Printable View
There's a bit of a problem is getting the data to resolve either of those questions though, right? It's difficult for me to imagine that with the innovation we've seen in B/C gear that pricing hasn't outpaced inflation. And that's before we start talking about entirely new gear like the Avalung which didn't even exist in 1991.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Still missing the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
Potentially the area the way it is can see x+y+z
Post expansion the area can only see y+z
Key word there is "potentially". As much as you may disapprove, the vast majority of skiers out there possess neither the fitness, the equipment, the training nor the time to count themselves amongst "X". Until you accept this reality, you will continue to misunderstand why the USFS acts as it does.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuco
You're a fucking clown.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
No, the data is there, you just know that it doesn't support your argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
I was up there too. Nobody said it was a ghost town. Most of those users rode the lift,even the hippy golf course folk.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc
One big difference between the winter and summer is they do not restrict uphill traffic in the summer time. I would bet if you took the total number of summer users and minus out the lift riding public, your total left would be quite small in comparison to other trails. I still bet more would use this area in summer without the lifts and resort being there(me not included), go hike on damn near any trail in either canyon and tell me this isn't true.
As far as parking and canyon access, I think you are correct.
Really? Then please bust it out. I'm eager to see it since you've done all the work.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Yes, that is the key word. Thank you!Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
The fact that they don't have the fitness, equipment, training or time is really not valid. If you have time and money to learn to ski, you have time and money for the points you listed above. Also these same people that you speak of most likely won't be in that area anyway, they will just have to pay more for a lift ticket. So until you accept this reality, you will continue to misunderstand why alot of people do not want this.
I realize why the USFS acts as it does. You just can't explain to me why this would be the "greatest good for the most amount of people". At least you better come up with better points than the lame one listed above.
Do you really believe a lift in SF is going to make Soli a destination resort and generate major revenue and tourism dollars?
I gave you Alta. You said one isn't enough. I found 1991 lift ticket prices for Aspen, Vail, Okemo and Deer Valley in 30 seconds of google search. They all backed my argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
Prove me wrong.
I see your point completely, you think since it's simple to get into silver fork that anybody who skis solitude could go ski it now. I disagree, would you take a novice skier or a little kid up into silver fork today? How about yesterday? Those are users on FS land who can enjoy skiing inside a ski area. If you limit the discussion to expert skiers you're failing to see the fact that this land belongs to all of the public.Quote:
Originally Posted by tuco
Obviously we know there are a lot of people who like to ski but should not ski in the backcountry...
You're honestly trying to say that any skier could just go ski Silver Fork if they felt like it, but backcountry skiers are walled off and prohibited from being inside a ski area? Neither of those are true, it's a ridiculous point of view.
As near as I can tell, most ski resort lift ticket prices have increased faster than the CPI since 1991 so you're right that it's getting more expensive. This doesn't mean it used to be "cheap", nor does it mean that the cost for that form of enjoyment has grown faster than for B/C skiers. In both cases, it is technological improvements (high speed lifts, snowmaking, better lodges for resorts vs. better boots, skis, avi equipment and clothing for B/C skiers) that are driving higher prices rather than expanding margins for the sellers. Very few people make money based on ski ops alone.Quote:
Originally Posted by zion zig zag
Edit: Then again, you have to consider that real (constant dollar) disposable income has increased 39% during that same time frame, so just looking at lift ticket prices in relation to inflation only tells half the story. Lift tickets appear to represent no larger a % of an avg person's budget than they did 20 years ago.
I'd agree, which brings us back to square one - a simple chairlift expansion is seldom if ever just that. It is also new lodges that serve pricey food, valet parking, condos, etc..Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
It seems to me that ski resorts have worked themselves into a hole with their ticket prices where they have no choice but to keep up the massive overhead, yet they are barely covering their costs with the price of a day ticket, which is getting ridiculously expensive. It reminds me a lot of the housing boom a few years ago where the going attitude was price doesn't matter, but all of a sudden, it started to matter a lot.
shhhh.... the "hardcore" tourers who started in the last 2 decades will lambast you again. then make movies :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman
Whose to say Solitude would let novice skiers go into those areas that last couple days? Whose to say they would find doing the control work to get it open cost effective.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
The point is that today, anyone of any skill level can for whatever reason go do basically whatever they want in Silver Fork. It may not be wise, but it's not prohibited. If Solitude leases the area and puts in lifts that obviously will no longer be possible.
It's funny that what makes Solitude the resort that I enjoy so much is that it is not Alta or and especially not Snowbird....all commercial and crowded with lots of idiot posers. Look at the different crowds at Snowbird vs Solitude, and whether you have to lock up your gear or not depending on the resort. They all serve their purpose as they stand now.
I have never skied in Silver Fork, but would like to when I am out there this winter. Then maybe I will see how this expansion would help them, but in the end, I think it would hurt them. They would have to raise prices to cover the added costs of covering/managing that terrain, plus the additional construction costs.
It sounds like they ultimately want it to be like Vail, and I say no way to that.
