Look up Uberuaga Mount Rainier.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat Sig
He tried to block skiers from accessing MNRP from lift served access at Crystal during their last MDP around 1999 in a completely underhanded and dishonorable way.
The most reasonable ski lift expansions are Cowboy down to Yodelin and East Peak inside the Crystal permit area.
Any plumbers or electricians want to make a decent salary and live in the Methow Valley? There are three plumbers (and one has Covid), and there may be no electricians. Move to the valley, have steady work, charge basically what you want, ski.
11.8” of precip over the past 96 hours at mt. baker ski area.
Good for the base
If you zoom in you can see a touch of the white stuff at the top of the stuart range. Fantastic motivation for more bike riding. The recent rain helps too.
Attachment 387446
I don’t have any thoughts on parking, etc. However, a few inches up there made some fun early turns a few days ago- and found a cool ice cave under the glacier too. Attachment 387544Attachment 387545
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Riff - you continue to bring the stoke!
Man's got his priorities straightQuote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Sent from my SM-G981U using Tapatalk
Attachment 387874
Looks like Baker hit max number of season passes for 21-22. Hope some of our northern Mags secured their ticket to ride in time!
The sketchy real estate deal to a guiding outfit with a monopoly?Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Crystal skiers crossing the NP boundary.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat Sig
He probably should have gone to jail for that real estate deal though.
And the Yosemite fire was another colossal fuck up of his.
In less than an hour.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Whoa, Baker has tons of snow already.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bandit Man
Wonder if they will be spinning lifts soon?
Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums
Lovely. What was the deal with skiers within the park boundaries? And what did he do that was so egregious?Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
Crustal did a Master Development Plan (MDP) starting in 1997 (?) which cost them a lot of money to contract out to do Environmental Impact Studies (EIS) and present them to the Forest Service (FS) and National Parks Service (NPS), Washington State and Pierce County as well as distributing the various plans and studies to the public including an august array of clowns such as myself.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat Sig
So the process went on, comments were filed, the usual bureaucratic h00haw took like 3 years to get to 6 final proposals. One including a lift to the top of East Peak.
On publishing the 6 final proposals, those of us thumb twiddlers with enough time and ennui to actually read the fucking things noticed that at the end of every single option, a clause had mysteriously been inserted which disbarred lift served skiers from entering Mount Rainier National Park (MRNP) and required Crustal to monitor and punish any skiers seen committing this massive transgression.
Several of us had spent the last 10+ years waddling around on our prehistoric ski mountaineering technology over a lot of the MNRP, crossing it to get to some primo swaths and swales of unfettered snow as well as the occasional run down to SR410, a vertical drop of nearly 4000 feet of continuous, luscious, boniferous snow, the latter all within MRNP.
So we raised objections and filed an injunction against the MDP and asked the relatively new owner to explain what had gone one.
He claimed cluelessness.
So the FS held a meeting on the MDP at a community center in Renton and a number of we ski freaks went down to try to figure out what had happened and rattle our rusty edges to demand access which had been enjoyed since the inception of the FS permit for Crustal.
At the meeting were Crustal owners and management along with the head of the ski patrol (who we would sometimes see out in these perimeters and outlands) as well as various and sundry enginerding contractors. The FS had an array of green robed officious bureaucrats. But no one from the MRNP, the NPS or the BLM, under whom the NPS and MRNP operate. Only a couple of MRNP officers attended {i] by phone[/i] (pre internt00bz)
So the meeting starts, we all squak and complain and demand how this had happened.
Then the head FS d00d tells us that outside of the process, outside of all the studies, the money spent, the time exhausted, tax dollars smoked, that Mr. Uberuaga in private meetings had demanded that the clauses restricting access be inserted.
Shouting ensued.
Lawyers threatened to sue, since the legally mandated process had been completely circumvented.
After an extremely heated number of exchanges asking why Uberagua and MRNP had inserted the clauses, Uberagua stated that there had been bits of surveyors tape found and that he felt that "skiing was bad for MRNP". Yes that's a quote. No justification, just a statement from on high.
More yelling.
Meeting adjourns.
Bureaucrats deliberate at the FS headquarters in Portland where they decide that they couldn't win the lawsuit, in part because of prior, very similar case law having to do with dropping rental canoes off next to, but not in, the Glen Canyon National Recreation Area.
