FYI: Cooper Spur Expansion - MHM

[iain]

Here is some information about the very important development plans of Mt. Hood Meadows in the Cooper Spur area. It's worth reading to find out their plans for this historic and beautiful area.

 

-Iain

 

From Off Piste Magazine

[Winter]

Aw man, I almost don't want to get into this because it fires me up. They want to put a lift up to the wilderness boundary and remove the Tilly Jane trail, not to mention the amphitheater and "up scale" shopping amenities plus the 450 units of condos, houses, clearcuts for ski trails, etc. Conservation issues tend to solicit crazy spray on this site, but if anyone wants more info. or wants to do something let me know.

 

[ 05-24-2002, 07:50 AM: Message edited by: Winter ]

[tobytortorelli]

Wow, this is great!!!!! I could do without the golf course, but it would provide me with access to the alpine on that side of the mtn. We need expansion of all ski areas (hills)in the U.S. and Canada. Our areas don't provide us enough and don't function as gateways into the back-cunt-ry as they do in Europe. Hope all goes through O.K.

[iain]

On a more trivial note, how could they possibly raise their lift ticket prices any higher to cover this expansion? They think they're a big resort and charge big resort prices. You wait in line way too long there, lifts are on a "grooming hold" at 9am (what are nights for anyways), and the facilities are crap. They know they have the best terrain at altitude so they resort to highway robbery and half-ass work.

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Winter:

Aw man, I almost don't want to get into this because it fires me up. They want to put a lift up to the wilderness boundary and remove the Tilly Jane trail, not to mention the amphitheater and "up scale" shopping amenities plus the 450 units of condos, houses, clearcuts for ski trails, etc. Conservation issues tend to solicit crazy spray on this site, but if anyone wants more info. or wants to do something let me know, because I'm either suing or thinking about suing just about everyone involved.

---

Winter,

You can count me as an ally in this matter. I've climbed Mount Hood close to 50 times and I've always looked at this mountain as a place where "man and nature meet", the south and southeast sides providing enjoyment for skiers with the north and west sides providing a more "natural" experience for hikers and climbers. This plan, as described, will upset that balance.

 

Let's face it. Mount Hood and surrounding environs' are not "deep wilderness" by any definition. But this plan is a desecration.

 

I've always stated my support for maintaining EXISTING wilderness access roads and trails, but this plan in a NEW encroachment.

 

...And while the MHNF ponders limiting access for climbers on this wonderful mountain based on subjuctive criteria like "solitude", they appear more than willing to permit physical environmental damage with this plan.

 

What's next? A chairlift up Cooper Spur to the summit?

 

Brian

[MtnHigh]

Thank you Iain for the posting

 

Climbers of the PNW should stand together and

fight the development hungry fucks at Meadows with their plan to expand the Cooper Spur area.

They have gobbled up large tracks of land in the Cooper Spur area over the past two years through acquisitions and Gov't leases. And now they are ready to unlease their evil plan.

 

The N side of Hood is the most remote and rugged area of the mountain. Developing Cooper Spur into some Club Med shit hole will taint the wilderness experience with the likes of traffic, parking lots, congestion, commercialism, shit, shit, shit.

 

There's a reason why we leave town on the weekends and head for the hills, and it's not to find the same crap that city life offers.

 

Access to the N side of the Hood in the Winter and Spring requires extra work because the Tilly Jane road above the ski is not maintained. Hikers, climbers and skiers must start at 3700'. For me the extra effort is worth it. It keeps out the Club Med crowd and the wanna-bees. We do not need another 'gateway' to Hood. Access is already easy enough.

[Winter]

Amen brother. Ain't no need for it on the North side. Check out the Off Piste website and call Kim Titus to tell her so. Kudos to Dave Wagg, author of Oregon Descents and editor of Off Piste on a job well done. Spread the word.

 

[ 05-14-2002, 11:11 PM: Message edited by: Winter ]

[CraigA]

OK, I had a shitty day at work and I really did not need to see this. Instead of ranting and raving I'm just going to say this: we need to all get involved. I love the great outdoors and I agree MtnHigh I do not go to the mountain to enjoy what the city has to offer.

 

Let's shoot this thing down so we don't have to pay Meadows an access fee for winter climbing on the north side.

