Secret stashes, exploration, solitude, and more

{Moderator's Note: this thread began as a simple request for some general information on tours in the Mazama/Twisp area, but has evolved into a broad discussion on trip reports, guidebooks, secret stashes, exploration, solitude, and related topics, so I have changed the original title of the thread to reflect this. --Charles}<br><br><br>Does anyone care to share some ideas for some day tours near the Methow or Twisp Rivers? ÊA washed out section of SR 20 has the road closed earlier than normal (it's closed at Early Winters Campground as far as I know) so this eliminates Silver Star/Delancy Ridge. ÊI'm planning to spend a few days in the area with my girlfriend to do some skiing. ÊWe don't have use of a snowmobile or helicopter. ÊHow difficult is access? ÊWe're not super hard core, but could do a few consecutive 4000 ft days.<br><br>I'm not asking for anyone's secret stash as I know these things are carefully guarded. ÊPerhaps a fairly well known place or a simple nod in the right direction. ÊIf you'd like to point out the secret stash I'd be of course be grateful and promise to guard it as my own Ê

Fawn Peak and Sandy Butte are two scenic tours that will each keep you busy for a long day. Also check out Buck Mountain near the Cub Creek trailhead.

here's another vote for sandy butte. it's apparently a cattle drive, and it's even marked with nice little signs on the trees, i guess for orientation-challenged shepherds plenty of trees so not much to worry avy-wise. the heli tour folks are said to take clients up there in the snowcat if conditions are too bad for flying.

I'm hesitant to suggest a tour I haven't done but what the heck, I'm intrigued by this tour- right off of Twisp River Rd. you can gain, via logging road, Canyon Creek Ridge. This ridge climbs forever to Three A.M. Mountain.<br><br>Description is found in Sally Portman's book.<br><br>Have a great time w/ your friend in a very special place.

I love secret stash puzzles. Here is a nice map of this past summers XXXXXXXX . The TR describes a 3000' climb from the road to a X000' col, which puts the start around X000' on Highway XXXXX. We must be on the north side of the highway (XXXXXX  XXXXXX) since the descent is described as sun-affected (south-facing). The cirque must be north-facing since all the cirques in the area are. Looking at the XXXX map the only real candidate seems to be the head of XXXXXXX creek, below The Xxxxxxx because that is the only cirque the XXXXXXXXXXXXXX that high. The elevations don't match up perfectly, but secret-stash elevations are often rounded to the nearest 1000'. Get your sled out....

Gregg's report offered good information, but he deliberately left the specific location vague.  Why not respect this?  The alternative is that Gregg (and myself, and others) will stop posting information which you, aside from anyone else, might find useful.  I suggest editing your post.  <br><br>Added later: thanks for the edit.

Markharf is spot on. I hesitate to mention my own personal favorites (and haven't) but was hoping vague posts with good snow info would allow free flow of data without divulging nice "not in a guide book" runs. Please, let the poster's dictate how far they are willing to allow you, reader, into their day. If you really must know, ask in a side email and maybe they'll show you in person.<br><br>Or maybe not.

Hmmm. First rule: If you want to keep a secret then don't talk about it (or even hint about it) on an Internet chat board. Second rule: If you want everyone to know a secret then talk about it, or better yet, make vague but decipherable references about it's hidden glories, on an Internet chat board. These rules seem particularily self-evident to me.<br><br>As far as respect goes I look to Gregg_C, the original poster (who has now deleted his second post, wise choice). Did Gregg_C respect Larry, the guy who just showed him the tour? Is he respecting the Mazama locals who know this tour? Thinking of secrets as ones own is a big mistake as they seldom are. I have had a couple of my favorite "not-in-the-guidebook" tours popularized on this very board, one of them is currently featured on the home page gallery. Did the people responsible respect the wishes of those who found that tour the hard way? How long till we have an access issue with the parking for that tour?<br><br>You can make a useful post about conditions, post great pictures, etc. without giving up your location, that is my policy and that of everyone I ski with. Next time you want to drop hints about some fine tour you might consider how many people are lurking this board looking for your hints and not sharing theirs.

