|
|
|
|
|
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here. |
|
|
|
|
Author
|
Topic: New Bullion Basin lift, upgrade to High Campbell.. (Read 7882 times)
|
rippy
5Member
Offline
Posts: 75
|
When I met Scotsman in the lift line a couple years ago waiting for the chairs to open it was a friendly discussion and I had good impressions. As a person who just laid out close to 9 K helping my 85 year old, still skiing Dad fight a wrongful property theft, I may not have the financial resources that others do. In fact it's going to be a lean year for lift serviced skiing and I will, for that reason be taking a lot of my turns in the B.C. So with my 51 years of skiing under my belt, paying my way very frequently, and supporting ($$$) CM since their inception, I too should be categorized and find myself targeted by your rant ? Dude, I can hardly believe the good folks at TAY want to hear much more of your "opinion" on this. We are a community of backcountry skiiers with much tolerance to the "losses" you seem to poke fun at. You have affordability to posess a seasons pass and then complain about others who in many cases climb because it's what they can afford. I'll agree with skinning up a downhill run when the area is in operation, gotta use better sense than to create risk to others / yourself but I take exception to everything else you said.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1757
|
I don't agree Rippy.
The thread is appropriately placed in the lift area posting area and the subject is about New Bullion Basin lift. So even though there is a vast community of backcountry folks on TAY, this is placed in the right spot to talk about it. The thread crosses both BC and Lift operations ideas and opinions. I don't get it, if you don't like what you are reading, stop reading it and move on.
I realize that I'm sounding like a blowhard here, but What gets me most is that when action was needed to write appropriate responses to the Forest Services decision, where were the people that are up in arms now???
It just blows my mind, maybe some were to young, maybe others are transplants, but if folks that have been skiing here for a substantial period of time did not respond to the Crystal's FS ROD then who is there to blame, but the person who did not act! Was it just not interesting enough to maybe look into?
The letters to respond were equal across the board on both sides of the fence.
While I will not deny that money usually has the upper hand, it goes both ways. There are taxes paid back to the state for all the services too.
I just get unsettled when those that gripe did zero to make a difference either way when the opportunity presented itself.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/12/11, 05:08 PM by Joedabaker »
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
Thanks for your reply Scotsman. I often find your posts (and those of pwnbrit, rip) provocative -- some of the most enjoyable material here on TAY. I would like to reply to your points. I would also like to point out that I have never been to Crystal (would love to ski there and hope to some day), I'm just arguing about the role of the ski area in American culture.
1) I am a BC skier as well and I do not think all BC skiers are freeloading hippies, but I'm sure a small minority are and not that there is anything wrong with being a hippie but there is with freeloading.
The morality of freeloading is a subjective matter for sure. I do not think freeloading is wrong per se, and I don't feel like any corporation is owed $$ because I choose to ski from a certain road. I don't expect Crystal to give me free food/beer or free lift rides, but I do expect them to let me park a reasonable sized vehicle in a reasonable manner and ski in such a way that does not hamper their lift operations.
2)There are private buildings at the bottom of Crystal Boulevard that are private structures( homes) built on public land , rented by the owners who did the capital improvements. I think if you extended your logic and tried to use their toilet and park in their driveways they would rightly call the police. Just because it is rented public land does not give you the right to use it. If you have a problem with that concept you should talk to the USFS not CM. There is no difference between the two examples I give you only the fact that you insist ( because applying logic gives an answer you don't want to accept) in your belief otherwise.
I agree that the scenarios are equivalent; I typically thinking leasing public land for houses is a bad idea.
3) It is not a question as to wether Crystal will remain profitable despite freeloaders, ticker poachers and parking spot freeloaders. It is a question of fairness. Just because you can doesn't mean you should. It's like a story I head a long time ago when a gas station put up the wrong price by a factor of ten. People e-mailed each other and went and got gas there knowing it was a mistake. They did nothing illegal but IMHO it was wrong. I would have pointed out the correction to the gas station owner and paid the proper price. But that's me. Corporations have rights as well and should be treated fairly unless they themselves are corrupt.
