Solitude Expansion...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by frozenwater

cause I think we should start the ball rolling asap on the lift up to the top of cardiac ridge.

---

The funny thing is, Bass basically owns all of Superior and Cardiac and could pretty much start building a tram to the top of Superior today if he really wanted to.

A lift in Silver Fork is not going to happen anytime soon, if ever. Just the cost of jumping through all the required NEPA hoops and the inevitable lawsuits by SOC, SUWA and SLC watershed regulators will probably make it non-viable, especially since Solitude probably just incurred a whole lot of new debt doing their recent lift upgrades.

The Flagstaff lift is much more likely to happen.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

They're waiting for Iceman to arrive and cut the ribbon

---

Crap, there is no way he is cutting the right ribbon. In fact I am pretty sure he is wandering around the greater D.C. area right now randomly cutting pieces of ribbon he finds in his path.

No WAY he is making it before next weekend. I really wanted to take a look at what the terrain looked like before it was covered by thier man made snow they planned on blowing all over it before the christmas rush. Well, guess I will just have to que up for Alta's lift up flagstaff instead.

See you all there!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StraightChuter

When and if enough people value open space to push it into the Wilderness or Park realm, that will be a different thing, but until then the FS (For Sale) is going to manage it for a profit. It is their job.

---

Not necessarily for profit, for the most public benefit. The agency doesn't "profit", it's a public entity so it's not as if there is some forest supervisor raking in bonuses here...If 100000 skiers benefit from recreational value of a ski area, and watershed resources are preserved, and the residents of the region benefit from tourism this will take precedence over 1000 BC skiers who like to have the area to themselves.
This is how that works. It's not about a monetary bottom line, it's about a complete approach to best utilize an area.

This seems to be a concept that's just beyond your reach...


Of course, many people have misconceptions confusing the USDA/USFS with the ideals of the park service. The FS is not a preservation model, it's a utilization/agrarian model.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

I imagine this is similar in nature to the fact that nothing I or anybody else says is going to keep the skiers who love touring and love the BC from loving what they love. My only point with regard to that, is that the venue for BC skiing is, really, almost any place with mountains and snow. Having flown over the wasatch in a helicopter a lot (fucking hold your fire SFB, it was summer/fire stuff ;) ) I can say that the ski areas are a small, small amount of the snowy mountains where a person who likes BC could go ski. The ratio is remarkable really. Take a look.

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/a...1&d=1259787860

What's to say that the BC that becomes sidecountry/slackcountry with an expansion isn't just as good or better than the current sidecountry being absorbed? How is it a given that this will have the posited effects: harming the wasatch BC skiing experience, furthering retarded condo crap, turning soli into vail/killington/DV? I just don't see it.

---

Now you're just making shit up. For one, much of the area you have circled is not skiable under most conditions. For two, the vast majority of it is not skiable in a day, much less the 1/2 to 2/3 of a day in which many of us have to ski.

If you want to talk about stuff that's realistically skiable for SL Valley dwellers with day jobs (that damn capitalism again) you are talking about the alpine ridge, the cottonwood ridge, and the mill creek ridge. At a lot of that terrain is not high-quality ski terrain. Sure, I could quit my job and just ski, but then my greed and bloodlust would not be satiated.

Do you even live in Utah anymore? If not, why do you care?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

Not necessarily for profit, for the most public benefit. The agency doesn't "profit", it's a public entity so it's not as if there is some forest supervisor raking in bonuses here...If 100000 skiers benefit from recreational value of a ski area, and watershed resources are preserved, and the residents of the region benefit from tourism this will take precedence over 1000 BC skiers who like to have the area to themselves.
This is how that works. It's not about a monetary bottom line, it's about a complete approach to best utilize an area.

---

I, too, served over a year term of working for the government. (Not the forest service, though.) Nowadays, I work with the government on a daily basis, on the consulting end. The “profit” in the government sector comes in the form of increased tax dollar allocations, budgeting, and domain. Anyone who calls our government a non-profit must have the wool pulled over their eyes pretty thickly. Don't let the contextual term of "profit," confuse you when applied outside the conventional realm of the free market.

Maybe I'll move back someday :eek: :fight: :eek: Maybe I'll come from out of town to ski Solitude when I'm living somewhere else...