 

%&$#'em all

 

Craig

[willstrickland]

I've heard about this off and on for months on OPB radio. After having just walked into the north side, using the Tilly Jane trail and the ski cabin as a rest stop, I've gotta say it makes me mad, fighting mad. There's something so nice about the north side...and that something is tranquility and seclusion. Do I wish I could have started from 6000 instead of 3700? Sure. But at the cost of development? Hell no! You want easier access? Wait until the Tilley Jane CG and Cloud Cap road open. The ski area as it is has virtually nothing...a t bar and rope tow, a few runs, not much elev, and not much in amenities. That's fine, keeps the masses out. Meadows is looking to expand because, lets face it, meadows is running at capacity in season. Portland area growth is still huge and they see the potential dollars...everyone sees that. Why am I telling you guys this? Hell we know all this, the question is how to educate/motivate/mobilize the masses of wilderness lovers in the area...and there are a shitload of them out there.

[CraigA]

Touche willstrickland, touche!

[tobytortorelli]

It seems to me, from reading the article, that Cooper Spur has had a permit, from that ski area's conception, of 1400 acres. Meadows is buying this existing permit and using it. It will most likely be below timberline, and stick to the North American standards of being a totally shitty, skied out area. Sooo, I think i'm with you guys now. Has anyone acted on thier anger????? Let us know...........

[Winter]

Meadows bought the permit, but they have plans to expand the permit area into the Tilly Jane Historic district ... i.e. directly overhead the Cloud Cap road and up to Cloud Cap. They need this area in order to put in a decent ski area, because the snow is so shitty on that side of the mountain that they need to get up pretty high. The mid-mountain lift will be within 400-500 vertical feet of the A-frame, and the top lift will be just below the Cloud Cap inn. The mid-mountain restaurant will be right on the Tilly Jane trail, and Meadows has told folks that the new "climbers trail" will be a cat track used to move around heavy machinery. But, we'll all love it because it will be so well maintained.

[Bug]

Monkeywrench.

[willstrickland]

Whatever happened to that thar Hayduke feller? I hear tell he lives!

[Fairweather]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Bug:

Monkeywrench.

---

The above comment is why environmentalists fail to sway public opinion. Indeed, it is why many of you are viewed as kooks. As I stated above, I think this expansion idea is an outrage. But I think anyone who would suggest resorting to "monkeywrenching" (call it what it is... terrorism) needs to get a grip. I think "Winter's" suggestion of using the legal system is a bit more useful.

[iain]

I would say the Eagle Creek timber sale was suspended largely due to the down-and-dirty tree sitting tactics that put the sale on the public mind. Kooks? Perhaps, but they definitely swayed public opinion. I think the Hayduke comments were partly in jest. After all, there aren't even gas tanks to sugar yet.

[Fairweather]

Given the terrorist tactics used in Vail when ski area expansion foes didn't get their way, the "monkey wrenching" comment was not appropriate in my view.

 

Re: Hayduke Lives... The "eco-warrior" is nothing more than a coward who has placed him/herself above the law.

 

[ 05-17-2002, 12:25 AM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[Winter]

Let's be really clear here. There is a BIG difference between non-violent civil disobedience like sitting in trees to protect them from the axe vs. burning buildings. Treesitters are in no way terrorists ... they place a lot on the line to save the trees and the only folks in harm's way are those that voluntarily choose to go get them in the hopes of cutting down the trees.

 

I do not condone burning buildings. But my own opinion is that the word terrorism is misplaced. To equate destruction of property (NOBODY has ever been injured by these folks) with the random targeting and elimination of human lives on the scale of 9-11 is misleading. If you want to have a rational discussion about the pros and cons of violent disobedience you have to at least recognize that the violence is targeted at things and money and not people.

 

Trees, water and air are things as well. WE own them, and they have a very real economic value. Perhaps the corporate timber and mining interests are the real terrorists.

[Fairweather]

Winter,

 

You are reading too much into what I wrote. I did not equate tree-sitting with terrorism. I DID attach that word to "Bug's" single word reply, "monkeywrenching". I never tried to draw a moral equivalent between 9-11 and burning down a ski lodge at Vail, although that act was clearly terrorism. I believe it was I that was trying to keep the thread civil by pointing out a reason why "your side" so regularly loses the debate.

 

You stated that "no one ever gets hurt" by these people. Oh really? Then the Unabomber was a right-wing extremist???

 

If you are an attorney as your bio states, I am surprised by your sympathies.

