A Gondola to the top of Alpental?

Yes, be very, very careful. One fern leaf may get misplaced. One native wolly pog may get squished. One douglas fir make get scraped. <br><br>Let's keep the status quo. No more ski resort improvements. I'll enjoy mine at Crystal.<br><br>Stop everything at Alpental. We need at least one resort where Stein Erickson and Warren Miller can do their stem cristies with their feet together. <br><br>Hey , where is that hand knitted, wool sweater, with the reindeer on them?

I hear the hard core guys are all at Crystal today.

Times have changed. In 1995, The Forest Service was very much in favor of Crystal's expansion.

<br><br>I don't remember what the 1995 expansion plan included. Did it include a lot more lodging at the base? I agree with the PNW magazine article's author. It has been the lack of base lodging, more than the lack of lifts, that has kept Washington ski resorts from becoming destinations.<br><br> This article says that Crystal's current plan calls for additional accomodation for about 700 people. Will that make Crystal a destination resort? I don't know.<br><br>I'm generally satisfied with Crystal's expansion plans, but I'm glad that the Silver King chairlift was not approved. I think keeping Silver King hike-to will preserve its unique character. Quality not quantity.

I hear the hard core guys are all at Crystal today.

<br><br>Working to understand what hardcore status is, I was skiing at Crystal today. And yes, enjoing the benefits of the massive tree limbing in the Northback. This is the added terrain by cutting back trees, which I do not mind at all. Also cuts back on the fire hazards in the summer.<br><br>Here we go:<br>As a matter of fact I teamed up with a "hardcore" BC player and petitioned to reverse the decision that prevented the East Peak chair because that chair added more terrain to Crystal's already constricted area. That petition was heard and denied by the USFS, but it may have an opportunity to be opened up in the future because our petition was taken to the highest level before being denied. A chair on East Peak would have opened much needed lift access terrain and for BC skiers would have given them tons of options off the lift.<br>Personally, I felt East Peak chair was Crystal's decoy to get, as Bandit calls them, "Granola Munchers" or the CCC to focus their attention on that area. Crystal gave them some resistance and then gave the Granola Munchers that area to make them feel like they won something. My opinion-Bait and Switch.<br><br>Putting a chair where you did NOT normally access terrain by lift is expansion, but putting a hotel full of people and a chair in terrain where you can easily access by means of a short skate or hike in and out is called CONGESTION.<br><br>For those who are really want to know the truth, Crystal's Expansion plan really was anything but expansion. <br>More like a corral plan and the cause was MRNP.<br> <br>MRNP had convinced the Forest Service that the amount of skier volume would be detrimental to the enviroment -NOT the tree huggers as Bandit suggests. The Park was using the Treehuggers as a shield to pull off their dirty work. <br><br><br>The Park had planned for Many, Many years to keep skiers from skiing in the Park from the lifts. They just waited to pull the coup when they knew Crystal needed to get their MDP passed. The MDP had a clause in there that forced Crystal to close skier access to the NF and MRNP outside their SUP area, therefore REDUCING the size of the accessable terrain from the ski area. The Park and NFS had Crystal over a barrel, so Crystal could not side either way. <br>That is when we stepped up and found out that what they were suggesting was against the law. After a meeting the FS dropped that part of the aggreement and left the Park exposed. The Park fought to get their lawyers involved and force the closure, but they did not know their own rules. The Park was overruled by the deciding officer of the USDA and we were given free access to the park. Currently MRNP is trying to sue the USFS to overturn the decision, and yes, the Park is pulling support from the CCC again to cover them as the perfect well behaved children they have proven to be.<br>Furthermore, MRNP has threatened Crystal that they may close their access to Silver King if Crystal does not adhere to their childish dream of no skier access to the Park from Crystal. <br><br>Imagine the outrage if Crystal has to close the Southback because of the Park's selfish attitude?<br><br>I agree with Lowell that the hike to the King is special, just like the skate to Northway is special. No chairs would be cool because that terrain is easily accessable.<br><br>Unfortunatly Crystal's expansion plans do not add any more terrain to the area just lifts to the already easily accessable terrain.<br><br>Technically ski area expansion can only be done when there is more terrain to access otherwise it is known as congestion.<br><br>Today's political enviroment does not look to add more ski lifts on more public land, just add more animals in the zoo.<br>Can you say Early Winters?<br>Joe<br><br>

Thanks for chiming in Joe, you reminded me of what I wanted to add to this discussion.<br><br>Regardless of how you feel about expansion at Alpental, if you care enough to get involved, it is important to read the Draft Environmental Impact Statement and submit written comment(s) on the issue(s) that concern you.<br><br>When I (and I suspect Joedabaker) originally submitted comments on the Crystal Mountain Draft EIS, it was not clear (at least to me) that the National Park Service was working behind the scenes to extract their wishes from the USFS and Crystal Mountain with respect to the backcountry access issue down to Hwy 410.<br><br>When the Final EIS was published (years later), and it became obvious what was happening, ONLY those who had made themselves part of the initial record had standing to file appeals, and ultimately thwart the NPS's backroom antics. <br><br>Even if you cannot forsee the specific issue that might concern you today, if you have an interest, take the time to submit something in writing during the allowed comment periods. Believe it or not, as explained by Joe, a small group of individuals can make a big difference, even given the complicated federal process.<br><br>J.P.

I have been away for a few days so I have not really chimed in on the issue regarding no destination resorts.<br><br>As far as I can tell, there seems to be very little support in this state for a destination ski resort. Not really so much opposition, but the population just doesn't seem to give a damn.<br><br>Tell me, other than adding some new acreage, do the local skiers even care? Are they getting served poorly by their local providers? Would adding several thousand beds to the base of Crystal or Alpental make skiing that much better? Do East coasters, Midwesterners, Canadians, Europeans and Far Easterners have such better slope manners and by dilution make skiing so much better here? Will the food get better? The beer?<br><br>Jobs are always welcome, but you got to figure that the local population takes more seriously the creation of solid jobs in tech or other, than the 5 month temp lifty jobs at any resort.<br><br>I don't really object to a destination resort, but tell me, given a vote, who on this site or who of any skiers in the PNW are clamoring to vote their local hill as the next destination resort.<br><br>Do the skiers really care if the Olympics come here? <br><br>When the decision comes to create a new destination resort in this state, it better well be done very well and located very well because competition in Canada and the adjacent states is very tough and would sure doom it in any case, unless done perfectly. It is a fallacy to assume that the success would be ensured by the fact that we have a large metro area here. The locals hills serve that well. Ask youselves, "Why would someone from the East coast, Europe, Canada or elsewhere consider hittting the generally wet and soggy slopes of the Cascades, given the huge options elsewhere?" We get great value in our local hills precisely because we are local. We are used to skiing in whiteout, wet or otherwise less than perfect conditions, BUT also, we can just not go on those really bad days. That only works if you are truely local.<br><br>I believe that there is far more to our not having a large destination resort in this state beyond land issues or land use opposition. My guess is that quality developers have done complete economic analyses and figured it best to go elsewhere. But there will be no proof of that until a large resort opens up and is either a flaming failure or success.<br><br>To me, Crystal seems to have gotten it right with respect to a quality product and the ability to house people close to the hill. I personally do not object to some expansion there, but lets face it, the reason that it has more housing than all the other local sites combined is because it needs it. It is a far longer drive to Crystal for most of the Puget Sound area population than it is to the other areas, with the exception of Baker, and Baker clearly makes no pretense of being an expanding venture, which it could never be.<br><br>Alan