PSA Silver Basin is part of Crystal Ski Area

Land ownership is not really a factor. The Crystal has a Special Use Permit with boundaries -- within those boundaries the Crystal Ski Patrol can regulate the public's access to the area to ensure safety according to terms spelled out in the Special Use Permit.

But also note that only some portions of Silver Basin are within the Special Use Permit boundary, look at this map.

crystalmountainresort.com/wp-content/the...fs/Map_CM_1-2015.pdf

The eastern edge of Silver Basin has some good slopes that are outside the SUP -- of course to get there -- you've got to skin up Quicksilver which is within the SUP.

It's always a good idea to check-in with the Crystal Ski Patrol before heading up -- I've found them to be super friendly and getting a conditions report form them is useful.

If you don't think that crystal would prefer people don't access interface terrain you're a fool. They are running a business, not a stewardship. Protect your rights with communication and good relations. Don't expect that others know better.

I cannot understand what you're saying here. You are asking if I don't think that Crystal would prefer that people don't access interface terrain. That makes no sense to me. But thanks for calling me a fool.

I am not trying to get into some arguement about land stewardship in the US. I would just like people stop skinning into the portions of Silver Basin that are managed by the ski area when active control work is going on. That's it.

If you guys are trying to make an arguement that you should be allowed to ski tour in a downhill ski area while avy control work is going on then have fun with that.

Yes, you're right. that was poorly worded. Please allow me to rephrase.
I think it would be foolish to allow Crystal Mountain Resort to be your sole source of information regarding where and when you are legally allowed to travel on public land. They are running a for profit business, and are influenced by other things. I don't think your public land access is high on their priority list.

I sincerely apologize for my poor wording that led you to believe that I called you, personally, a fool. I don't think I know you personally, and that was not my intent at all.

I do have a question:
What do you mean when you say limiting uphill travel into Silver is on the table? What table is this, and do you sit at this table?

I think that Crystal has been laissez-faire in regards uphill travel and I apreciate that. I think the current uphill travel policy was only instituted after people began skiing up open runs (Lucky Shot, Rolling Knolls) on weekend days.

CookieMonster's has expressed my thoughts better than I can:

"Sometimes during these discussions I get the feeling that people might think that a ski area would close or reduce access simply out of spite. I don't believe this is the case. Crystal has been super supportive for the last 10 years and the pro patrol has rescued more than a few backcountry skiers ( who never even bought lift tickets! ) over the years.

They've done their part. We haven't done ours."

What do you mean when you say limiting uphill travel into Silver is on the table?  What table is this, and do you sit at this table?

This is pure supposition on my part based on rumor, trends in other areas and the safety precendent as set by Kemper's and Rock Face.

First of all, I am a lift whore!  If the bull wheels are turning and I can ski, I will be riding the lift.  I love ski areas!  Yearly I buy lift tickets and season passes.  I am not some clown looking to get a freebee off the poor corporations.  I get that they have a big job to do and don't begrudge them that fact. I pay good money each year to enjoy the privileged of lift skiing.

However, one need only to look at bachelor butte to see how a ski corporation will make moves to restrict climbing with no good reason to do so. I have been climbing bach in the off season for decades.  Then a big corporation bought the place.    For the last few years they have worked tirelessly to close the mountain to climbers all year round.  NO good reason for those restrictions. Just another corporate "Trump in sheep's clothing".  Fortunately, skiers routinely ignored the off season closures and climbed anyway.  

Now Bachelor just got a new manager and that policy changed to allow that same climbing.  The risk didn't change, they just chucked the idea of limited access in the off season. For sure this is something to be applauded, but not something that will naturally happen without public insistence.
 

That mountain exists because of the paved highway that brings it life.  That road is built and maintained with public taxes.  It is the very best access to climbable, off season snow in that part of the state.  It is public land. Bachelor never bought the land from the NFS.  They don't pay property taxes on the land.  

I never saw these closures as anything short of a land grab.  Now, the new management seem to agree they don't really have to restrict access all year long.

If it had not been for people climbing all these mountains, none of these ski areas would have ever been built.  If people don't challenge this kind of land grab, they end up loosing their birthrights.  Besides which.... anyone who will drive across the state, spend hot hours climbing a mountain with skis strapped to their back, all for 10 minutes of skiing...anyone who will do this is obviously a skier at heart.  They should be seen as an adoring public by ski areas.  Come winter, most of these people will end up buying lift tickets and season passes anyway.  Why just piss them off with trivial regulation?  You would think they should be courted instead.

I get the avi control issues are a very good reason to restrict access. Duhhh..... But otherwise, I see it as making sure that every citizen, who wants to ski that mountain, pay big money to do so, WEATHER THE LIFTS ARE TURNING OR NOT.  This despite the fact that these same citizen-climbers already subsidize the ski area's very existence.  Like I said... Trumps in sheep's clothing.

Powder to the People.

...
This is pure supposition on my part based on rumor, trends in other areas and the safety precendent as set by Kemper's and Rock Face.

I recall both Rock Face and Kemper's permanent closure was the result of repeated fatalities in those areas.   Also those areas are closed to *ALL* users.  

I don't see Crystal closing Silver Basin to *ALL* users and I think without fatalities resulting from an action attributable to Crystal's Employees e.g. using explosives for snow control that ends up burying uphill travellers -- it seems unlikely that such a closure against uphill travel would be enacted -- I also believe that such a closure action would be subject to review and public comment by the USFS.