New Bullion Basin lift, upgrade to High Campbell..

I will go on record as a bitchy and whiney lift skier who extolls the virtues of the old days before snowboards and fatskis.

Does that help?

What strikes me as interesting is what everyone is concerned about is their access, be it purely BC or lift assisted or strictly lifted.

The Puget Sound skiing population has skyrocketed. Accessible skiable acreage really hasn't changed with the exception of Steven's backside. It's natural that this put us at odds: competition for resources.

This is a conventional analysis and no doubt contains a lot of truth. But it does not accurately reflect my experience or viewpoint. I certainly support, e.g., more snoparks in Washington. But what drives my interest in ski area expansion is much more emotional. I'm not afraid I won't have anywhere to ski (although I believe that ski areas would vastly prefer to not have to deal with non-paying skiers around their permit areas). In fact in Oregon and Washington I would say the crowding problem for backcountry winter sports is not bad at all. On busy days, yes, the crowds at the prime spots are a PITA, but I usually have no trouble finding places to park and ski -- even on Saturdays with nice weather and fresh snow. On prime days I'm not alone, but I am often surprised at how few people I meet. I have always found that there is plenty to go around.

What rankles me personally about ski areas is the country club feel and the sense of entitlement that some employees and paying users display. It is a culture clash that I have felt since I started skiing as a small child. I should not occupy 'their' parking, etc. While I expect the lift skiing community to display some gratitude to society for allowing them to erect permanent structures to facilitate their for profit business in the forest, I don't see this. Instead I see businesses that operate with the attitude that they should be able to do whatever they can to the public land on which they operate that will make them money be it expanding lifts or real estate development. Anyone who suggests otherwise is pinko enviro-nut who just doesn't get it. I don't have a problem with folks paying to ride somebody's ski lifts. But your contract is with the ski resort, not with me, and if I show up and recreate in a legal and reasonable manner, you will have to make room for me, just as I have made room for your lifts, lodge, etc. I feel that resorts could pretty easily change the situation with a little PR -- but they have little incentive to court me as I'm not too likely to be a big cash cow for them (although as I get older I find myself in line to buy a lift ticket and sitting at the lodge bar more and more frequently).

What rankles me personally about ski areas is the country club feel and the sense of entitlement that some employees and paying users display. It is a culture clash that I have felt since I started skiing as a small child. I should not occupy 'their' parking, etc. While I expect the lift skiing community to display some gratitude to society for allowing them to erect permanent structures to facilitate their for profit business in the forest, I don't see this. Instead I see businesses that operate with the attitude that they should be able to do whatever they can to the public land on which they operate that will make them money be it expanding lifts or real estate development. Anyone who suggests otherwise is pinko enviro-nut who just doesn't get it. I don't have a problem with folks paying to ride somebody's ski lifts. But your contract is with the ski resort, not with me, and if I show up and recreate in a legal and reasonable manner, you will have to make room for me, just as I have made room for your lifts, lodge, etc. I feel that resorts could pretty easily change the situation with a little PR -- but they have little incentive to court me as I'm not too likely to be a big cash cow for them (although as I get older I find myself in line to buy a lift ticket and sitting at the lodge bar more and more frequently).

Micah,

I grew up in Oregon and I have found that the Mt Hood resorts are MUCH less tolerant of touring activity than the ski resorts here in WA. To CM's, Alpental's, and Mt. Baker's credit ( I am not very familiar with Steven's policies), they are very accommodating to the BC community. CM will allow some uphill traffic in their boundaries and their ski patrol is encourages check-ins and discussion with them prior to touring. It is a very different environment than say at mount hood meadows.

Orion

This is a conventional analysis and no doubt contains a lot of truth.

If you look conventional up in the dictionary, you'll find a picture of me.

In fact in Oregon and Washington I would say the crowding problem for backcountry winter sports is not bad at all.

Then you would have no objection to a lift going to the top of East Peak based on accessibility? OK.

What rankles me personally about ski areas is the country club feel and the sense of entitlement that some employees and paying users display.

Funny, because I feel the same way about "BC" skiers who are doing the same thing I've been doing for a long time. Exclusion comes in many flavors.

It is a culture clash that I have felt since I started skiing as a small child. I should not occupy 'their' parking, etc. While I expect the lift skiing community to display some gratitude to society for allowing them to erect permanent structures to facilitate their for profit business in the forest, I don't see this. Instead I see businesses that operate with the attitude that they should be able to do whatever they can to the public land on which they operate that will make them money be it expanding lifts or real estate development. Anyone who suggests otherwise is pinko enviro-nut who just doesn't get it. I don't have a problem with folks paying to ride somebody's ski lifts. But your contract is with the ski resort, not with me, and if I show up and recreate in a legal and reasonable manner, you will have to make room for me, just as I have made room for your lifts, lodge, etc. I feel that resorts could pretty easily change the situation with a little PR -- but they have little incentive to court me as I'm not too likely to be a big cash cow for them (although as I get older I find myself in line to buy a lift ticket and sitting at the lodge bar more and more frequently).

I guess my point flew right over your head. Oh well.

I guess my point flew right over your head.

Perhaps. I was simply elucidating some of the reasons I tend to oppose resort expansion despite the fact that I like to ski and even utilize lifts.

This is particularly true when a group of Crystal Buddies seem to unite their voice and call out the BC community as apathetic and whiny with statements like the one below from the self proclaimed TAY Chief Etiquette Officer.

Uhmm...
The Chief Etiquette Officer is on his own island when it comes to opinion about BC skiers attitudes.
I don't share the same opinion.
And we are not buddying up, to call out complainers. Heck we talk about other stuff like skiing.
My sole objective was to have the ones who are crying get out a scratch pad, or form a caucus of other like minded users and put down what objectives that need to be addressed and send it to the proper people who handle those issues.
That is what we did and it got some results, not the ones I wanted, but at least we did something.
It does not make me better than anyone, it just gives me data and experience to back up my talk.
I think you get the wrong image of me. A lot of times when I am seen in the ski area by people I know, they say, "I thought you would be out walking around some place today."

Let's just say that we lost our argument with FS and the Park closing access to those SUP lines that connect with Crystal's ski area boundaries. There would be a heck of a lot more skiers going up the Bullion Basin area to East peak than there are now. Because BC access would have been cut off from the area. If you think Bullion basin is busy now, imagine how difficult it would be if you add 100 more skiers on a weekend to the regular total. I'm sure there would be some dissent then too. 100 ski tracks times 3 trips, do the math. So even the caucus work that we did payed off for your BC private experience now.

What if the ski area said, OK we will give you parking for BC skiers. We will give you the upper C lot since it is closer to the hike to Bullion. I think that they should place 5 shovels at the entrance to the lot and say clear your own parking spots. Why should we pay fuel to have your lot cleared for you when you are not adding to the area? And when you get lost or injured who handles the problem?
It's pretty obvious that no BC skier would park in that lot. NOW, If they offered/sold a permit for $500 a season to clear the lot for them and tow violators. How many BC skiers would anyone guess would buy the permit? My guess is less than 5. If the BC skier is REALLY looking for the real outdoor experience, dig out your own parking spot for your rig. If that is not cool, then maybe you need to abide by the rules of those who are doing the digging before you show up.