A Gondola to the top of Alpental?

No comment.

Without familiarity or personal use of the area in question, I have no opinion one way or the other specifically, but offer some general comments. I would generally support both bc access and expansion of lift-served skiing. In reality, I have little interest in lift skiing at this time other than with my family, but it is an important and valid activity.<br><br>It seems to me that there is a need for more lift served skiing to serve Puget Sound. If the area is within the operating plan then it has a lot of weight to go forward. To my understanding, USFS views a ski area as a concentrated, good, and efficient (serving many) use of public lands. Such use also allows efficient control of large numbers of public users- much like as I have seen abandoning hiking trails and drainages and channeling most hikers into an adjacent main controlled trail system that requires a permit. <br><br>Overcrowding of ski areas as I have seen it just hurts the users- the ski area operators just rake in more $$ on the same acreage and facility (plant). An example is Stevens Pass. SP did not act on the opportunity to expand ski terrain in several directions and now continues to own nearby private property- and has just mainly built lodges at the ski hill with cash registers to extract more $$ from users of public lands. Before the retort is returned about the new lifts in the past decade, consider that the past decade's improvements at SP may equal one good year's gross receipts. <br><br>If it were my ski touring area, I would be upset. As others have said, it occurred with the Mill Creek area of Stevens Pass conversion to ski area. The reality of it is that with the Mill Cr lifts operating, as much or more bc terrain can be accessed as before the lifts went in.<br><br>Public comment is a good idea. However, I would not waste much emotion on it unless there is enough energy and mass to build a politically effective entity. In reality, backcountry travelers have little or no clout- they are just one of many competing voices clamoring for attention with the ski area operators and bureaucrats. The ski area operator has little concern or recognition of bc skiers- they do not buy services, generally. The bureaucrats mainly react to Policy directives from above, review the Law, follow their superior's directives, and try to squeeze in their own beliefs and proclivities- often with little emotion or energy in what I have observed. <br><br>In my view, except for something planned such as this ski area expansion ito the pre-existing Permit Area, the USFS is mostly anti-human (anti-public) use for most of its acreage. As a habit, I try not to divulge to USFS folks (neighbors) where and how I (lawfully!) recreate on public land for fear of regulation, "management" and various other named actions that would screw up my recreation.<br><br>Backcountry winter travelers are limited in regard to day opportunities. The most effective expansion of these opportunities would occur by more plowed roads (probably never happen) or by lift access that is closer to Wilderness.<br><br>Some bc skiers can get fired up about ski area expansion, someone questioning their favorite idea, or someone walking on or peeing in their skin track. Perhaps one should really step back and get a breath and enjoy life more...the lifts will be built if the money is there. <br>

You've got it. No public review. The public, with "frivolous" arguments should not be able to stop a project costing companies millions of dollars, that could, frankly, go into the developement itself. <br><br>

<br><br>It sounds like you believe that corporations ought to have unrestricted rights to do as they please, trumping the rights of citizens to petition their government on public policy. GW Bush may agree with you, but I sure don't.<br><br>By the way, I also agree with the folks who say that Alpental's plan does not sound abusive of the environment--nor does it sound like particularly good business strategy.

No comment.

Way to hang in there, Bandit.<br>Don't let them undermine your resolve

To me the most interesting thing about Alpental, and I said this to my buddies while ripping the pow pow at Alpental last Wednesday, is that Alpental's terrain is not typically the type of terrain that is condusive to building a ski area. But that is what makes it such an interesting place to ski and so unique. It also makes expansion a challange and looking at their preferred alternative it really doesn't seem like an expansion plan at all. All they are really doing is adding more uphill capacity for existing terrain.<br><br>I doubt Booth Creek will ever put the gondola and resturant in because of the capitol investment that would take. Booth Creek is not an "A" player in the ski industry and I just don't think they can do it. <br><br>What they put in will be the new International Chair. I really have to question the logic behind placing the proposed International Chair where they have it. It is really only going to serve lower International and Snake Dance. It will make access to the "backcountry" easier, however I don't think it fully opens up the backcountry for the simple fact that to get back to the top of the new chair takes two chair rides. First you would have to go up the expanded Sessel Chair from the base and then ski down to the International Chair. I think the effect the new International chair will really have is that lower International and Snake Dance are going to get completely skied out. <br><br>If they are really proposing an expansion at Alpental I'd like to see a lift layout they really expands the terrain. To keep the skiing experience great while increasing the uphill capacity requires that skiers (and boarders) be spread out over a larger area. Their lift plan as proposed does not do that very well. It will put a few more skiers in the backcountry but more than likely it will just concentrate more skiers on the existing terrain which will only dimininsh the Alpental experience.<br><br>What I would love to see, and this is a pipe dream, would be a chair from the base in the vicinity of St Bernard up to the ridge line just east of Pinapple Pass which is identified as Point 5456 on the topo quad just east of The Tooth. A chair in this location would really open up a huge amount of terrain and spread people out and would provide an incredible skiing experience.<br><br>Now I can just imagine how the blood pressure is rising in all the earn-your-turn addittcs reading this. All I have to say is get over Source Lake basin. It is already over-run. I've been earning my turns for over 15 years up at the Pass and I hardly ever go into Source Lake basin anymore because it is so over-run these days with the popularity of the sport. <br><br>What I am invisioning is more of a Euro style set up where you can take a lift to the top of all the grunt work where the fun really begins. I'm sick of slogging through wet northwest forests for hours to get to the goods. Think how great it would be to be dropped above Pinapple pass. The options of your backcountry world would open up beyond your dreams. You could scamble up The Tooth, come down and still ski a half day on the lifts. Or you could head over to Malakwa Pass for some skinning, you could easily ski Kaleetan and then come back into the ski area without it being a dawn till dusk affair. Access to Chair Peak for climbing and skiing would be greatly improved and it would allow for multi-sporting days of climbing and skiing. Not to mention it would also increase backcountry safety because the proximity of rescue in going to those places would be a lot closer with a lift. The Alpental Ski patrol often responds to accidents in the Source Lake basin and it takes them a long time to get in there and pull someone out. <br><br>I guess my point is that there is so much awe inspiring wild land in this state that is not accessible (especially in winter) that I would like to see access to it improved. There is an attitude in the environmental community that man has to be kept out of wilderness. This attitude permiates down to the industrial levels of our society that views man as seperate from nature and it is that attitude which is making the viablity of skiing at the Pass an uncertainty in the future. So I say is build it so people can enjoy it while we still can.