WildSnow op-eds come from community members.
By John Sterling
Last Winter, I discovered a secret ski stash. With the Covid pandemic raging, and everyone seemingly discovering backcountry skiing simultaneously, my usual slopes were crawling with skiers. Parking lots were full before dawn, skin tracks felt like conga lines, and my ski pals got tired of my whining about how much better things were 20 years ago. For me, what once felt adventurous was becoming mere exercise.
So, I set out with one of those friends, determined to find new terrain. We stumbled upon a backcountry gem with reasonable access, excellent skiing, and so few people that we got anxious picturing another car at the trailhead. We returned from our outing feeling the bliss that comes from unexpected joy. Once the buzz wore off, I reflected on our good fortune having access to the vast expanse of federally-managed public lands to feed our adventure cravings.
If you ski in the US, you are most likely enjoying lands managed by four federal agencies: US Forest Service; National Park Service; Bureau of Land Management; and US Fish and Wildlife Service. This goes for backcountry and resort skiing alike. (There are 122 ski resorts on Forest Service lands, accounting for 60 percent of the alpine skiing capacity in the US). Data on backcountry skiing is sparse, but I’ll go out on a limb and say the best terrain is managed on our behalf by the federal government. We can choose to learn how these lands are managed, and to understand that we can influence that management to sustain the landscapes that make our backcountry experiences so memorable.
The wilderness boundary on the northeast edge of the Three Sisters Wilderness.
The federal government manages more than 25 percent of the US landmass: 640 million acres of National Parks, National Forests, Wildlife Refuges, and Wilderness Areas These lands include the Cascade volcanoes, the granite peaks of the Sierra Nevada, the wildlife-rich ranges of the Rockies, and the rugged Appalachians from the White and Green Mountains to the Blue Ridge.
What feels to most of us like a rich land inheritance, was once stewarded by the continent’s original inhabitants. For that reason, it’s worth studying this map of how the federal government systematically took lands from Native Americans, and this map, where you can learn more about the Native history of your favorite ski terrain.
The agencies that manage our ski stashes put surprisingly few restrictions on backcountry skiing. In most settings, there are no user fees, no trailhead quotas, and no camping restrictions for those who choose to overnight in the Winter. Locally, we pay only a small annual fee to the state to plow parking areas at trailheads. In that regard, backcountry skiing remains a nearly hassle-free way to experience the outdoors.
The primary ski-related regulations address motorized use. Several laws that govern public land management limit motorized use. The Wilderness Act prohibits any mechanized transport within a federally-designated Wilderness area. Congress can designate Wilderness areas on lands managed by any of the agencies. For example, much of Yosemite, Yellowstone, and Grand Teton National Parks are also designated Wilderness.
A big-view day in the Oregon Cascades. Photo: John Sterling.
Forest Service
In the Western US, most backcountry skiers tour on Forest Service lands. The Forest Service is a complicated organization comprised of 155 National Forests across nine regions. Each forest holds several ranger districts. I live in Bend, Oregon, in the shadow of the 1.8-million-acre Deschutes National Forest, which includes three separate ranger districts. A District Ranger oversees each district and reports to the Forest Supervisor.
Why should you care about the Forest Service org chart? Because the National Forest Management Act (NFMA) gives individual Forest Supervisors the authority to manage lands based on local needs and citizen input. Each forest updates its management plan roughly every 20 years. During these plan updates, individuals have the opportunity to advocate for management changes that range from challenging logging operations to securing non-motorized Winter recreation zones. Because NFMA’s public involvement mandate gives skiers leverage in the forest planning process, that leverage is best wielded when skiers are organized. The Winter Wildlands Alliance does a great job supporting skiers in their efforts to influence Forest Service management decisions.
National Parks
The National Park Service Organic Act guides the management of the lands within the National Park units. The Park Service’s mandate is to manage the parks such that they are “unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations.” As a result, group size in National Parks is limited, and most parks have strict regulations on motorized use for areas not designated as Wilderness. Entrance fees are commonplace in the National Parks.
Beyond these direct impacts on backcountry skiing, the federal agencies make decisions that have enormous indirect effects on the Winter environment. The Forest Service operates under a multiple-use mandate, which means they manage lands to benefit recreation and habitat, and provide cheap trees to the timber industry. Logging can directly impact ski terrain, but it also contributes to climate change – the greatest threat to our skiing future – by wiping out essential carbon sinks.
Traversing towards the SE Ridge of the North Sister in the Three Sisters Wilderness. Photo: John Sterling.
Bureau of Land Management
Though the Bureau of Land Management oversees relatively little ski terrain, the agency has an outsized impact on climate change. More than 25 percent of carbon emissions in the US come from burning fossil fuels extracted from public lands. The vast majority of that oil and gas drilling happens on BLM lands. The Biden Administration has placed a moratorium on new fossil fuel leasing on public lands, but it will take sustained advocacy to permanently wean the BLM off of energy development.
All of this is to say that skiers who love public lands can get involved in their management. And that civic engagement should extend beyond your backyard stashes. Navigating agency planning processes and understanding the laws that govern our public lands can be a chore, but is a small price to pay for the freedom and adventure these lands offer.
John Sterling grew up exploring public lands, and has spent the past 30 years trying to protect them.
Beyond our regular guest bloggers who have their own profiles, some of our one-timers end up being categorized under this generic profile. Once they do a few posts, we build a category. In any case, we sure appreciate ALL the WildSnow guest bloggers!
