cakeo48

Depends on how one grades it, if one grades it strictly based on steepness then yes WI5's must be almost completely vertical. But in many cases the quality of ice, and strenuous natural of the climb Is factored into the grading. This climb would definitely fall into this category , if it doesn't meet the vertical requirement.

The ski hill in Washington's largest state park, even that doesn't sound that great. Well it's basically the only mountain within in 45mins, that holds snow, so a ski hill makes sense. But it's taken half of the mountain over, and now the "non-profit" company wants to takeover the untouched westside. Over half a decade ago Mt Spokane has wanted to expand, with much resistance. Using manipulation of the facts, a lie here a there lie, and exaggeration to gain some support. Even some of higher up people in the company have lied. Here are some of companies lies: It would be safer to have the new lift, people wouldn't get stuck in the backcountry. Truth: having a lift on the westside would attract more un-experienced people into the sidecountry, increasing number of people getting stuck. The area has little other use, than for lift served skiing.Truth: It's the only reliable undeveloped backcountry ski area in the county, and is one of the only wilderness like areas near the city, great for off trail hiking. People would not be able to backcountry ski if the land was not classified for alpine skiing, and rec. Truth: there is no land classification the land could be put in, that would limit Backcountry skiing. The ski area would stay open longer. Truth: The slope aspects, altitude, or temps. aren't any better than the existing skiing area, and the ski hill's snow is so bad late season opening longer would not be beneficial. The expansion will help the community's economy. Truth: Only a few job positions would be created, mostly being filled by volunteers, and college students. Mount Spokane could never become a destination resort, with the worst terrain, and snow between the four resorts within a sixty mile radius, and Spokane international only serving some of the best skiing skiing states, so there's no real effect on the economy. It's really redevelopment not first development. Truth: There is really no evidence of any kind of extensive run cutting in the area of the expansion, just a small rope tow setup for a short amount of time. Previous ski developments were only in the south meadows area, or near chair one. Under no definition the area contains old growth forest, and isn't unique. Truth: Well under most definitions The Spokane area contain no Old growth forest, but this area has some of the oldest forest in the area, and within just a few decades it would become old growth forest. It also contains some of the most unique forests I've seen in the area. There's a lack of alpine skiing in the area. Truth: There's a plentiful supply of alpine skiing in the area, including Schweitzer with 2900 acres, which is almost empty on weekdays. Overall Mt Spokane's expansion is unneeded and doesn't solve any of it's current problems, like slow lifts, and low capacity, low snow quality, run down lodges, and limited learning area. This plan would be way more beneficial: http://www.savemtspokane.org/Mt_Spokane_2020.html Hopefully the Injunctions can delay the westside expansion for a while...End of rant...

How does that work the company goes to the government to get a government name trademarked, why didn't some one catch that. Secondly, who does that...

Looks like you could ski great Communist pow...but their so anti-backcountry, looks like it might be a shooting offense.

How do washed out Bulldozer tracks create problems, they just become the hillside again. As roads the bulk of them are useless lead nowhere, car destroying, gated roads. I not suggesting the Forest service should not mantain and build useful roads that actually go places.

The cows can enjoy their grass, but I think we have enough Subsidized Toilet paper plantations, overall it's probably taking more good from the people then it's really helping them. Makes you wish that Secretary of the Interior actually created the Conservation agency, which would control all public lands, and protect them from destruction.

The FS spends millions of dollars a year building pointless, stupidly designed crappy roads, for loggers each year. Overall the FS isn't really benefiting from this, facilitating loggers in many cases cost more or the same as the tax dollars from that logging. So why can't they stop it, let the loggers build their own roads, if they feel like logging that land. Then the FS can use these dollars to improve important roads, and support other industries in public land, like the small non-profit ski hill, or small hotel cabins. Help more people enjoy the forest, instead of supporting it's degradation.

90L? I almost fell over when I read that, if you want your knees to last, you need to reduce your weight. You don't have to go crazy ultralight, but regular lightweight really doesn't mean giving up much, most of time it's just better technology to make a better and lightweight product. If you don't want to get new stuff you should dial in your set up, you need to figure out what you actually use regularly on a trip, this process is usually helped by a smaller pack. Lastly if any of your kids are over 7-8 then they need to carry more of there own stuff, 8-11 15-20L, 12-14 30-35L, 14+ all there share of the stuff. Stop overpacking, pack smarter, and get down to 60-70L for most trips. Then later you can get down to 60L for ten day comfortably, if you want. For now I would Recommend a 60-65 plus 10.

Unless your pack weights 2lb, it would probably be more like a miniature helicopter, that would make a bunch of initiating noises...that quite interesting...

Think I have read it, and I probably not going to find it again, There's not a lot of remaining documents that I can find. I find it Ironic that the company went to court to get the ski area approved on this one mountain, but Sandy Butte actually has a lot less snow than most mountains in the area. It Must be in Silver star's and Gardner's "snow shadow".

It's a shame no one considers the long term investment in a smaller ski area, as the locals have said they wanted a smaller ski area to help their economy, without effecting their culture too much, and they could probably get it built. But no major development company builds resorts between 500-1000 acres anymore, the local resort is dead...

Since the 70's many companies have tried to get a massive Ski Area Approved, on the undisturbed Sandy Butte, but that proposal was completely rejected. By the 90's the idea disappeared, even though there were many other areas that could of worked just across the valley, many of which were already being logged, or even completely logged and burned. So why is no one trying now, chances are it would be approved in these areas. Possible areas, a more southern aspect burned area, with adequate snow, 2000ft of steeper vertical. Partially logged area west of burn, 2700-3000 feet of steeper vertical, more western aspect. Logged Mountain east has a little less snow that the other areas, 2000ft of west and east aspect. Lastly the goat peak option, which has 3000ft of western aspect, least logged area, but best for ski area . Could a ski hill effect the culture of the area too much? Depends a smaller ski hill with mostly expert runs, and no permanent housing. Would have little effect on the area, but who knows what a bigger resort would do. Although most of us would never use this ski area, would you mind its existence?

I think it would be better, if it became it's own park including the pasayten wilderness, but the park would have to be more like the Gates of the Arctic national park, with no fees, and passes, with no facilities, or up keep.

I would not recommend going there until the fire is out, that area was very smokey even when raining, and even with wind blowing away from the pass on Tuesday. Smoke is worst over 5000 feet. Also there's probably only glacier ice left, like everywhere else.

The fire on Goode Mountain that started During late July was put out earlier in August, in the end it was 605 acres. It burned most of the basin above park creek, great-fully it started before the Chelan fire, or firefighters would'nt be available to stop the fire. Also the wolverine is still burning it's 40,000 acres.