YES

By Bill Bender

Don’t Even Ride a Bike in the Driveway Without a Helmet!

My perspective comes from being a cyclist for many years, but is heavily tempered by my experience as a neurologist. In my work, I have heard countless testimonials from people who have had even minor brain injuries irreparably change their lives. A look at the statistics suggests that riding without a helmet is not a decision to make lightly.

While football tends to dominate the discussion of sports-related head injuries, research shows that bike accidents account for far more traumatic brain injuries each year. Cycling accidents played a role in about 86,000 of the 447,000 sports-related head injuries treated in emergency rooms in 2009. Football accounted for 47,000 of those head injuries, and baseball played a role in 38,394. Cycling was also the leading cause of sports-related head injuries in children under 14, causing 40,272 injuries, roughly double the number related to football (21,878). In short, bike accidents contribute to more sports-related head injuries than any other activity.

More numbers:  In 2010, 618 bicyclists were killed in traffic crashes. Over the past several years, roughly 9 in 10 bicyclists killed were not wearing helmets. Nearly 70% of all fatal bicycle crashes involve head injuries. Head injury is the leading cause of permanent disability in bicycle crashes. Head injuries account for more than 60 percent of bicycle-related deaths. Bicycle helmets have been estimated to reduce the risk for head injuries by 85%. Despite these facts, only 20-25% of all bicyclists wear bicycle helmets.

The CDC estimates that at least 5.3 million Americans currently have a long-term or lifelong need for help to perform activities of daily living as a result of a traumatic brain injury.TBI can cause a wide range of functional changes affecting thinking, language, learning, emotions, behavior, and/or sensation. It can also cause epilepsy and increase the risk for conditions such as Alzheimer’s disease, Parkinson’s disease, and other brain disorders that become more prevalent with age.

Professional and amateur athletes in many sports wear helmets. Football, hockey and even baseball players wear helmets. Cyclists need protection for the special risks they face, too. Brain injuries, even minor ones from falling over at a low speed, are usually the most serious injuries a bicycle rider will sustain. Helmets prevent many of these injuries or reduce their severity. This is most true in the low speed injuries, like the test ride in the driveway. Studies in the U.S. and elsewhere have shown that bike riders wearing helmets are less likely to suffer brain injuries than those who don’t. Compared to the dollar and human cost of brain injuries, helmets are inexpensive insurance.

So, it is clear that head injuries have tremendous impact, and that helmets reduce that. How about safety laws?  Are they beneficial?  So far, laws requiring bicycle helmet use have increased use in children and adults.

Motorcycle helmet laws significantly reduce the strain on public resources. Unhelmeted riders cost more to treat at the hospital, spend a longer time in rehabilitation, and are more likely to require some form of public assistance to pay for medical bills and rehabilitation. In 1991, prior to enacting its helmet law, California’s state medical insurance program paid $40 million for the treatment of motorcycle-related head injuries. That figure dropped to $24 million after enactment of a universal helmet law.

During the first full year after enforcement of automobile seat belt laws, fatality rates dropped 21 percent in five primary states compared to only 7 percent in 11 secondary law states. During the same period there was a 24 percent reduction in fatality rates for persons under 21 years old in the primary states compared to a 3 percent reduction for that age group in the secondary law states.

So, what is the argument against helmet laws? Let’s face it, most of the time we are riding, the helmet is a useless appendage, much like the seatbelts and airbags in your car. Can we protect everyone from every risk they may take?  No. We all have the freedom to take risks that we are comfortable with. This is a privilege our society offers us. At the same time, our society bears the costs of these risks, in terms of loss of productivity, medical costs, and long term support for those injured. We need to legislate this for ourselves and our children. Helmets make potentially major brain injuries less severe, and make minor falls into non-brain injury events. And every brain injury counts.

NO

By Hank Greer

I Shouldn’t be Forced to Wear a Helmet!

In August of 2011, the Spokane county commissioners heard testimony on a proposed county ordinance that would make helmet wearing mandatory for cyclists. Several cycling advocates, including Bill Bender and me, spoke that day. Other than one person who rambled on about government intrusion on liberty and freedom, I was the only one who spoke against the ordinance. I brought up numbers I obtained from the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention showing how cycling injuries and deaths paled in comparison to the big picture. For example, unintentional falling was the number one cause of injury for all age groups except 10-14 and 15-24. Cycling only shows up in the top ten at number six for ages 5-9 and number five for ages 10-14. That seems logical because that’s when most kids learn to ride.

