Printable View
I don't think cecret lake is ruined, though it would be less scenic if that picture were taken aiming in the direction of the lift towers. Albion basin is a little bigger than a lot of the drainages around here and thus you don't notice the lifts as much as some other places. It would still be a nice place to hike without them. However, contrast that to collins gulch. In collins you are always aware you are in a ski area.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
Ever been to Cecret Lake on a summer day? The lifts must not bother too many people, it's one of the most if not the most crowded hikes in the Wasatch.
Sorry, missed that first go around.Quote:
Originally Posted by Buzzworthy
I have the following boards: 159, 165, 178 swallow tail and 195 swalllow tail. All are mounted goofy surfer stance and back for tip rise. Can remount but I don't have strap bindings at the moment. Can maybe get demos in about a week.
I'd take the bus to Alta and get to Silver Fork from Grizzly Gulch.
It's about a mile from the end of the summer road and only sees crowds on weekends. Same as Lake Mary from Brighton.Quote:
Ever been to Cecret Lake on a summer day? The lifts must not bother too many people, it's one of the most if not the most crowded hikes in the Wasatch.
If you were to ask me personally I would say no. But I've spent alot of time around Soli in the summer and you really don't see that many hikers up there, and the ones you do probably have ridden the summer lift half way up. So yes,I do think that it does deter alot of folks. I've most definetly never seen a bow hunter on the resort land. We are also talking about snowshoers and people on their touring(fish scaled type) skis.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
Also, if you think about it, with a lift in there you would be making it more exclusive. Using you formula of 500 resort skiers and 2 BC skiers. Right now you have the potential of 502 users, because the only thing keeping you out of there is yourself. With a resort in there you have cut out the 2 bc skiers and thus have only 500 users, therefore being made more exclusive for the public to use their own land. If avy danger is your only reason you don't want to venture back there, then you better ski groomed runs only, because the potential for avalanches is prevalent on any ungroomed slope. The events,in bounds, at quite a few resorts(one being one canyon over) just last year should remind us of this danger.
Same can be said for any lake that is that accessible, whereever it is. People are drawn to water.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc
Well, if the public comment received in response to the County's master plan update for the canyons, a majority of people do not want to see more resort development in Big Cottonwood, but would rather see more trailheads developed. Sounds good to me. Add me to the opposed list. This is a major watershed area for Salt Lake. Installing lifts, access and maintenance roads and ski runs (God forbid that they plan on this) increases erosion, which degrades the water quality, stream quality, and 4 season recreation, such as hiking, biking, hunting, fishing and backcountry skiing and snowshoeing. I think that outweighs the benefit to the solitude clients.
I'm loving reading all of this, I no longer live there but greatly enjoy the particular area.. Let me attempt try to sum up the issue, you can all tell me if you think I'm right or wrong.
Basically I can currently go to Utah and ski Silver Fork for free, if the FS hands it over to Solitude I'll have to pay to ski there. How does that increase access?
Also resorts have a tendency to close areas for various reasons, how does that increase access?
This is exactly the point Yeti - it is public land and everyone is welcome here as long as you pay for a pa$$, obey the rules and increase your daily spend. It is about as public as Disneyland, yet the ski resorts don't even own it.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
Actually I think Snowbird owns Mineral Basin outright. Its private property. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.
I think it actually use to be much cheaper twenty years ago before every resort felt they had to add snowmaking, endless highspeed quads, gondolas, a fleet of Piston Bully groomers and people to run them, mega base lodges, mega mid mountain lodges, valet parking, covered parking, on snow hosts, etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
For the record I'm still only convinced of several things:
me personally:
-Not liking skinning.
-Not liking the inevitable backcountry emergencies that go with BC skiing.
-Liking to ski off lifts.
The forest service's doctrine:
-Greatest good for the most people for the longest time.
I think there are points on both sides here.
I'm saying that one user group will be excluded regardless. BC touring skiers aren't going inbounds and inbounds skiers aren't touring. The larger group in terms of numbers is the inbounds skiers. In terms of the taxpayer, one plan is negative revenue (in terms of zero income and the occasional S&R) and the other is revenue positive.
