Why there is no skiing resorts in parts of Oregon? (Medford: ski resort, hotels)

[Or3g0n]

Look at northern and central Oregon Cascades, they have many skiing spots. It includes Mt hood, some dotted under forest lines in the cascades and Mt. Bachelor. But why is there no skiing resorts in southern Oregon Cascades? Central cascades is exactly 150 miles from the northern and southern border. Other than Mt. Ashland, look at these four or five white peaks on the Google Maps. Similar size to Mt. Bachelor, wouldn't they make a great spot to ski for southern Oregon?

[karlsch]

I want to know the answer to George Bush's question, "is our children learning?"


Rarely is the question asked... - YouTube

[hamellr]

Originally Posted by Or3g0n

Look at northern and central Oregon Cascades, they have many skiing spots. It includes Mt hood, some dotted under forest lines in the cascades and Mt. Bachelor. But why is there no skiing resorts in southern Oregon Cascades? Central cascades is exactly 150 miles from the northern and southern border. Other than Mt. Ashland, look at these four or five white peaks on the Google Maps. Similar size to Mt. Bachelor, wouldn't they make a great spot to ski for southern Oregon?

Economics. They're too far away from large enough population centers to make the venture profitable.

You're also missing the fact that there are ski areas down there: Skiing the Cascade Volcanoes: Pelican Butte

Cat Ski Mt Bailey | Oregon's Premiere Backcountry Cat Skiing Operation

Warner Canyon | Lakeview Oregon

Just not large resorts.

[Nell Plotts]

I believe there are a couple small community ski areas (like Ski Bowl in the 1940) with a tow rope.

There aren't enough people to financially support a developed area.

[Larry Caldwell]

It's the other half of why rural Oregonians are so upset about the federal absentee landlord system. The shutdown in national forest logging caused the loss of thousands of jobs and the destruction of many once prosperous rural communities, while environmental laws prevent the development of destination resorts that would have replaced at least part of the economic base. An example is the Mt. McLoughlin ski resort, which was blocked because the lynx is endangered. There are no lynx on Mt. McLoughlin, but if a lynx ever went there it might be upset by skiing, so there is no ski resort on Mt. McLoughlin.

[kapetrich]

There's some great info here. I've asked this question myself and a lot of these explanations make sense.

To all the skiers: Mt. Bailey has some of the best terrain in the Oregon Cascades. They've got a pretty solid cat operation, but it's costly. As much as I love that Oregon has such pristine landscapes (one of the reasons I moved here), I can't help but want some more low impact resorts (just lifts, 1 lodge, type) on our better terrain......

[Bendite]

Originally Posted by Larry Caldwell

... while environmental laws prevent the development of destination resorts that would have replaced at least part of the economic base.

I disagree. Today's Bend Bulletin has an article about destination resorts in Deschutes County and the commissioners' re-drafting of eligible resort land. In our county, there is still plenty of resort land available even with the redrawn map. The newest resorts in our area (including Pronghorn and Tetherow) have had to file extension after extension to meet the hotel and other public lodging requirements - none of them have complied to date saying there is not enough tourism to cover the expensive outlay. Instead they have built multi-million dollar homes and golf courses, which were supposed ot have been constructed after the hotels. "Destination Resort" are the words for high-end suburban sprawl.

[Dry Side]

Bendite, spot on. Destination resorts are just a way to circumvent the Urban Growth Boundary. I think they sold less then 6 lots in Tetherow this year. It's pretty clear that demand for Destination Resorts comes no where near what current supply is. They were an answer to real-estate exuberance that no longer fits into the real-world economy.

[Larry Caldwell]

Ayup. Don't want to support any nasty economic development in rural areas.

[Deezus]

There was a failed proposal by Jeld-Wen to build a $37 million ski area on Pelican Butte(near Mt. McLoughlin between Ashland/Medford and Klamath Falls) over a decade ago. The plan was opposed by environmentalists and the Forest Service(I believe it was possible Wolverine habitat). Eventually the whole Butte become part of the Winema Roadless Area at the end of the Clinton administration. Had it been built it would have had 3800 ft of vertical(more than Bachelor) and be connected to the Running Y Ranch Resort outside Klamath Falls.

Other than that the main ski areas in Southern Cascades/Siskiyous are Mount Ashland and then Mt. Shasta about an hour away in California. Both are small areas--and both are really unable to expand. Mt. Shasta because of the high avalanche danger(the original resort on the mountain was destroyed by a slide)--and Ashland because of environmental opposition. Mt. Ashland has wanted to expand for over 40 years now but has been able to get final approval from the Forest Service. The mountain is too small and too steep to attract many more skiers from either nearby or outside the region--which is why many in the Rogue Valley travel to the slightly bigger Mt. Shasta area an hour away. Environmentalists claim that the new lifts would damage the Ashland Creek watershed (along with some rare lichens and lupine species). When I was in college as a journalism major at SOU, I wrote several articles and covered the story for Jeffereson Public Radio following the debate surrounding Mt. Ashland's planned expansion. In 2000 the Forest Service released a environmental impact statement reviewing the expansion--which got about a 50/50 split in approval/disaproval during the public comments period. Occasionally I'll check out an online edition of the Medford Daily Tribune or Ashland Daily Tidings and guess what--they're still having the exact same debate almost a decade later.

That being said, for a tiny ski area Mt. Ashland is a great mountain to hone your skiing/boarding skills--it's steep as hell, has some great tight tree runs, gets a ton of snow, has the big cliffs and cirques of the upper bowl, along with the wide open powder fields of the backside. The downside is the drive up to it can be brutal, along with some of the heaviest winds and conditions anywhere--and when it gets bad they won't even open the best lift(and there's really only two lifts outside a lift back to the parking lot and the bunny hill).

As for Mt. Bailey, I've always wanted to go there(I've hiked around there in the summer a few times), but haven't had the time and cash--maybe I'll go for my birthday this year or something. In general though I wouldn't hold your breath for a new ski area in the Southern Cascades--it's just two hard to get approval to build a new resort, let alone expand an existing one these days.