I did not think anything I had to say would sway the commissioners. Usually helmet laws are adopted because helmets work. My intent was to make sure the commissioners had the opportunity to hear an opposing voice in hopes they would be able to make the best decision. Bill, whom I respect and admire very much, later said to me, “We were surprised by your testimony.” (Bill, to his credit, is too much of a gentleman to say, “WTF was that Hank?!”).

It’s not that I’m anti-helmet. I wear a helmet when I feel it’s necessary, which is most of the time. I commute by bike, I race, and I ride on rough trails. But there are times I think a helmet is not necessary, and I shouldn’t be forced to wear one – for example, if I’m taking a lazy ride on residential roads, or if I’m in a protected space such as the Fish Lake Trail, the Children of the Sun Trail, and much of the Centennial Trail.

In the Netherlands about 1% of cyclists wear helmets and the country has 1.6 bicycle fatalities for every 62 million trips. Depending on whose estimate you go by, anywhere from 40-60% of cyclists in the United States wear helmets. Yet our country suffers 21 bicycle fatalities for every 62 million trips.

Safer cycling is relatively new to the Netherlands. Cycling deaths and the 1973 oil embargo, among other things, contributed to the change in culture. In the mid-1970’s, cycling took off in the two cities where they started building dedicated cycling infrastructure separate from vehicles. The rest is history.

The main contributors to cyclist safety in the Netherlands are the large amount of protected space for cyclists and a culture that recognizes their vulnerability. Both are greatly lacking in our country.

And therein lies the problem. We have very little protected space for cyclists and our transportation system is centered on motor vehicles. So our answer to the vulnerability of cyclists in a vehicle-laden environment is, “Wear a helmet.” That, and the good graces of the many drivers who care, is the only protection you have while riding in traffic.

Now if we were serious about protecting people from traumatic brain injury (TBI), and not just when they’re on a bicycle, then we should require helmets in the home. Unintentional falls is the number one cause (40%) of TBI. We should also require helmets while in a motor vehicle where collisions cause 14% of TBI. Obviously, we’re not consistent in our approach to public safety. Protecting heads from injury shouldn’t apply to the most vulnerable who are out on two wheels. But that’s almost all we do.

As you can see, I have not presented a compelling case for not requiring people to wear a helmet. And that’s about how strong my argument was for the county commissioners. In my opinion, they took the easy way out. They passed an ordinance requiring helmets for ages 3-15 years of age, but excluded a penalty for not doing so. All a deputy sheriff can do is give a child a stern talking to about wearing a helmet.

Regardless, while I support wearing a helmet, especially under circumstances like racing, trail riding, and commuting in traffic, I don’t think I should be required to wear a helmet all the time. To me they’re not necessary in a protected space or while on a leisurely ride on quiet roadways. Under those circumstances, I prefer to decide for myself.

If we want to seriously address cycling safety, we should drastically improvement upon our infrastructure. The economic, environmental, and societal benefits are there for us to reap. In the meantime, you should choose to wear a helmet. //

The post Should Cyclists be Required to Wear Helmets? appeared first on Out There Venture.

The City of Spokane will be accepting public comment on the proposed Ben Burr Trail project until Friday, January 24. Learn more and submit your comments via the city’s blog here.

YES

By Bradley Bleck, cycling advocate and former Spokane Bicycle Advisory Board member

Build a Better Ben Burr!

As a recreational and commuting cyclist in Spokane, I look forward to the Ben Burr Trail improvements. At the same time, I understand the concerns of those opposed to the paving and widening of the trail. Many cyclists, myself among them, embrace Spokane’s “Near Nature, Near Perfect” mantra. Ready access to nature is much of what makes Spokane a special place to live, work and play. In its present state, the natural respite the Ben Burr Trail (BBT) offers is thanks to it being largely unknown and untrammeled, and the improvements will change that.

However, as an undeveloped gravel path, the BBT serves only the East Central neighborhood. The planned improvements will open up the trail to more users of varying abilities from more parts of the city under a wider variety of circumstances. While the improvements will not fulfill the desires of all in the neighborhood, they will expand access to the outdoors to people who otherwise would be unable or unwilling to use the trail. Project improvements will also expand local cycling infrastructure in a way that can foster further growth in infrastructure and ridership.

