Nov. 16, 2004 - Mt Adams Safe for Now

I, too, look to my roots when confronting these issues locally. The idea of a ski area on Adams, to me, would be appalling.<br><br>Here's the background: climbing Mt Mansfield (Vermont, where Stowe and in a way Smugglers Notch ski areas are located) is great with the access to unreal terrain from the ski area, but a better experience comes from climbing the other side of the mountain from the state park. More solitude, adventure, great terrain, more solitude and more solitude. But it takes longer and involves cross country travel on logging/CCC roads, unlike parking at the Dirt Bag parking lot at Stowe. So, PDX, no, the ski area access makes skiing Mansfield easier, but if it didn't exist I wouldn't bat an eye. In fact, it would be great 'cause the people walking to the summit with alpine boots from the Ganjola wouldn't be there...But alas, Stowe does exist. In fact, EVERY 4,000 footer in Vermont has a Ski area on its flanks - save one. And a very special one indeed: Camels Hump. A ski area developed in the shadow of Camels Hump would be blessed with unbeleiavable terrain and copiuos snow. Why not spread the wealth, eh? Well, I'll tell you, the 100 half-season jobs created wouldn't make up for the unique mountain experience that exists there now for EVERY vermont native who wants to walk up the mountain. Add a ski area, and that FREE access is kaput. <br><br>These reference points I take to the current discussion about Adams. And from skiiing Camels Hump and skiing Stowe, well, if you want crowds go to Stowe if you want Powder go to Camels Hump. Another ski area wouldn't help the situation at Stowe, just ruin the situation at Camels Hump. The same can be said for Adams.<br><br>No, Adams is not unique in that it is not the only one without ski area development - try and build a resort on Glacier - I dare you! But the current access and terrain IS unique and is worth preserving - as is. (did you see the CASINO they want to add to the resort at Adams - how unique) <br><br>Right now I have a yearly gathering of my friends who come visit me, why? Because of these wonderful UNDEVELOPED volcanoes we have here in Washington. Why do we have to have a Lift Race with other states? Why can't we have Backcountry Race where more visitors come to visit our great state because it is undeveloped? Yes, as scary as it sounds, it is happening now. How many foreigners did you meet on your volcanoes last year? Chat people up and you see this state is already a magnet for skiers. Just not Vail skiers, if you know what I mean.<br><br>I skied 62 days last season and not one of them was on a lift (heck I hardly needed to retrace my steps either). And I didn't miss the crowds, attitudes, waiting for lifts to open, being told where to go/don't go - ugggh! Why did I move to Washington? Because your terrain wasn't over developed. And I don't want to move again!

Were 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.

I haven't commented much about the proposed Mt Adams resort because it seemed like a far-fetched idea and I thought it unlikely to go forward.  I'm not personally familiar with the east side of Mt Adams but from what I've seen in pictures I think wilderness is the "highest and best use" of the area.  I also suspect that skiing conditions high on the mountain would often be poor in winter.

Since PDXSkier mentioned Crystal Mountain, I'd like to offer a little history.  In 1953-54, Washington's Governor Arthur Langlie campaigned to construct a tramway from Paradise to Camp Muir on Mt Rainier.  He also proposed building a deluxe lodge, swimming pool, and golf course at Paradise.  The idea was to promote Paradise as a year-round resort, as it had been before World War II. The campaign was instigated by local merchants to increase winter business and it eventually enlisted ski promoters.

In December 1953, Langlie invited representatives of chambers of commerce, ski organizations, railroads and airlines to a meeting to discuss the proposal.  The lone dissenting voice was from Leo Gallagher, a member of the Mountaineers who attended the meeting as an individual.  The Tacoma News Tribune (12/16/53) reported: "Gallagher cautioned that if the park service should give an inch by permitting an aerial tram in Mt Rainier National Park, the money grabbers and commercial interests could open the aperture up a mile wide by coming in with other commercial features."

Park Service Director Conrad Wirth resisted the idea of a permanent tram.  For years, Park Service policy had been to allow only temporary lifts, like T-bars, that could be erected in winter and removed in summer.  Wirth's boss, Interior Secretary Douglas McKay, wavered on the issue, and Wirth argued that the very idea of the national parks was at stake.  The Automobile Club of Washington launched a campaign to take Mt Rainier away from the "sole use of bird watchers and mountain climbers" and return it to "the people." In January 1954, the Mountaineers board of trustees passed a resolution to seek a suitable area for ski development outside Rainier National Park.  That summer, hearings in Seattle generated strong opposition to the tramway and it was eventually rejected by the Interior Department.

