Your pick: a wilderness area or ski resort?

Would you prefer Schweitzer Wilderness Area? Or, as we now have, Schweitzer Ski Resort?

Few people are around anymore who recall how beautiful the Schweitzer area was in the 1930s, ’40s, and ’50s. But it is readily apparent if you look at the old Ross Hall photos of the area, and those by his contemporaries as well. Beautiful forested mountains and a panoramic view of Lake Pend Oreille, the Pend Oreille River, and the old Sandpoint. The vistas stretched toward Hope, way past Dover and up toward Priest Lake even. The area was largely roadless and was accessible by the hardy few on trails for hiking, berry picking, skiing (but no lifts back then) and hunting. And it was relatively near to Sandpoint, the county center then and now.

Then a funny thing happened. Area people — and “outside” investors — decided to utilize the area’s natural scenic beauty together with significant snowfall to create a local ski resort. The competitor area was a planned ski resort on Baldy Mountain, a couple of miles away. The Schweitzer group eventually won out over the Baldy developers, and in the early ’60s, Schweitzer Ski Resort was born. (How they won out is another story for another time.) Roads were punched in, a ski lift with steel towers built, and ski trails started being logged and cleared. The first lodge and restaurant was built and the area construction continues to this date.

What if Schweitzer had been.declared and set aside as wilderness instead? No roads in, no logging, and no construction of any kind. None of the economic benefits to the area beyond the already existing hunters, hikers, berry pickers, etc. The area would still be beautiful, assuming it hadn’t burned as have so many other areas. On balance which option was preferable? And one also has to ask, preferable to and whom? Each of us is entitled to our own opinion, or preference, as to develop or not. The ski resort still does bring in millions of dollars to our local economy. And somehow Sandpoint still gets quality water from its watershed, even with the resort road running right through it.

Is there really a pressing need to lock up Scotchman Peak now as wilderness? I’m not aware of anyone who has been denied access to hunt, hike, berry pick, etc. And I’ve never heard of any U.S. Forest Service plans to do so under the current multiple use designation. Logging isn’t even planned because the site is too rocky, too steep, and not a good timber producing area to begin with. None of that is likely to change in the decades to come. Although I do believe the area has gotten steeper the past several years. My legs have told me that and it has nothing to do with age. Or at least that’s my story and I’m sticking to it.

We don’t really know what the future holds for us in the next few years, much less in the decades to come. What additional use may come along? Who knows. Perhaps another ski resort, guided tourists on tramways, helicopters, etc? Back in the 50s most of us locals hadn’t even dreamed of a ski resort here. (Sun Valley was the nearest one then.)

Why foreclose options unnecessarily? Those who enjoy the solitude and wilderness experience (even if it’ s “unofficial”) wilderness can continue to do so. If and when the USFS decided to clear cut the few trees and to sell off all the rocks on the mountain, then will be the time to decide. Actually, I’d like to see the focus/fight shifted over to Roman Nose, Chimney Rock, and the Seven Sisters. Now those are scenic areas, and Roman Nose would be an even better ski area. Steeper slopes, deeper snow, more blue-sky days. Plus, the issues would plague Boundary County not our own Bonner County. Or perhaps just let sleeping dogs lie.

BRUCE H. GREENE

Sandpoint