Nov. 16, 2004 - Mt Adams Safe for Now

seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/199810_yakama16.html <br><br> ;D<br><br>

---

<br><br>Edit:<br>The initial discussion of a Mt. Adams ski resort is here:<br> www.turns-all-year.com/cgi-bin/yabb/YaBB...splay;num=1095144926 <br>Charles

"Dave Riley, vice president and general manager for Mt. Hood Meadows, said he believes the idea is not yet dead. Mount Adams is a wonderful location for a destination resort and the idea just needs more time to draw support, he said.<br><br>'In my mind, it's still up in the air,' he said. 'We're going to continue to work with the Yakama Nation and provide additional information to them so they can continue to consider the development.'"<br><br><br>f*****g c********r.<br><br>edit: this post simply expresses my displeasure at the well-greased and soulless corporate capitalism perpetrated upon our dwindling pristine wilderness.  Riley's comments force me to conclude that he is merely a subhuman vessel for the investment capital that tears blindly into the wilderness like a forest fire.

f*****g c********r.

<br><br>I'd like to solve the puzzle, Pat...<br><br>In a related vein, does anyone know of an online source of the letters to the editor they cited? Not a reader of the PI, nor of the Yakima Herald Republic for that matter, I have not seen any but am interested. A cursory search didn't reveal much.<br>-s<br>

DAVE RILEY CAN GO TO HELL!!! We don't need any more f*****g ski resorts or places of materialism. Money, it's the root of all f****** sh** whore type evil.

Uh. Like yeah. Like what Donnelly said. And stuff. Y'know?

I'm disappointed. I thought a tactfully placed resort on Adams was a good idea. It would offer Portland area skiers more terrain, less crowds, better backcountry access to currently unused areas of Adams and would alleviate pressure for further development on Mt Hood. <br><br>All the posters here seem to be Seattle skiers who have no understanding of the crowding and limited terrain issues that face Portland skiers. I hope you all have fun skiing Crystal, Stevens, Snoqualmie, Baker this year--oh and making your once-a-year trip to enjoy the "pristine wilderness" on the south rib of Adams. <br><br>And sorry Lowell, I don't have a vested interest in the resort. How can you criticize anyone for posting anonymous given the confrontational and contemptuous attitude of the above posters?<br>

All the posters here seem to be Seattle skiers who have no understanding of the crowding and limited terrain issues that face Portland skiers.

<br><br>Pretty much all the resorts here have reached critical mass.  Some of the exceptions are White Pass, Hurricane Ridge, Bluewood, and a couple of others that are tucked far away.  My point PDXskier is that we (I) do understand and that's why at this point in time I think a resort on Adams doesn't sound like a good idea.  I travel to places like Adams to get away from the hords.  After riding the resorts at Hood and Bachelor I come to the same conclusion as the situation in Washington.  You better bring your sword and shield and a little Kung-Fu wouldn't hurt either.  Anyways let's leave this "pristine wilderness" to the people who want to hike/skin to earn their turns for now.  We all are aware that MHM will continue to push the resort idea and at some point in the future it will be built but not this year and hopefully not in the ones to follow.<br><br>Let's change gears here.  Does anyone have any beta on why MHM doesn't try to develop Mt Jefferson?  Better yet...how about a mega resort between Bachelor, Broken Top, and the Sisters.  They could be connected by ganjalas... I mean gondolas. ;D

I'm disappointed. I thought a tactfully placed resort on Adams was a good idea. It would offer Portland area skiers more terrain, less crowds, better backcountry access to currently unused areas of Adams and would alleviate pressure for further development on Mt Hood. <br><br>All the posters here seem to be Seattle skiers who have no understanding of the crowding and limited terrain issues that face Portland skiers. I hope you all have fun skiing Crystal, Stevens, Snoqualmie, Baker this year--oh and making your once-a-year trip to enjoy the "pristine wilderness" on the south rib of Adams.<br><br>And sorry Lowell, I don't have a vested interest in the resort. How can you criticize anyone for posting anonymous given the confrontational and contemptuous attitude of the above posters?<br>

<br><br><br>I don't believe you. I think you work for THE MAN. Or at least, I hope you are getting something for turning to the dark side.