I agree that it is a question of fairness. Personally, I would have filled up for cheap w/o wringing my hands .... if I tricked him I might feel bad, but if he set his pumps wrong.... I also hold the opinion that it is fair for an operating ski area to make minor accommodations for other user groups using nearby access.
4) Things change and prime winter access to Bullion may be compromised. Such is life. We may lose heli skiing in the NC if the ALPS project gets approved. Such is life. Again why not try an improve the winter access opportunities by getting the MRNP to plow to White River in Winter. A smaller but very successful project was adopted at Hurricane Ridge for all week access.
I think improving access away from ski areas is a great idea.
5) If you use Crystal Mountain Facilities to access the BC you should pay for them . I do.. why shouldn't you. Are you more special than me???
No one forced you to buy a pass. Do you think you should be able to buy access to shared (public) resources?
Thanks for the discussion.
:-)
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/12/11, 04:36 PM by Micah »
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3177
|
Well rippy, I hardly think it was a rant. A person gave their perspective and I gave mine. They are different and I think you have fallen into the trap of calling all those that have different views from you a ranter. A common occurance on TAY and in America at the moment, alas.
I have empathy for your financial stress at the moment and respect the care you are showing your elder family members but that does not change the economic reality of the situation.
If you use an entity's private capital infrastructure you should pay for that use at a fair price.
I think $25 for parking at crystal and using their infrastructure to access the top of Bullion Basin is a fair price, I think $10 is too low but that's only my opinion. Additionally, I am honest enough to admit that I am selfish and I don't want to share my BC runs with any more people than I have too. Very selfish I admit and a view held by many I know on this site but who are probably less forthright in expressing their views in public . I don't give a shit and this frees me to be honest about my views even if I know they will probably be unpopular.
If the expansion cuts down on skiers who won't buy a ticket to access East Peak and Cement basin that is fine by me. If the reason they do not buy a ticket is they don't like corporations or giving their money to CM then I have no sympathy for them. If the person can't truly afford a $25 ticket because of financial stress then I do have sympathy for them but there is not a lot I can do to help. If the person won't buy a $25 ticket because they can't afford it and then buys beer and cigarettes or wine for dinner or a Starbucks every day then I would suggest they have prioritized their expenditures and skiing isn't that important to them. However even if that comes to pass( and I'm sure it won't as Crystal will I'm sure recognize that a hiking path to East Peak is kinda grandfathered in and something will be worked out) there are other areas where BC access is possible and there should be more.
As to skiing for 51 years.... so what .. does that entitle you to something... is there a seniority clause somewhere???
As to giving your money to CM since its inception... well I think that is significant and that CM should have a way to reward those that buy tickets and season passes year after year.... Like a loyalty reward or frequent flier program sort of thing.
And finally as to you being offended by my views, you are entitled to be offended just as I am entitled to be offended by the assumption that because you profess poverty and 51 years of skiing it gives you the right to be treated any differently than me who has 8 years of skiing and some disposable income to spend on skiing. Life's a competition and it can be tough at times.
As to Joedabaker's comments regarding the non participation and then whining about the outcome he's dead on. When BC access from the Crystal Boundary was denied by the MRNP a few years back, he and a few others did something about it and got it overturned. When the public input regarding the BB and East Peak chair was open, he and others did some thing about it.
As I've said before BC skiers are an apathetic group of handwringing whiners who like to gripe after the event and bemoan the "good old days "and get excited about posts regarding the history of skiing and can hardly contain their excitement when Lowell post a picture of some dude from the 1950's in a now closed ski area. Interesting but for me, personally, history has only ever been useful to learn what mistakes were made so they don't get repeated and I think the future far more important. Although I strongly disagree with the attempts of the ALPs project and WAC's wilderness non motorized access and similar advocacy and I will use my meager and ineffectual voice to fight them tooth and claw, I grudgingly admire that they are trying to do something.
