New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now

  • Richard_Korry
  • [Richard_Korry]
  • Richard_Korry's Avatar Topic Author
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
27 Nov 2021 20:42 - 01 Dec 2021 16:31 #235358 by Richard_Korry
New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now was created by Richard_Korry
New Summit Uphill Policy

$5 for the uphill pass regardless if you are a regular pass holder or not.
Restrictions where you can park on "peak days" (Jan-March 6 weekend)
When an area is in operation you have to follow marked uphill corridors.
When an area is not operating you can ascend anywhere as long as you avoid grooming equipment, area personnel, etc. When you descend you need to obey area boundaries as if you were a paying lift guest.

Alpental remains off limits whenever they announce it until it's opened again in the spring.
Overall not that many changes.

This is happening everywhere. Some places charge $10/per day. Others are $60/season, etc. So $5/season is really basically free.

 
Last edit: 01 Dec 2021 16:31 by Richard_Korry. Reason: typos

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • MangyMarmot
  • [MangyMarmot]
  • MangyMarmot's Avatar
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
27 Nov 2021 21:50 #235359 by MangyMarmot
Replied by MangyMarmot on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
This is crap. They are making money on forest service land, and now they want to drive other users off. There is only one reason why they would charge $5 for a pass. They are not making significant money. They are setting a precedent. It's $5 this year, next year they bump it to $10, The next year, $20 and so on. Soon we will be forking over decent money even though we are not using any of their stuff.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
01 Dec 2021 16:03 #235370 by khyak
Replied by khyak on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Crap??  I never understood why people feel they are entitled to ski uphill at a ski resort for free.   First it starts with the parking lots,  graded and reworked in off-season, plowed in the winter.  Then we have the slopes that are brush cut in the summer, groomed in winter, avalanche controlled if necessary.   Then, this is optional, but bathrooms, food service, ski patrol in an emergency?  So the ski area is constantly spending money to provide a better skier experience,   Not to mention fees to the forest service for their lease.   So, you think you should get all this for free?   

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
02 Dec 2021 08:00 #235371 by Stefan
Replied by Stefan on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
This is kinda the same thing with Weyerhaeuser and other private forest landowners.  These private forest landowners are now charging fees for their entry onto their lands--Weyerhaeuser has been doing this for many years now....but Weyerhaeuser used to not charge.  If they charge a fee, then the private forest landowner may become liable.  The private forest landowners are not liable for any event for recreationalists on to their land per this RCW:  app.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default.aspx?cite=4.24.210

 

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • MangyMarmot
  • [MangyMarmot]
  • MangyMarmot's Avatar
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
02 Dec 2021 10:08 #235372 by MangyMarmot
Replied by MangyMarmot on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
I don't think ski resorts should be charging us to access public lands when we are not using their services. If they own the land, that's a different story. If I'm using their lifts, I can understand paying for that, but if I'm skiing on forest service land under my own power, they shouldn't have the right to charge for that.

As for timber companies charging for access to their land, that's different. Yes, they own the land and can charge for people to recreate on it. The annoying thing about timber company land is that I don't want to recreate on their land. I want to go to the mountains beyond, but they own a strip of land between the road and the mountains. The only reason I want to go through their land is because it is in the way. There should be a reasonable way access forest service land without paying the timber company. Perhaps an access corridor here and there?

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • DirtyErn
  • [DirtyErn$$2]
  • DirtyErn's Avatar
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
02 Dec 2021 11:24 #235373 by DirtyErn
Replied by DirtyErn on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Couple of thing.
First the $5 is whether you have a season pass or not. Pass holders must dish out the extra $5 as well.
2. Unless I read it wrong, now that a pass is required, they could have someone sited for trespassing. 
3 I guess will see if they enforce this on snowshoers as well 
As someone who lives by a lot of private timber access areas. The biggest issue is with illegal dumping. That’s why a lot of the gates have gone up over the years. Now they just dump at the gate :(
illegal brush picking -yep lots of brush pickers out here 
now we are totally off the subject of why a free pass costs $5.
Sort of like why my $30 truck tabs cost me $100+ , more for you king country residence. 
I also asked the Summit why parking lot A7 which is the furthest from the access trail. There response was to use the snow lake summer trail. NICE 
there is no “ safe” way to go from A7 to the winter access trail and no approved route through the Alpental base area, well except the Snow lake trail according to summit director of guest services Sharon