Just a suggestion I received from Ronj before giving up your stash:<br><br>Which brings us to the "official mandatory suggested stashworthiness protocol". <br>We've all discovered really cool spots that we believed were unique and relatively unknown (or so we thought) to other bc skiers. "Sharing with friends", which is the heart of backcountry skiing, and keeping 'secret stashes secret", is somewhat incongruous. If we concur with that we're inevitably left with somewhat of a dilemma. Some time ago, in an attempt to mitigate this dilemma, yet still reduce the possibility of ending up with the "muir circus" effect at all our favorite tours, we decided to agree upon a loosely knit alliance, in hopes of mitigating random, excessive bc traffic at our favorite "discovered" stashes. <br> <br>Of course, we knew if we tried to be too obsessive and dictatorial about not disclosing a specific location, someone would get mad and turn it into another Muir circus just to show us all who's boss.<br>So we finally settled on just this one simple concept: Anyone we SHOW it to, we have to PHYSICALLY TAKE them there (no passing on directions, maps, coordinates, etc). New folks that we disclose the destination to, have to "pay their dues" by going there with us, AND they have to agree, before going, to the same conditions of its disclosure. Lots of folks SAY they'll go, but far FEWER show to make the trip. So we reduce the number of folks that know about the location to those friends that actually pay the dues to get there. Cool, huh? <br> <br>So we would hope that you would embrace this "protocol" too, and continue with the tradition when disclosing this ski destination to other bc skiers.<br><br>I think this sums things up...<br>

freshie - good points indeed. I must say I was at a dilemma with some of my posts, but figured if I got a guidebook and saw the potential, I'm not alone. But I'm not sure of your reason to post a topo map of the hinted tour. I could do that myself. <br><br>So here's my protocol on posting info: If it is a named run in a guidebook (say, The Muir Snowfield) then it's fair game for complete revelation of route. If it is not, then discression is in order. Part of the fun of vague posts is busting out the topo and discoveriung for yourself how to make the run work - how you came about the need for the search is irrelevant - whether Web, freinds or just a drive by (my personal favorite), you're in the exploration mode. Some people want routes handed to them, I don't. Let's face it, I'm going to lead a long life and I'll probably end up skiing every line in Washington, published or not, so I can expect others will do the same. But I will respect other's wishes to have the same kind of exploration as I did. And that's the only reason I don't explain in detail my routes. <br><br>On a side note, I really like snosluts idea about physically visiting a spot - puts their money where their mouth is...<br><br>Interestingly, I never fear someone "stealing" my lines - no one gets up as early as me, especially on a powder day! <br><br>

Quote from Snoslut:<br>"So we finally settled on just this one simple concept: Anyone we SHOW it to, we have to PHYSICALLY TAKE them there (no passing on directions, maps, coordinates, etc). New folks that we disclose the destination to, have to "pay their dues" by going there with us, AND they have to agree, before going, to the same conditions of its disclosure." <br><br>I think this is the best compromise in an otherwise imperfect situation. Of course over time, as the circle expands the word WILL get out, but hopefully that will take a while. The only other option is complete silence, and even that may not work for long....

Russ - I hate to put it to you, but this is Washington State. The word will never get out about powder skiing here (thankfully). Not as long as their are no Whistlers or Vails around to draw the media. It's all Cascade Concrete, right? Just ask my friends in sunny Colorado! The people who read these posts are BC skiers...and most I like without even meeting them...Think snow!

