No, fuck that, if it were not for the Mormons, this place would look like Denver. A total fucking shithole, the California of the mountain states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber Cop
Mormons!!!!!!!!! Ah fuck! Everybody run to ColoRADo!
Printable View
No, fuck that, if it were not for the Mormons, this place would look like Denver. A total fucking shithole, the California of the mountain states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyber Cop
Mormons!!!!!!!!! Ah fuck! Everybody run to ColoRADo!
It's not about being against expansion or having a wilderness experience(at least for me). A lift in there makes about as much sense as the new Powderhorn lift does. I would bet most of you wanting this lift don't even know what it looks like back in SF.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer
Hell, I am a seasons pass holder at Soli(so in theory I would benefit as much or more so than you,but don't see the benefit) and I like touring and I think this is stupid
Like Sfotex said, the only people to benefit are the people that are going to charge you more for tickets and you fuckers that are to lazy to traverse/hike for a shorter time that it takes you to wait in the lift line at your beloved Alta!
Why would there be a need for more terrain when it already takes quite a bit of time for them to open the terrain they already have and then keep it open until they close for the season(not counting control work)! And this isn't a knock on the snow safety crew, those guys are top notch!
sorry trackhead, It doesn't keep the retarts out^^^, just the good green.
1)
http://www.alaska-in-pictures.com/da...ountry_196.jpg
=
http://www.tuckamorelodge.com/data/m...skiing_174.jpg
=
http://www.wildrosesports.com/image/nordic3.jpg
=
http://www.nordixc.com/vlad.nord.gif
=
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_Wc76MKK3Wa...26e494bc30.jpg
2)
http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1259209192
I've got a pretty good idea what it looks like in Silver Fork, which is why I can't fucking wait for the lifts to be built.
I'm probably your "typical" resort skier. I'm not big on hiking for hours for a few turns, I like spinning laps. Like it or not, there are a lot more of us "resort" skiers than the BC hardcores. Like it or not, we also pay the bills for the industry. Like it or not, the "industry" is indeed what it is.
Resort skiing keeps a lot of people working in this state, as such it will always trump any other uses in the canyons. Remember the vacant lot you used to play in as a kid, or the forest around the corner? If you're like most people, those lots or forests are now houses or lost to what you remember them as. Such is life, capitalism will move forward.
Good progression in your choice of photos.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
Is that really me FKNA I was slaying it that day.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...hbum/sd098.jpg
I'm sure one of these blackdot scrubbing bubbles is a maggot :cool:
If you only ski in places that have lifts you're sure missing some amazing/skiing and places.
On theother hand nothing makes you a better skier than skiing lifts alow you to ski more.
thanks. I'm straight killing it tonight.Quote:
Originally Posted by Trackhead
Mineral mining provides $3 billion to the state economy, so we should really open the mines back up if we want the best bang for the buck.Quote:
Originally Posted by BobMc
^^^ If you have a 'pretty good idea' then you know it is a bunch of short shots with a long run out. And you are going to have to traverse all over the fuck anyway. And the Meadows are fucked as soon as the sun pops out. And you would also know that it doesn't take 'hours for a few turns'. Keep spinning your laps, no one begrudges you that. I like it too, that is why I also have a pass. Not comparing numbers of skiers on resort or bc side of things and personally could care the fuck less about that shit. The resorts will still 'pay the bills for the industry' and won't go out of business because they don't have a lift in Silver.
See you homos out there!
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery1/albums...on/Neebs18.jpg
Pick your poison. I know mine.Quote:
Originally Posted by sfotex
BCC doesn't have SHIT for tacos, AFIK, so what's the point here?
If you want $14.00 pitchers of PBR, we're your place.Quote:
Originally Posted by rideit
I agree with your sentiments, Utah is crowded with a bunch of ubercore shredgnarlians. Suggesting central Idaho as another option would be sending them into the arms of 2-stroke burning, gun toting outdoor enthusiasts. With any luck they will be scared back to the safety of the heard. Colorado is much safer, and there are more core as folk down there to slurp down energy goo with as you discuss the merits of human powered ascents While driving up I-70.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
I'm a transplant to Utah from Idaho, so I'll tread lightly.Quote:
Originally Posted by chucknuggin
Work brought me here, and the access to the backcountry/slackcountry/sidecounty/whatever maintains my positive attitude about the place.