If the way it turns out is something of a land grab, a private entity assuming the right to exclude the public from a piece of land that's a problem, but as far as I can tell, and by the numbers it looks to me like more people are out on the forest where there are lifts running and patrol working.
More people may not be a good thing, but if you're arguing a forest service permit application, you would want to think about it on their terms....
You're right. The first time I skied Alta in 1991 the day ticket price was $21, now the price is $66, more than double what it would be if it were just keeping up with inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightChuter
A few more dumps and some settling is needed for me to feel comfy, did not like seeing them crack on Sunday (inbounds, nuts).Quote:
Originally Posted by wra
I have bindings I can mount to the plates. I do ride regular and a 163 normally. 165 should work just fine I would imagine.
I am a BC novice still so talking to me about what you see and what to continue to look for, especially in certain areas would be nice. Hopefully we can talk SFB into coming too when we get closer to do this.
And the team of lawyers being paid to fend of douchebags that can't take responsibility for their own actions!Quote:
Originally Posted by StraightChuter
First-No one is being excluded from that area now, except for maybe by yourselves. So no postives here. So really the larger potential group is with no lifts.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
Second-The forest service doctrine is fine. I just don't see how this is the best good for the most amount of people because now your excluding people that couldn't use that area with lifts in there,so potential users go down(not the greatest good for the most people).
Also, if they have to change the way water is treated it's going to cost taxpayers lots of money= more taxpayers than people using lifts=greater good to the most people.
Seriously? People collectively ski thousands of days every winter in the Wasatch BC, yet the last time I can recall life-flight being sent out was the Silver Fork slide two years ago where otter was buried. Sending out S&R to rescue BC skiers is a very rare occurrence at most.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
Exactly, if anyone currently wants to go ski Silver Fork they can at anytime. Sitting around hoping that someone will build a lift so you can ski something is incredibly pathetic and futile. If you want to go ski Silver Fork the only thing currently stopping you is yourself.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuco
Anyway on a different topic, it's not like the lifts in Utah drop you off in ideal spots anyway, pretty much all the decent terrain requires a hike or traverse of some kind. Expansion should deal with that first, would a lift up Baldy from Alta piss anyone off?
Admittedly I haven't skied Solitude for several years -- but the season I skied there, I was surprised to look over while riding the Honeycomb lift and usually see more tracks across the way in Silver Fork than in Honeycomb Canyon where I was skiing. It always surprised me.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
This meant that there had to have been more people skiing Silver Fork than Honeycomb Canyon (skinning takes much longer than lift rides), and since BC usage has increased since then, there are a significant number of people skiing Silver Fork (many more than "2").
Also, by surfing on the beach, you are not denying beach access to others. By constructing a lift and doing avalanche control, you are denying Silver Fork access to others. The equation is different when granting access to one group requires denying another group.
Second question for you:
What you say is true for basically every drainage in the Wasatch: more people would use the drainage if there were a ski lift up it. By that logic, the entire Wasatch should be covered with ski lifts and there should be no Wasatch wilderness at all, yes?
More examples: Let's put a cable car up Half Dome, charge people $25 to ride it, and decommission the hiking trail so that you are forced to pay the $25 and ride the tram. This would dramatically increase the number of people who could stand on top of Half Dome: that trail is long and dangerous. Greatest good for the greatest number, right? Who cares if there are ugly towers up the most iconic peak in Yosemite?
Why have roadless areas anywhere? Most people will never go more than 1/2 mile from a road in their lives...by having "wilderness" at all, we are discriminating against the overwhelming majority of couch potatoes. Don't like pickups and quads trashing the high alpine? Tough shit, it's "greatest good for the greatest number". Feel free to hike the jeep road, hippie.
"I want the lift because I'm a Solitude pass holder, I don't like BC skiing, and it benefits me personally" is a perfectly valid opinion, and since I don't live in Utah anymore, yours counts more than mine. I can't argue with that.