So you motherfuckers who ski outside the Crustal permit area, owe me.
Thanks B!
Damn, dude! I very much appreciate the explanation and the superlatives. I like your writing style. And thank you for your work.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Uberagua seems like a real piece of work. What an asshat.
If I'm understanding it correctly, while the additional expansion died due to Mr. Uber-douche, the offending and erroneous language was removed from the proposals under threat of lawsuit?
Sounds like a bureaucratic pissing match as Crystal is leasing from the Forest Service (Department of Agriculture; trees are no different than corn fields, right?) and MRNP is under Department of Interior. I could see how national park superintendents would want to maintain control over who enters their park and by what means. If someone used Crystal lifts to enter MRNP and needed to be rescued, the park would have to pick up the costs, correct? Like that dude from Vermont who went out to Three-Way and ended up in Packwood. Regardless of contract language, it seems impossible for Crystal to prevent people from dropping into the park from their lifts. People drop in to Teton NP from Jackson lifts as well.
I was told part of the pissing match was that in order to hike the King, you pass a few feet into the park. I remember there used to be a National Park employee sitting out there with a clip board who would interrogate you on your skiing plans. I never understood what it was about so I would lie.
The East Peak chair was provisionally excluded from the accepted Alternative (#6), in part because of a very vocal, miniscule minority, basing on an irrelevant argument. A letter of intent was lodged with the FS supporting the East Peak chair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat Sig
The language disbarring lift served skiers from accessing MRNP was removed from all the Alternatives, including the approved one.
One issue was a massive slide in 1999, a huDge snow year, from the top of a run called Kempers, NW facing off Silver Queen Peak, set off by a patrol charge that caused road damage on SR410 near the entrance to the White River MRNP access road. That run is all in MRNP and is now permanently closed, which, while understandable from an avalanche exposure pov, is a shame since it was a crucible for my Crustal sidecountry experience. I still ski it offseason.
The main traverse from the top of Silver Queen (Chair 6/High Campbell) to the Throne and all the access to South back as well as the traverse around the back of the Throne do drop for significant portions into MRNP, so access to that was also not denied.
How rescues are funded around the PNW is a touchy issue because the USFS and the NPs all seem to believe that it's in their interests to come up with the biggest possible number in order to "frighten" people into not needing rescue (or, in the alternate interpretation: to not activating a rescue out of fears of having to reimburse). The volunteer SAR organizations in the PNW do the bulk of the work, though they go into the National Parks infrequently from what I understand.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
It's ridiculous enough that when the NPS is made to break down the costs the majority of them is made up by Ranger salaries and sometimes some overtime for Rangers. They do occasionally hire contract helicopters to facilitate S&R, but that mission has often (historically, usually) been done by military fixed wing and rotary aircraft who're stationed in the area (North Cascades and Olympics are mostly covered by Navy from NAS Whidbey Island; MRNP mostly assisted by the variety of aviation units at JBLM) and it's true it "costs money" to send the military, but they'd be spinning up those flights and burning that fuel for training missions anyway.
It depends on the snowpack at any given time but yes, often the traverse behind the King to get out to Three-Way peak crosses the boundary line between Crystal (USFS) and MRNP, there are signs all over the place telling people to respect the wilderness. It's dumb. I think them motivation behind a lot of the stupidest restrictions on moving from USFS to NP land freely is the entrenched notion among a lot of people and Park officials that they're "stealing" something that they should've had to pay to use.Quote:
I was told part of the pissing match was that in order to hike the King, you pass a few feet into the park. I remember there used to be a National Park employee sitting out there with a clip board who would interrogate you on your skiing plans. I never understood what it was about so I would lie.
Well a lot of this is just not true in relation to SAR costs in MRNP. Again, I worked for a number of years at Olympic and MRNP in emergency service roles, and have lots of friends in both parks as well as NOCA.Quote:
Originally Posted by ptavv
First, while the PNW parks did historically lean on the JBLM chinooks, even prior to 2012, I’d put the average at using the military at only 30% of aviation SAR operations (which are by far the least common type of SAR response), with the bulk of aviation operations going to Northwest Helicopters out of Tumwater during that time.