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • MangyMarmot
  • [MangyMarmot]
  • MangyMarmot's Avatar
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
02 Dec 2021 11:44 #235374 by MangyMarmot
Replied by MangyMarmot on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
It's disheartening to see the ski resorts charge money, limit access, restrict parking, and just plain be a pain in the ass to the backcountry skiing community. Most backcountry skiers I know, me included, sometimes ski inbounds. We are their customers on a different weekend. This kind of behavior makes me reluctant to ski at these resorts when I decide to ski inbounds.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Skier of the Hood
  • [Skier of the Hood]
  • Skier of the Hood's Avatar
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
02 Dec 2021 12:20 - 02 Dec 2021 12:58 #235375 by Skier of the Hood
Replied by Skier of the Hood on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now

It's disheartening to see the ski resorts charge money, limit access, restrict parking, and just plain be a pain in the ass to the backcountry skiing community. Most backcountry skiers I know, me included, sometimes ski inbounds. We are their customers on a different weekend. This kind of behavior makes me reluctant to ski at these resorts when I decide to ski inbounds.



 

The resorts essentially have a monopoly. They know you aren't actually going to drive an extra hour to ski at a different resort. The only way to effect change is to lean on them whenever they have to go through the Forest Service for constructing improvements, and most importantly when their lease needs to be renewed (whenever that will be). At least in Oregon the snopark system is public so they can't completely kick you out. 

Also it is a misconception that the resorts pay a meaningful amount for the privilege of their lease agreements. Compared to their profits, the cost of the lease is immaterial. Sadly Vail has made certain that the Forest Service keeps the actual amount paid by resorts a secret so as not to offend public sensibilities. 

www.aspentimes.com/news/forest-service-e...int-by-vail-resorts/
Last edit: 02 Dec 2021 12:58 by Skier of the Hood.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lowell_Skoog
  • [Lowell_Skoog]
  • Lowell_Skoog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
02 Dec 2021 16:18 #235376 by Lowell_Skoog
Replied by Lowell_Skoog on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
I can't speak for all of the Snoqualmie ski areas, but I'm pretty sure Summit Central is private land. The land was bought by Ray Tanner (the original developer) from the Northern Pacific Railroad back in 1949.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

More
03 Dec 2021 08:39 #235381 by Stefan
Replied by Stefan on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Snoqualmie Pass area looks like it is a mix of public/private.  I can't vouch for how accurate the lines are, but most of my travels in the state are pretty close to how accurate this map is in private/public lands for this website.  If you know how to use this website, it shows public/private lands in Washington state:
wa-rco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard...4cc0b4e18cb0b88006ab
 

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lowell_Skoog
  • [Lowell_Skoog]
  • Lowell_Skoog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
03 Dec 2021 11:03 - 03 Dec 2021 11:12 #235383 by Lowell_Skoog
Replied by Lowell_Skoog on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Cool. Thanks Stefan.

Zooming in on the pass, it appears that Summit Central and most of Hyak are private land.

That was my guess, based on their history. I knew Ray Tanner bought Ski Acres years ago, and I figured that Hyak was probably private, because of its railroad history (as the Milwaukee Ski Bowl).

It also makes sense that the old Mountaineers hill was/is private, because the Mountaineers used to own it.

Summit West began it's skiing history in the 1930s as the Seattle Municipal Ski Park. Does that mean the City of Seattle owned it? Probably.

I note that there is a small square of private land right near the pass itself. I'm guessing that was previously owned by the City of Seattle and later bought by Webb Moffett during establishment of the private Snoqualmie Pass ski area there. Moffett probably got a Forest Service permit for the rest of the land used by what is now Summit West.
Last edit: 03 Dec 2021 11:12 by Lowell_Skoog.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lowell_Skoog
  • [Lowell_Skoog]
  • Lowell_Skoog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
03 Dec 2021 11:20 - 03 Dec 2021 11:23 #235384 by Lowell_Skoog
Replied by Lowell_Skoog on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Note also the private land surrounding Beaver Lake (NW of the old Ski Acres plot). I'm guessing that may be a remnant of the old Seattle Ski Club ski jump hill from the 1930s.

