Kirkwood gets a F on new environment report card

Kirkwood gets a B from me, after skiing there today.

The snow has softened up in the sun, some corn, some carveable chalky stuff and even some soft stuff. And, it was a weekday so it was empty.

Never ceases to amaze me, how few days of warm weather it takes for California to go from bullet proof to corn.

The only problem is that the sun is melting the snow (what little has fallen and what little is left after being scoured by the Evil E) rather quickly. All of sudden, getting around is difficult as the traverses are littered with chips, and some fun lines have lots of small rocks poking through.

Doesn't surprise me at all about the F grade. I heard Cohee talking to a hippy at the bottom of chair 6 about the environment, Cohee's response....."Fuck the environment!". (just kidding Tim, don't take my pass).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skimoore

Power plant caught on fire, huge flames, whoever took that picture was lucky enough to be at the lodge, while I was stuck on chair 10. I linked the thread a few posts ago.

---

Yeah I was lucky not to be on a chair when KW exploded. How did you get off the lift? I think they started brining in those mobile CAT power generators after this fire.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by descender

Yeah I was lucky not to be on a chair when KW exploded. How did you get off the lift? I think they started brining in those mobile CAT power generators after this fire.

---

Oh, I totally hucked it. :FIREdevil










or waited for them to fire-up the back-up diesel...I believe they have one for every lift. Still, much much slower than normal power and takes forever to start up....

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

I know you're much more well versed on this than I am, but when did we have a "series of rain storms" this summer? It was the typical, dry tahoe summer (aka. 2-3 days of rain at most).

---

Didn't we get some rain in May? That at least qualifies as spring.

Edit: Squaw website says they got some May 27, so maybe that's the incident?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arty50

I know you're much more well versed on this than I am, but when did we have a "series of rain storms" this summer? It was the typical, dry tahoe summer (aka. 2-3 days of rain at most).

---

I'm not actually sure. I was just talking with some of the DFG and National Marine Fisheries folks who were commenting on large sedimentation problems coming out of Kirkwood caused by uncovered dirt piles in their parking lots in the spring. They currently have legal proceedings against KW that are on hold pending the effects of spring runoff.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skier666

People are complaining about a well-built, aestically pleasing building on Caples Crest. Why the hell is it bad if it can be seen from the Mokelumne Wilderness?

---

The point of wilderness is that it doesn't have buildings of any sort in it, "aesthetically pleasing" or not.

Also remember that Kirkwood is not on private land: it's Forest Service land, which means it's *our* land that we, the people, *rent* to them. They don't get to just throw up anything they want.

I've said it before: the Kirkwood development has been the most incompetent, destructive, skier- and owner-hostile disaster I've ever seen. All that mud you're hiking through to get anywhere because they couldn't be bothered to plan an actual base village instead of just throwing random buildings in random places? That flows into the meadow and the stream, which is one reason they get an F.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hurricane

They get an F on snow this year too.

---

why can't i just say word? isn't that good enough?

word

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

The point of wilderness is that it doesn't have buildings of any sort in it, "aesthetically pleasing" or not.

Also remember that Kirkwood is not on private land: it's Forest Service land, which means it's *our* land that we, the people, *rent* to them. They don't get to just throw up anything they want.

---

Correct me if I'm wrong but don't most resorts rent from the forest service?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

The point of wilderness is that it doesn't have buildings of any sort in it, "aesthetically pleasing" or not.

---

I can see reno from mt rose wilderness.

How's that for aesthetics?:D


Seriously though..........the building is not IN the wilderness. Just because you're in a wilderness area doesn't mean the things not allowed in them can't or shouldn't be seen. Climb one of the cascade peaks and see what you see. There are hundreds of dams we visit from our office in wilderness areas, most of them with an operator's structure of some sort built after the wilderness designation..........not to mention the many backpacking/ski touring huts out there. Not the same scale but still......

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Spats

Also remember that Kirkwood is not on private land: it's Forest Service land, which means it's *our* land that we, the people, *rent* to them. They don't get to just throw up anything they want.

---

Kirkwood does own virtually all of the valley floor that has had or has development planned. They don't own the land under the proposed location of the structure at the Caples Crest, or the snack shack by chair 4.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Telenater

Kirkwood does own virtually all of the valley floor that has had or has development planned. They don't own the land under the proposed location of the structure at the Caples Crest, or the snack shack by chair 4.

---

Yup, Kirkwood owns all the land up to about a third of the way up the mountain...if you're paying attention on chair 6 you can see the forest service boundary sign (in low snow years...like, well, now)

Caples Crest is a relatively low lying ridge compared to the surrounding terrain. It is well isolated from the Emigrant Lake area which is the closest terrain within the Wilderness area. The ridge is visible from the wilderness only along the ridge from Round-Top and extending to the above Emigrant L. near the California Chutes. Still, I doubt the environmentalists will allow any ridge line development to proceed unchallenged. In fact, pretty much any development, roadway improvement, trail, grazing, is difficult to permit in this area, even when on private property. Kirkwood could never have been built today, and there are plenty of nuts out there who would prefer it to be bulldozed and restored to natural ground. Considering that an average ski weekend can bring more ten times more skiers to Kirkwood than the entire population of Alpine County, Kirkwood gets a lot of attention.

EDIT: There is a $22 Million proposal back in the works to bring power under the road from the West. Basically the same thing done by "Volcano" when phone lines were brought in.

Anyone who's been around for a long time can see the problems inherent in Kirkwood, CA.

I'm an environmentalist but there is some messed up sh*t going on there and they need to get their heads out of their azzes. The NYT getting on this is only more slime on the cesspool.

The chair lifts stop 15x a day from power outages from their prehistoric diesel fuel generators. Sometimes it's a 1/2 minute, sometimes longer. I get this from some former workers at the plant (which you can go see for yourself if you want to see firsthand how Kirkwood gets their power).

The terrain kicks azz though. The scene is a very tight one, although I've noticed more and more "tourons" (tourist + moron).

The fire photo is a stark reminder.