14 comments
Great points, and well said. Important to note that while forests do serve as fantastic carbon sinks, most of that carbon is released into the atmosphere if they burn. Responsible timber harvesting and thinning can reduce the likelihood and intensity of wildfire, keeping much more of that carbon locked up in the forests. Plus, I would argue that some low-level amount of forestry might improve some aspects that skiers find favorable. I am not advocating for clear-cutting. But capturing carbon within forests is not a one-way street; that carbon can (and ultimately will) be released again at some point. Fire is perhaps the worst outcome for our current situation, as greenhouse gases are released directly into the atmosphere. So as painful as it might be, forestry practices that reduce large high-intensity fires should be the top advocacy priority for skiers on public lands who want to continue enjoying cold, snowy winters.
As an avid backcountry skier, I’ve never understood how common it is for us to make the jump between:
1. We have almost unlimited access to public lands
2. We need to further limit others’ access to public lands
This opinion piece does that quite seamlessly – impressive!
Winter Wildlands does not advocate for skiers, they advocate AGAINST snowmobilers. They have a long legal case history that anyone can look up. Where they choose to go to court? Snowmobiles, every single time, 20 years deep. Only in the last year have they taken legal action on anything not directly related to limiting snowmobile access, and even then is still tangentially related (NEPA changes). WWA is the HOA of Karens advocating for the well to do second/third/fourth homeowners in mountain towns. They serve gentrification of public lands, not skiers.
Also is the same John Sterling who used to live in Tahoe? Worked at the bike shop in Tahoe city? If so reach out. Would be good to catch up. My email should be attached to this.
I’m in total agreement with KB. Winter Wildlands hates snowmobiling, that’s their mission- not retaining or helping gain any ski access. In fact, there are many instances where they are specifically against ski access (like the Teton Sheep discussions). They also hate mountain biking and fat biking. They are the scariest thing I’ve seen in my 30 years of backcountry skiing, if they get their way it’s all over.
Honest question: why is limiting snowmobile use in wild or semi-wild lands a bad thing? Obviously, many people do think snowmobiles don’t belong in winter forests and mountain areas. We do regulate cars, as well as motorcycles vs electric bicycles vs bicycles…. Of course, different kinds of public land balance different priorities. But why are snowmobiles in the back country a good thing? Sure, they’re fun, but they’re also polluting, loud, and certainly influence animals trying to survive in winter conditions. What about riding jet skis in marine reserves? Sort of the same. Anyway, there’s been snowmobile pro/con conversations on Wildsnow in the past, so I think this these are fair questions.
Bruno, I don’t think KB was making the point that snowmobiles should not be regulated, rather that an organization that portrays itself as having a very broad mission of protection is instead very narrowly focused on specific issues that do not necessarily serve the interests of local users.
To extrapolate one of my own favorite soapbox topics, the whole concept of captial “W” Wilderness is much more the “gentrifcation of public lands” by excluding certain user groups rather than taking actual steps to address the issue of increased use on public lands. If the true concern was reducing impact, “Wilderness” advocates would focus on the number of users rather than the type. Consider one our own local “Wilderness” areas, the Maroon Bells, where they are dropping off literal busloads of tourists every 15 minutes, v. my local “down valley trash” Open OHV area (exact opposite of a Wilderness Area) where the parking lot is considered “busy” if there are half a dozen cars.
On the topic of Travel Management Plans, there is a very apt saying, “if you are not at the table, you are on the menu.” Get the conversation going between your local landmanager, and advocacy group well before the TMP process starts. If your advocacy group is relatively new, start with an easier, low-hanging fruit project that benefits multiple users groups such as trailhead improvement before going after more specific issues.
My days of polemical blog posts are on hiatus for now (smile), but I can’t resist mentioning the apple pie axiom: “he, or she who divides gets the smallest share,” or should, anyway. Food for thought.
America’s public wildlands, forests, mountains, deserts, rivers — so good to see that some Americans appreciate the socialist approach. Public lands, pow snow, shared by so many, ain’t it grand. A socialist from the north country.
Wilderness is non-motorized. Even when removing fallen and dangerous timber, as a USFS volunteer ranger, we used felling & bucking crosscut hand saws and axes. All needed equipment was backpacked. The only exception was when we used a gas powered saw to cut up a fatal plane wreck and helicopter longline out the pieces.
KRISTIAN, this is a fact: Wilderness is non-motorized. However, there are a bajillion other ways that public lands get closed to snowmobilers. The discussion is way more complex than Wilderness vs. non-Wilderness.
I wish there were organizations that promoted backcountry skiing without also calling for more snowmobile closures. The model exists for climbing organizations (the Access Fund doesn’t try to restrict non-climbers), mountain biking organizations (IMBA doesn’t try to restrict non-bikers), etc. But for some reason, backcountry skiers feel entitled to limiting other peoples’ access to public lands. It makes us look bad, and contradicts those COEXIST stickers we put on our cars. Snowmobilers must coexist with us, but not the other way around?
It is a simple fact that unrestricted snowmobile use drives out other users, or at least makes them miserable, and stresses wildlife. The CO2 impact of small engines is known to be at least an order of magnitude greater than public road licensed vehicles. In addition to their CO2 emissions, snowmobiles provide a rich feast of other pollutants, including noise.
Restricting snowmobiles is gentrification? Compare the cost of snowmobiling to backcountry skiing, snowshoeing, or sledding. Non-motorized recreation is the low-rent option, not snowmobiling.
Teddy Roosevelt should be the Patron Saint of Outdoor Enthusiasts. I’m just sayin’.
How about Grant? He signed the law making Yellowstone the first Nat’l Park in 1872, setting it aside “for the benefit and enjoyment of the people.” There are many other contenders for patron saint of land preservation. Of course not all Outdoor Enthusiasts are enthusiastic about wildlands. Some prefer or are restricted to the great Urban Outdoors. Urban spaces should not be sacrifice zones; they need love too.
Comments are closed.