[Randito]

[Malachai Constant]

Well in the early 70’s we packed downhill skis and boots up St. Helens was that considered “ski touring”? The Silver Skis race from Muir to Paradise was in the 1930’s. Mining camps in the 1870 got around on Norwegian Snowshoes. Until the 1920s all there was was ski touring /s

[Cyclopath]

[Randito]

[cascadeclimber]

[Randito]

[kiliki]

^^^ This. It's not that federal land management agencies are spending more on infrastructure--on the contrary. The most prolific development periods in NPS history were the 1930s and 1956-1966. The NPS spend over $1 billion during the latter period on roads, campgrounds, trails, day use areas, lodges, housing etc etc. But parks were free. Taxes were high and that's (in part) what we spent the money on. No more. The pay to play model is what lawmakers have decided will be the funding source. (And of course here in WA, we have lawmakers that have gone so far as to mandate that state parks be entirely self sustaining). You can look at the budgets to various state and federal land management agencies over the years; they have been slashed or at best remained static in the face of growing population. And as much as I support the environmental laws and laws that protect cultural resources, they do take a chunk of the budget--for protection, monitoring, etc.

[kiliki]

The guy behind The Storm Skiing Journal recently had a Q&A where he talked, among other things, about how WA in particular "needs" more lift serviced downhill ski areas, and he generally blamed environmentalists for the lack of new areas. I disagree a lot with his conclusions but it made me wonder--do we think people here would even support new ski area development? It seems to me that more people, even outdoors people, would oppose than support it. I hate crowded slopes but I don't want to see new paved roads and parking lots and logged runs. https://www.stormskiing.com/p/ask-me-anything-68-reader-questions?s=r Washington, where the need for more skier capacity is probably most acute, has been a no-go-zone for wilderness development for decades. This 1992 Los Angeles Times examination of why the Early Winters ski resort had been stalled since Aspen selected the Northern Cascades site for development in 1974 summarized the roadblocks succinctly: Developers everywhere cite the same reasons for delayed or aborted projects: a new generation of environmental laws, and a new generation of environmentalists quick to apply the letter of those laws. “They can literally tie the hands of an operator merely by appealing, regardless of whether there are grounds for their appeal,” said Doug Campbell, president of the Pacific Northwest Ski Assn. This basic situation remains true today, and I don’t see that dynamic changing, no matter how overstuffed the existing Cascades resorts get. East of the coastal states, developers find friendlier regulators, but that leads to the second issue: ski resorts are insanely expensive. ... Most Western resorts operate on U.S. Forest Service leases, and most of the land most suitable to ski area development probably lies within these holdings. The ski industry should work with the Forest Service to establish a template for future resort development, which could hinge on transit-oriented access, dense and walkable pedestrian base villages, sustainable water sourcing, and clean, onsite energy plants. There are solutions out there if everyone can compromise a little bit.

[trestle]

[kiliki]

[trestle]

Came across this informative essay today. When is the end of the golden age of PNW skiing? Some very interesting comments about the unfortunate closing of Pilchuck.

[Cyclopath]

[cascadeclimber]

[Randito]

[altasnob]

Crystal has set up a bunch of canvas "glamping" tents at 6,000 feet around Cambell Basin lodge so Amazon and Microsoft can hold corporate retreats there. Since it is National Forest Land, there is nothing they can do if someone wants to go pitch their tent in the middle of the camp. https://crystalskycamp.com/