But it seems to me that calling a privatization-for-profit of public land a "public good" involves putting yourself on a very slippery slope that involves some very convoluted justifications.
Think about it carefully, is all I'm saying.
They send it out countless times more to rescue resort skiers. And it doesn't matter because it's of no cost to the public. Life Flight and Air Med are private companies.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
We saw at least 18 people today in Grizzly, on a weekday, on a high avy danger day. Flag was tracked out, Toledo was tracked out, and Emma's, if it had more snow, would be tracked out. On a sunny saturday, all these places would be tracked out by BC skiers before noon. We don't need a lift to fuck it up any further.
Backcountry skiing is no longer a fringe sport, everyone and their grandma is doing it, all the time, all over the Wasatch. Thinking a lift in Solitude or a lift up Flag won't affect thousands and thousands of people is just proving that you are out of touch with the current state of the Wasatch.
Quoted for truth. Somebody was even nice enough to put a skin track on Superior and then center punch it today. Last Saturday, I saw two separate families (husbands, wives, kids) skin up the summer road then skirt Albion and ski short shots below Catherine's, it's a family affair.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
Watch out, your risking the wrath of the Yeti. Only a lift accessed terrain can be enjoyed by more then 2 people a day. How can you not understand that backcountry is an inefficient use of space that doesn't contribute to the tax base. It has the same value as surface parking and vacant lots :rolleyes2Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
I'm not an accountant, nor do I claim to be even remotely intelligent. But Black Diamond, REI, Wasatch Touring all sell a lot of backcountry gear. Does that contribute to the local economy?Quote:
Originally Posted by Dongshow
can we just have the ski off already?
sarcasm, sorryQuote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
I got it, I was just reiterating your point.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dongshow
That was intended to be a ratio. Nobody in their right mind could look at silver fork and solitude from across the canyon and conclude that more people are using the BC area than the inbounds. That argument is moot. When Silver fork is mogul fields we can start comparing the inbounds traffic and the out of bounds traffic.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Maybe, and that's tricky, but I really don't think that you can't skin around or hike around on your FS land if it's a ski area other than when they're doing something dangerous like avy work. It's not supposed to be gated and restricted to paid access...the lifts yes but the land no. It seems like it goes that way at times, but it shouldn't.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
I suppose if I put my policy-guessing hat on here and take a stab at trying to address this in terms of what I've already laid out I'd have to say that where development stops is where the public benefit from it versus some other use stops. If there are significant enough reasons for wild areas (the public appreciates wilderness, the wildlife, the public watershed, etc etc) than the expansion of lift served skiing stops there...Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
That may very well mean it stops right where it sits and we have no expansion, I tend to think that with the USDA trying to best utilize the land for the most public good, they'll look at more revenue and more recreation for more people as a stronger case...
That's what I've tried to state in the latter part of this thread.
I don't think the argument that novice skiers, vacationing skiers, little kids, families etc. can just go on up there right now if they want and they aren't because they're lazy and that makes them less owners of the public land than the special uber-citizens who earn the right to exclusive use of the area....I don't think that viewpoint will hold much water with an agency tasked to serve all US citizens. The fact of the matter is that this site has had numerous occasions where people have demonstrated a contempt for people who don't live like them (your walmart threads, calling people fat and lazy and gapers...etc etc...), this is one occasion where your judgmental opinions of people who don't enjoy vigorous and dangerous mountaineering-style skiing do not make you more of an owner of this land than them. The most timid person in the flattest, warmest place in this country owns as much of that land as you do. This comes down to more benefit for more people, not benefit to the more deserving group according to your values. You can either accept that, or build your case from a false premise.
