- Posts: 50
- Thank you received: 0
New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now
- Richard_Korry
- [Richard_Korry]
-
Topic Author
- Offline
- Junior Member
-
$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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MangyMarmot
- [MangyMarmot]
-
- Offline
- New Member
-
- Posts: 21
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- khyak
- [khyak]
-
- Offline
- Junior Member
-
- Posts: 112
- Thank you received: 1
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Stefan
- [Stefan]
-
- Offline
- Junior Member
-
- Posts: 102
- Thank you received: 2
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MangyMarmot
- [MangyMarmot]
-
- Offline
- New Member
-
- Posts: 21
- Thank you received: 0
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]
-
- Offline
- New Member
-
- Posts: 6
- Thank you received: 0
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]
-
- Offline
- New Member
-
- Posts: 21
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Skier of the Hood
- [Skier of the Hood]
-
- Offline
- New Member
-
- Posts: 38
- Thank you received: 3
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.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.
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/
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Lowell_Skoog
- [Lowell_Skoog]
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 1460
- Thank you received: 16
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Stefan
- [Stefan]
-
- Offline
- Junior Member
-
- Posts: 102
- Thank you received: 2
wa-rco.maps.arcgis.com/apps/opsdashboard...4cc0b4e18cb0b88006ab
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Lowell_Skoog
- [Lowell_Skoog]
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 1460
- Thank you received: 16
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Lowell_Skoog
- [Lowell_Skoog]
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 1460
- Thank you received: 16
Cool. History, written in the landscape.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- kamtron
- [kamtron]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 270
- Thank you received: 8
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- MangyMarmot
- [MangyMarmot]
-
- Offline
- New Member
-
- Posts: 21
- Thank you received: 0
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- snoqpass
- [snoqpass]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 252
- Thank you received: 0
Attachments:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- snoqpass
- [snoqpass]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 252
- Thank you received: 0
www.missionridge.com/uphill-policy-2021-22
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- snoqpass
- [snoqpass]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 252
- Thank you received: 0
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?
Attachments:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- kamtron
- [kamtron]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 270
- Thank you received: 8
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Lowell_Skoog
- [Lowell_Skoog]
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 1460
- Thank you received: 16
Cool. Where did you get that?
Have you seen this plan of the ski jump at Summit West?
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- snoqpass
- [snoqpass]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 252
- Thank you received: 0
Cool. Where did you get that?
Have you seen this plan of the ski jump at Summit West?
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
Milwaukee Road RR Right of Way Map showing the ski jumps and tower
Hopefully I didn't hijack this thread too much
Attachments:
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Lowell_Skoog
- [Lowell_Skoog]
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 1460
- Thank you received: 16
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- markharf
- [markharf]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 339
- Thank you received: 3
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.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.
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]
-
- Offline
- Platinum Member
-
- Posts: 1460
- Thank you received: 16
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.
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.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.
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.
- markharf
- [markharf]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 339
- Thank you received: 3
IMHO, of course.
Mark
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- CascadeClimber
- [CascadeClimber]
-
- Offline
- Junior Member
-
- Posts: 90
- Thank you received: 0
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.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- gravitymk
- [gravitymk]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 387
- Thank you received: 0
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]
-
- Offline
- New Member
-
- Posts: 38
- Thank you received: 3
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.
- gravitymk
- [gravitymk]
-
- Offline
- Senior Member
-
- Posts: 387
- Thank you received: 0
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.