Nov. 16, 2004 - Mt Adams Safe for Now

<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. <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.

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.