<br><br>  Anyways let's leave this "pristine wilderness" to the people who want to hike/skin to earn their turns for now.  

<br><br>Think carefully what you mean by this quote Snoslut.<br>Pristine Wilderness is the newly designated name for MRNP border around Crystal Mountain.<br><br>Assuming that you think that "Pristine Wilderness" should be left to people who want to hike/skin may bust a hole in that Crystal season pass that you swing around on your neck. <br><br>Some days I like to ride the lift ski from the area and drop in MRNP and ski all day then skin out is that not earning my turns?<br><br>Access to the South Back is made in part of the Pristine Wilderness zone. If MRNP wants they could pull the plug on safe Southback access from Crystal. There by reducing Crystal's ski area by 1/3! <br><br>Furthermore the Pristine Wilderness designation only allows 108 skier/boarders a day and no group more than 12 at a time to travel in Pristine Wilderness area. <br><br>I am not informed enough about the affairs of MT Adams to make a comment either way and I do not want to turn the thread into the Crystal issue.<br><br>It seems if Adams has this designation then only 108 people would be allowed to access the designated zone a day. Then the hordes of spring skiers would have to work hard to get permits based on the Pristine Zone designation. <br>If the Park and FS want they can implement procedures to adhere to the rule. Some folks who travel long distances to ski Adams will be left out in the cold!<br><br>Is it better to know Park Designations and how they effect you before you throw around ideas about areas unknown?<br><br>See you soon-<br>JBD<br>

I hope you all have fun skiing Crystal, Stevens, Snoqualmie, Baker this year--oh and making your once-a-year trip to enjoy the "pristine wilderness" on the south rib of Adams.

<br><br>Hey Joe what's the haps?  I'm aware of the issues looming around Crystal but the topic here is Adams.  Please don't take it out of context.  I was referring to PDXskier's comment in his reply to my post (quoted above).  I meant pristine wilderness as in pristine-pure and uncorrupted wilderness.  Nothing more. I'm sure PDXskier did too.<br><br>No hard feelings.

And sorry Lowell, I don't have a vested interest in the resort. How can you criticize anyone for posting anonymous given the confrontational and contemptuous attitude of the above posters?<br>

<br><br><br>You'd be more credible if there was a real person behind your screen name.

And sorry Lowell, I don't have a vested interest in the resort. How can you criticize anyone for posting anonymous given the confrontational and contemptuous attitude of the above posters?<br>

<br><br>If you spend much time on this bulletin board, you'll find that the confrontational and contemptuous attitude displayed above is very rare. In fact, I don't think I've ever seen it quite that bad before. In my experience, putting faith in  people's character and engaging them respectfully and openly on the Net nearly always yields worthwhile results. I stand by my comments in the earlier thread. The posters that I referred to seemed very fishy to me. If they presented their views openly and constructively I, and I think most people on this board, would be happy to consider them on their merits.

