Crystal Mountain Uphill Travel

Sandy Butte still got it's ski lift, although no environmental impact statement was performed, only an environmental assessment, more taxpayer money.

Where? I've been up it a handful of times in the winter and have only found an old cattle driveway (which was decent skiing, actually).

"Wannabe" what? Sanctimonious like you? You know the people who own and run NCH are your neighbors, right? I see those ladies and guys around the Mazama store whenever I'm out there and they aren't wealthy, at least based on their old trucks and vintage sleds. Sure appears like they're doing it for the love. Personally, I like it when they're flying around my intended zone. Canary in a coal mine.

Ha! You're being totally delusional (again). We've never spoken, you provided no warning and I owe you no debt of gratitude. Get a grip. And unlike you, I actually travel around the northwest (and farther) and make field assessments in all kinds of different zones. Thousands of days in the BC (and alpine rock in the summer) so far and never a scratch (knock on wood). You only know your back yard, and have an incredible hubris about it too. Hope that never bites you in ass (sincerely).

Wait, I'm confused. What does rehashing this 4-year-old argument have to do with uphill travel at Crystal Mountain?

I'll try to bring it back to the topic (but am still a ways off from the simple way the thread started: as I see it, Crystal patrol making a good effort to make their uphill-travel policy known to the BC community).

My questions about unfettered access to our national forest land: Can I drive my snowmobile up the runs at Crystal? Why can't I take my toboggan to Alpental (uphill dog poop trail obviously excluded)? Can I, after all, take my mountain bike on the PCT in the non-wilderness areas? How about going for a fine hike in an area closed for logging operations? A number of forest service campgrounds are privately managed; can I just pitch my tent in the middle of one of those campgrounds?

I guess I have only been BC skiing for ~15 years, and I know there are many folks on here who have been in the BC much longer, but I think the need for uphill access in ski areas is generally new within this time, or I wasn't paying attention. It just doesn't seem very complicated: if you want to ski fresh powder all the time, you'll have to work for it, and there will be days that you can't (or probably shouldn't) ski big terrain. If you want to ski fun terrain that has had avalanche control work done, then you can expect to pay for it. The fact that Crystal says that you can skin up any of their groomed runs without paying (grooming runs is not free) to have easier access to terrain seems generous enough.

You are right, this issue of ski areas deciding that they will kick out up hill traffic is much older than 15 year.  When I worked  ski patrol, 30 years ago, it was a topic of frequent discussion.  The thing that is different now is the Ski industry selling the idea of back country skiing to down hill skiers.  You mix this with ever more people on the planet and you get businesses trying to monetize snow.  The thinking is that to make it work well you need to keep out the people, who haven't paid for the experience! 

However, the fact is that they have already paid for that experience. Think about it... ski areas are frequently on the highways that access the most goods (think altitude).   They are, as a result, located on the best public paths to the backcountry.  These highways  were built with public funds and are plowed and patrolled with public funds (at great expense!). - It should come as no surprise that the Public uses these roads to access the backcountry and take advantage of the access to public lands that their taxes paid for.

In all cases, safety should be a paramount consideration.   Avalanche control and ski area operation need to be safe.  However, I am afraid safety consideration is frequently perverted into an excuse to monetize snow and drive up corpirate profits.  This is where distrust of the industry spawns among the people who subsidize these corpirate profits.

It is sad that Public Rights seems to get left out of the discussion.  It is sad because with out that Public there would BE NO SKI AREAS!  Most ski areas were pioneered by up hill skiers, who sought to share their mountains with their fellow citizens. 

It is also sad that ski areas drive off potential customers with these exclusive bans.  Think about it..... Who has the best chance of becoming a serious skier?  The casual skier who goes up to ski the lifts once or twice a year?... or the snowy junky who is willing to drive 100 miles,  then climb for hours in the August sun, just to get another 15 minute run?  My money is on those snow junkies.  Those snow junkies are the best hope for expanding their customer base into the future and thus leading to increased ski area profits.  VERY FEW BACKCOUNRY SKIERS LEARNED OR MAINTAIN THEIR CHOPS WITH OUT FREQUENTLY USING LIFTS!

Too much of the Public's Right to Access has been lost to this myopic corpirate thinking.  The only answer to this threat is to stand up and speak out.  This is what the open access advocates are talking about in this thread.  Backcountry..... use it or loose it.

the southern resort charges for premium parking for established guests
I feel the source lake dog park LoT4 needs to be paid permit parking too.