I haven't skied the resorts that much, so it wouldn't benefit me if they acquired more terrain. I'm against the proposed expansion...
...but as soon as one truly convinces the herd to relocate to central ID, I'll find them and stick a knife in their throat and start twisting. That is, if the Stanley locals don't shoot you, first.
I think most people have a case of the "NIMBY's."
But if you want a more "backcountry" experience, then we had better obliterate any company that has proffered progressive equipment and move back to 3-pin tele gear, leather boots, and voile snakeskins. Hell, use rabbit skins or mohair. These measures would truly weed out those that aren't "core." The truth is this: The BC experience is the new black because it has presented itself as a feasible option to a much larger demographic. And that demographic grows each year. And we're all to blame for it, as we all sharpen the double-edged sword of progression.
That being said, I'm all for keeping Silver Fork free of the resort-goers.
This thing presents the exact same problem as the flagstaff lift - once you are on that ridge, you can ski everything from the eastern side of cardiff, through days to silver with very little effort. So basically, it ruins the whole powder circuit.
Isn't there plenty of lift serviced terrain in the wasatch? If solitude expands into silver fork, then in 10 or 20 years some dumbass will be clamoring to expand into some other drainage, because they are bored of the lift serviced terrain available at that time.
I like resort skiing, but my favorite thing about the wasatch is the undeveloped terrain for skiing and hiking. And Yetiman, I don't have the fucking time to drive to central idaho every time I want to ski backcountry. I have kids and a demanding job, so I often only have a few hours to ski. Like many, many people in the SLC area, I like backcountry skiing with my free time and I like having a fair amount of good terrain that is easy to access in the central wasatch.
The funny thing about the argument of many here is that they say "hey, it's already tracked out anyway, so they should just put a lift up there" while also arguing that more people like resort skiing so the resorts should just get all the terrain they can gobble up. Why do you think the backcountry terrain gets tracked out? It's because it's a very popular activity. And I know that I can get fresher tracks by driving my dirtbike down to Nebo like Trackhead, but I just don't have the fucking time. Without lifts, I can still get nice, relatively untracke snow in the central wasatch for a minimal time commitment. I really like that, and have many friends who feel the same way.
And there is no need to expand to keep the resort crowds spread out. Shit, Alta, Snowbird, Park City and Deer Valley (our 4 most crowded resorts) are still much less crowded than colorado front range resorts. And Solitude, Brighton, Snowbasin and Powder Mountain are still really really uncrowded compared to most of Colorado.
I know some people hate this idea, but if we want more room for expansion of our ski industry, why don't we focus it on Snowbasin and Powmow? They've got tons of terrain with no people on it. Let them put in some faux euro base villages up there so that they can attract vacation skiers.
Bump for Buddha, Bros, Bob, and can't we all get a Bong on the Booter to EGP
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...bum/sfb147.jpg
Oh and Brain Damage is so not ready in case you were wondering
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...bum/sfb150.jpg
You spelled herd wrong, fucktard. :the_finge :FIREdevil :fm:Quote:
Originally Posted by chucknuggin
Balance is a good thing. I ski in the backcountry and at the resort, I enjoy both. They are both the same sport, SKIING, which everyone on this board is passionate about it, at least I hope they are. It's nice to get out early before the lifts are turning on the weekday for a dawn patrol and hit some great terrain. 2500 vert of ascending then skiing in 2 hours isn't bad before work. If resorts start expanding onto this terrain it means no more uphill traffic, and people who are passionate about backcountry SKIING before work lose some of the best quick access terrain.
As for Silver Fork specifically, I don't see the point. Short shots, long traverses out. Maybe they will put a long tow at the bottom like Alta. ;)
Nothing valueable to add, but signing up to see how this plays out.
This thread is worth it for the Yeti equation alone. Strong work.
I don't want lazy resort skiers to get to my secret BC stash,but then again I'm too fucking lazy to actually tour somewhere that isn't sidecountry. And I'm sticking with this.