Cool. History, written in the landscape.
Last edit: 03 Dec 2021 11:23 by Lowell_Skoog.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • kamtron
  • [kamtron]
  • kamtron's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
06 Dec 2021 07:33 #235389 by kamtron
Replied by kamtron on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
It's $5 people. Not a big deal. I'm just glad they have a system worked out. Baker is "no touring" ever.
The following user(s) said Thank You: Brooski

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • MangyMarmot
  • [MangyMarmot]
  • MangyMarmot's Avatar
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
06 Dec 2021 09:44 #235390 by MangyMarmot
Replied by MangyMarmot on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
I guess since it is private land, they can make whatever rules they want.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • snoqpass
  • [snoqpass]
  • snoqpass's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
07 Dec 2021 15:46 #235391 by snoqpass
Replied by snoqpass on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Is Mt Baker Ski Area on private land? 
Attachments:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • snoqpass
  • [snoqpass]
  • snoqpass's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
07 Dec 2021 15:48 #235392 by snoqpass
Replied by snoqpass on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Mission Ridge policy says you have to be back in the base area by 7am
www.missionridge.com/uphill-policy-2021-22

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • snoqpass
  • [snoqpass]
  • snoqpass's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
07 Dec 2021 15:52 #235393 by snoqpass
Replied by snoqpass on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now

Note also the private land surrounding Beaver Lake (NW of the old Ski Acres plot). I'm guessing that may be a remnant of the old Seattle Ski Club ski jump hill from the 1930s.

Cool. History, written in the landscape.
Have you seen this plan of the ski jump at Summit West?
 

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF


 

Attachments:

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • kamtron
  • [kamtron]
  • kamtron's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
07 Dec 2021 16:02 #235394 by kamtron
Replied by kamtron on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
It doesn't really matter or not whether a ski area is on public or private land. The ski areas have a contract with the forest service which allows them to decide the rules there. Mt Baker doesn't like ski tourists, so it chooses to ban them (after years of "no official policy"). Not much you can do about it except try and not piss them off and get banned from the area & even the parking lots (yep, they can do and have done this).

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lowell_Skoog
  • [Lowell_Skoog]
  • Lowell_Skoog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
07 Dec 2021 16:03 - 07 Dec 2021 16:11 #235395 by Lowell_Skoog
Replied by Lowell_Skoog on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now

 Have you seen this plan of the ski jump at Summit West?
 

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF

Cool. Where did you get that?

I'm pretty sure (99%) that the plan you have is for the Milwaukee Bowl jump at Hyak, not Beaver Lake.

See John Lundin's book Ski Jumping in Washington State. The photo on p. 110 of the Hyak jump matches your plan drawing. The Beaver Lake jump (p. 89 and elsewhere) didn't have a big wooden structure like that.
 
Last edit: 07 Dec 2021 16:11 by Lowell_Skoog.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • snoqpass
  • [snoqpass]
  • snoqpass's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
07 Dec 2021 17:00 - 07 Dec 2021 18:37 #235396 by snoqpass
Replied by snoqpass on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now

 Have you seen this plan of the ski jump at Summit West?
 

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF

Cool. Where did you get that?

I'm pretty sure (99%) that the plan you have is for the Milwaukee Bowl jump at Hyak, not Beaver Lake.

See John Lundin's book Ski Jumping in Washington State. The photo on p. 110 of the Hyak jump matches your plan drawing. The Beaver Lake jump (p. 89 and elsewhere) didn't have a big wooden structure like that.

It came from the King County Map vault, the location is on the bottom right corner Section 4, T22N, R11E and its a different design from the Milwaukee Ski Bowl and I believe it would be section 15 for that area. Its possible it wasn't built to the plan at Beaver Lake or the plan was scrapped due to funding or some other reason or scaled back with a single judges stand you can see up by the trees. The Ski Bowl has a single judges tower with two jumps side by side. I printed it up full size, the top part is a overhead view if you eliminate the structures on the lookers left and everything but the judges stand on the lookers right you pretty much have whats in the photo of Beaver Lake. My best wild ass guess is they scaled back a bit from the drawing
Map of Summit showing parking lot and jump site
 

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF


Milwaukee Road RR Right of Way Map showing the ski jumps and tower
 

This browser does not support PDFs. Please download the PDF to view it: Download PDF


Hopefully I didn't hijack this thread too much




 

Attachments:
Last edit: 07 Dec 2021 18:37 by snoqpass.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lowell_Skoog
  • [Lowell_Skoog]
  • Lowell_Skoog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
08 Dec 2021 11:02 #235399 by Lowell_Skoog
Replied by Lowell_Skoog on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Thanks for the info about the Beaver Lake jump. I'll take your word for it that the structure in those diagrams really was at Beaver Lake. The fact that it's not visible in any photos I've seen of the jump suggests how much snow they got up there. Apparently the structure would get completely buried. When I've skied past that location on the Patrol Race route, I've wondered about the jump hill, because it didn't seem to have much of a "knoll." Disappearance of the old structure could account for that.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • markharf
  • [markharf]
  • markharf's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
08 Dec 2021 15:03 #235400 by markharf
Replied by markharf on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now

Mt Baker doesn't like ski tourists, so it chooses to ban them (after years of "no official policy"). Not much you can do about it except try and not piss them off and get banned from the area & even the parking lots.