Some arguments in favor of keeping the trail undeveloped have a distinct “Not In My Backyard” (NIMBY) tone. One response to a comment I made on the City of Spokane’s blog seeking input on the project sums it up: “Do you really envision a freshly paved Ben Burr to be positively teeming with the now liberated wheelchair-bound and groups [of] ecologically altruistic skateboarders once the asphalt cools? . . . The plan to pave the entirety of the Ben Burr was financed by the feds on the premise that [it] would provide a viable transportation alternative for those who would otherwise commute by car. To me, that indicates cycle-commuters who would blow through the East Central Neighborhood in a few minutes on their way to their white collar gigs downtown. Why sacrifice the unique character of the Ben Burr for their benefit?”

It would be unfair to view all East Central residents as being as selfish as this comment implies, but how will more of Spokane benefit from implementing the improvements? First, an improved BBT will be accessible to all manner of walkers, hikers, joggers, cyclists, baby strollers, wheelchair users, and pretty much any other mode of self-propelled transportation, fully compliant with the Americans with Disability Act. With more users comes greater safety according to a Rails-to-Trails Conservancy report showing urban trails to be safer than surrounding areas with regard to assault, rape and murder.

Second, a paved BBT would offer the sort of cycling that is more likely to increase bike commuting by providing less-experienced cyclists off-street connectivity to downtown and the University District from an otherwise isolated area. If Spokane is going to increase cycling for both utilitarian and recreational purposes, it must make cycling inviting to women, an “indicator species” in the cycling environment. The established infrastructure appeals primarily to those who already ride on nearly any street at nearly any time. Improvements to Spokane’s cycling infrastructure need to emphasize getting women cyclists on the road. The BBT improvements could invite more women into bike commuting and recreational biking with children, and that bodes well for all of Spokane.

Finally, while I can empathize with the fear of environmental degradation due to tree removal, rock blasting and safety fences, such concerns are misplaced over the long haul. Users of the Fish Lake Trail have an open and inviting natural space, as do users of the Trail of the Coeur d’Alenes. Both are the sort of space the Ben Burr Trail can become. These trails would not exist were it not for prior blasting and cutting. Plenty of nature will remain and regenerate along the BBT in a setting that will be readily accessible to all manner of users (and more of them than previously).

The BBT is a legacy of the Northern Pacific Railroad and the Spokane and Inland Empire Interurban. It once again has the opportunity to play an important and enhanced role in Spokane transportation. Should a vocal collection of East Central Neighborhood residents get their way, the BBT will remain an East Central asset, cut off from much of the city by foot and bike for all but the most hearty. It would be a shame if the BBT project were derailed due to NIMBYism. It needn’t be that way. It shouldn’t be that way. All of Spokane is best served if the BBT project moves forward as planned.

NO

By Sam Mace, East Central Neighborhood resident

Leave the Ben Burr Be

In a neighborhood struggling economically, parks and trails can make all the difference in providing quality of life and opportunities for recreation. In East Central, Underhill Park and the historic Ben Burr trail provide much-needed natural respite.

The dirt and graveled trail running between Underhill and Liberty parks is often filled with runners, dog walkers and parents with strollers. This neighborhood “nature trail” is a place to get away from pavement and enjoy the ponderosa pines, overhanging maples, mock orange and wildlife. Ben Burr offers views of the city in some stretches and in others large trees and basalt rocks narrow the trail, creating the feeling of having escaped the city altogether. At the small spring one might spot the occasional porcupine. In winter natural heat vents send up steam from basalt scree.

More than 20 years ago neighborhood leaders hired a landscape designer to develop a plan to improve the Ben Burr. It called for benches, some landscaping and other improvements while preserving the natural characteristics of the trail. Partially completed, the neighborhood hoped to work with the city to finish improvements.

Residents were taken aback recently when a city engineer came to East Central to share the City’s plans for “improving” the Ben Burr. With no consultation or involvement of the neighborhood or trail users, the City announced its plan:  widening and paving the narrow trail to 14-16 feet (10-12 feet wide with 2 foot buffers); removal of large ponderosas, maples and other trees; rock blasting, grading the trail and building walls and railings along the basalt cliffs. What is currently a quiet natural trail would be transformed into a paved transportation corridor primarily for bikes.

Why such engineering overkill?  Without consulting the neighborhood the city staff applied for federal transportation funds that come with many requirements.