After the on-duty death of climbing ranger Nick Hall in 2012, NOCA and MR contracted a dedicated ship and invested heavily in short haul training, and using the military ships was heavily curtailed. Having a dedicated ship costs a shitload of money because it literally can’t be used for anything else to help the operator make money. The parks pay for it the entire time it’s on the ground so it’s ready to go at a moments notice.
Second, in the NPS, volunteer SAR groups typically are only called in on large long-duration searches. For direct response for injuries of hasty searches, those are done by paid staff. Why you ask?
There is a different expectation of response by the public in the Park lands vs in other public lands. Forest Service can get away with using county volunteer resources because of jurisdiction. Beyond the expectation, there is a legal reason as well. Most forest land falls under local jurisdiction (concurrent jurisdiction=fed and state share jurisdiction), whereas many parks (MR included) are exclusive federal jurisdiction (state has no juris on lands)
That means we couldn’t call the sheriff to manage a volly SAR team in MRNP because they wouldn’t have the correct legal ability to do really anything. Same goes for Crystal ski patrol. Could they help if called? Probably, given the correct MOU but it wouldn’t be appropriate to not have the Park in primary incident command.
So, when there is a SAR on NPS land, a ranger gets the callout, makes a decision on a search, if an incident is declared, a dispatcher comes on duty to maintain field communications, multiple park resources are called out. All this is in addition to normal park operations, which means OT. If a ship flies, whether it’s a called out ship or the dedicated contract ship, it costs thousands and thousands of dollars because of the federal aviation requirements on ground staff, fuel trucks, etc. It all adds up. It’s not as simple as asking a county volly team to suit up.
So, it does matter to MRNP in terms of money and ability to adequately protect the resource (their primary legislated responsibility) if an outside bordering entity is actively encouraging visitors to enter park lands. I’m not saying what they were trying to do in 1999 was great, I don’t know enough about it to speak to that, but it’s more complicated than most folks know about from a park management perspective.
So, it does matter to MRNP in terms of money and ability to adequately protect the resource (their primary legislated responsibility) if an outside bordering entity is actively encouraging visitors to enter park lands.
There is a legal precedent that provides for access to National Parks in these cases.
I'll try to find it, since that's the case law that prevented the Department of Agriculture (FS) or the Department of Interior (NPS) from disbarring us.
I do find the inference that MRNP needs to be protected from bc skiers offensive. That has certainly been the vibe after being harassed there for years, even though I have a lifetime NPS pass.
NPS isn't under the BLM but is a part of the Department of Interior. Thanks for the Crystal/MRNP explanation. I've never skied there so it is good info to hear.
Bro, that’s not what I was intimating. What I was saying is that budget use for increased SAR for lost or clueless Crustal skiers (let’s not pretend every sidecountry skier is as savvy about backcountry safety and navigation as your average Mag- its a total shit show out there) -is money that can’t be spent the rest of the year on all the things the park is required to do. I’m not saying Bc skiers are chainsawing trees and shitting in streams.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
If what you’re saying is true and the park was trying to cut off access, that’s certainly out of line. However, the park does have an interest in what sort of activities are happening directly on its borders that will impact its use patterns. Determining where the line is drawn is why public comment is vital, and I’m glad you guys were able to show up and represent your interests.
whoops, you're right. they're siblings.Quote:
Originally Posted by John_B
Crustal is awful. flat, full of gomers and expensive.
I think I've been hassled by Rangers on the trails from Sunrise out to Dege Peak every time I've gone with skis in the last 20 years.Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon3
There's a budget for clueless Crustal skiers? That must be a significant chunk out of the GDP.
Anyway, Uberagua was trying to paint bc skiers as heathens defiling the sacrosanct, trying to justify a closure of time honored access and did so in a completely underhanded and likely illegal way.
The odd thing here is why is there no similar bureaucratic outrage at skiers from JHMR entering GTNP?
The whole situation has fostered increased disrespect for the rangers as individuals as well as MRNP and NPS on the whole.
We did show up and acted in a forthright manner, yet have been and continue to be treated poorly and with a complete lack of respect, one of those things, like love, you can't get if you don't give.
I get your point, but that was never discussed. Uberagua and the MRNP managers just hid from us.