Snoslut's protocol of a physical visit required is great, it is essentially what I practice as well. My point in stirring the nest here is to help posters on this board understand that information spreads exponentially faster on the Internet than by word-of-mouth. If everyone just shares with their friends, then we will all meet no one but friends out in the snow. And that is a good thing.<br><br>That said, I've made some edits to my original post.<br><br>

Just wanted to make known that Ron Jarvis original wrote this message to me regarding a stash he and his friends discovered in the Tatoosh.  Can't wait to hit it up with ya in May Ron.<br><br>On a side note...if over crowding does indeed become a factor (which I can't see happening in the near future cause of the effort involved in getting to some of these places) we can always rename our favorite runs, peaks, bowls, etc.  The whole point is to have fun. ;D

A little story about secrets from the Upper Pennisula of Michigan...<br><br>Once upon a time there was a bump near the tip of an isolated pennisula that stuck far out into the chilly waters of Lake Superior. This bump was neglected by the logging company who owned it because it was too steep and cliffy to log, plus it was covered with a particularly difficult tree - the ironwood - a chainsaw's worst nightmare. Before the pre-modern epoch (the nineties), a hearty, and smelly few would climb this 1600' bump and slide down on skinny tele set-ups and 80's vintage alpine gear in the incredible powder of the area - a gift from Gitchee Gumee (the Algonquin word for "all powerful lake" - Lake Superior). For a while they were the only ones who visited the area (save for the occasional high-marker) and things were good. <br><br>During the mid-ninties the aging, smelly few noticed that they had to get up a bit earlier in the morning to beat a dedicated group of youngsters who would track-up the bump on powder mornings. This disturbed them, but still things were good. Little did the youngsters know, but the older guys had been skiing the bump for a long, long time. The youngsters were adventurous, energetic, and fun-loving - just like the older guys used to be. The older guys didn't know how the secret got out, but they figured the rigors of skiing the bump would keep down the number of new-comers. Eventually, the old guys became bitter and upset with the youngsters because the youngsters didn't seem to care that the old guys had done soooo much to maintain the, uhhh, ski-ability of the bumps wonderful terrain. That unfortuantely was not the case - the youngsters didn't even know that the older guys had been taking care of the bump for so long. As more and more youngsters started showing up to ski the bump, one of the older guys decided that the bump was ruined - he thought the bump was now "discovered" and too many people were skiing it. The youngsters thought it was still ok, just a bit more competative. <br><br>One day, in town, a very rich and powerful man's son was visiting the remote area on business unrelated to skiing. The old guy who had become angry with the situation on the bump ran into the rich man's son and thought it would be a good idea to tell him about the bump, and the possibillity that the bump could be turned into a private ski area. To him, it was already ruined due to excessive traffic, so why not develop the area according to "his" direction. The rich man's son was sold on the idea and gave the bitter old guy a job - to make the bump into a profitable ski hill.<br><br>The youngsters were outraged, the logging company had a lease drawn up before you could say "sisu", the orders were placed for used lifts from somewhere in Wisconsin, and the smoke from the slashing and burning filled the area around the bump the next summer. Now, due to liability issues, no one skis the bump unless they are sporting a 44 dollar lift ticket purchased from the rich man's son...<br><br>THE END

I had no idea this was related to one of my previous posts. Freshie, with all respect I don't believe that your original post was written in the interest in informing us of the workings of the internet. You were being clever and cute and disrespecting the tone of my TR. If you wanted to inform us of your opinion regarding information on TAY why not make a general statement on random tracks? Your post heads into the same ethically murky ground as the dude that planted knives on the planes to expose weaknesses in airport security. You made your point but it was done in a disrespectful manner. <br>I am first an enthusiast of backcountry skiing. You will notice with all my posts a tone of deep satisfaction with skiing in the mountains. I also try and pass on useful, descriptive information so that others can enjoy the tours that I have completed. On two occasions I have been vague for easily understandable reasons. I am confused as to your motivation when it was so obvious what my reasoning was. <br>Also, you are a bit reckless with your statements. You make claims and assumptions that are plain wrong. I never edited my second post as you stated and Larry sat beside me at his kitchen counter when I hastily wrote my original TR between mouthfulls of breakfast. As far as I recal, he made no mention of me disrespecting him. You make statements about respect when the bottom line is you displayed a lack of respect in your post. No amount of semantic gymnastics with the facts will take that away. (And thanks for editing your post. You were wrong and needed to change it).<br>I will be in Mazama next week. We would like to invite you on a 20 mile sled trip into a secret stash. Since your good at reading between the lines you will notice there is no mention of a return trip out to the plowed highway.<br>just kidding.......<br><br>Gregg