The expansion of BC use staggering and this state needs new winter access points to spread the load and avoid conflict.... so stop looking back....do something about it or STFU.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/12/11, 06:08 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
rippy
5Member
Offline
Posts: 75
|
I'll respect your positions gentlemen. Interestingly, I had no idea there was a public input process concerning this new expansion. In fact, the thread was first knowledge I had. Oh, think it's "Lifes tuff, get a helmet" or so my nephew says. Cheers to ya and Powder to the People !
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1757
|
Thanks to Rippy for his follow up, all is cool. Just a misunderstanding.
I'm just arguing about the role of the ski area in American culture.
There is more irony to that statement than you realize Micah.
My brothers high school buddy did the archaeological research for the Forest Service on the East Peak and Bullion basin areas. The intent was to research if there was any history of Indian burial sites, ritual tribal hunting grounds, places of prayer, communes. It is amazing the amount of research that goes into getting the blessing of the USDA to develop any FS lands.
So the statement of the role of ski area in American Culture struck me as ironic, because the Indians were the true American Culture before the ski areas were even a thought. Just think what the Muckleshoot think about the lands being used for a ski area that was once their lands?
Does anyone find it odd that my friend who operates a Backcountry ski club was in favor of the East Peak chair and authored a huge letter to support building the chair?
He has no ties to Crystal.
Why is it that he is not distressed that he is getting pinched out of the backcountry experience?
Probably because he sees the bigger picture that it will extend the area that can be reached touring in a given day. It will open up a whole new adventure for those willing to extend themselves. The purists are tainted, but holding on to old ideas and not possibilities.
Look at how fast a BC tourer in Whistler can get right up in the Alpine heart of the Musical Bumps. It would have taken a healthy person a whole day to reach.
There are so many opportunities that can be grasped if one is so inclined to wander. The focus does not have to be about Crystal. As Lowell mentioned there was nobody up at East Peak just a few years ago. Open a map and look at the possibilities there are lots of places to go. I think the Internet gave them a false sense of touring history and nostalgia.
We wanted to get more access to the White River area in the Winter and arranged a Summer meeting with the MRNP superintendent, the Forest Service regional director and Snow Park manager. We thought it would be great if there would be more access for snowshoers, Nordic skiers and BC skiers. At the meeting the park shot us down in a nice manor, due to costs of keeping the road open to White River CG and costs of managing the people. But they had no problem looking into the possibility that they could open the road to Mowich. Now that would be awesome terrain! But how could they do that if they did not have the costs to maintain the road to White River  It is a game.
We at least are giving it an attempt to make a change, we are conducting meetings to make things happen and try to expand areas. Yeah there are a lot of things going on that no one really knows about trying to create more BC access. The cycle of posters here over the years change, but the same issues are reexplained over and over again. That's alright, maybe we can recruit more people to re-present our cause to the Park and get some real touring in on this side of the park where no one even cares about a ski area. I support both causes! We may just need a bigger voice and support.
And a leader who spends less time skiing and more time on the cause. I call it research and development. 
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/12/11, 07:28 PM by Joedabaker »
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline
Posts: 1620
WWW
|
When the East Peak chairlift was proposed several years ago, I wrote a letter opposing it. I felt that the chairlift would reduce the amount of backcountry accessible in a day from the Crystal Mountain base area. I still think that's true. We have a limited number of backcountry day-use areas in the Cascades, and Crystal is one of the most important.
Yes, lift access would be make it easier to venture farther out, but I don't think that would compensate for the terrain that would be lost as backcountry. I've skied from Crystal Mountain all the way to Naches Pass, and I know that the quality of the terrain (for making turns) deteriorates rapidly as you move away from the ski area. All of the good stuff is already day-accessible from the Crystal Mountain road, if you know where to go.