Had the city involved East Central early on rather than after the fact, we’d likely have a plan everyone could support. The neighborhood wholeheartedly supports most of the project. We welcome better bike access from Liberty Park to downtown. As a biker, I’m excited at the prospect of a safe route to downtown. But, like my neighbors, I need a place to walk in the neighborhood that isn’t concrete jungle.

Pave and unpaved trails offer very different recreation. I love the paved Centennial trail for biking. But when I’m feeling hemmed in by the city, I step off onto one of the many beautiful dirt trails along the Spokane River or head up to the Ben Burr.

East Central would welcome working with the city and other user groups on a compromise. Perhaps the Pittsburg connection down to Liberty Park could be paved and the east segment left alone, enhancing bike access from the Perry neighborhood which preserving a piece of the nature trail. Certainly we can preserve a three-quarter mile section of the Ben Burr trail and find other bike routes.

East Central is not a NIMBY neighborhood. One might argue we’ve taken the biggest hits for “progress” over the years. The freeway destroyed the heart of East Central decades ago; now the freeway expansion means 10-12 lanes of freeway through our part of town. Underhill Park will be torn up for a couple of years with the construction of the largest CSO tank. Is it so much to ask to keep three-quarter mile of trail unpaved?

The Ben Burr belongs to all of us here in Spokane and everyone deserves some say in its management. But a neighborhood having pride in and love for a trail is a positive thing, especially in a low-income area like East Central. It’s been disappointing to see that sense of pride dismissed, rather than encouraged.

The East Central Neighborhood Council voted last month to oppose paving Ben Burr. Residents have asked the city to consider options for completing the project from Liberty Park to downtown. At the very least the project should start from downtown, not begin with the controversial Ben Burr portion as currently planned. It’s asking too much of our neighborhood to suffer the CSO tank construction in Underhill and Ben Burr construction simultaneously.

The Ben Burr Trail is a case study in how not to move a project forward. The Parks Board has acknowledged the poor process and the valid concerns of residents by passing an amendment requiring the city to work closely with the neighborhood if the project goes forward. Hopefully in the future city staff will engage neighborhoods on the ground floor, not after the fact.

East Central desperately needs to hold on to the little scraps of nature we have. Don’t turn our trail into a concrete canyon. Leave the Ben Burr be.

More about Locking Horns: Out There Monthly’s “Locking Horns” pits passionate advocates for different approaches to outdoor recreation issues in a head-to-head debate meant to inform and persuade Inland Northwest outdoor enthusiasts. If you have a topic you’d like to suggest, e-mail us at editor@outthereventure.com

The post Locking Horns: Ben Burr Trail appeared first on Out There Venture.

Locking Horns: Should Mt. Spokane Ski & Snowboard Park be expanded with a new lift and runs on the backside of Mount Spokane?

YES

By Brad McQuarrie, General Manager, Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park

When Spokane’s most accessible, affordable winter recreation destination opened this week, skiers and boarders were excited to find new lodge and mountain improvements made this summer as part of a long-term plan to better serve a growing population of outdoor enthusiasts.  They’re also eager to know the latest status of Mt. Spokane Ski and Snowboard Park’s expansion, which will introduce almost 80 acres of groomed trails, seven new runs and a chair lift within a 279-acre portion of the 850-acre area designated for potential alpine expansion.

After nearly a decade of working with the Spokane community and regulatory agencies to create a plan that balances recreation and stewardship priorities, we are eager to move forward with this significant improvement in the ski area’s offerings.

Mt. Spokane 2000 (MS 2000), the non-profit organization that manages Mt. Spokane, has made a great deal of progress, earning expansion approval in 2011 as a result of extensive planning, studies and public process that involved the support, participation and collaboration of numerous public agencies and organizations. This included completion of an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS). Yet a local special-interest environmental group is working to stop the expansion by creating hurdles for the landowner, Washington State Parks. There are two key issues being addressed: land classification and approval of Mt. Spokane’s revised proposal for expansion.

Land Classification Balances Recreation while Conserving Natural Forests

The Classification and Management Planning (CAMP) process began at Mt. Spokane State Park in the 1990’s to determine future development.  In 1999, Washington State Parks classified all the land in the park except the 850 acres designated as the Potential Alpine Expansion Area (PASEA).  The decision secured more than one third of the 13,919-acre Park as Natural Forest Area (NFA) or Natural Area Preserve (NAP) for the purpose of protecting natural plant and animal communities.  This set aside many desired natural areas, such as Ragged Ridge, for preservation.

