Mt. Adams ski resort?

This is the best idea I've heard in a long time, besides the Crystal Mt expansion. This is what Washington needs. A true destination ski resort. Bring it on. Someone needs to compete with Whistler/Blackcomb!

As I expected there would be a lot of "knee jerk" reactions to this proposal. The southern climbing route on Mt Adams lies outside the Yakima Indian Reservation. I hike, mountain climb, backpack, am an avid downhill skier, and am of Native American ancestry. I have longed envisioned a ski area on Mt. Adams with a tram climbing to the upper reaches of the mountain reminiscent of the Klein Matterhorn tram at Zermatt, Switzerland. Being father east than Mt. Hood, or Mt. Bachelor; Mt. Adams would have drier snow than other Cascade ski areas. the ski resort would incorporate the Yakima culture in all aspects of the resort. I agree with the Yakima Nation that it be "the most environmentally sensitive development in the history of resorts." with this in mind those behind bringing a ski area have to Mt. Adams have every intention of doing exactly this. I wish Dave Riley and all others involved this proposal Godspeed.

<br><br>I couldn't have said it any better. Why shouldn't the Yakima Indians be able to develope their land as they see fit? They are a separate, sovreign nation, so they can pretty much do what they want. Go for it!!<br>

Believe it or not, there are people intellectually capable of opposing this project and supporting native rights. No one in this thread has implied that the Yakamas don't or shouldn't have the right to develop their land how they see fit (though there has been some of this on other sites). Saying a project like this sucks on a message board, writing a letter to the editor or even protesting in front of a tribal office DOES NOT infringe on native rights. Inferring otherwise is, at best, lazy thinking and at worst, race-baiting.<br>If opponents get lawyers/legislators involved and try to impose things of the Yakamas, that would be different, but that isn't what's going on here.<br>That it is their land to do with what they wish is an indisputable fact, so please move on.<br>This isn't a response to Gaper's initial mention of this issue, which was a fair, open-ended question, IMHO.

Hello there. I am a teen yakama tribe member who lives in White Salmon WA. I think that the development of the MHM resort should take place. I am neither a skiier nor a snowboarder. However I believe that with the world we are coming into and are already living in today that Yakama Tribe needs to consider what our tribe will need. How much pride can we have in our tribe and beliefs if our tribe can not surivive economically. With inflation and the economy in the state that it is in we need to prepare plans to ensure support for the tribe and its members. With the finacial income from the resort we can put that forth to create other items to assist the tribe. such as taking that money and putting it into scholoarships to help natives go to college and better themselves. College costs are going up and Yakama tribe can provide financial help for native kids who have dreams of going to college. There are also other things that could be provided for the tribe from the income. such as financial aid for the suffering. we are a tribe and we need to help one another. this is a window of opportunity. the Creator sent it here to help us and to provide for the tribe so it can provide for its members. We are also being assured that the resort will eco friendly. As for the cultural worries, we will always have our culture as long as we have our faith. faith is something no one else can take away. if we stand tall and keep our beliefs strong then there should be no worries for this project. We need to let our worries fade with the sunset of today and look to the opportunities with the coming sunrise.

Native, being as you're not a skier or snowboarder, how did you find this website?

I am a skier, BC and resort, I ski Meadows a lot, much to my chagrin some days. When I heard about this proposal my heart sank. I truly beleive this issue transcends the idea of land rights. Land rights are an issue contructed by humans, and do not exist outside of our society. This proposal is much bigger than that. For anyone who has been in a ski area during the summer, you can see the extent of the damage done to the environment. Justifying the spoiling of such an area of wilderness beauty and needed wildlife habitat with the idea of an eco resort is just putting on the blinders. Just check on Meadow's "eco" history. They regularly score a C or lower on the Ski Resort Environmental Score card. They are far from good stewards of the land. They close early in April because they violated their operating liscence by using salt and have been punished by the forest service. Meadows can't be trusted. This area of Adams is the most amazing place in the NW. At night there is hardly a light to be seen, not a clear cut around,and I never fail to see mountain goats only a few feet away. <br>The amount of infrastructure just to get to the resort in Winter is mind boggling and so depressing. Let's hope this idea ends up in the dusty filing cabinet where it belongs.