Thank-you Gregg, no one has ever called cute and clever before. Sniff. <br><br>Just so my motivations are clear, I'll post one last time. My intention was to provoke a little discussion about stashes and posting about them on this board, in this I was successful. I think it is foolish for anyone to believe that a "vague" TR with as much detail as Gregg's had is effectively any different than just handing out marked-up topos to everyone who walks into the ski department at REI. You are potentially telling hundreds of people where your stash is, and you shouldn't believe otherwise.<br><br>My motivation is simple: to preserve stashes. Yours, your friends, mine, my friends, everyones. To do this, I encourage people to either not post about their stashes at all (most people already do this) or to make "vague" posts truly impossible to figure out. But of course it is up to you. I enjoy any post that talks passionately about skiing, I just prefer they don't have directions to my hidden stash in them.<br><br>

Gads! I'll offer a dissenting view.<br><br>Charles, I really appreciate this site, especially when I learn of new routes from you. The Hanging Valley tour and the Arrowhead tour, with pictures, are fascinating. I go on a number of tours every year, nearly always someplace different each time, and I'll probably never even get to those obscure tours you've documented. Yet, it is still very gratifying and intriguing to ponder your reports and pictures. I hope that someday when I get my act together to take pictures, folks will find the same gratification in my descriptions of obscure routes.<br><br>Finally, to quote Klindt Vielbig in his Cross-Country Ski Routes:<br><br>A significant effort has been made to describe ski areas in such a way as to disperse the growing number of skiers, to offer loops and alternative routes so that there is less human impact on everyone's personal experience.<br><br>Anyone such as Charles who has made efforts in this direction, I applaud.

Interesting selection of views here. <br><br>I've posted a lot of trip reports, primarily on Turns-All-Year, Telemarktips.com, RSB, and Brent's predecessor to this board. I am sometimes unwilling to share specific directions to places I'd rather keep uncrowded, as is my right. Furthermore, a lot of places are shown to me on the condition that I keep them secret, which I do.<br> <br>Sometimes I don't post at all about these places; sometimes I write only the vaguest of descriptions, offering access and stability details without specific locations. Sometimes, when I'm feeling especially clever, I'll write a report which is transparent only to those who already know the route in question, but opaque to all others. This takes a lot of effort.<br><br>Usually, however, I give sufficient hints so that anyone willing to put in some effort can figure out where I've been; it's never my intent to maintain some sort of private playground, but that doesn't mean I want to make it effortless either. This seems perfectly reasonable to me. I enjoy writing reports and sharing valuable information with others (e.g., access, stability, weather and snow conditions, terrain), and my readers get to figure it out and share the goods, should they so desire. <br><br>My experience is that posting trip reports featuring vague descriptions of locations is very different from "handing out marked-up topos," or "telling hundreds of people." In fact, I've never, in five years of posting dozens of trip reports on the internet, had anyone publicly "out" any of the stashes I've described. The mere fact that this has never happened suggests speaks well of our backcountry community, and it is difficult for me to conceive of doing such a thing as anything but a selfish, destructive act. I suggest that anyone tempted to act this way take a long, careful look at their own motivations, considering carefully what they might have to gain or lose.<br><br>In the meantime, anyone wondering about any of the places I ski should feel entirely welcome to join me for a tour.<br><br>Enjoy,<br><br>Mark

Mark - I'll have to take you up on that one of these days. I'm curious about "the usual secret place everyone knows about" or whatever you've called it (I have a guess, but no topo map to be posted any time soon and no more clues to be dropped than what you've posted...). Ive enjoyed the few tours I've done in your arena.<br><br>Re: Freshie's intentions, who can really know but Freshie? So why care? Impact is more knowable and seems more relevant than intent, and the impact here was clearly shunned by the community. <br><br>In any case, it is indeed a good reminder that there are other clever folks with access to maps (and there are LOTS more lurkers than posters, sopping up the details)! I'll happily post some non-guidebook tours but will keep others to what I've now learned is the "stashworthiness protocol."