Seattle and Tacoma skiers and businessmen continued to pursue the idea of a ski resort near, but outside, Mt Rainier National Park.  As early as 1953, a party including Everett and Mary Griggs, Duke and Marillyn Watson, and ski champions Don and Gretchen Fraser made a reconnaissance ski trip to survey Corral Pass for potential development.  After three years of study, skiers shifted their attention to upper Silver Creek, a few miles to the south.  After several more years of surveys, attracting investors, and lots of hard work, they opened the Crystal Mountain ski area in November 1962.  A vice president of the new corporation was Leo Gallagher, my personal hero in this little story.

So, to answer PDXSkier's question: Yes, Crystal Mountain was special before it was developed.  But skiers at the time, many of them long-time backcountry skiers, decided that it was worth developing, and preferable to spoiling Mt Rainier.  As a long-time Crystal Mountain skier (my dad was a founding stockholder) and a fan of Paradise without lifts, I tip my hat to them.

It is not fair to Portlanders for Seattle &lt;snip&gt;

<br>PDXSkier, As a "Portlander" I disagree with your views. Particularly I do not think this is a Portland vs Seattle issue. I believe the consensus here is the same you'd hear from Portland backcountry skiers, no one wishes to see Adams developed regardless of where they live (I think). <br><br>I'm as much of a freshiez whore as anyone else. I'd certainly *love* to see less dull terrain, less crowds, and better winter bc access to Adams, but not at the high cost of such a unique resource.  If by chance I know you I do not mean any harsh feelings towards you. I believe reasonable people can disagree about this issue. Now how about we work on getting Ullr to send us more snow?<br>

. Can someone who is a regular at the 3 Hood resorts (28 lifts between them) clue me in? Is it THAT much worse?

<br>Well . . . last winter I skied virtually every weekend at Mt Hood Meadows (I had a seasonpass). The crowds were on average worse then I've seen at other resorts, particularly Kirkwood in California which I've skied extensively (was a passholder for 4 years). I've only skied a handful of times at Crystal and only once at Alpental. The average liftline wait at Meadows did seem longer then my limited experiences at these two resorts. However I can say that the onetime I went to Whistler the crowds were worse then Meadows' average, though this was President's Day Weekend.<br><br>I've never skied at Timberline in the winter as the terrain is quite lackluster. Ski bowl I've been to about a dozen times, despite having really slow lifts it does not seem to get as crowded as Meadows though its low-elevation precludes reliable snow.<br><br>To me as big of an issue as the crowds is the lack of decent terrain. Everything is quite dull, there's nothing remotely close to Crystal, any Tahoe resort or Whistler.

seems there are way better reasons not to develop Mt. Adams than develop it.<br><br>I completely agree that uncrowded skiing is not anywhere near being anything like a right (as decent healthcare and clean water ought to be.)  Lifts or not, in almost every case skiing is playing, a pass time for people w/ means.  If you can't play the way you want to where you live, then you have the option of changing your lifestyle so that you can (move to Driggs, be a waiter/realtor/professor and ski some weekdays, buy AT equip/splitboard, etc).<br><br>If you can't/won't change your lifestyle so be it -- then other things are more important to you than playing how you want where you want when you want.  But a group of people's desire to play how they want when they want where they want (or to make money off these wants) shouldn't precede the cautious preservation of pristine wilderness, which is an enduring national treasure.

Here's a little piece of my mind:<br><br>Adams as of now=  Wilderness, peacefull, free to be yourself, personal status is unimportant, tranquility, and a place to relieve the daily stresses of sh**y (city life).<br><br>Resort on Adams=  Who's driving the best and most expensive car.  Who spent the most money on ski equipment.  I'm a bum, while the VIP's think they own the mountain.  Skier RAGE, ropes, bounderies, can't be myself, cause I'd be to damn afraid to smile.  <br><br>Think back to before lifts.  People hiked for turns.  Have we grown into a society where a person status and looks determines their fate of their lives.  <br><br>I oppose and will always oppose of any development of any ski area in an area where I can go and be who I please.  Keep it real.<br><br><br>NO RESORT ON ADAMS!!!!!