Nov. 16, 2004 - Mt Adams Safe for Now

Here's a little piece of my mind...

<br><br>I've done a lot of reading recently about the campaign to establish the North Cascades National Park in the 1960s. The scale and stakes of that campaign make the Mt Adams resort question seem pretty small.<br><br>I agree with your position on Mt Adams, but I don't think your way of expressing it serves your cause well. The gist of your argument is that wealthy people make you uncomfortable. Having read about the public hearings on the North Cascades, I'm trying to imagine how that argument would fly in front of the people who actually make decisions on these things. I don't think it would go over well. If you want to be effective in opposing developments like this, I think you should frame your arguments a different way.<br><br>If anybody is interested in the North Cascades hearings of 1966-68, I've dug up a few newspaper references below:<br><br> www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/notes/ms/wsp-clippings.html

www.alpenglow.org/ski-history/notes/ms/lds-ncnp.html

I have nothing against wealthy folks, indeed, it is not cheap to become a backcountry skier! In fact, I protest this resort idea because I couldn't bear to see so many innocent wealthy people get fleeced by MHM, and in the process be cheated out of what is really special about Mt. Adams, which is that it is a huge, majestic, peaceful place, far mightier than Riley's investment capital!<br><br>Let us not be enslaved by infrastructure! We are better than that...

Your comments make it clear that you don't know what this part of Mount Adams is like

<br>

You really don't have any idea what you're talking about.

<br><br>Amar, You are dead wrong about me being unfamiliar with the east side of Adams. I've hiked to Bird Creek Meadows several times as well as up Little Mt Adams. It is neither polite nor accurate to assert I do not know what I'm talking about solely because I hold different personal wilderness values then you do. I do agree with you that the east side of Adams is a special and unique place. I believe that there are numerous such special and unique places in the Cascades that are of equal value; to name a few personal favorites of many: anywhere on Rainier, the Northside of Adams, 3FJ's Canyon Creek Meadows, Chamber Lakes in 3 Sisters, Goat Rocks, the northwest side of Hood, etc. I list these places not only because they are special, but because they are in wilderness/protected areas and will never see development (yes I do realize MRNP isn't a designated wilderness). I truly believe that the east side of Adams will continue to be special after careful and reasonable development. I understand you disagree with this.<br><br>In your posts you've highlighted that the east side of Adams is very seldom visited. You also stated the area is closed from October to July. From the descriptions of your visits it sounds like you have experienced much happiness and personal enrichment from visiting Adams. I can relate well to these feelings. I believe that mountains significantly enhance and enrich our lives. It is unfortunate more do not visit the east side of Adams but it is understandable given the difficulty of access. A properly implemented resort would change this. A reasonably implemented resort would make access easier resulting in more visits so many more can experience similar happiness and enrichment to what you have. I imagine you will argue that the experiences you had would not have been of the same quality if a resort existed. I believe in this particular case this argument is outweighed by the fact that a greater volume of people will experience enrichment from an Adams resort so that even if it is to lesser degrees then what you experienced--which I don't believe it will be since they'll be skiing astounding terrain in an amazing location--their aggregate enrichment will be greater then the aggregate of the rare visitors now. <br><br>Increased access to a beautiful area is not my sole reason for supporting a reasonable Adams resort. I do not believe every special place should have a highway leading to it, certainly some special areas are better off being difficult to access as this is what in part makes them special. In each instance of potential development it is imperative we carefully weigh the cost versus the benefit. This includes, but is most certainly not limited to, analyzing the current volume of recreation (quite minimal), analyzing the impact development would have on current recreation (it'd increase it), synonymous undeveloped areas, and the recreation interests of near communities. <br><br>There is absolutely no question resort skiing is a very popular activity. In northern Oregon this is easily evident by the massive crowds at Mt Hood's resorts. Of the Hood resorts Mt Hood Meadows is the most crowded, this is because they have the most interesting and diverse terrain although relative to Crystal, Stevens, Baker, Whistler, Alpine Meadows, Squaw, etc. the terrain is not very interesting. To me the massive crowds clearly indicate there are interests in another resort with diverse and exhilarating terrain near the Portland area. People love skiing. Just as being on an amazing mountain like Adams enhances our lives so does the bliss of sliding over snow. Combine the two and you have what I believe is one of life's utmost enjoyable experiences. <br><br>I find nothing "laughable" or trivial about the threat of development to Cooper Spur. Unlike the east side of Adams this is an area that RIGHT NOW is heavily used by backcountry skiers, climbers and hikers. This usage is exponentially greater then that of the east side of Adams, hence its development would impact a much larger number of people then the careful development of Adams' east side. It is important to realize that to Portlanders part of what makes the Cooper Spur area special is that it is within a 90 minute drive of downtown Portland. In Winter and early Spring the east side of Adams is completely inaccessible (both legally and virtually pragmatically). Of course Seattle skiers don't care about this since they're busy skiing the amazing terrain at Crystal, Stevens, Baker, etc. <br><br>In your post you linked to a map of "proposed development" made by Darryl Lloyd who runs Friends of Mt Adams (link here ). The highlighted area and notations on this map are completely bogus. The ONLY notation that has any factual basis is the smaller dark green area. This area was marked on a map that was sent from the Yakima Nation to the Bureau of Indian Affairs ostensibly showing the area the Indians are most seriously considering for development. The basis for the light green area is essentially Darryl Lloyd's imagination and his desire to make development look as undesirable as possible. There are almost an unlimited numbers of scenarios for ski resort development within Yakima Nation land. It does not take a PhD in experimental atomic physics to realize the most unlikely and unrealistic is a gondola to 11,100ft.  Lloyd made his drawing after hearing from a reporter that a possible scenario was the gondola. Lloyd ignores that there are a myriad of possible scenarios, that MHM has likely not made any remotely concrete proposal to the Yakima nation and that he has never see any documentation from MHM to the Yakima Nation. <br><br>A more realistic scenario would be a carefully built resort that has an upper terminus of Little Mt Adams, Ridge of Wonders or Sunrise Camp. Such a carefully built resort would offer very interesting terrain, has the proper elevation for decent snow, would give access to interesting mid-winter backcountry, and would not in anyway be near or visible to the hordes enjoying their "solitude" climbing the South Rib. To illustrate how exhilarating the terrain could be below is a TOPO with hypothetical notations. The red lines represent potential ski runs.<br> <br><br><br>Such a resort would occupy only a fraction of Mt Adams. It would cater to both hardcore skiers as well as families. The majority of Mt Adams would still be undeveloped so you will still be able to enjoy the many special places on Adams in solitude. The drawings on this TOPO are purely hypothetically, I post only to illustrate that there are a myriad of interesting, reasonable development scenarios.<br><br><br>I wish we had another mountain near Portland that had interesting terrain and was of less special value which we could develop. We do not, but luckily we do have numerous other places in the Cascades that are of equal special value and used more frequently then the east side of Adams. Mt Adams is huge and only a fraction of it is needed for a resort. I know that with a reasonable resort Adams will continue to give its gifts of personal enrichment and enhancement to resort visitors as well as to backcountry visitors.<br><br>Reasonable, responsible development will not take Phato's beauty away, instead it will give it the means to touch and influence a greater number of lives.

