Need info on open boundary issues: JH, T'Ride

[Buster Highmen]

First, thansk to those of you who have responded in this regard. But I need more information.

I have a meeting with the USFS regarding the boundary closure at my dumpy little area. I have to be able to convince them that they will lose a court battle if they attempt to end the open boundary policy skiers here have enjoyed since 1964.

I need background on how boundaries were opened at JH and T'ride.

Were there court cases?

What was the process by which these areas were opened?

What roles did the resorts play?

[KQ]

The following link contains quite a bit of information some of which you might find useful. Check it out:


Skiareacitizens.com

[Squirrel99]

Mr. P,
Any info from The Can regarding open/closed boundaries? How were decisions made when the 90 was put in?

Also, if I remember correctly, Vail and Aspen have both had the open boundary issue tested with their gates in recent years as well.

[KQ]

An article of some interest -

Bridger Bowl

And an article on multiple use practices

Ski Resorts and National Forests

I'll see if I can get our librarians to run a case law search.

[Vets]

You might also want to look into the open boundary policies of Kirkwood and Alpine Meadows.

[fesser]

Big Sky has had some interesting closed---open situations rearding permit boundaries, and Aspen Highlands Bowl I think went open---closed---removed from permit area by USFS because the ski area never intended to open it---then reopened a little---then opened some more.

[Buster Highmen]

I really appreciate the info. Special thanks to KQ and fesser.

What I really need are the facts surrounding the process - legal, private or public meeting forums through which the open boundaries issues are resolved.

Our situation is not like Bridger. We have had access to these areas for years. What is bizarre about this situation is that behind the scenes MRNP is forcing the USFS to force the ski area to close it's boundary in order to install new lifts inside the permit area granted 40 years ago.

The MRNP did not participate in the Master Development Plan review directly, they hid behind the USFS. The worst thing is that the onus of enforcing the boundary closure is being put on the ski area, a private organization with no process for appeal. The lifts will be an asset to the private organization, the ski area, at the expense of access to public lands by skiers. The new lifts will also force upward the lift ticket price.

I'd like to be able to refer to other precedent setting situations where ski areas border National Parks and the access issue into the park has been resolved.

If MRNP wants to regulate skiers, they should do it themselves within the confines of their management processes. Or at least, they should have directly particpated in the MDP review process. We have found MRNP documentation and studies that indicate that the user density in the areas in question is nowhere near approached.

The zone at issue is a slope about 1 1/2 miles long, 3500 vertical between the ski area ridge and a state highway. This zone was recently classified "pristine wilderness" by the park, which is a bit of a stretch. But even within that classification, the use has not been overloaded.

What is going on is bureaucratic vendettas and private agendas that take away your rights as skiers to access public lands. It stinks.

[PNWbrit]

Buster - It might be worth trying to talk with some of the guys from Salt Lake about the Wasatch Powder Birds permitting dispute. They seem to be very well organised and experienced at dealing with the USFS (?) permitting and appeals process. There's been a ton of stuff on Telemarktips about it recently.

[Viva]

The MRNP did not participate in the Master Development Plan review directly, they hid behind the USFS. The worst thing is that the onus of enforcing the boundary closure is being put on the ski area, a private organization with no process for appeal. The lifts will be an asset to the private organization, the ski area, at the expense of access to public lands by skiers. The new lifts will also force upward the lift ticket price.

This is interesting. The ski area is definitely not in concert with the MRNP? Is the MRNP jonesing for a cut of any increased revenue?

[Buster Highmen]

This is interesting. The ski area is definitely not in concert with the MRNP? Is the MRNP jonesing for a cut of any increased revenue?

I think the ski area will do whatever it takes to get their MDP approved. It's sort of their job. To that extent, they will do whatever the USFS tells them to, you can't blame them.
I doubt that MRNP wants a revenue cut, although that would be a good idea. If the MRNP had any smarts at all, they would realize what a great opportunity this is for positive publicity and possible revenue. I'd have no problem with having to buy a permit to ski in the park.
The lame-os in this scenario are the public who is letting this crap go on.

[splat]

I don't approve that we have to pay fees to access our land. There's not a single place that I know of where you can't access non-private land in the Alps if you wish - and it's free. The power the government has gained to restrict access has been strengthened by too much revenue'in and people willingly accepting that every time they enter a National Park and paying a fee, they have acknowledged their approval of fee-based access.

Maybe KQ could search WestLaw for some relevant case histories...

[KQ]

I have our librarians working on Westlaw right now however I'm not sure to what extent agency law gets reported - they (the librarians) are checking with our Westlaw rep as I type.

I did manage to get this site with some reported appeals.

USDA Forest Service

I've got some printed material too - give me a minute to scan it and upload it......brb

[Viva]

The power the government has gained to restrict access has been strengthened by too much revenue'in and people willingly accepting that every time they enter a National Park and paying a fee, they have acknowledged their approval of fee-based access.

Not everyone's willin'. One problem with some of these "revenue'in" programs is that the courts readily back up the FS when people contest citations/tickets. And yet these programs are obstensibly discretionary. This has happened both in SoCal and in the PNW. I don't know about elsewhere.

[The AD]

Will the new lifts actually make access into MRNP easier?

I can't really help with any of the info you need, but good luck Buster. It's certainly a worthy and justifiable cause.

[Buster Highmen]

Will the new lifts actually make access into MRNP easier?

I can't really help with any of the info you need, but good luck Buster. It's certainly a worthy and justifiable cause.

No, the _proposed_ new lifts will not access any new terrain that is not currently accessible by traverse nor make access into MRNP easier.

But the new tram station at the top may be more visible from Sunrise an E. side of Rainier than the current lifts.

The more I find out, the more Kafka-esque this appears.

[CS]

Wasn't there an article on Powder a few years back regarding Jackson and the opening of the boundaries? Seems like there was a court case that kind of set everything in motion. I'll dig into the files and see if I can come up with it.