New Bullion Basin lift, upgrade to High Campbell..

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.

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.

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.

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

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?

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.