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.

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. 

khyak wrote:

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?  

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.

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...

Skier of the Hood wrote:

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.