OK now, everyone take a few deep breaths...in...out...in...out...<br><br>It seems like snoslut started what could have been an informative thread, and a good follow up to the earlier thread on this topic. For me, the asterisk-swearing contributes about as much to this thread as would real swearing, and all posters are encouraged to translate swearing into standard English before clicking the "Post" button so as to make their point(s) more evident to the average member/lurker.<br><br>From the previous thread it was clear that a lot of people have strong feelings about this topic - both for and against - so veteran TAY posters might have done better to tone down their remarks so as to promote a useful discussion, of which this is clearly not, yet, a good example. There seem to be plenty of boards out there where caustic spray is abundant and seemingly accepted, but I don't tend to care much for those and I'd like to see TAY remain different.<br><br>I think PDXSkier's first paragraph brings up a great question about how to deal with a region's ski areas becoming overcrowded. I would have liked to read people's different ideas about this. PDXSkier's second and third paragraphs pretty much ensured, however, that the discussion would turn in a different direction (nice try, snoslut!).<br><br>Lowell's previous comments regarding a poster's "presence" pretty much mirror how I evaluate what I read on internet boards. There is a reason why most board software displays the number of posts near the poster's name. By making a number of posts and becoming known to a board's readers, people establish a presence which enables others to better interpret what they have written. If someone has posted only a few times, unless they are unusually eloquent, I often find it hard to fully understand their position, intent, or motivation. New members ideas are guaranteed to be given more serious consideration if they are free of "confrontational or contemptuous attitudes".<br><br>I am still interested in the question of what should be done about overcrowding at a region's ski areas. I used ski areas to learn to ski, but pretty much quit going when I really started to backcountry ski, and haven't ridden a lift for about three years. I don't like the lack of solitude, the way the untracked snow disappears so quickly, or the expense. When I think about lift skiing, I also question my consumption of a bunch of fossil fuel to drive myself into the mountains, followed by the consumption of more by supporting the operation of the ski area. So my general view on ski area overcrowding is to let it be. Skiing does not seem like it is an essential activity for the human species. Some experienced skiers will stop going, some new skiers will start, and skiers will continue to ask themsleves "is it worth it?", balancing all of the factors that are important to them. And who knows, maybe at some point I will have to even more seriously question my consumption of fossil fuel just to get me into the mountains to ski backcountry. I guess then it would be time to move to a town that has a real winter, so I wouldn't have to drive at all in order to ski!

I appreciate the levelheaded responses and I will play politely as long as others do too. I wish to make two points: <br><br>1) It is not fair to Portlanders for Seattle skiers to oppose the development of a resort which they are not the target users of on the basis that they feel there are already enough ski areas. There may be enough resorts to service Seattle skiers, but there are not enough that service Portland residents. Do those that oppose the development of an Adams ski area also oppose the existence of Crystal and Baker? If you do not, is it because these resorts are of close proximity to you? Be honest.<br><br>2) Ski areas provide vastly better access for backcountry skiing. Just consider the number of tours you do which either start from a ski area parking lot or are accessed from a road that's open because of a ski area.  Regardless of how an Adams resort is implemented the infrastructure to access it would open an entire new world of mid-winter backcountry possibilities that are currently impractical due to approach. An Adams resort would also drastically reduce the likelihood of Cooper Spur being developed. Unlike the east side of Adams, Cooper Spur is currently heavily used by mid-winter backcountry skiers, in my mind its development would be much more detrimental to backcountry skiers then the careful development of the eastside of Adams.<br>