That back room land deal with Whittaker definitely makes Uberagua a shyster. But how many backcountry skiers were there in 2000 when this all went down? Uberagua, like all US land and ski area managers at the time, probably didn't even know what backcountry skiing was. He naively thought you could somehow prevent skiers from ducking ropes and going where they want to go. And he probably didn't realize that today, there would be nearly as many backcountry skiers entering MRNP from Crystal's base without taking the lifts as there are taking the lifts. And there is nothing he could do about that as there is no entrance fee or restriction to walk into a park.
It's a shame Crystal and the park haven't figured a way to allow people to ski Kempers. Either in bounds patrolled or out of bounds unpatrolled. When that thing runs to the highway it has to snow 50 inches and then rain.
Attachment 388027
I don't know anything about this from the NP or USFS side, but I do know a bit about it from the military side and a high percentage of short haul rescues that have happened inside the boundaries of the national parks in the past 5-10 years have been conducted by Navy and Army pilots and medics/corpsmen and that it didn't stop happening after 2012, though the availability of those assets has always waxed and waned secondary to deployments and overseas missions.Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon3
The US Army Reserve Chinooks at JBLM even have a contract with MRNP to assist with rescues above 10k feet. The Air National Guard units (and sometimes the active AF) from JBLM and Portland also assist with (usually C-130) overflights using technology platforms unavailable outside the military to locate people.
Hell, the Whidbey NAS SAR team rescued someone from North Cascades-adjacent NF a few days ago: https://www.whidbeylocal.com/article...north-cascades
I don't understand your argument here. You're basically saying that a Lead Ranger of a NP has the same legal authority to request/supervise volunteer SAR teams within the NP that a county Sheriff has on USFS land which is largely a distinction without a difference.Quote:
Second, in the NPS, volunteer SAR groups typically are only called in on large long-duration searches. For direct response for injuries of hasty searches, those are done by paid staff. Why you ask?
There is a different expectation of response by the public in the Park lands vs in other public lands. Forest Service can get away with using county volunteer resources because of jurisdiction. Beyond the expectation, there is a legal reason as well. Most forest land falls under local jurisdiction (concurrent jurisdiction=fed and state share jurisdiction), whereas many parks (MR included) are exclusive federal jurisdiction (state has no juris on lands)
That means we couldn’t call the sheriff to manage a volly SAR team in MRNP because they wouldn’t have the correct legal ability to do really anything. Same goes for Crystal ski patrol. Could they help if called? Probably, given the correct MOU but it wouldn’t be appropriate to not have the Park in primary incident command.
In general, the Rangers of a NP have significantly more expertise than most Sheriff's departments do with regard to rope work, rough terrain, etc rescues and so they don't need to activate regional SAR teams for their special expertise which is why they only do it when they need more manpower.
What I took this to mean is if you commit any crime in a national park, that crime is investigated by federal officers (park rangers, FBI, DEA, ATF), and prosecuted in federal courts (even relatively minor crimes like DUIs). Where as if you are one foot outside the park on USFS land your crime is investigated by State/County officers (sheriff, state patrol) and prosecuted in State courts.Quote:
Originally Posted by Falcon3
I could see how that distinction could make who responds to SAR activities in the park, versus USFS, a messy enterprise, since law enforcement often is involved with SAR. While County Sheriffs are often involved in SAR on USFS lands, I have never heard of any assisting with SAR inside national parks.
Wait, what? I did some digging and can't find any info on this. That is a serious haul for someone not prepared. He missed 410, 123,...? Did he cross the Ohanapecosh to get to Packwood or head south direct to White Pass?Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
Seriously curious about this case.
This is all so fascinating. I had no idea.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
When I'm next up at Crustal, I'd love to buy you a beer and discuss. I have so many questions with both this issue and general USFS land use.
This all seems so regional. When I lived in Bozeman, ski touring around and in Yellowstone was no issue. Same for Grand Teton. Why has MRNP been so active in trying to keep people out of the park? So weird...Quote:
Originally Posted by ptavv
Even with wilderness; there should be no issue ski touring, right? It's all so exclusionary.