What is going to be really ubergnarbrobrafuckingrad is when Alta gets the lift up Flag, Solitude gets the lift into Silver Fork, and then Dicko gets his lift into White Pine.
message removed i'm a dick
not so much throw it away as...
ski it without having to gear up and turn it into some kind of expedition every time.
Also, it is true that everyone who doesn't like skinning is a dumbass. Thanks for pointing that out.
Also, since we're throwing insults around: how about this you fucking fuck: you go make your living hiking around for 1000s of hours, fuck your back up, and see if you maybe don't find that an enjoyable form of recreation anymore. Liking to ski more than liking to trek isn't a lack of creativity. If I would rather spend my day slogging around I'd be doing that. I guess that's fun for you guys, I don't know, it doesn't make you a genius and me a retard. Fuck off.
Silver Fork is Wilderness?
This is the first I've heard.
don't forget the old indian dude (can't remember his name) who skied around with a beer in one hand and boom box in the other. had his Subie brat backed up for quick beer refills on each lap.Quote:
Originally Posted by skifishbum
Let's negotiate a settlement. Put the lifts in and ban all cars. period.
That way we can have wilderness in the cities, but lifts to the backcountry.
There isn't a peak in the Wasatch that is more than a 5 hour approach for the average touring person.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
I was driving up LCC today to skin up Snowbird of all places, yeah, I'm the gay guy Yeti man talks about. Yesterday I got off the phone with Otter, we were both bitching about the Wasatch shit show. But fuck that, the drive and the skin cleared my mind. The Wasatch is a cool place. Just hike past the fence line of the herd and you can have a pretty good day away from most. Anybody you run into "out there" likely will be your peer and usually a friend.
Fuck the haters. The Wasatch is still a good place despite all the arguing on TGR, all the lifts going in, the heli, and the bro/brah's.
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery1/albums/album01/9_G.jpg
message removed again.
"The Wasatch is still a good place despite all the arguing on TGR, all the lifts going in, the heli, and the bro/brah's."
Best line of the thread. Thanks.
One thing I can say, this thread has become typical for around here. Let's make it personal...very entertaining, for sure.
Most people who are opposed to expansion are from Vermont and haven't been able to pull their heads out of their asses and clean their eyes and look around. The wastach is a small range with below-average terrain and above average snow quality by international standards (and even within the states).
there is nothing wilderness about it. that point has been covered. Just because you want to ski some low angle bullshit on your lunch break doesn't justify not building a lift there.
If you want to go for a tour, go somewhere else. Silver fork mostly sucks dick anyway.
Whether it is liked or not, big business will continue to develop utah until it is interconnected, too expensive (which it already is), and poorly planned. Welcome to Capitalism! Don't like it? Go elsewhere. No one in the Republican-controlled state government gives a shit about your touring desires.
Oh and I forgot to mention the water thing. The whole Utah-watershed joke is so fucking laughable. Only people with money can shit in the watershred, especially if they are mormon-owned/backed.
You think your ski area is going to dump less shit in the water than me jumping into lake mary? NO FUCKING SWIMMING NO NO NO NO NON !!!!!
/ENDRANT
I wrote a song:
I like to ski
I like to ski
ski ski ski
skiing is for me
you like to bitch
you like to bitch
bitch bitch bitch
you're going in switch
We are the jongs
we are the jongs
jong jong jong
lets sing a happy song
we like to shred
we like to shred
shred shred shred
shred til we're dead
We got boards on our feet
We got boards on our feet
feet feet feet
our life is so neat
I find it is a happy song to sing on a hike, or going downhill really fast. If you sing it down there in mormon country maybe people will quit being so angry about being in the mountains. Leave the ego and attitude in your fucking car brognar.
Bullshit, most opposed live here, doesn't matter what state you popped out of your momma's vagina.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdherb
Getting your dick partly sucked is better than nothing, I like to have the option.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdherb
It's currently public land, so my lunch break desires to get my dick partially sucked with some skiing thrown in are indeed valid.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdherb
Russia?Quote:
Originally Posted by powdherb
The only thing in your rant that makes any sense.Quote:
Originally Posted by powdherb
Silver Fork is wilderness for where it's at. For some people, the Wasatch is all the wilderness they'll ever have the opportunity to experience. It's not about elitism, it's about saving some places where people can go without paying money and having to put up with a bunch of rules, where they are responsible for their actions and the consequences.
