but two large envelopes on two seperate days. SO, an organization that is always crying poor and claims to need to charge climbers to access public lands just spent $0.91 on postage plus the cost (and waste) of paper. I'd guess they have probably sent many of the same mailings out. The second mailing was sent because they forgot to include the PENALTIES associated with climbing without a permit in their first mailing a day earlier!

 

Call me master of the obnvious but wouldn't a GAO audit of the forest service management probably find plenty of places to save money and reduce the dependence on climber/hiker fees.

 

And, if the fees are really to control the number of people using the forest service land for recreation, wouldn't iot be better to just say so?

 

My two cents