Jackson Hole Mountain Resort relies on public land but has stopped disclosing how much it pays annually to the U.S. Forest Service, which manages the Bridger-Teton National Forest where the resort operates. This lack of transparency is due to a Forest Service policy that allows ski resorts to classify their payments as trade secrets, shielding them from public records requests under the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA).
Critics argue this secrecy is inappropriate for businesses that depend on public land. Hilary Eisen, policy director for the Winter Wildlands Alliance, says transparency is crucial, especially since these fees represent the public's benefit for granting access to shared resources. In the past, the Bridger-Teton National Forest disclosed Jackson Hole Mountain Resort’s payments, which amounted to $1.5 million in 2017—far exceeding the amounts paid by other area resorts, such as Grand Targhee Resort ($200,000) and Snow King Mountain Resort ($1,786).
However, in 2019, following lobbying by Vail Resorts, the Forest Service changed its stance, allowing resorts to withhold individual fee data to protect competitive information. Instead, aggregated data is now sometimes released, but specific resort fees remain undisclosed. Forest Service officials have indicated that Jackson Hole Mountain Resort and others can argue their payments are proprietary, likely leading to FOIA request denials.
This policy has drawn criticism from advocates like Eisen, who highlight that ski resorts increasingly privatize public lands by charging high prices for access. For instance, Jackson Hole Mountain Resort offers luxury lounge passes for $10,000 and all-access season passes exceeding $3,000. Such fees raise questions about the balance between public benefit and private profit on federal land. Eisen also expressed concern about the resort’s pricing structure, suggesting there should be limits on what businesses can charge when operating on public land.
Resort officials defend the high prices, claiming they benefit taxpayers indirectly. Andrew Way, the resort’s chief marketing officer, noted that fees paid to the Forest Service are based on total revenue, meaning luxury pass sales contribute to these payments. However, he declined to disclose specific numbers, citing the company’s policy of keeping financial data private.
The Forest Service, for its part, does not regulate ski resort pricing, stating that market demand determines costs. Despite the high prices, Jackson Hole Mountain Resort continues to experience strong demand, often selling out popular offerings. McGinness, the Bridger-Teton Forest's mountain resorts coordinator, said the agency’s role focuses on ensuring resorts comply with their permits rather than setting pricing policies.
To address affordability concerns, the resort offers limited initiatives, such as a $25 “Ski in Jeans Day” and discounted passes sold during early-season events. Still, these efforts do little to counter the perception that skiing at Jackson Hole has become prohibitively expensive for many.
The debate underscores a broader tension between private enterprises and public land use. Critics argue that fees paid by resorts should remain public to ensure accountability and demonstrate how the public benefits from these arrangements. Eisen and others believe such transparency is essential for maintaining trust and ensuring that public resources serve the greater good. Resort officials, however, maintain that their financial operations, including fees paid to the Forest Service, are a private matter.
Ultimately, this shift in policy reflects a broader trend in public land management, where the balance between public transparency and private enterprise continues to evolve.
Read more at Jackson Hole News & Guide here: https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/news/environmental/local/jhmr-can-charge-10-000-for-a-lounge-pass-but-americans-cant-see-how-much/article_79cdf676-ad0c-11ef-b03a-23bc10991609.html