Having said that, I find myself oddly ambivalent about the possibility of resurrecting the chairlift idea. The reason is that the East Peak backcountry is already vanishing (slowly) before our eyes. The trees are taking over. East Peak was nearly wide open when the ski area opened in 1962, but now significant parts are becoming overgrown. It's a natural process, but I'm sorry to see it. I wouldn't mind some thinning up there, and I imagine that the ski area would do that. But, on balance, I still oppose putting a lift to the top of the ridge.
Regarding the Bullion Basin chairlift, I don't think it would be necessary to ban uphill skinning. In the picture that I posted I marked an access route that I think would be safe enough, as long as you stay right along the edge of the northern-most run. I think the current ski area management (which is pretty enlightened about backcountry access) would allow people to follow this route.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3177
|
I think you are right that skinning will be allowed on the border by CM similar to what is done up the margins of Quicksilver at present. I should also imagine that the lift might not be operated during the week and only for weekends or busy periods but that's pure conjecture but a reasonable assumption based upon their usage of Gold Hills and Quicksilver.
However, no matter if they have cheap one-way tickets or skinning allowed or both, the one thing certain is that Bullion Basin, East peak and Cement Basin are going to get more traffic than ever before and effectively become, by my definition at least , sidecountry rather than backcountry and will not afford the same type of experience that "true" backcountry affords. In that respect it may diminish the attraction to those that value that experience. True, as Joe says you can go further out but as you say the terrain gets pretty gnary pretty from my limited forays beyond Cement and the Union Creek area scares me shitless and I don't like the aspect although there are some gems I'm told.
No matter how you cut it IMHO.. it's a reduction in BC terrain and an increase in Sidecountry terrain which appears consistent with whats happening in many ski areas that have been allowed to expand and they are dealing with the same users groups and bickering.
We need more access ...period IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
CascadeSkier
5Member
Offline
Posts: 54
|
There is no way that a chair to the top of East Peak will be approved because it will impact the Pacific Crest Trail. No way. CS
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Amar Andalkar
Member
Offline
Posts: 898
WWW
|
A couple of posts in this thread have mentioned an "impact" on the Pacific Crest Trail from a lift to the top of East Peak. I've always thought that the PCT passed under many chairlifts anyway, so I'm confused and have a simple question: What exact impact are you talking about, and why would that prevent placement of a chairlift there?
Anyway, I decided to do some quick research now, to check if my assumption that the PCT passed under many lifts was actually true. According to current topo maps (Green Trails and USGS) and ski area maps:
The PCT passes directly under 3 different lifts at Stevens Pass.
The PCT passes directly under 3 different lifts at Summit West at Snoqualmie Pass.
The PCT passes directly under 3 different lifts at Timberline on Mount Hood.
The PCT passes directly under 1 lift at Squaw Valley, and right beside the top terminal of 1 lift at Alpine Meadows in CA.
So clearly, based on current routing, it is perfectly acceptable for the PCT to be passing directly underneath ski lifts. It does not appear to have a sufficiently negative impact to force a different trail routing or to prevent lift construction.
And please don't misinterpret my question and my post, I'm not stating that I'd prefer to hike underneath chairlifts (I've hiked numerous short sections of the PCT in WA, OR, and CA, mostly in wilderness, but also including the section under the lifts on Mount Hood). I'm just stating that the PCT does pass, and always has passed, directly underneath numerous chairlifts. So passing under a single additional lift on East Peak should hardly matter at all, especially just shortly south of the PCT entering one of the least scenic and most damaged sections on its entire 2650-mile route, the clearcut checkerboard hell from Naches Pass to Snoqualmie Pass.
In light of the current precedent of about 10 chairlifts crossing over the PCT -- what is the basis for claiming that the presence of the PCT on the west flank of East Peak would make a lift to its top impossible or un-approvable?
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1757
|
There is no way that a chair to the top of East Peak will be approved because it will impact the Pacific Crest Trail. No way. CS
When the deciding USDA officer sent me the final on their decision there was not even a mention of the impact of the chair to the PCT. So I am pretty confident that as Amar pointed out they are aware that the chair over PCT is a non-issue and focused on the merits of--Really guys is it necessary?