PDXSkier, you are misinterpreting this issue as Seattle vs. Portland skiers. I think most people here simply oppose any further ski area development in wilderness or other environmentally-sensitive areas. I'm sure some people oppose all ski area expansion no matter what or where, but that view is perhaps too dogmatic and unreasonable.<br><br>The main point is really that the SE and east sides of Mount Adams are a very special place which would be ruined by development. Your comments make it clear that you don't know what this part of Mount Adams is like, but neither do most people, even avid hikers or climbers or backcountry skiers, just because it is on Yakama Nation land and thus seldom visited by outsiders. Actually, neither did I until this year, despite spending so much of my time skiing and roaming on nearly every Cascade volcano, I had missed out on that area completely. But in early summer I finally skied routes on the SE and NE sides of Adams (Mazama and Lyman Glaciers), and then in the early fall I spent several days hiking on the SE and E sides. Simply put, this part of Mount Adams is one of the most spectacular and beautiful areas in the entire Cascade Range, truly an awe-inspiring and magical place. So many amazing spots fall within the proposed ski development: Mazama Glacier and its unnamed iceberg-laden terminal lake, Sunrise Camp, Bird Creek Meadows, Hellroaring Meadow, Bench Lake, Little Mount Adams, and above all, the aptly-named Ridge of Wonders. All of these would be severely altered by development, the meadows certainly ruined or destroyed.<br><br>The statement that "an Adams resort would also drastically reduce the likelihood of Cooper Spur being developed" is laughable. This would be like selling Mt Rainier National Park to Weyerhaeuser in order to prevent logging on some second-growth forest in the foothills. You can't compare the SE side of Mount Adams to the Cooper Spur area on Hood. Yes, Cooper Spur is scenic and environmentally sensitive, but it is already somewhat developed, and the area proposed for further development is no match for the area in question on Mount Adams. Further development at Cooper Spur would be vastly preferable to any at Adams. I'm sure most people on TAY (including myself) are opposed to either development, while those running Mt Hood Meadows would favor proceeding with both immediately. Certainly Cooper Spur development would affect backcountry skiers and cause much environmental damage, but Mount Adams development would destroy something priceless and irreplaceable, one of the finest areas in the Cascades. There is no such thing as "a tactfully placed resort on Adams", especially not on the SE side. THAT is the central issue here.<br><br>I encourage anyone who cares about this issue (especially those currently thinking like PDXSkier) to visit the SE and east sides of Mount Adams to see this wondrous area for yourself. Ski the Mazama Glacier up to the proposed gondola terminal at 11100 ft, view the Klickitat Glacier's icefalls from atop the Ridge of Wonders, hike through Bird Creek Meadows and Hellroaring Valley and up to Little Mount Adams. The proposed ski area ( see map ) lies in Yakama Nation "Tract D", which is open to public access from July 1 to October. A small fee is charged for entry (I think $5 day, $20 overnight camping), but when I went hiking there in late September the gate on FR 8290 was open and no one was collecting fees, so I got in for free. The place was nearly empty, I saw less than 10 other people during 2 clear sunny days, including only 1 Yakama tribe member. The area also feels somewhat like a historical time capsule, since the campgrounds and trails were built by the USFS long before the area was returned to the Yakama Nation in 1972. Lots of relict USFS trail signs and wooden maps, still standing after 3+ decades, along with old picnic tables beside Bird Creek Meadows which have slowly sunk in to the soil seat-deep. In general, the trails and campgrounds in Tract D are in good shape, the Yakamas seem to be reasonably diligent about maintenance. Another highly-recommended hike on the east side of Adams is to follow the Highline Trail in from the north side to Devils Garden for spectacular views of the seldom-seen Lyman, Wilson, and Rusk Glaciers. I went back and did that hike in October, it is on USFS land and reaches the edge of the Yakama Nation, with the trail continuing on past the unmarked border. If you enter Yakama land from this side you would be trespassing, but no one is likely to be there to check or ticket you, so it's up to your own conscience whether to do so.<br><br>I really think that if those people who casually favor the Adams ski area development (those without any vested monetary interest) could just see what is at risk there, some of them might change their minds about the issue.<br><br>Amar Andalkar<br> www.skimountaineer.com <br>

I appreciate the levelheaded responses and I will play politely as long as others do too. I wish to make two points:<br><br>1) It is not fair to Portlanders for Seattle skiers to oppose the development of a resort which they are not the target users of...<br>

<br><br>Who defines "target user?"  The term assumes that the target user for Mt. Adams is a ski resort lift skier.  Nothing could be further from the truth.  As far as I'm concerned, Mt. Adams is the #1 spring/summer summit for Washingtonian (and many Oregonian) backcountry skiers.  They don't seem to have a problem getting to the summit and accessing its many skiing opportunities.  <br><br>Riley/MHM's "target user" on the other hand is a pleasure skier with deep pockets.  A ski lift is a machine for making money.  It's along the same lines as damming rivers, cutting down forests, and drilling for oil.  White oil, that is!<br><br>The point is that the vast majority of Washingtonians are perfectly happy with keeping Adams unskewered--and since when do Oregonians, who already have multiple perfectly exploited summits, have any business telling us how to manage our mountains?<br><br>ps. if you are indeed are just an honest, unincorporated PDX skier, please don't take any personal offense, I don't know who you are, I am just doing battle with your ideas.  Something I might add is very easy to do on a backcountry skiing web forum!