Trying to be fair about this, despite my intense distaste for the increasing--and increasingly rude--harassment. The ski area has certainly had to respond to the troops of oblivious snowshoers and postholers heading uphill, downhill, and all around from the upper parking lot. It used to be a couple of skiers, widely scattered and largely considerate, but those days are long gone now. And although I never used to think it was a major issue, the use of ski area parking by backcountry folks has also gotten intense, sometimes overwhelming. Restrictions were bound to follow. 

I saw an application for expanding the upper parking lot somewhere this summer, I've forgotten where. It gave as justification the vastly increased number of non-ski-area users. I was surprised to find myself ever so slightly sympathetic. 

Mark 

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Lowell_Skoog
  • [Lowell_Skoog]
  • Lowell_Skoog's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Platinum Member
  • Platinum Member
More
08 Dec 2021 18:21 - 08 Dec 2021 18:22 #235404 by Lowell_Skoog
Replied by Lowell_Skoog on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now

Mt Baker doesn't like ski tourists, so it chooses to ban them (after years of "no official policy"). Not much you can do about it except try and not piss them off and get banned from the area & even the parking lots.

 

Trying to be fair about this, despite my intense distaste for the increasing--and increasingly rude--harassment. The ski area has certainly had to respond to the troops of oblivious snowshoers and postholers heading uphill, downhill, and all around from the upper parking lot. It used to be a couple of skiers, widely scattered and largely considerate, but those days are long gone now. And although I never used to think it was a major issue, the use of ski area parking by backcountry folks has also gotten intense, sometimes overwhelming. Restrictions were bound to follow. 

I saw an application for expanding the upper parking lot somewhere this summer, I've forgotten where. It gave as justification the vastly increased number of non-ski-area users. I was surprised to find myself ever so slightly sympathetic. 

Mark 

 

I find myself quite sympathetic to the non-skier user group, having staged my wedding near the Austin Pass cabin last winter with family members on snowshoes.
 
Last edit: 08 Dec 2021 18:22 by Lowell_Skoog.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • markharf
  • [markharf]
  • markharf's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
12 Dec 2021 22:39 - 12 Dec 2021 22:40 #235427 by markharf
Replied by markharf on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
I'm overflowing with sympathy for non-ski-area-users (since that's the real issue, not non-skiers), being one myself. But given the crowds these past two seasons, conflicts with the ski area, the Forest Service, and the DOT plow operators are more or less inevitable. That being the case, we might as well deal with it as productively as possible. That doesn't mean capitulating; it does mean not demonizing the other side...unless they really deserve it, which they sometimes do. 

IMHO, of course.

Mark 
Last edit: 12 Dec 2021 22:40 by markharf. Reason: basic grammar and syntax

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • CascadeClimber
  • [CascadeClimber]
  • CascadeClimber's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Junior Member
  • Junior Member
More
14 Dec 2021 19:13 - 14 Dec 2021 19:18 #235438 by CascadeClimber
Replied by CascadeClimber on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
I couldn't care less about skinning uphill on a groomed ski slope, personally. And it's a slippery slope that I've seen whichever entity is in charge of Snoqualmie Pass abuse repeatedly in the past. There was a winter where they banned all non-ticketed skier parking on ALL of their lots. That effectively closed all public parking north of I-90 and resulted in people hiking along a narrow, snowy road to get to the traditional Source Lake/Chair Peak/Snow Lake winter access trail west of the creek. The Access Fund got involved to get that reversed.

Then there was the time they tried to ban uphill travel on that same long-used winter access route and force uphill travel onto the other side of the creek, which I feel is more dangerous.

It's *public* land and should be managed with that as the priority, IMO. If I get there at 6:00 AM to skin up and climb Chair Peak, I should be able to park in any lot on public land and use public land, regardless of how the ski area uses it, to access that public land.

Another 15-20 years and it might not matter; the lift ski season there is getting shorter...down to what, 10 weeks or so if you don't want to ski on rocks or in 35 degree rain?