Is it just me, or does it strike anybody else as fishy that coldsmokerider and native_144 appear out of nowhere claiming to be native Americans in favor of the Mt Adams development. A few people have popped up in opposition to the idea as well. For me the "in-favors" are fishier since there are clearly people out there who would benefit financially from the plan for whom masquerading as a native American would be a useful ploy. <br><br>To coldsmokerider and native_144, if you are who you claim to be, please accept my apologies. In that case, I offer this advice: Your credibility on-line is enhanced by 1) participating constructively over a significant amount of time and 2) using your real name.<br><br>--Lowell Skoog<br>  "Using my real name on the net since 1985" (or thereabouts)

Kudos on a well-written post. One question:<br><br>

I They close early in April because they violated their operating liscence by using salt and have been punished by the forest service.

<br><br>If I'm not mistaken the last two years Meadows has closed the first weekend in May. For a few weeks prior they are only open on weekends. Maybe you meant to say they close weekday skiing in early April? <br><br>Interestingly Timberline salts heavily yet skiareacitizens.com (the website you cited) gives them an 'A'. Since you've inferred salting is destructive to the enviornment (which I imagine it is), why does skiareacitizens.com give them an 'A'? I'm not implying animus, just curious how that website actually works.<br><br>PS: When did this salting incident occur?

Is it just me, or does it strike anybody else as fishy that coldsmokerider and native_144 appear out of nowhere claiming to be native Americans in favor of the Mt Adams development. A few people have popped up in opposition to the idea as well.

<br><br>It's interesting to note if you google "Mt Adams Ski Resort" this thread comes up as the 2nd and 3rd link.

Jeff:<br><br>I did mean to write that Meadows closes early in May due to a violation. I tried to find specifics on the web but couldn't, so maybe I should retract that statement. I had been told this for years, and then I remember reading something about it last year or the year before when the whole Cooper Spur thing came about. What I did find is that they were in violation of the Clean Water Act for use of Rock Salt on bare wetland meadows (timberline uses salt on the snow field, controversial, yes but less harmful than directly on wetlands) and were taken to court for it, mitigation was part of the settlement. So I am thinking this is what it is related to. <br><br>As for the Citizens Ski Are Environemntal Report Card, you can find the whole report here:<br> www.skiareacitizens.com/cgi-bin/report.cgi?region=orwa&area=7 This report has been criticized as being too heavily weighted on expansion. You can read their criteria on the website and judge for yourself. <br><br>Another good site to learn more about Meadows is the Friends of Mt Hood Site. www.friendsofmounthood.org/fmh.htm <br><br>Don't get me wrong, I ski at Meadows (with some guilt), and I am mostly OK with their current operation, I just think we have enough ski areas and don't need anymore. Let's save what little wilderness we have left. I look at crowded lift areas like traffic, building more areas, like building more roads, only brings more traffic.

What little wilderness? You ever fly a plane? Ski areas are a little pin-point in the forest.....they barely make a dent. If you don't want ski resorts in forest land, you shouldn't support them with your skier visits. They have a word for that......<br><br>Don't worry, the Adams project will never happen. Its just some news that keeps us busy writing messages.. Even from the beginning of public skiing in WA there has been a battle raging, mostly with the Rainier and Olympic parks, but for more then 70 years the battle over ski area vs no-ski area has been going...... Its an interesting history and very very unlikely a 'new' area will ever emerge again.

Hayak,<br><br>You're joking about the plane comment right? Ever see a clear cut from a plane? How about a logging road? Or do you just call all general shades of green from 30000' Wilderness? Last time I hiked around Adams (a year ago) I saw plenty roads and clear cuts, tons of Wildernss it aint. <br><br>My issue isn't with existing resorts (see my previous post) It is with developing a large part of a wilderness area into a nice new resort by a company whose environmental track record is shakey at best. <br><br> <br><br>

We are talking about skiing, not logging.. Besides, farmers grow crops, cut them down then grow new ones. Trees are no different.....they actually grow back quite fast. I really don't want to get into the logging issue since we are talking about ski resorts and the impact of SKIING on the forest, not logging....