I've only experienced one small piece of what Amar refers to - the hiking near Bird Creek Meadows. I'd have to agree with Amar's take that this is a special area, worthy of protection. I'm not troubled by the difficult winter access - access is part of what keeps this area special. Perhaps this could be considered elitist - keep out all those who can't/won't make the journey unless they have paved access. I'm willing to accept this charge.<br><br>I, however, don't feel bad about opining from the greater Seattle area on this spot at the south end of my state, just as I don't feel bad about opining about opening oil drilling in the ANWR, which many Alaskans would say is just a clueless guy from the lower 48 mucking in their business. So be it. I believe that even folks from the east coast have a stake in issues like these. <br><br>Thanks, Charles, for a bit of forum management. I very much appreciate your hard, thoughtful, and well-reasoned work aimed at making TAY useful. Your light touch generally seems to have been effective at keeping the discussion at the level one would expect face-to-face in a real-life community.

The main point is really that the SE and east sides of Mount Adams are a very special place

<br>Where Crystal, Baker and Whistler not special places before they were developed? To me, and to the thousands that would not have visited these areas without the existance of a resort, these areas are still special.<br> <br><br>I wish to respond further to your post but I lack the time to do so now. I will try to respond later this evening.<br>

<br>Where Crystal, Baker and Whistler not special places before they were developed? To me, and to the thousands that would not have visited these areas without the existance of a resort, these areas are still special.<br><br>

<br><br>Haha. None of those are on a volcano. lol

I'm sorry, but I just don't find ski area 'crowding' to be an issue at all. A bummer? Sure. We're not talking about jobs or affordable housing here. Uncrowded resort skiing is not an entitlement. It's certainly not an argument that's going to convince many people to support expansion into wilderness, no matter how you choose to define wilderness.<br>Going to just about any substantial ski area on the weekend means crowds. As someone who grew up skiing in N.E., I find the weekend crowds here (Snoqualmie, Crystal, Baker) miniscule comparatively. Can someone who is a regular at the 3 Hood resorts (28 lifts between them) clue me in? Is it THAT much worse? Is it worse than Killington, Loon, Sunday River or Stevens Pass on a weekend?<br>I live 20 minutes from Alpental and wait in 15-minute lift lines on Armstrong and longer lines on Chair 2 (especially on powder days!) and do the snowboarder/skier-sitting-on-the-snow slalom on weekends and I would oppose expansion there.<br>If spacious slopes are that important, find a job that gives you days off midweek, drive to backcounty options or move.<br>And, for goodness sake, Mt. Adams IS IN WASHINGTON!!! What? People from Seattle are out of line to spray about it, but people in the next state aren't? Better watch it, there have been some who think only American Indians and/or Yakamas have legitimate opinions on this issue. ;D<br>

Haha.  None of those are on a volcano. lol

<br>Why do you find this amusing? I listed these resorts because they have interesting terrain, are scenic and are in highly sensitive environmentally areas. If these areas were undeveloped I feel they would be of equal conservation value as the east side of Mt Adams. I'm sure others will disagree, and coincidentally, some that disagree will be frequent patrons of these resorts or the access they provide.

As Amar said, Adams is a very special place.  No, the areas where Baker Ski Area, Crystal, etc. were not as special before development as Adams is, because Mt. Adams is a volcano, a very special one at that.  <br><br><br><br><br><br>ps. It is more special than your volcanoes. ;D

I listed these resorts [Crystal, Whistler, Baker] because they have interesting terrain, are scenic and are in highly sensitive environmentally areas. If these areas were undeveloped I feel they would be of equal conservation value as the east side of Mt Adams.