As in all politics you have to provide trade-offs. In my (twisted) mind getting the East Peak Chair off the record calmed a whole interest group. So in that group it was declared a victory for the purist. But as a wise business person knows you bait and switch, that way it looks like there is a win, when really the interest was lukewarm for now. That way you steam roll forward with the other plans with little resistance at all. When they build the 5 star hotel, build a parking garage on the hill that will change the minds of many people about a need for more lift access. And quite possibly the concept will come back to the table, but all the other pieces will already be in place for a checkmate.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Randy
Member
Online
Posts: 838
|
I'm pretty sure that terms of Crystal Mountain's special use permit don't allow it exclude the non-ticket buyers from accessing the land and use such facilities as the public restrooms.
In terms of access rights -- the land owner for the Crystal area is the USFS and it is they that determine the terms of the lease to the resort operator -- I suppose if CM wanted to they could have tried to get lease terms that would have allowed them have a gate/ticket booth at the turn off from Hwy-410 -- I would imagine that would been a lot more difficult -- probably would have required an outright sale of the land -- how much would that have cost ?
So the price that CM pays for having access to public land is allowing access to the public.
On a related note -- even ski areas that operate on private land may need to allow access to the non-paying public -- the most amusing example of this are the Summit ski areas located in Kittatas county (East, Central, West) -- Back in the '80s the county tried to levy an "admission tax" on the price of lift tickets -- the ski area fought back by insisting that the lift tickets were only for riding the lifts -- not for admission to the ski area.
So while it might be possible to operate ski areas along the lines that Scotsman suggests -- requiring paid access to any area of the facility -- that isn't the way it has been done in Washington for a wide array of reasons.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Joedabaker
Member
Offline
Posts: 1757
|
I agree with you Lowell that Bullion basin is a great access source to get to many places and not providing an egress would be a mistake and the East Peak chair would basically cutoff access and force people to make approaches in more dangerous terrain. I have no solution for that yet. Even though we are getting the cart before the horse, it probably is a good idea to have a plan in place, when the time comes.
I respect that trip you did to Naches Pass and I know that you are a very observant skier, but I don't agree that the best skiable terrain is within a days reach. At least for me it is pushing it to get quality reps on the terrain that is beyond Cement, Lake Basin, Crow, Goat Lakes. There is WAY more quality terrain than I choose to describe that I have not been able to source. Plus you are starting at the Alpine level with fresh legs, pretty good way to start a tour in my mind.
For those living in Yakima. I would be taking advantage of those resources from the others side of the crest where snow machines use is possible.
On another note,
There was a BC skier that I ran into that was in the sidecountry, lift accessed. He was a little bit of a put-off to me, acted like we were skiing his terrain. I saw him later on in the Campbell Basin lodge with his sack lunch, he was bragging and justifying to this family how he just skins up the mountain and hops on the upper lifts. He went on, gently swinging his ponytail about describing that if you get a 5 day pass you just show them the pass at a lift if anyone asks. Just don't go to the bottom. Well I pointed him out to a couple friends and told the story at Cambell Basin. One said that he was on the shuttle getting a ride up bragging of how he just skins up and uses the lifts. Pretty bold I would say for the thief. Being a paid user I felt slighted that he even use the air I need to hike. But being a non-regulator I choose not to turn him in and let karma do it's deed.
But I do object to him skiing the powder that I paid to work for.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
If it's called common sense, why isn't it more common?
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3177
|
I think Randy brought up some interesting points about public /private land.
A bit off subject but I thought this interesting.
I read an article recently in the NY times about this real estate developer who is buying up private holdings and mining claims grandfathered into areas near or in National Parks. He is then working at either selling them to private people or the government. The government can only by law offer prices that reflect the grazing or mineral rights and therein lies the problem . They quoted an example of a Macmansion that had been built on the Edge of the Gorge of the Gunniston as an example. The jist of the story was that it was terrible and something to be fought against.
