Possible new pay parking policy at Mt. Baker

...could this be the tip of the iceberg of a brewing battle?

It appears that the greed of the organizations operating ski area's on public lands is getting the best of them.  More and more, employees of the operators  are acting like they completely own the property and are trying to push the boundaries of their authority on public lands.  I found this evident by the attitudes, language and attempted intimidation that I've personally seen and have also heard about from others. This is happening at Baker, Snoqualmie and definitely Stevens under the new ownership! 

Is it time for NPS and USFS to get involved in the discussion and make sure that public lands are for the benefit of all, and that operators of ski areas on public lands have the privilege of earning a return on public land by providing a service?  It's getting to the point where it's miserable for the paying user (lift ticket resort skier) as well as the public land user (BC skier, snowshoer, trekker, etc).

Yes, the owners do put money into operating the resorts (hmmm - seems more like $ going into marketing to generate more income than $ going into improvements that were promised but isn't happening) , but there is a lot of public money going into the area in order to make the resort viable,  plowing, traffic control, public road maintenance, etc.

There are 470 ski areas in the US about 120 something on public lands they aren't holding you back from the millions of acres of land available
www.aspentimes.com/news/14449841-113/ski-lands-public-forest

There are 470 ski areas in the US about 120 something on public lands they aren't holding you back from the millions of acres of land available
www.aspentimes.com/news/14449841-113/ski-lands-public-forest

That's good that the resorts pay fees to the Forest Service, and they certainly should, given the massive profits that many big resorts are making. I also think that claiming there are millions of acres of land available for skiing is at best a little deceptive, since A) most of the land owned by public agencies isn't skiable, either due to lack of snow, thick timber, or inappropriate terrain type; most the land owned by the public agencies that is skiable is very difficult to access in winter due to lack of plowed roads into the high country; and C) much of the land that is appropriate ski terrain, is accessible during winter, and is within a reasonable driving distance of a major population center is already occupied by or shares access with a ski resort. 

Many of our most popular day tours share access with the resorts for the reasons listed above - they are simply the places you can get to in winter that have snow and good terrain. I'd be pretty bummed if I had to pay a parking fee to ski at Yodelin (Steven's Pass Parking) or East Peak (Crystal Parking).

The increasing demand for snow-based winter recreation and the limited number places with snow and parking in the Nooksack region are a real problem. The terrain is very difficult to service with plowing and parking areas even if the USFS were to decide to bump up the winter capacity. Hiking a thousand feet of vertical to the snow is not exactly going to meet the demand for access.

Some serious planning will be needed...

The increasing demand for snow-based winter recreation and the limited number places with snow and parking in the Nooksack region are a real problem. The terrain is very difficult to service with plowing and parking areas even if the USFS were to decide to bump up the winter capacity. Hiking a thousand feet of vertical to the snow is not exactly going to meet the demand for access.

Some serious planning will be needed...

Exactly

While waiting for the Helicopter to control Shuksan Arm yeserday and thus allow Backcountry Access, Duncan Howatt, the Mt. Baker Ski Area Manager/ Share Holder, approached my son Cooper and I and said, " I have a great idea I want you to hear!"  He then went on to outline his plan to charge $10.00 for every Backcountry enthusiast that uses the upper parking lots.  This can be avoided if:  A.  You are a Season Pass Holder, or B.  You have bought a lift ticket for the day.  His plan is to stop all cars as they egress the lots at the end of the day and check for passes.

I was stunned, and the first question out of my mouth was " What does the Forest Service say about this?" His answer, with a grinch-like grin, " They LOVE IT!"  Dang.

There are options.  You can park at the Lower Parking lot and hitch-hike up " ( his suggestion), or park on the highway loop BELOW the parking lots and walk up. 

Well folks, I don't know about you, but this seems punative to me.  Yes, we Backcountry users enjoy the use of lots that are plowed by Mt. Baker employees at a cost, but doesn't Mt. Baker Ski Area enjoy the use of a plowed Mt. Baker Highway paid for by State Tax Dollars?  Seems to me IF you are to charge for parking you cannot separate user groups to subsidize retirement plans.  Every other ski area I have been to that charges parking (they are few and far between), have charged EVERYONE and not just one user group enjoying the National Forest. 

Enough ranting; I am switching to De-Caf for my second cup of morning coffee..

I'm with you so I just quit going to Steven's Pass last century. I would have to walk much further to get to the slopes or pay extra to park much closer so I could save my legs for real skiing.

Mt. Baker ski area arrogance has been a long standing issue for many locals.  Our joking motto for them is, "We don't care because we don't have to".  The rude behavior towards permit holders and backcountry users has trickled down from Duncan all the way to the lowest staff.  Allowing them to charge for backcountry users of all types would go down quite hard for many of us.

I put in a call to the Mt. Baker National Forest service and am waiting for a call back from the supervisor that oversees the ski area.  The two folks that I spoke with at the office in Sedro Wooley were surprised to hear about the paid parking issue as such a dramatic shift in policy would have been known about and discussed.  The  Forest Service is making a push to encourage use of the National Forests of all recreational users.  I doubt they would allow such a big shift in a long standing policy without giving thought to their recent mandates to get people recreating.