<br><br>No, no, no. You really don't have any idea what you're talking about. You just can't compare the SE side of Adams to Crystal, Whistler, and Baker ski areas. It's not merely that Adams is a volcano that makes it special, it's the magic and wonder of the SE and E side. For comparison, the south rib of Adams largely lacks those extra-special qualities, which may be coloring your judgment if that's the only part of Adams you've experienced. The south and west sides of Adams are fairly typical of high Cascade volcano scenery, but they are not amazing and special like the NW, N, NE, E, and SE sides.<br><br>I may anger some by saying this, but there is really nothing particularly special about the Crystal or Whistler areas. Both are fairly typical of the scenery and terrain found in their respective regions (non-volcanic central Cascades and southern Coast Mountains). Their locations were chosen for ski areas due to ease of access, Crystal because it sits in a high valley beside the pre-existing road to Rainier and Whistler because it occupies the high point of the southernmost pass through the Coast Mtns, linking Howe Sound to the Lillooet River valley. Ironically, both locations ended up being in rain shadows, with snowfalls of about 50% greater found just a few miles to the south in each case. <br><br>I'm glad PDXSkier thinks Crystal and Whistler are special, but each is flanked by far more spectacular and special areas which luckily do not have ski lifts strung across them. Crystal has Chinook Pass and all of Mt Rainier National Park beside it. Whistler in particular is surrounded on all sides by other mountains which are more scenic, more glaciated, more special, with Garibaldi Provincial Park encompassing the S, E, and N sides behind it, and the Tantalus Range, Mt Cayley massif, and Pemberton Icefield on the opposite side of the valley. You just need to explore a bit to find these truly special areas, some of them are only a short hike or ski in from Hwy 99 (or you could hire one of the over-abundant helicopters if you're lazy). <br><br>As for Baker ski area, I agree that location is fairly special, Heather Meadows and Artist Point are magical places in both winter and summer. But Baker ski area is quite small and compact, the ski area development stopped short of ruining the best which that area has to offer. If lifts had run over to Table Mountain, Bagley Lakes, Chain Lakes, or up the flank of Mt Shuksan to White Salmon Glacier, then some unique and special places would have been severely altered or destroyed.<br><br>In the conservation vs. development debate, I think people need to appreciate the difference between typical areas and special areas in the mountains. I'm not saying that typical areas should not be protected, they certainly are fragile and easily damaged like all alpine environments. Such areas should be developed with care if developed at all, but those areas which truly are unique and special need to be protected entirely from development. Here are some familiar examples from WA and OR to clarify the issue: Stevens, Snoqualmie, White Pass, Government Camp, Santiam Pass, and Willamette Pass are all fairly typical mountain passes for their regions, not very special, and they are very appropriate locations for ski area development, while putting a ski area in Washington Pass or Cascade Pass or McKenzie Pass would destroy something unique and special in each case.<br><br>I apologize to anyone whom I offended by calling their favorite mountain playgrounds "typical" and "not special". But you really need to step back, have some perspective, and see the big picture.<br><br>Amar Andalkar<br> www.skimountaineer.com <br>

I may be misreading you, PDXskier, but I don't quite follow the apparent logic of "these other places were special before the ski areas were built, so no one should resist the building of a new ski area in another special place." The logical conclusion of this argument is a bit frightening. I do understand that reasonable people might want to see another ski area on such awesome terrain near PDX, but I also think it's quite reasonable for a Seattlite (or New Yorker, for that matter) to disagree, and even to work to prevent it.<br><br>Andyski - thanks for reminding me to be thankful about how short our lift lines are out here. I don't miss the typical 25-40 minute lines in NH, ME, and VT. But come to think of it, I in part have those lines to thank for pushing me to learn to telemark and get out in the BC.