Let me first say thanks to those who replied to my original inquiry for tour info. I had spent my fair share of time looking at maps before asking, but it's comforting to get some assurance that someone else has found good skiing on the random, attractive (according to the map), north facing slope before setting out. Your terse posts were exactly what I was looking for.<br><br>I personally derive an incredible amount of satisfaction from searching out and exploring unknown ski destinations. I feel for those who have not truly experienced the joy of discovery - no, not visiting a place for the first time with a knowledgeable friend, or even a route description, but the feeling that comes from really embracing uncertainty. "Well, we've sufficiently committed ourselves to the point where going back is harder than continuing forward. Except we don't know if we'll be able to get over the next col.." When not-in-the-guidebook tours are popularized, this experience is robbed from those who seek it out, and the experience is diluted and devalued for everyone involved.

Glad you had fun up there. If "posted" = "popularized" in your mind, then I'd beg to differ on the black and white nature of the statement. I don't think you've devalued the Chair Peak Circumnavigation by posting a variant that Volken didn't describe in his book, as it sounded like a somewhat well known variant anyhow. I don't think throngs will flock to Silver Creek due to Charles' posting of beautifly photos of the area. The postings of descents off Forbidden or Luna or Fury didn't make anything easy for anyone. I've posted TRs for Earl Peak, as it seems like an obvious ski objective to anyone who has followed the guidebook up into Bean Creek Basin (as the crowds I've seen up there would indicate, though I didn't clearly describe the line I took down Earl...).<br><br>But at a more nuanced level, I think I agree with you. I've found variants of guidebook tours that I'd never post and if someone shared a spot in confidence I'd keep that confidence regardless of other factors. <br><br>But a simple cure to being devalued by information is to simply not pay attention to the information. Anyone who wants to figure out their own Ptarmigan Traverse has all the opportunity they need - just don't read all the Alpenglow history reports and it's all new to you!

I haven't been too regular about checking out what's going on in this board, but I finally did wonder why this thread was getting so much activity...now I know. I should probably first congratulate everyone involved for keeping comments so constructive on this very sensitive topic. It is what I have come to expect from contributors to this forum, but it is still nice to see in a situation where it could easily turn out otherwise.<br><br>I think RonJ's "stashworthiness protocol" is generally a good guide (although see below), and I try to adhere to it. I know, however, that I have made a few mistakes over the years, probably one very recently. Sometimes the need to invoke the protocol is explicitly stated, sometimes it is just obvious, and other times it is hard to tell. I generally don't feel the need to obscure the details of where I have skied, but then again I am not generally doing such cutting edge trips as many here. There are a couple of trips which I like to do for which I won't give details publically, feeling like the areas won't accommodate many skiers and/or I discovered them myself (keeping in mind ajjenkin's great story). I have taken to not even writing up trip reports for these few trips.<br><br>I don't view the function of the Trip Reports as being a guide book, and so I don't expect a trip report to contain detailed route information (although it can if the author wishes). I think a trip report can be written to share information about snow and avi conditions with others without including enough details to precisely localize the trip, and it is this information that I find most useful in the Trip Reports. Telemetry data is good, but there is nothing like a first-hand report from the day before. I think it is harder to write a useful trip report when excluding details of the location, but nonetheless possible.<br><br>There is nothing like studying the maps and then heading out to discover a "new" ski destination, but I don't think that happens very often and personally, I can get similar satisfaction from exploring an area new to me even if I know that lots of people ski there, as long as there is no one with previous experience leading me there.<br><br>There is one thing I have been wondering about with respect to the "stashworthiness protocol": could it, in the longer term, be producing more "crowds" than a simple posting of a trip report for a particular destination? I keep thinking about something Jim mentioned reading, about "connections" type of personalities (typical bc skiers?), and the 6 degrees of separation phenomenon. If you take two buddies to your stash (which no one else in the world has even thought about skiing), they, being good skiers like you, will have a number of other buddies who are also good skiers and would immensely enjoy skiing your stash. So, each of those first two buddies takes a group of their friends to your stash and they all really like it, so a little later each of them takes a group of their good skier buddies to what is now just "the stash" - no longer just yours. I think I have seen the initial phases of this progression occurring for a couple of locales. I just wonder whether, if it is the intention to keep a stash truly a stash, the "stashworthiness protocol" might actually be working to produce the opposite effect?