As stated earlier in this thread, the mission of the Park Service is largely preservation whereas the mission of the Forest Service is largely utilization. This is the great thing about the forest service, you can go have fun on the land without some faggot biologist telling you not to step on the ferns or scare the owls. It's our land to enjoy. The park service strives to keep you away from those areas in furtherance of a preservation objective. They usually wish to limit recreation because recreation has impact. As a person who enjoys recreation I find that model frustrating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Because there is a large enough contingent of people who have lobbied for a preservation agenda within these areas of the forest service. Within the forest service's utilization model they've made some determinations that primitive areas benefit a user group and permit a kind of recreation that many people enjoy....that keeping certain areas wild allows for a group of citizens to be satisfied.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Like or not it's public USDA land, and your lifestyle gives you no more citizenship than somebody who is 1000 lbs and hasn't left his house for years. You and he are the same level of citizen and have the same ownership over that land. The value judgments are yours, but in fact, many people may find your lifestyle to be just as unappealing as theirs is to you. You are equals under the law and within the policy of the agency who decides whether or not to issue a permit here.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
The skiers position in this is surely to decide that the most dedicated skiers have more weight in this process, but if I'm doing anything here it's to say that no, being a better or more dedicated skier means nothing to this process. Your enjoyment of a day of skiing BC pow in Silver Fork as it is can't be measured against some little beginner kid from florida's day of skiing groomed in the resort. We all tend to get this attitude that we're better than them because of our choices, and that if we differ in opinion that we're right, but beware of that kind of thinking in this kind of a process, because self-righteousness doesn't get you anything when some administrator is trying to figure out how many people benefit and for how long from a policy decision.
This has been going on for years (timber/grazing...etc etc), the reason the FS is Agriculture and not Interior is that (for better or worse) these lands are viewed as a production resource. If we're talking about slippery slopes and convolution here, allowing a very vocal minority their way in a matter like this sets precedence for very vocal minorities to control the agenda of the forest service nationwide on any use prioritization issue. That seems all well and good until your (not you specifically...) side loses....when the 200 people who really really need jobs get a strip mine on the national forest even though 10000 people don't want to see that happen to the land... Hey, they're hard working miners and you're just a bunch of lazy ass townies...or whatever..any number of dystopian scenarios could be drawn wherein the vocal minority gets priority in the national forest.Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
The determination to make here is which user group constitutes more citizens and which use is more beneficial to more people.
On the expansion side I have:
-inbounds skiers/skiers who prefer lift access and avy control and can/will pay for it.
-everyone who benefits from tourism
-all citizens who benefit from government revenue both taxes from solitude and permit fees to the USFS.
On the non-expansion side I have
-BC/sidecountry skiers
-wildlife assets/hunters/folks who enjoy wildlife
-possible watershed? (everyone who benefits from drinking water originating in that area)
This isn't concrete data, but it add evidence to the idea that growth in the sport is moving towards backcountry users:
"“Backcountry equipment, consisting of skins, probes, shovels, beacons and accessories brought in $6.8M for the year [2008]. The category grew 22% in units and 19% in dollars. Randonee/ AT boots, bindings and skis sold $2M altogether and increased sales by 5% in units and 11% in dollars over 2007.”
and then there is the Resort Scene
"Last year's ski season saw a decline of 6 and a half percent, according to Ski Utah president Nathan Rafferty. He blames last year's economic woes on the decline, but says this year, he is seeing more optimism in the market and is hoping that will bring ski numbers up by 3% this year."
If you factor in the population growth along the Wasatch Front those Ski Utah numbers are pretty bad.
What about the poor. The simple fact of the matter is the vast majority of people will be unable to afford the access to the area with your schemes. Median Income in Utah for a family of 4 is $71,919 Those people can currently access the area for free, how does charging a family an additional $200 per day usage fee improve access in any way. In your words were reserving the area for the special uber-rich citizens who earn the right to exclusive use of the areaQuote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
So a sample size of one is all you require? There are plenty of examples to the contrary.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
More to the point, I presume you are touring around in leather boots, 3-pin tele bindings and low-tech skinny skis while wearing woolens and an army surplus backpack, right? Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite by decrying higher prices people pay for a better lift-served experience w/o looking in the mirror at the increase in your own expenditures for better technology.