I, too, look to my roots when confronting these issues locally. The idea of a ski area on Adams, to me, would be appalling.<br><br>Here's the background: climbing Mt Mansfield (Vermont, where Stowe and in a way Smugglers Notch ski areas are located) is great with the access to unreal terrain from the ski area, but a better experience comes from climbing the other side of the mountain from the state park. More solitude, adventure, great terrain, more solitude and more solitude. But it takes longer and involves cross country travel on logging/CCC roads, unlike parking at the Dirt Bag parking lot at Stowe. So, PDX, no, the ski area access makes skiing Mansfield easier, but if it didn't exist I wouldn't bat an eye. In fact, it would be great 'cause the people walking to the summit with alpine boots from the Ganjola wouldn't be there...But alas, Stowe does exist. In fact, EVERY 4,000 footer in Vermont has a Ski area on its flanks - save one. And a very special one indeed: Camels Hump. A ski area developed in the shadow of Camels Hump would be blessed with unbeleiavable terrain and copiuos snow. Why not spread the wealth, eh? Well, I'll tell you, the 100 half-season jobs created wouldn't make up for the unique mountain experience that exists there now for EVERY vermont native who wants to walk up the mountain. Add a ski area, and that FREE access is kaput. <br><br>These reference points I take to the current discussion about Adams. And from skiiing Camels Hump and skiing Stowe, well, if you want crowds go to Stowe if you want Powder go to Camels Hump. Another ski area wouldn't help the situation at Stowe, just ruin the situation at Camels Hump. The same can be said for Adams.<br><br>No, Adams is not unique in that it is not the only one without ski area development - try and build a resort on Glacier - I dare you! But the current access and terrain IS unique and is worth preserving - as is. (did you see the CASINO they want to add to the resort at Adams - how unique) <br><br>Right now I have a yearly gathering of my friends who come visit me, why? Because of these wonderful UNDEVELOPED volcanoes we have here in Washington. Why do we have to have a Lift Race with other states? Why can't we have Backcountry Race where more visitors come to visit our great state because it is undeveloped? Yes, as scary as it sounds, it is happening now. How many foreigners did you meet on your volcanoes last year? Chat people up and you see this state is already a magnet for skiers. Just not Vail skiers, if you know what I mean.<br><br>I skied 62 days last season and not one of them was on a lift (heck I hardly needed to retrace my steps either). And I didn't miss the crowds, attitudes, waiting for lifts to open, being told where to go/don't go - ugggh! Why did I move to Washington? Because your terrain wasn't over developed. And I don't want to move again!

Were Crystal, Baker and Whistler not special places before they were developed? To me, and to the thousands that would not have visited these areas without the existance of a resort, these areas are still special.

I haven't commented much about the proposed Mt Adams resort because it seemed like a far-fetched idea and I thought it unlikely to go forward.  I'm not personally familiar with the east side of Mt Adams but from what I've seen in pictures I think wilderness is the "highest and best use" of the area.  I also suspect that skiing conditions high on the mountain would often be poor in winter.

Since PDXSkier mentioned Crystal Mountain, I'd like to offer a little history.  In 1953-54, Washington's Governor Arthur Langlie campaigned to construct a tramway from Paradise to Camp Muir on Mt Rainier.  He also proposed building a deluxe lodge, swimming pool, and golf course at Paradise.  The idea was to promote Paradise as a year-round resort, as it had been before World War II. The campaign was instigated by local merchants to increase winter business and it eventually enlisted ski promoters.

In December 1953, Langlie invited representatives of chambers of commerce, ski organizations, railroads and airlines to a meeting to discuss the proposal.  The lone dissenting voice was from Leo Gallagher, a member of the Mountaineers who attended the meeting as an individual.  The Tacoma News Tribune (12/16/53) reported: "Gallagher cautioned that if the park service should give an inch by permitting an aerial tram in Mt Rainier National Park, the money grabbers and commercial interests could open the aperture up a mile wide by coming in with other commercial features."

Park Service Director Conrad Wirth resisted the idea of a permanent tram.  For years, Park Service policy had been to allow only temporary lifts, like T-bars, that could be erected in winter and removed in summer.  Wirth's boss, Interior Secretary Douglas McKay, wavered on the issue, and Wirth argued that the very idea of the national parks was at stake.  The Automobile Club of Washington launched a campaign to take Mt Rainier away from the "sole use of bird watchers and mountain climbers" and return it to "the people." In January 1954, the Mountaineers board of trustees passed a resolution to seek a suitable area for ski development outside Rainier National Park.  That summer, hearings in Seattle generated strong opposition to the tramway and it was eventually rejected by the Interior Department.

