The Quest for Consistency: Ski Bill Version

It appears that the quest for national consistency in summer management of ski areas has led to a specific bill (see story here). Here’s a quote.

Not all conservationists were supportive of the bill. Identifying permitted uses at ski resorts is best left to the forest planning process done at the regional level, said Louise Lasley, public lands director for the Jackson Hole Conservation Alliance.

During a forest planning process, factors such as public participation and addressing the needs of individual forests could be taken into consideration, she said.

“It seems like overkill,” Lasley said of the bill. “A federal law to prohibit or allow specific activities on leased ski areas on the forest seems Draconian, no matter what the outcome is.”

But we have a federal law for wilderness, and many want a national rule for roadless areas. Both of these allow and prohibits specific activities nationally. The question of what restrictions or sideboards should be decided nationally versus locally continues. And there is an associated question; if people agreed to do it nationally, the FS could issue national direction that might be easier than passing a bill. There must be more to this than meets the eye.

7 thoughts on “The Quest for Consistency: Ski Bill Version”

  1. Sharon is correct. There is more here than meets the eye. The new bill is designed to allow snowmobiling at ski areas. Snowmobiling is not now permitted under the 1986 National Forest Ski Area Permit Act. The new bill would expand the uses “to enable snow-sports (in addition to nordic and alpine skiing) to be permitted on National Forest System land.”

    Snowmobiling is a fast-growing sport that the ski industry is missing out on. Some ski area operators believe they can mix downhill, nordic and snowmobile uses on their permitted area, thus expanding their revenue base.

    Reply
  2. Here’s a note to a blog with more info..the entertainingly named blog is called Grays on Trays.
    I guess the Treasury gets the receipts, if the blog is correct. Maybe we could add the idea of the forest with the ski area keeping the receipts to the bill :).

    Reply
  3. The “summer uses” discussed in the news stories on this bill is either a mistake or a smokescreen. The bill has nothing to do with summer uses; in fact, the bill seeks to “enable snow-sports,” which do not include “zip lines, mountain bike trails, parks, hiking trails, Frisbee golf courses and rope courses.”

    This bill is about snowmobiles.

    Reply
  4. Andy- a read of the bill says that it is about expanding uses beyond nordic and alpine, and specifically mentions the summer ones that would be OK and ones that would not be OK.

    Here’s the Purpose section.
    SEC. 2. PURPOSE.

    The purpose of this Act is to amend the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b)–

    (1) to enable snow-sports (other than nordic and alpine skiing) to be permitted on National Forest System land, subject to ski area permits issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 3 of the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b); and

    (2) to clarify the authority of the Secretary of Agriculture to permit appropriate additional seasonal or year-round recreational activities and facilities on National Forest System land, subject to ski area permits issued by the Secretary of Agriculture under section 3 of the National Forest Ski Area Permit Act of 1986 (16 U.S.C. 497b).

    Reply
  5. At the risk of beating a dead horse, the proposed bill does not itemize the permitted uses, nor does it say which would be OK and which not. The bill does give the FS broad authority to permit “appropriate” seasonal or year-round recreational activities, but provides no guidance regarding what is vs. isn’t appropriate.

    I think this bill is mostly motivated by snowmobiling because that’s where the untapped snow-sport revenue pot is to be found.

    Reply
  6. Andy- your cite is to the House Bill. I think the press is on the Senate Bill which calls out which summer uses are OK and not OK.

    ‘(3) INCLUSIONS- Activities and facilities that may, in appropriate circumstances, be authorized under paragraph (1) include–

    ‘(A) zip lines;

    ‘(B) mountain bike terrain parks and trails;

    ‘(C) frisbee golf courses; and

    ‘(D) ropes courses.

    ‘(4) EXCLUSIONS- Activities and facilities that are prohibited under paragraph (1) include–

    ‘(A) tennis courts;

    ‘(B) water slides and water parks;

    ‘(C) swimming pools;

    ‘(D) golf courses; and

    ‘(E) amusement parks.

    Reply
  7. Thanks for the kind word about my blog, Sharon. … And to honest, I never thought of this as applying to snowmobiling. One reason is that I don’t ride snowmobiles much, so it’s not on my radar. The others is that the source I picked it up from focused on summer activities–as, apparently, does the Senate version of the bill. I would guess that the NSAA would be happy to have its members be able to offer snowmobiling.

    As for the question of whether there should be national rules or local rules, I’m inclined as a matter of my own political philosophy to go for local rules, but I’m not decided at this point.

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Andy Stahl Cancel reply