@tball -- I can respect that position even if I don't agree with it.
I do not think it is hard to argue that backcountry skiing is the greatest good in the long run for the greatest number of people. Every weekend, all lots in the area are full of cars. And carpooling to there is much more common than it would be if it was an inbounds ski area as you typically have a partner to ski BC. The only way you could serve more people at Berthoud pass than are there on an average weekend is via shuttling people to the top of the pass from a parking lot lower down. Or building new parking lots in an area full of avalanche paths and no flat terrain. If Abasin can't get permission to build more parking, I don't see Berthoud having the clout.
I disagree that the primary users of an area are irrelevant. That is against everything I know working with the forest service for years in both climbing and mtb advocacy. Existing users groups typically have a large impact on their decision making process. You say there is a long history of commercial skiing on the pass -- and that is certainly true. But there is just as long of history of backcountry skiing there -- even if the popularity has increased dramatically in recent years.
The Silverton comparison in my eyes fails in many ways: their terrain is very different (having skied both...unless you're talking about putting a chair up No Name peak), Silverton is funded through huge private family money that wants a playground, and they are only open on weekends to guided skiing. Is lift serve skiing at Berthoud economically viable? Likely -- but I don't think Silverton is a good comparison.
Personally I think a low-overhead, low-impact solution that increases accessibility and safety would be ideal. Something like what the folks at Bluebird Backcountry are trying to accomplish. This would improve user safety on the pass through avalanche mitigation, lowers the barrier to entry to utilizing national forest lands in winter by providing rentals and instruction, and does not depend on the stability of a private operator in an industry that is likely to experience real pangs over the next few decades.
We obviously both have vested interests in this, and doubt we will see eye to eye.
I do not think it is hard to argue that backcountry skiing is the greatest good in the long run for the greatest number of people. Every weekend, all lots in the area are full of cars. And carpooling to there is much more common than it would be if it was an inbounds ski area as you typically have a partner to ski BC. The only way you could serve more people at Berthoud pass than are there on an average weekend is via shuttling people to the top of the pass from a parking lot lower down. Or building new parking lots in an area full of avalanche paths and no flat terrain. If Abasin can't get permission to build more parking, I don't see Berthoud having the clout.
I disagree that the primary users of an area are irrelevant. That is against everything I know working with the forest service for years in both climbing and mtb advocacy. Existing users groups typically have a large impact on their decision making process. You say there is a long history of commercial skiing on the pass -- and that is certainly true. But there is just as long of history of backcountry skiing there -- even if the popularity has increased dramatically in recent years.
The Silverton comparison in my eyes fails in many ways: their terrain is very different (having skied both...unless you're talking about putting a chair up No Name peak), Silverton is funded through huge private family money that wants a playground, and they are only open on weekends to guided skiing. Is lift serve skiing at Berthoud economically viable? Likely -- but I don't think Silverton is a good comparison.
Personally I think a low-overhead, low-impact solution that increases accessibility and safety would be ideal. Something like what the folks at Bluebird Backcountry are trying to accomplish. This would improve user safety on the pass through avalanche mitigation, lowers the barrier to entry to utilizing national forest lands in winter by providing rentals and instruction, and does not depend on the stability of a private operator in an industry that is likely to experience real pangs over the next few decades.
We obviously both have vested interests in this, and doubt we will see eye to eye.