New Bullion Basin lift, upgrade to High Campbell..

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.