Wow. So now "the poor" are people who can only afford a touring setup and avie gear and a goretex outfit and I'm "uber-rich" because I can occasionally buy a Solitude lift ticket? That's nuts.
i've heard "the greatest good for the greatest ammount of people" argument...
if x=the number of soli skiers on any given day and y=the number of silver fork skiers, then right now the soli/silver fork area sees x+y skiers using this area on a given day. if a lift goes in, then there will be x skiers using this area.
do you really think an additional lift in silver fork will generate that many more customers? (seriously asking)
maybe it will (until the flagstaff lift goes up and steals them all back :cool:)
i like math.
Ok, so prove to me that lift prices haven't outpaced inflation.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
As far as gear, I'm not even sure it's kept up with inflation. But feel free to give numbers that disprove that.
So when did having "a touring setup, avie gear and gortex" become necessary for accessing free public land, or go back country skiing / snowboarding? The basic fact is that access to Silver Fork is free and almost completely unrestricted, access to Solitude costs $62.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
A few modifications in bold for YetiMan's consideration:
On the expansion side::
-inbounds skiers/skiers who prefer lift access and avy control and can/will pay for it.
-everyone who benefits from tourism
-all citizens who benefit from government revenue both taxes from solitude and permit fees to the USFS.
On the non-expansion side I have
-BC/sidecountry skiers/Snowshoers.
-Summertime bikers & hikers since Solitude currently sees fewer people during the off-season than the trail system across the road (Mill D etc.). Would there be a similar drop off during the summer in Silver Fork?
-Existing Solitude pass holders opposed to expansion (see below).
-wildlife assets/hunters/folks who enjoy wildlife
-Watershed, 24% of SLCs water supply comes from BCC creek:
-No additional parking allowed per the 2003 Revised Forest Service Plan which has watershed protection as the highest priority.-The backcountry industry in Utah i.e. BlackDiamond, Utah Mountain Adventures, Wasatch Touring, etc.
An example taken from public comments:
In Solitude's expansion proposal they state that they need the new terrain in order to compete with the two LCC resorts in terms of terrain. Is it possible that one effect of the expansion will merely poach Alta & Snowbird skiers rather than greatly expand the use of public lands resulting in a diminished experience for some Solitude skiers who ski in BCC for the solitude?Quote:
I hold a season's pass at Solitude and have for the last fifteen years. I say leave the resort in its' current boundaries. Let's stop the growth up there. Though it would be fun to get lifted to the top of the ridge at Silver Fork!
I was at Solitude several times this summer. The place isn't a ghost town, every time I was there the trails were quite busy. They've even got a hippy golf course that quite a few people enjoy.
As far as the lack of parking. You folks do realize that eventually that won't be a problem. In all of UDOT's reports one of the biggest things standing out is they wish to restrict vehicles in order to mitigate avalanche danger. I'm betting the day will come when you won't be able to drive up either canyon. Maybe not soon, but eventually.
PS. Just think, instead of parking lots in the canyons, we can have more condos! ;)
Agreed, the mountain definitely gets used in the summertime, it's just that Solitude is a saner place to ride when the Wasatch Crest / Mill D trail is unsane due to all the bikers and hikers. This is a good thing IMHO, it just runs counter to the numbers argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc
Plus, there's always parking available on the road after the Moonbeam condo expansion takes place but before UDOT steps in, heh.
Well I suppose I do too.Quote:
Originally Posted by criscam
So let:
x=dedicated touring BC/OB skiers
y=dedicated inbounds solitude skiers
z=Solitude skiers who tour as well.
At this time the area sees x + z.
Post expansion the area sees y + z.
and SaltMind: thanks for good edits...well played, I was hoping somebody would go there. I think adding to/removing from, and quantifying and enumerating that balance sheet is what is going to be going on at the agency (who knows though, I'm just taking my best guess here)...and perhaps we can influence it and/or predict what will go on with our own estimates. :yourock:
[quote=YetiMan;2657512]You think wrong. Ski areas that lease land from the FS Can, AND DO, have people arrested for Tresspassing for accessing the land (not the lifts)Quote:
Originally Posted by Spats
Heck, you can be arrested for tresspassing on your own property (http://www.wfrv.com/news/state/story...O5ZpoKOOQ.cspx)