But the model of for-profit companies and their paying customers getting preferential access to public land (including MORA) is flat wrong and unnecessary.

Edit to add: My energetic digging into things at MORA made it pretty clear that the long-standing over-friendly glad-handing of the guide services and looking the other way as they repeatedly violated the Wilderness Act was all about the money guiding funneled into the park (40% of gross if memory serves). So I'd bet that some decent chuck of that idiotic $5 uphill fee goes right to the forest service. And I agree: It will not stay $5 for long.
Last edit: 14 Dec 2021 19:18 by CascadeClimber.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • gravitymk
  • [gravitymk]
  • gravitymk's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
14 Dec 2021 19:52 #235439 by gravitymk
Replied by gravitymk on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Spot on K.

SUP's on federal land aren't free, and neither is insurance, maintenance and the improvements and responsibilities that go along with operating a ski area on said land.
You don't use the facilities or amenities? BS. If you are touring up a ski area, then you are on a developed ski run, that someone (not you) paid for. 

Crap??  I never understood why people feel they are entitled to ski uphill at a ski resort for free.   First it starts with the parking lots,  graded and reworked in off-season, plowed in the winter.  Then we have the slopes that are brush cut in the summer, groomed in winter, avalanche controlled if necessary.   Then, this is optional, but bathrooms, food service, ski patrol in an emergency?  So the ski area is constantly spending money to provide a better skier experience,   Not to mention fees to the forest service for their lease.   So, you think you should get all this for free?  

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • Skier of the Hood
  • [Skier of the Hood]
  • Skier of the Hood's Avatar
  • Offline
  • New Member
  • New Member
More
14 Dec 2021 20:35 - 14 Dec 2021 20:38 #235440 by Skier of the Hood
Replied by Skier of the Hood on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
Personally I don't tour up ski resorts either. BUT I do tour out of ski resort parking lots quite often. I don't like being fully excluded from the ski resort but what matters is being fully excluded from trailhead access. The ski resort may in some instances pay for plowing of the lot but they do not pay for the much higher cost of highway access and maintenance that is funded by taxpayers. Essentially if the ski resort is given full control without reasonable restrictions we will end up at a place where not only can you not access backcountry through the ski resorts but now all the terrain accessed from their parking lots becomes inaccessible. Or now you must pay to access a service (high elevation trailhead) that is heavily subsidised by taxpayer dollars with little added value from the concesionare (ski resort). 

And just to beat a dead horse, the SUP isn't free, but it sure is cheap.
Last edit: 14 Dec 2021 20:38 by Skier of the Hood.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.

  • gravitymk
  • [gravitymk]
  • gravitymk's Avatar
  • Offline
  • Senior Member
  • Senior Member
More
15 Dec 2021 08:02 #235441 by gravitymk
Replied by gravitymk on topic New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
This may be a valid point, (Are we talking about Mt. Baker hwy?) however expecting ski areas to cater to your specific desires will probably leave you feeling unfulfilled. By their nature, most are for profit enterprises and their first priority is to cater to their paying customers. That said, in many cases the SUP includes language that mandates that they maintain some level of public land user access to existing trail heads. 

The reality is, ski touring in general has grown well beyond the level of public interest these agreements were originally crafted to accommodate. I would argue that it's up to public lands managers to evolve with the times and find a way to bridge this gap. This might mean development of new trailheads along with improvement to existing to expand parking, etc. Regardless, I doubt that pointing fingers at/fighting with ski areas is the answer... On the other hand, organizing and taking the concern to regional public representatives may be more productive. Consider Evergreen Mountain bike and their regional advocacy efforts as a good example (yeah, apples and oranges, but still).

Looking up the dead horses ars to see what killed it... You mention the SUP being cheap but you ignore all the other points of a ski areas P&L statement, so yeah...

Personally I don't tour up ski resorts either. BUT I do tour out of ski resort parking lots quite often. I don't like being fully excluded from the ski resort but what matters is being fully excluded from trailhead access. The ski resort may in some instances pay for plowing of the lot but they do not pay for the much higher cost of highway access and maintenance that is funded by taxpayers. Essentially if the ski resort is given full control without reasonable restrictions we will end up at a place where not only can you not access backcountry through the ski resorts but now all the terrain accessed from their parking lots becomes inaccessible. Or now you must pay to access a service (high elevation trailhead) that is heavily subsidised by taxpayer dollars with little added value from the concesionare (ski resort). 

And just to beat a dead horse, the SUP isn't free, but it sure is cheap.

Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.