Seattle and Tacoma skiers and businessmen continued to pursue the idea of a ski resort near, but outside, Mt Rainier National Park.  As early as 1953, a party including Everett and Mary Griggs, Duke and Marillyn Watson, and ski champions Don and Gretchen Fraser made a reconnaissance ski trip to survey Corral Pass for potential development.  After three years of study, skiers shifted their attention to upper Silver Creek, a few miles to the south.  After several more years of surveys, attracting investors, and lots of hard work, they opened the Crystal Mountain ski area in November 1962.  A vice president of the new corporation was Leo Gallagher, my personal hero in this little story.

So, to answer PDXSkier's question: Yes, Crystal Mountain was special before it was developed.  But skiers at the time, many of them long-time backcountry skiers, decided that it was worth developing, and preferable to spoiling Mt Rainier.  As a long-time Crystal Mountain skier (my dad was a founding stockholder) and a fan of Paradise without lifts, I tip my hat to them.

It is not fair to Portlanders for Seattle &lt;snip&gt;

<br>PDXSkier, As a "Portlander" I disagree with your views. Particularly I do not think this is a Portland vs Seattle issue. I believe the consensus here is the same you'd hear from Portland backcountry skiers, no one wishes to see Adams developed regardless of where they live (I think). <br><br>I'm as much of a freshiez whore as anyone else. I'd certainly *love* to see less dull terrain, less crowds, and better winter bc access to Adams, but not at the high cost of such a unique resource.  If by chance I know you I do not mean any harsh feelings towards you. I believe reasonable people can disagree about this issue. Now how about we work on getting Ullr to send us more snow?<br>

. Can someone who is a regular at the 3 Hood resorts (28 lifts between them) clue me in? Is it THAT much worse?

<br>Well . . . last winter I skied virtually every weekend at Mt Hood Meadows (I had a seasonpass). The crowds were on average worse then I've seen at other resorts, particularly Kirkwood in California which I've skied extensively (was a passholder for 4 years). I've only skied a handful of times at Crystal and only once at Alpental. The average liftline wait at Meadows did seem longer then my limited experiences at these two resorts. However I can say that the onetime I went to Whistler the crowds were worse then Meadows' average, though this was President's Day Weekend.<br><br>I've never skied at Timberline in the winter as the terrain is quite lackluster. Ski bowl I've been to about a dozen times, despite having really slow lifts it does not seem to get as crowded as Meadows though its low-elevation precludes reliable snow.<br><br>To me as big of an issue as the crowds is the lack of decent terrain. Everything is quite dull, there's nothing remotely close to Crystal, any Tahoe resort or Whistler.

seems there are way better reasons not to develop Mt. Adams than develop it.<br><br>I completely agree that uncrowded skiing is not anywhere near being anything like a right (as decent healthcare and clean water ought to be.)  Lifts or not, in almost every case skiing is playing, a pass time for people w/ means.  If you can't play the way you want to where you live, then you have the option of changing your lifestyle so that you can (move to Driggs, be a waiter/realtor/professor and ski some weekdays, buy AT equip/splitboard, etc).<br><br>If you can't/won't change your lifestyle so be it -- then other things are more important to you than playing how you want where you want when you want.  But a group of people's desire to play how they want when they want where they want (or to make money off these wants) shouldn't precede the cautious preservation of pristine wilderness, which is an enduring national treasure.

Here's a little piece of my mind:<br><br>Adams as of now=  Wilderness, peacefull, free to be yourself, personal status is unimportant, tranquility, and a place to relieve the daily stresses of sh**y (city life).<br><br>Resort on Adams=  Who's driving the best and most expensive car.  Who spent the most money on ski equipment.  I'm a bum, while the VIP's think they own the mountain.  Skier RAGE, ropes, bounderies, can't be myself, cause I'd be to damn afraid to smile.  <br><br>Think back to before lifts.  People hiked for turns.  Have we grown into a society where a person status and looks determines their fate of their lives.  <br><br>I oppose and will always oppose of any development of any ski area in an area where I can go and be who I please.  Keep it real.<br><br><br>NO RESORT ON ADAMS!!!!!