What was interesting to me, that there was a recent article in Powder I think where the article was about a group of scrappy dirtbag powderhounds who where buying up mineral rights and building a ski cabin and the fact that it allowed them to access incredible terrain and virtually have their own private BC mecca. The joist of the story was that these guys had discovered Nirvana and by their hard work and cleverness had obtained a dream situation and should be applauded and revered.
Perception is reality depending on your POV.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
2)There are private buildings at the bottom of Crystal Boulevard that are private structures( homes) built on public land , rented by the owners who did the capital improvements. I think if you extended your logic and tried to use their toilet and park in their driveways they would rightly call the police. Just because it is rented public land does not give you the right to use it. If you have a problem with that concept you should talk to the USFS not CM. There is no difference between the two examples I give you only the fact that you insist ( because applying logic gives an answer you don't want to accept) in your belief otherwise.
I believe when you own a residence on leased forest service land you can only restrict access to your 'improvements' (which you own not rent). My parents have a cabin on a forest service lot and they are required to allow public access through and on their lot. They are not allowed to post 'no trespassing' signs or in any way prevent the public from traveling on foot through their lot.
My wife and I ski at Crystal very frequently - not at the resort. I will be sad to see a lift in Bullion Basin and I think it would be tragic to have a lift to the top of East Peak. I also agree with Lowell that a fit skier can access and lap a huge amount of the best local terrain starting from the parking lot - no problem. And is to have a little terrain over the ridge that you are pretty sure no one has skied a bad thing?
Personally I wish Crystal would pursue more expansion on the North back area. There is a ton of ski able acreage in that area and much less touring traffic.
Orion
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3177
|
I believe when you own a residence on leased forest service land you can only restrict access to your 'improvements' (which you own not rent). My parents have a cabin on a forest service lot and they are required to allow public access through and on their lot. They are not allowed to post 'no trespassing' signs or in any way prevent the public from traveling on foot through their lot.
My wife and I ski at Crystal very frequently - not at the resort. I will be sad to see a lift in Bullion Basin and I think it would be tragic to have a lift to the top of East Peak. I also agree with Lowell that a fit skier can access and lap a huge amount of the best local terrain starting from the parking lot - no problem. And is to have a little terrain over the ridge that you are pretty sure no one has skied a bad thing?
Personally I wish Crystal would pursue more expansion on the North back area. There is a ton of ski able acreage in that area and much less touring traffic.
Orion
Good point on the Forest Service cabin , however as you point out foot traffic only. They can't park their car, use your toilet or sit in your dining room eating their brown bag lunch can they?
Northback chair....needs a mid-way station so we don't have to ski that lower bit unless we want to.
BB chair IMHO = great
East Peak Chair IMHO= even greater
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Micah
Member
Offline
Posts: 113
|
Good point on the Forest Service cabin , however as you point out foot traffic only. They can't park their car, use your toilet or sit in your dining room eating their brown bag lunch can they?
The point is that the owners have to abide by the terms of their use permit. If the FS had the foresight to negotiate for my use of their toilet, then I have the right to use it ...... Not use about CM in particular, but ski area permitting documents often protect BC users explicitly. So while you may view the parking lots as CM 'infrastructure', legally I'm not sure it is so clear. Morally I think folks will continue to disagree based on varying personal assessments of the virtuosity and appropriate role of a lift-served ski area in the mountains.
Also .... not sure about the NW but back home (Idaho), I'm pretty sure most folks would be happy to let me use their toilet if I asked politely.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3177
|
Also .... not sure about the NW but back home (Idaho), I'm pretty sure most folks would be happy to let me use their toilet if I asked politely.
No, here in the PNW we would only let you use our toilet if you swore you not a republican first.
Plus in idaho you might be armed so I'd let you use my tiolet there aswell.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3177
|
No, here in the PNW we would only let you use our toilet if you swore you not a republican first.
Plus in idaho you might be armed so I'd let you use my tiolet there aswell.