It is now time to classify the land in the 850-acre expansion area.  MS 2000’s proposal calls for the use of 279 acres of the expansion area to address the lack of intermediate skiing opportunities within the existing ski area, leaving the remaining 570 acres free of developed ski trails. Yet, opponents want the entire 850-acre expansion area to be classified as NFA.  Most of this area is already heavily used for both winter and summer recreation, and it has been developed with dirt and paved roads and buildings.  NFA classification would not allow for present and future use by downhill skiers, mountain bikers, equestrians, etc.

Footprint Significantly Reduced to Address Concerns

During a very transparent and public process, the Mt. Spokane State Park Advisory Committee vetted plans and asked for feedback.  Based on concerns raised by environmentalists beginning in 2006, the proposed plan has been revised several times, reducing the 850-acre expansion area to a 279-acre footprint. This was done to address concerns about impacts relating to removing the connector trail between the proposed expansion and the new Chair 4 pod.  Studies also showed this area had a higher percentage of late succession trees.

The proposed expansion plan is the result of many ideas and alternatives that were studied and debated in the various public hearings and has been informed by numerous environmental studies.  A new quad on the front was explored, but not only was it cost prohibitive, it also would not have addressed the need for additional intermediate terrain at the ski area.  At $2.8 to 3 million dollars, plus the significant annual maintenance costs associated with this option, folks didn’t want a significant increase in lift ticket and season pass prices to save two minutes on the lift.

Get the Facts

The dialogue over the expansion has become a debate grounded on emotions vs. facts.  It is very complex, involving land use regulations, technical expertise and a lot of people working to do the right thing for the recreational, social and economic well-being of the region.  Unfortunately, there’s a great deal of misinformation being distributed by opponents.  Here are the facts:

Myth: This expansion removes the last remaining stand of Old Growth timber in Spokane County.

Fact: One of the many studies specifically analyzed whether the intact forest stands in the 279-acre expansion area were indeed “old growth”. The results of these contracted studies will be included in future environmental documents; however, early results now indicate that the extent of “old growth” in the expansion area is not as widespread as the opponents would like you to believe. Additionally, the proposal, to the extent practical, reduces the amount of tree removal by utilizing existing meadows or areas of blowdown to mitigate the impact to forests overall.  For example, 2/3 of the 279-acre area will remain as is.  Also, much of the park has already been set aside for preservation, including vast areas with no development allowed that currently exhibit “old growth characteristics”.  Let’s not close down the expansion area to recreational use.

Myth: The proposal will ban snowshoers, backcountry skiers, and snowmobilers.

Fact: Traditional routes were all protected, and we will continue to work with the Mt. Spokane State Park Advisory Committee to look at additional routes.  Adding lift service to this part of the mountain will make more terrain available.  Opponents have been lobbying for the PASEA to be classified as Natural Forest Area.  Under NFA, many of the traditional uses of the PASEA (skiing, mountain biking, snowmobiling, and equestrian, etc.) would be prohibited.

Myth: Taxpayers’ dollars are paying for the expansion.

Fact: Ultimately, Alpine skiers will pay to play.  The State will benefit through increased concession rent, and in an era where budget reductions are forcing parks to close, State Parks can use all the additional revenue they can get.

This “locking horns” costs time and money, which is a shame to spend a non-profit organization’s resources in legal disputes instead of park improvements.  We invite the Lands Council to drop their claims and their efforts to derail the expansion and partner with us as we work as good stewards to preserve, protect and expand a regional asset.

For information, log onto www.mtspokane.com

NO

By Chris Bachman, Sierra Club Representative with the Save Mt. Spokane Coalition

There should be no ski area expansion allowed into the intact forest on the western slopes of Mt. Spokane in Mt. Spokane State Park.  Yes, I said western slopes, which is the actual location of the proposed new “red chair.”  The concessionaire has repeatedly published false information about the location of the proposed new chair.  Mt. Spokane 2000 has purposely misled the public into believing that the proposed new chair will be on the north side of the mountain.  I can only speculate as to the reason, but the word “north” conjures images of snow.

Mt. Spokane 2000 wants you to think the expansion is going to lead to a longer season because they are moving north.  That is a theory easily tested and proven false since the current Chair 4 is actually on the north side, has been on the north side for years and season length has not been increased; in fact Chair 4 remains idle on many operational days.  Mount Spokane 2000 (MS 2000) seems to be geographically challenged.  They don’t want you to know they plan to clear cut old growth forest on the western slope.