I've thought at least a little more about that after talking with you about the concept of "connectors" and the "tipping point," Charles, and while I think you're right, I also don't want to live in a tight little world where I won't share anything with anyone who doesn't already know about it, because skiing is at least as much a social activity for me as it is an athletic or aesthetic one and it is fun expanding my world of friends and I want to share with my friends, and they of course want to share with other friends, and so it goes... Until, alas, a place becomes common knowledge. For anyone who thinks this is BS, check out a copy of "The Tipping Point" from your local library and give it a read - you'll see that it won't take the internet to make your favorite stash a clusterf#$k. <br><br>Posting clear descriptions to the internet, however, seems even more likely to cause a spread of the news.<br><br>And no matter what, there are alwasy the tracks you leave, which can be followed...

Jim, I'm not talking about remote ski desinations with difficult access as these will most likely be preserved. Rather it's the little known accessible ones that are at risk of being over run if they are popularized.<br><br>

And no matter what, there are alwasy the tracks you leave, which can be followed...

<br><br>I think this is what separates backcountry ski exploring from other types - if anyone has been there since the last significant snowfall, there will be tracks. Their existance leading the way can be enough to disrupt the experience for someone who doesn't know the area. The Slot Couloir is a good example of what I'm talking about. Check out www.mtnphil.com and read the trip reports from years past about the Slot Couloir (Enigma Gully). They discovered it, climbed it, scoped it out and finally went back and skied it. They had little knowledge about it before exploring as this was before a guide book or it became popular. There is a reason it was dubbed 'Enigma Gully'. Contrast this with the scene a few weeks ago - it had been talked about on this board a few times, there is a step by step account of the tour in a guidebook and it was downright crowded. Regardless of whether someone had read the guidebook or not, they couldn't have had the same experience. I'm making a value judgement here that this is worthwhile and should be protected where appropiate; your opinion may differ. I'm arguing that the 'secret stashes' should be protected, not for those who already know and ski them, but rather for those who have yet to discover them.

I think we pretty much agree on basic principles - sounds like your thinking is not as absolute as your original statment could be read to imply. And I doubt you'd find my "not-in-guidebook" TRs spoiling your pleasure.<br><br>But alas, the population is growing and more new people are buying BC gear and there are boot tracks running the length of the Ptarmigan Traverse and well into the Pickets too, and I guess I choose to accept these facts, which all trend toward limiting the "field of discovery." Fortunately, we live near a rather large mountain range that as others have noted, is not considered one of the glamorous ski ranges.<br><br>But if I want adventure and discovery (which I do find from time to time in my own timid way), I may need to get up earlier, take a weekday off work, or otherwise work to avoid finding that my imagined untouched treasure is in fact someone else's personal playground. This is the nature of easily-accessed areas near a major city. Fortunately, though, from what I hear we have it much better in this regards than folks in the Bay Area or worse yet, Salt Lake City.