Scotsman, political commentry regarding party and USA gun laws are not appropriate in this thread and snarky one liners such as this do not contribute to the collective weath of knowledge here on TAY which is a BC skiing/snowbording site dedidcated to self improvement for those that have embarked upon a journey of self discovery . I'm sure RonJ will agree with me.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
Good point on the Forest Service cabin , however as you point out foot traffic only. They can't park their car, use your toilet or sit in your dining room eating their brown bag lunch can they?
Northback chair....needs a mid-way station so we don't have to ski that lower bit unless we want to.
BB chair IMHO = great
East Peak Chair IMHO= even greater
As was pointed out earlier, ones perspective makes all the difference on this matter. It sounds like you are logging more resort days than touring days and I am sure most resort skiers would love to see more expansion of the resort. I would hazard to guess that most of the BC community without a season pass to CM would not be so enthusiastic regarding a E Peak chair lift.
I fully understand that the easy access I enjoy at Crystal is due to the ski resort's existence and I appreciate how accommodating CM has been to the touring community. But, to have something taken away sucks... and an E. Peak lift would certainly be a big minus in my life. There is already so much slack country that goes untouched from the Crystal ski resort.
Cheers and pray for cold.
Orion
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3177
|
As was pointed out earlier, ones perspective makes all the difference on this matter. It sounds like you are logging more resort days than touring days and I am sure most resort skiers would love to see more expansion of the resort. I would hazard to guess that most of the BC community without a season pass to CM would not be so enthusiastic regarding a E Peak chair lift.
I fully understand that the easy access I enjoy at Crystal is due to the ski resort's existence and I appreciate how accommodating CM has been to the touring community. But, to have something taken away sucks... and an E. Peak lift would certainly be a big minus in my life. There is already so much slack country that goes untouched from the Crystal ski resort.
Cheers and pray for cold.
Orion
Exactly Orion, one's perspective makes all the difference... there is no right or wrong ...only different stokes for different folks and I DO understand your perspective even if I don't agree with it. You seem to understand mine even though you don't agree with it and I appreciate that.
As to touring days versus resort days.. depends on the definition I guess. I use skins nearly every day I ski at Crystal resort and most days log over 3000 ft of touring /skinning with some lift assist aswell so the distinction between BC skier and resort skier means little to me.
I can't pray but I will hope for cold.
|
|
|
|
« Last Edit: 01/13/11, 02:46 PM by Scotsman »
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
Exactly Orion, one's perspective makes all the difference... there is no right or wrong ...only different stokes for different folks and I DO understand your perspective even if I don't agree with it. You seem to understand mine even though you don't agree with it and I appreciate that.
As to touring days versus resort days.. depends on the definition I guess. I use skins nearly every day I ski at Crystal resort and most days log over 3000 ft of touring /skinning with some lift assist aswell so the distinction between BC skier and resort skier means little to me.
I can't pray but I will hope for cold.
You don't pray to Uller?! tsk tsk...
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3177
|
You don't pray to Uller?! tsk tsk...
Evangelical atheist....can't.
Praying to false idols.....tsk tsk.!
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
orion_sonya
5Member
Offline
Posts: 44
|
Evangelical atheist....can't.
Praying to false idols.....tsk tsk.!
Ahhh, evangelical, that says a lot.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
|
|
|
Scotsman
Member
Offline
Posts: 3177
|
Ahhh, evangelical, that says a lot.
I know... I choose my words carefully.
|
|
|
|
|
Logged
|
Chief Etiquette Officer of TAY and TAY's #1 Poster
Poet Laureate of TAY.
Chairman and Founder of FOTAY( Friends of TAY)
Moderator of the moderators.
"Most Brilliant Move" of the 11/12 ski season
" Knows what he is talking about"
Expert Typist.
|
|
|
|
Thank you to our sponsors!
|
Contact turns-all-year.com
Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved
The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC
|
Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
|
Page created in 3.052 seconds with 21 queries.
|