100% wrong. Alta is FS and they do not allow any uphill traffic. Go try to hike up Alta, patrol will tell you to leave and if you do not they will call the Marshall who will remove you by force. Solitude has the same policy and it will extend to Silver Fork if they expand there.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
Possible? Watershed protection is the highest priority of the Central Wasatch management plan.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
GMAFB, there are plenty of places you can do that in the Wasatch, Silver Fork isn't one of them.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
You're having difficulty reading: "it seems like it goes that way sometimes but it shouldn't"Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
So apparently it goes that way in Alta at times, I think that's wrong and should be addressed by the forest service. If they're extending a permit to an area, they can dictate the terms, perhaps the terms ought to allow for soli to run a lift and rope boundaries and control snowpack back there but not exclude the touring public from the area. That seems like its own issue. It seems like that should be addressed along with or separate from anything else going on here. IMO the permit operator shouldn't have any ability to keep the public off that land.
Yeah, possible, meaning that adding a lift doesn't necessarily affect the quality of the runoff. Maybe it does, maybe it doesn't. I'm not convinced it automatically does, thus the "possible". I don't take it as a given that having a lift in an area wrecks the water quality of the snowmelt there.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
I'll try to remember this when somebody gets buried back there...Quote:
Originally Posted by Dantheman
Potential for avalanches =/ extreme mountaineering-style skiing. A point illustrated all too well by the multiple in-bounds avalanche deaths in Utah last year.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
And yes, Yeti, I would take "my kid" to Silver Fork on this very day. I don't have kids though, so I guess I'll go fuck my wife and try to make some.
FUCK YOU SOLITUDE!!!!!!!!!
Today we skied Silver Fork, knowing those mutherfukkers to the east are eventually going to get there way. SUCK MY FUCKING BALLS!
On days like today, this is one of the few places we hippy, elitist, backcountry enthusiasts can ski. Saying we can just go somewhere else is utter fucking ignorance, there are few other places like this, this time of year, on a high danger day.
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery1/albums...n/DSCF0432.jpg
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery1/albums...n/DSCF0434.jpg
A big fuck you to Solitude.
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery1/albums...n/DSCF0447.jpg
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery1/albums...n/DSCF0449.jpg
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery1/albums...n/DSCF0451.jpg
Crowded today. Can't wait until Solitude puts a lift in and dumbs it down for everyone.
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery1/albums...n/DSCF0452.jpg
Again, suck my fucking balls.
Very nice! But according to another thread somewhere, shouldn't ya have cause an avalanche? I mean, you are from utah.
:D
So what you are saying is, that, now only experts can access this terrain but with a lift in there suddenly it becomes beginner terrain. And your saying my point of view is ridiculous. Jesus dude, thats scary!Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
I think a little kid could do just fine in there, today or yesterday. Maybe not a novice little kid though.
The Milk Run is inbounds. Would you take a novice in there?
You go try hiking up a run in bounds at a ski resort and see what happens dude, then report back.
tag: yetiman justifies his own laziness in jeans
I started, and learned to cross country ski at 6 years old in, of all places, Silver Fork. Sure we stayed low and safe most times, but the first time I made it up the bottom of upper days I was 10. I also learned a lot about avalanches before I could drive because of my early experiences. People do, and should go into Silverfork. There are for more users besides backcountry skiers: snowshoers, cross country skiers for example.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
And ski lifts, necessary maintenance roads for lifts, increased vehicle traffic due to larger resorts and the compaction of snowfields increase erosion and/or negatively impact water quality. The entire east side of the county get some drinking water from Big. A far bigger population than the skiers at solitude.
I think a lot of you guys have very convincing points and they take a lot of the meat out of my side of this....
Maybe the best thing for the most people is to leave it alone, wtf, I don't know. I personally like skiing lifts, and my first instinct is to say that more of the general public benefits from an expansion than not, but I could be wrong on that, it's just a best guess as I am not an expert on any of the watershed stuff and the contracting/permit process and I am not an economist. I've just tried to apply my best logic and guess what the agency would do, or to do my best to steer the discussion toward something more in line with what the Forest Service would actually be considering...or my best guess of that.
There is an ugly kind of contempt on display in this thread toward people who aren't into BC skiing.
I think it's pretty laughable that any of you guys think you're superior to anybody because you like to slog around and they don't. If you're not adult enough, seriously, to get that you're not the most important person in the world...that your value system is one of billions, that your likes and dislikes are not the pinnacle of human experience, and that the fact that you're good at or interested in some specific thing doesn't make you a better human being than everyone who isn't as interested in or good at that specific thing...if you haven't learned that you're still a child in some key ways.
Not that I don't understand or relate, it's easy to be that way when you never step out of your comfort zone and try some new things...Every interest seems to have those guys, the guy who only surfs and has surfed his whole life and anybody who isn't a good surfer is worthless to him...the guys who build motorcycles and that's all they do with their lives and if you aren't into their kind of motorcycle or motorcycling you're worthless. It's a douchebag point of view. Being a human being worthy of respect involves more than one narrow little niche in a kind of obscure sport. Grow the fuck up.
If the facts show that more people benefit from some course of action I wouldn't personally choose so be it: it's not my land, it's everyone's land. I'm willing to accept that, are you?
Goes both ways, look in the mirror. The original poster has a [ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=26862"]history[/ame] of it too. There is some weird reaction by some resort skiers to think that we who only ski tour perceive ourselves as the elite. Not sure where you get that from. I just like to ski tour because it's what I like to do. We may come off as elitist because we viciously defend what we like to do and don't like the chance to do it taken away by a ski resort that will then deny us access forever.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
I have contempt for ski area managers who want to endlessly expand their boundaries for their own greed, despite how it affects others. I have no contempt for people who ride lifts. The more that do, the less I have to compete with for a clean line.