Well, I can live with the fact that folks want to be secretive about some tours. It is kinda weird to want to post reports in code for your buddies. Kinda makes one feel like an outsider, but I can live with that too. Its most certain as a dog driver that I approach the bc in ways and with techniques that many folks don't agree with.<br><br>I DO want to thank you folks for the non- guidebook routes that you do share.

I had a few days off this week so I was up skiing and just stumbled upon this interesting discussion. It continues to pleasantly surprise me that things always seem to stay civil and respectful here. <br><br>I've got one thing to ask of everyone. Is anyone having problems finding fresh lines? I'm certainly not this year thank God. Is it actually happening that people are going to their spots and finding them destroyed? I just have a hard time believing it is actually happening. But I want to hear what other people think.<br><br>Also, does it really "ruin" the experience when other people are around? I guess there is something to be the only party on a line or in a drainage or something, and obviously there can be a point of oversaturation, but at least in my case I've had far more positive interactions with other bc skiers than negative ones. <br><br>

I think this is what separates backcountry ski exploring from other types - if anyone has been there since the last significant snowfall, there will be tracks.  Their existance leading the way can be enough to disrupt the experience for someone who doesn't know the area....<br><br>Regardless of whether someone had read the guidebook or not, they couldn't have had the same experience.  I'm making a value judgement here that this is worthwhile and should be protected where appropiate;  your opinion may differ.

<br><br>Matt is onto something subtle and, to my thinking, important.  There is something special about backcountry skiing.  Anyone who has done a tour, even a popular tour, when there are no tracks in sight has experienced the feeling of being really alone in the mountains.  This feeling is even more intense if, as far as you know, you're the first person to ever visit a place on skis.<br><br>In summer, climbers leave no tracks--at least no tracks you can see more than a few feet away.  So in summer you can stand on a summit and not know whether anyone else is nearby.  In winter, on the other hand, when skiers leave tracks visible a mile away, you can have proof you're alone.  That's a powerful experience and, as Matt points out, a valuable one.<br><br><br>

But a simple cure to being devalued by information is to simply not pay attention to the information.  Anyone who wants to figure out their own Ptarmigan Traverse has all the opportunity they need - just don't read all the Alpenglow history reports and it's all new to you!

<br><br>I've thought about the impact that my historical work has on awareness of obscure routes in the Cascades.  I don't put a lot of route directions in my notes--I focus on people, dates and stories.  I find that history enriches my experience in the mountains more than diminishing it, but that may not be true for everyone.  I'm not as enthusiastic about guidebooks, which is why I haven't written one.  Writing a guidebook would be ten times easier than writing a history.<br><br><br>

I hate to put it to you, but this is Washington State.  The word will never get out about powder skiing here (thankfully).

<br><br>I'm not so confident about that.  To my thinking, powder skiing in Washington is way underrated in the press.  I can easily imagine that changing.  In a few years, we Washington skiers may find ourselves in the same situation David Laskin describes regarding Northwest weather in his book "Rains All the Time":<br><br>

So we've come full circle: from pioneers in the 1840s and 1850s earnestly trying (and failing) to persuade the folks back East that the Northwest has 'the most equable and healthful climate on the globe' to their descendants in the 1990s earnestly insisting that the rumors are true--it's every bit as bad as you always heard it was.  And then some.

<br>I'm not so confident about that.  To my thinking, powder skiing in Washington is way underrated in the press.  I can easily imagine that changing.  In a few years, we Washington skiers may find ourselves in the same situation David Laskin describes regarding Northwest weather in his book "Rains All the Time":<br><br>"So we've come full circle: from pioneers in the 1840s and 1850s earnestly trying (and failing) to persuade the folks back East that the Northwest has 'the most equable and healthful climate on the globe' to their descendants in the 1990s earnestly insisting that the rumors are true--it's every bit as bad as you always heard it was.  And then some."

<br>Shhhhhhh!!!<br><br> <br>