Possible new pay parking policy at Mt. Baker

Mt Baker seems to have recently expanded their parking area,

USFS info on the project: www.fs.usda.gov/project/?project=44523

The scoping document: a123.g.akamai.net/7/123/11558/abc123/for...5_FSPLT3_1653561.pdf

Says that the purpose of the project is to increase parking for "forest visitors' and to increase public safety by reducing parking along HWY-542

So IMO Duncan Howatt spouting about charging a parking fee for non-lift-ticket buying folks as they exit the lot is a bunch of nonsense. Especially the thing about him suggesting that people hitchhike from the lower lot to avoid the fee. There is no way that the USFS would endorse such a cockamamie scheme -- maybe he is having delusional dreams of how much he can charge for all sorts of things once "The Donald" is president and public land gets given away to commercial concerns.

Powder.. ~ skiers are already paying. Step up bro..

It always amuses me at how some get an entitlement attitude and indignant about how ski areas manage the land and access under their permits.

Ski areas are not philanthropic organizations...
This is a tough business, so talk about massive profits is bunk. Some years they do well, other years they don't.
And, for areas that are below a certain elevation threshold there is also a long term aspect that factors in as well.

If you are parking in a lot that is maintained by a ski area for it's customers but you aren't purchasing a lift ticket a seasons pass or spending money at the lodge, what exactly is their obligation to you? If you are taking up a parking spot on a busy/full capacity weekend that might otherwise be filled by someone who has or will make a purchase, why shouldn't you expect to pay for the privilege?

Unless the USFS specifically states in the language of the seasonal use permit that a ski area must provide access and parking for non ski area patrons, they have no obligation to provide public parking.

As for lot 4, I would go to that party...

If the ski area owned the land then charging for parkingvwould be their own business . However the land is USFS federal land. Also while the ski area pays to plow the lot, the state pays to plow highway 542 which they would bother to do if it wasn't for the ski area...

Maybe Oregon has the right idea, where everyone - even lift ticket buying skiers/riders , need to buy a sno-park permit to park at ski areas. The OR sno-park is $25 vs $80 for WA sno-park permit.

If the ski area owned the land then charging for parkingvwould be their own business .  However the land is USFS federal land.

Randy, I think you are making a broad assumption here.
Just because it's public land does not mean that the public has unfettered access no mater what. Ski areas operate under a seasonal use permit, managing that resource and setting the rules and restrictions for use relative to those agreements.

Most ski areas in Washington benefit substantially from tax payer funded plowing and road maintenance. The tax paying public is subsidizing private enterprises. Not sure why it's unreasonable that the public should be able to benefit from some of the publicly funded access that private enterprises benefit from.