Land within the boundaries of Mt. Spokane State Park belongs to the public.  It belongs to all of the citizens of Washington.  Public interest should be served on public lands.  The Washington State Parks Commission circumvented due process when they illegally classified the land on the western slope for recreation.  Quite simply, they broke the law.

On September 18, 2013, the Washington State Court of Appeals ruled in favor of The Lands Council in a court case filed on behalf of the Save Mt. Spokane Coalition and the citizens of the state of Washington (No. 43158-1-II).  The court ruled the Washington State Parks Commission failed to follow Washington state SEPA law (State Environmental Policy Act) when they issued a land classification decision in May of 2011, classifying the western aspect of the mountain for recreational use.  The court decision makes clear the grounds of the suit filed by The Lands Council had merit, and in fact the law had been violated when the Washington State Parks Commission issued a land classification decision without studying potential environmental impacts of that decision.

The Washington State Court of Appeals decision states: “…the Commission’s failure to prepare an EIS for the 2011 classification decision violated the terms of SEPA and its rules and was contrary to governing case law. We affirm the trial court’s ruling that the Lands Council had standing under SEPA to bring this action. We hold that SEPA required the Commission to prepare an EIS for its May 2011 classification decision and, accordingly, we reverse the trial court’s summary judgment order dismissing the Land Council’s claims under SEPA.”

The Court of Appeals decision makes clear that an Environmental Impact Survey (EIS) is required, and should have been completed, prior to the land classification decision by the Washington State Parks Commission.  The court decision is the first step toward permanent protection of the publicly owned old growth forest on the western slopes of Mt. Spokane.

The publicly owned land in question is home to a watershed that supports old growth forest reminiscent of the North Cascades.  Large trees abound, and the sounds of flowing water fill the air.  This is a unique area for Eastern Washington, within the boundaries of a publicly owned State Park, and is worth saving and protecting. This sub alpine forest has been managed for years, albeit unclassified, as a de facto Natural Forest Area.  Natural Forest Area (NFA) is a land classification designation within the State Parks system that protects qualified, un-impacted areas by permitting only change due to natural processes to affect the area.  Since 1997, State Parks has managed this area as an NFA because of its unique and pristine qualities.  Both the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Washington Department of Natural Resources have declared the area worthy of NFA designation.  The Save Mt. Spokane Coalition encourages the Washington State Parks Commission to issue a Natural Forest Area designation for the area of old growth on the westerly aspect of Mt. Spokane.  NFA designation will preserve and protect, in perpetuity, this unique and pristine ecosystem.

Recreation within the park should remain open to all citizen user groups.  Expansion of the ski area into this intact ecosystem shows preference to, and benefits only, one user group: alpine (lift-served) skiers.  The area targeted for expansion is currently open to skiers and snowboarders who enjoy non-lift-served recreation as well as to snowshoers and other recreational users.  This will change if the ski area is allowed to expand.  Non-lift-served recreation in the expansion area will no longer be allowed.  Public land will no longer be accessible to the public.  Two thirds of the alpine habitat on Mt. Spokane has already been irreparably damaged by ski operations.  The remaining one third should remain in a natural state.

Moving Forward

Before any work is completed by the concessionaire (MS 2000) toward the installation of an additional chair lift, Washington State Parks is required by law to complete an Environmental Impact Survey related to the impacts of the land classification decision.  This is a very important point.  Regardless of misinformation flooding the community suggesting that the ski expansion will be moving forward, the recent court decision makes it clear: there will be no legal forward progress prior to the completion of, and public involvement with, the Washington State Parks land classification EIS.

About the Save Mt. Spokane Coalition

Formed in 2008, the Save Mt. Spokane Coalition is a partnership of local environmental advocacy groups that have pooled their resources to support the protection of the public land within Mt. Spokane State Park.  The coalition was founded by members of The Lands Council, Sierra Club and the Spokane Mountaineers and has grown to include Spokane Audubon Society, Conservation Northwest, The Northeast Chapter of the Washington Native Plant Society, and the Spokane Neighborhood Alliance.  

The post Locking Horns: Should Mt. Spokane Ski & Snowboard Park be expanded with a new lift and runs on the backside of Mount Spokane? appeared first on Out There Venture.