While I agree that this view and certainly the definition of a wilderness are tough to put together, this picture shows exactly why the wilderness act was needed. And I think you've missed the point.Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan
The Wilderness Act was put in place in order to stop areas of growing population from trampling everywhere around it.
So what if you can see a city from where you are? The wilderness designation was put in place to stop all 2 million of those people from being right next to you. And Salt Lake is unique in the fact that it offers so many places where you can see so few people within a short drive of the city either in the cottonwoods, or elsewhere.
To say that these areas should not be protected just because there are areas of high population near them or within sights is just absurd.
Where this issue gets critical for me is the question of responsibility. It has long been the task of the Department of the Interior to allow for public land to be used in ways that best benefit the public. This is why ski areas are able to benefit profit-seeking private parties on publicly owned and maintained land. My question is this: when and why does the private skiing experience on public land get to the point where it is the responsibility of the public to give up more land for private ski area development? Is it the public's responsibility to allow private ski areas to use public land when they are losing money? When they are getting too crowded?
It seems like, if anything, our committment (as a taxpaying public) should be to only devote more public land for ski resport expansion when it is needed because the public is being precluded from enjoying resort skiing due to high crowds. Can anyone honestly say that this is the experience in Big Cottonwood Canyon? Of course not. Why exactly does Solitude need more of our land? It just isn't good enough to say that there are more resort skiers than BC skiers. The protection of open space in this country is not an issue of public referendum, nor should it be. Call the Wastach a wilderness area, or call it a crowded shithole next to a city. That isn't the critical distinction. What I call it is mine (and yours). As long as it is public, it needs to be used to serve the public. Last time I checked, theres already plenty of public land that is perfectly available for the lift-riding public.
Don't forget, ski resorts on public land are essentially concessionaires that the government (and public) permits. Go visit Grand Teton/Yellowstone National Park and see how many private businesses are permitted to operate on public land. Not many. Why? Because the public doesn't need it, and the place is better without it.
Were already paying high prices for what seem to be very little ! I think it's time! With modern EQ and visa mabe we should go larger. Sorry modern commercials. :eek:Quote:
Originally Posted by Lonnie
this post is to state that Alto is not a dick, never has been, and probably never will be.
We all know you're a stoke factory.
It's just teh internets.
I know where you're coming from and you had good points that ought to be made.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong
1) We're talking about the Dept. of Agriculture here. As it is in UT-WCF or UWF as they say these days...
2) USDA/USFS loosely follows, or has followed this idea of "The greatest good, for the most people, for the longest time." This isn't some radical environmentalist viewpoint, it's about saying this is public land: what use benefits the public the most? More of the public ski in Alta than next to Alta. Alta's model serves the public more.
National Park Service and US Forest Service are not one and the same, not even close. One is about creating and preserving a pristine park, the other is about land use. This is an important distinction between the park service and the USDA Forest Service. Solitude is on Agricultural land, land that in other places is grazed, or logged on the public's behalf because more people benefit from food supply and lumber than from hiking. Disagree with the rationale if you choose, but that is the working rationale for use prioritization in the USDA forest service.
It's not a national park. National parks don't want you to ski. Try to go ski the Olympics on a Wednesday: nope, any road going into the mountains is closed. It's a park, they don't want you in there. The Park Service doesn't want you to surf, they really only let people camp out of practicality. The Forest Service says go ahead, the greatest good for the most people. USFS as an agency wants people to benefit from their public lands, the most people for the longest time. That would also, I think, in theory include the members of the Utah public who benefit economically from ski tourism. The park service is much more exclusive to enjoyment. Bunch of little kings and queens who think they're better than the public doing their best to exclude you from your own land.
Spot on there. Try going to the Fiery Furnace in Arches on your own, without a "guide".Quote:
Originally Posted by YetiMan