 

[ 05-17-2002, 06:40 PM: Message edited by: Fairweather ]

[iain]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Fairweather:

...terrorism. I DID attach that word to "Bug's" single word reply, "monkeywrenching".

---

But "monkey wrench" by definition is "something that disrupts." There is no violent connotation. I would say tree-sitting disrupts, so it is a monkey wrench. But it would also be terrorism by your above statement. I think you'd agree that tree spiking would be terrorism, but tree-sitting is not. Just wanted to keep things clear (and tedious).

[Winter]

I should be out drinking beer but instead I'm allowing myself to get sucked into this debate before leaving tomorrow morning for Hood.

 

FW, alls I said was, let's be clear. Iain said tree sitting, you said terrorism, and I wanted to make it clear that treesitters aren't terrorists.

 

As for the unabomber comment, you have got to be kidding. That guy was a loony living in a shack in the woods mailing bombs to people. To equate him with the ELF/ALF vail-burning folks is totally inappropriate. That's graspnig for straws, my friend. Once again, in order to have a real discussion about this you have to distinguish between killing folks and burning shit. If you know much about the history of forest protection, you'll know its the people fighting to save the tress that get blown up and have trees dropped on 'em.

 

And as for the attorney comment, last time I checked there wasn't a requirement that you be a conservative corporate droid in order to get admitted to the bar.

[Fairweather]

I guess my bottom line is this:

 

The vast majority of people who would oppose this ski area expansion, and whom you would count on to support your position, want nothing to do with "monkeywrenching". When you tolerate that kind of talk, or even show tacit approval for that type of activity, you destroy the very support upon which you must rely.

 

Work within the system. Reject those who won't.

[rbw1966]

Work within the system? Seems to me that sometimes its the very "system" itself thats the problem. However nebulous you care to define the system.

 

I don't see any place where Chris condoned any kind of action that works outside of the system he is using to stop the expansion. Involving him in your views against monkeywrenching is mean-spirited. Tree-sitting is hardly an act of terrorism. I supported those folks and will continue to do so. I don't, however, support any violent acts that risk human life.

 

How was the sunshine route Chris? I went up South side with a couple of newbies and was astounded by the numbers! At least 150 people. Crazy.

[Norman_Clyde]

I think Fairweather's point is that those of us who stand for preservation of the wilderness need to keep an eye on the bedrock principles we exercise, and if even a small fringe group stands in favor of destructive action for the sake of wilderness, it erodes the credibility of the entire movement. You might look at what a hard time Yasser Arafat has maintaining his credibility whenever Hamas claims responsibility for another suicide bomb (I know, different context, but I hope you get the point). I agree that some development projects seem to have been defeated simply by wearing down the developers with various forms of non-terrorist harassment. But if you want to be a leader in the moral debate, and you want to keep the public on your side, you should keep your principles very high and not commit some action that you can't justify morally. Eco-terrorists may destroy property with "peaceful" intent, but with this tactic used repeatedly, eventually someone will be hurt or killed as a result, and the whole wilderness preservation movement will have a bloodstain that will be very hard to wash off. Tree sitting is a much more powerful, Gandhi-esque statement than tree spiking, and will gain you a lot more supporters among the otherwise complacent public.

[Winter]

The North Side was beautiful, but we got snowed off. Rob, did you see our registration? We went up Sat. night, bivied on the Elliot and woke up with about 6-8 inches of fresh snow and about 50 yards of visibility. Oh well, gotta' be there in case its good, but I'm glad I bailed on the 6+ mile approach to Jeff. Glad to hear you got out this weekend. Looked like a complete zoo on Saturday morning.

 

As for the rest of this thread, I've been pretty consistent. 1. Tresitters are not "terrorists." 2. Equating the burning of buildings with murder is flat out wrong.

 

I'll stick by those principles. I never have and still don't condone arson or destruction of private property. That ain't my gig. As y'all say, I work within the system, and I'll discourage that type of activity up at Cooper Spur. But I'll speak up every single time when someone implies or explicitly states that these folks are the same as or equivalent to the Hamas or Al Quaeda or any of those other murdering fanatics. That ain't right, and that's the kind of narrow-minded thinking that leads to restrictons on civil liberties and personal freedoms.

 

Ya wanna build public support in this town? Keep it real folks, because the people in Portland and the Pacific Northwest see through the bullshit.