Nov. 16, 2004 - Mt Adams Safe for Now

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>