New Summit Uphill Policy in effect now

snoqpass wrote:

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

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.
 

Lowell_Skoog wrote:

snoqpass wrote:

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

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
 

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

Hopefully I didn't hijack this thread too much




 

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.

kamtron wrote:

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 

markharf wrote:

kamtron wrote:

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.
 

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