And from skiiing Camels Hump and skiing Stowe, well, if you want crowds go to Stowe if you want Powder go to Camels Hump.

<br><br>Amar is right: no one here understands the east side of Adams. Your comparision to "Camels Hump" is completely flawed. NO ONE right now skis on the east side of Adams in the Winter or Spring! It is illegal and, if you wish to ignore that, access is incredibly protracted. <br>

Everyone has a lot to say, we need flames by this topic.<br><br>Separately, but almost on topic, my random thoughts are:<br><br>It will be difficult to develop a brand new ski area in the west.  One problem with Adams in the winter is that it's too far from Seattle to go hit easily.  As for Portland, they got some nice area closer to town (if skiers really traveled farther than necessary, Baker would charge more).  Currently, the resorts have crowds, and they get substantially more skier days now that they did not that many years ago, with high speed quads and sixes.  Which tracks out all the fresh snow in minutes (part of why we like to climb all day long).  All this development, and the area&#8217;s are loosing money.  At the same time their insurance rates are going up.  I'm sure we're all crying our crocodile tears for their financial plight.  <br><br>It'll be very hard to develop a new ski area in the American West.  Developers want to build the next Whistler, but come on. This is America, not Canada, the key to the magic.<br><br><br>

As for Portland, they got some nice area closer to town

<br><br>No we don't. I love Mt Hood but the terrain is just not that interesting. With road improvements an Adams resort would be 1.5 to 2hrs from downtown Portland. I'll be going every weekend if you're looking to carpool.