Yah, again; so weird. My comment above regarding YNP and GTNP applies here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Yah, again; so weird. My comment above regarding YNP and GTNP applies here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buster Highmen
Man, that line looks sick... and incredibly slide-prone. But those tree in the foreground sure look tasty.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
They didn't quite make to Packwood before they found the phone at Ohanapecosh. They should have just kept walking until they got the Blue Spruce Saloon in Packwood.Quote:
Originally Posted by river59
https://www.seattletimes.com/seattle...anger-station/
To be clear, MRNP is not anti-backcountry skier. Muir snowfield might be the #1 backcountry spot in the US by numbers. This was just a pissing match between the park and Crystal/USFS. National Park's mission is more preservation where as USFS is still in the business of trying to make money from logging, mining, and leasing ski areas. They are different entities.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat Sig
Hope its been a good summer of hikes, bikes and brown pow, hero dirt is back, but jonesing again for the white.
"Snow in the PNW 21-22: Bitching about Crystal and sometimes we ski"
MRNP may be anti-skier, but what I'm reading here leads me to think otherwise. As for the login and the USFS; you sure about that? Around here, there's so little, if any, logging in the National Forests anymore.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
MRNP has long had an attitude of maximizing revenue capture that isn't present in lots of other parks. I think the Park leadership sees people entering the park on skis from surrounding USFS as owing an entrance fee (which I think is even technically accurate) that is rarely paid and this leads them to a bunch of attempts at access restriction since they have a sense that one must pay to use the park (regardless of the many who have annual passes or lifetime passes or whatever).Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
How can a park charge entrance fees for someone hiking, or hiking with skis on their feet, from a parking lot outside a park? When I go hiking from White Pass to Crystal on the PCT, I pass through MRNP and don't pay an entrance fee. Same for Grand Park via the back door. Lots of other examples. As far as I now, you only pay fees when you drive into parks (not sure if you are riding your bike in on the roads). If you are entering a park via trails (or off trail) by foot, skis, snowshoes, you don't have to pay.
MRNP didn't like the idea of a private company being able to waltz anyone up mountain peaks where they can use gravity to enter the park. Not arguing I agree with MRNP's attitude (because resistance is futile), but I can totally see why they had concerns with the emerging sport of sidecountry backcountry skiers. I am sure GTNP also had concerns too during this same era.
Of all national parks, MRNP might be the closest to the largest population center. They have a tough job. If MRNP is so focused on making money via fees they should start charging $20 per winter entrance to Paradise, and not honor annual passes in the winter. Myself, and pretty much every backcountry user, would gladly pay that if it meant the road was more consistently plowed and they kept the downhill gate open later than 4:30 pm in the winter.
You're definitely supposed to be paying a fee when you do these things. This is my point. Your last sentence is categorically wrong, just because you don't pass an entrance gate or a fee station doesn't mean you're not supposed to pay.Quote:
Originally Posted by altasnob
No national park can just decide not to honor the interagency annual passes. All of the interagency passes and multi-park passes are established and regulated by federal legislation. Different parks can set different rates for their passes but they get a lot of pressure from congresscritters when they raise the prices too much. A few years ago the parks proposed increasing their fees a lot (2-3x) and it created an epic shit storm and ultimately wasn't allowed to happen.Quote:
MRNP didn't like the idea of a private company being able to waltz anyone up mountain peaks where they can use gravity to enter the park. Not arguing I agree with MRNP's attitude (because resistance is futile), but I can totally see why they had concerns with the emerging sport of sidecountry backcountry skiers. I am sure GTNP also had concerns too during this same era.
Of all national parks, MRNP might be the closest to the largest population center. They have a tough job. If MRNP is so focused on making money via fees they should start charging $20 per winter entrance to Paradise, and not honor annual passes in the winter. Myself, and pretty much every backcountry user, would gladly pay that if it meant the road was more consistently plowed and they kept the downhill gate open later than 4:30 pm in the winter.
Most parks have "per person" fees that people are supposed to paid when entering the park on foot, by bicycle, by raft, etc. They've obviously challenging-to-impossible to collect or enforce along backcountry boundaries and rely almost entirely on the honor system (some parks manage to collect it on river-goers pretty reliably). I've never heard an argument that users don't owe those fees if they enter on skis from adjacent land, no matter how they got to it.
So all the drivers that pass through YNP - on a road - as the travel south from Big Sky to West Yellowstone, are supposed to pay a park entrance fee?Quote:
Originally Posted by ptavv
I'm not sure how there's an applicable analogy between someone using a road (but not the natural resources of a park) and someone who is using the park (but not a built road).Quote:
Originally Posted by Bobcat Sig