You're going to have a really fucking hard time convincing me there's only a tiny area that you can backcountry ski around Salt Lake, and most of that is in Silver Fork. Sorrydude.

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikiped...tyWestSide.jpg

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic40988.jpg

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic40989.jpg

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic40991.jpg

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic40985.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RTR

I, too, served over a year term of working for the government. (Not the forest service, though.) Nowadays, I work with the government on a daily basis, on the consulting end. The “profit” in the government sector comes in the form of increased tax dollar allocations, budgeting, and domain. Anyone who calls our government a non-profit must have the wool pulled over their eyes pretty thickly. Don't let the contextual term of "profit," confuse you when applied outside the conventional realm of the free market.

---

semantics :rolleyes:

The forest service is not a business, it's not trying to make the most money it can. Revenue is a factor, it is not the only factor.

Pad


I worked for the guberment too all I got was a shitty haircut.
Oh wait a minute german chicks en der poopenhausen
Alles Clar

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

semantics :rolleyes:

The forest service is not a business, it's not trying to make the most money it can. Revenue is a factor, it is not the only factor.

---

Fall back behind the guise of semantics, if you must. Maybe some day you'll see the grave error of your thinking. ;)

Until that happens, just KNOW that the government is OUT TO GET YOU!

http://2.bp.blogspot.com/__27Etnquhz...motivation.JPG

^^^^ fuckin dynafiddlers betrayed me and my bro almost skied that sweet shot off the backside of the meadows into Days without me. I can't wait till I can rock my 18 din green spring binders back there:D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skiski

Do you even live in Utah anymore? If not, why do you care?

---

Oooohhh! You just completely pwn3d Yeti there, douchebag!

Killer arguement.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

Maybe I'll move back someday :eek: :fight: :eek: Maybe I'll come from out of town to ski Solitude when I'm living somewhere else...

You're going to have a really fucking hard time convincing me there's only a tiny area that you can backcountry ski around Salt Lake, and most of that is in Silver Fork. Sorrydude.

http://wpcontent.answers.com/wikiped...tyWestSide.jpg

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic40988.jpg

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic40989.jpg

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic40991.jpg

http://www.biglines.com/photos/blpic40985.jpg

---

Yup, those are all my current fav places to ski, outside the current lines of the sheep pen. I mean, I like sheep, don't get me wrong, but..........I just don't like to ski with them.

Bump for soli sheep baaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...bum/ss0007.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

Bump for soli sheep baaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhh
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...bum/ss0007.jpg

---

Is that BobMc or Yeti? Hard to tell with the flat light and all.:biggrin:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Is that BobMc or Yeti? Hard to tell with the flat light and all.:biggrin:

---

that's the only naked ex-GF pic I'm posting, enjoy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

Not necessarily for profit, for the most public benefit. The agency doesn't "profit", it's a public entity so it's not as if there is some forest supervisor raking in bonuses here...If 100000 skiers benefit from recreational value of a ski area, and watershed resources are preserved, and the residents of the region benefit from tourism this will take precedence over 1000 BC skiers who like to have the area to themselves.
This is how that works. It's not about a monetary bottom line, it's about a complete approach to best utilize an area.

---

Oh, right - that must be why the Forest Service permits the Wasatch Powderbirds to fly helicopters in a designated non motorized area, which must benefit, what, 150 people per year at the expense of the rest of the public.

Greatest good for the greatest fees is more like it.

what is your problem with the heli skiing? Just that they access places you morally feel should be more difficult to access? They don't deserve to be where you are?

Or is it that the aircraft disturbs the wildlife?

Run me through the quick summary of why it's wrong for the forest service to permit helicopters to fly in the forest...other than you personally don't like people tracking your snow up?

BLOCK THE CANYONS, SHUT DOWN THE LIFTS. ONLY THE MOST BURLY BROBRAHS WILL TREK INTO THE SACRED WILDERNESS FOR THEY ALONE DESERVE TO SKI POW!

SO LET IT BE WRITTEN, SO LET IT BE DONE.

^^^
Cool, I'm all for that.
As for the heli. Designated non motorized should mean designated non motorized, no exceptions.

ood, Uta wants to sit you down and give you a lesson in German spelling.....


but no pupenhausen.

Imagine that it Feb 2004. You show up the morning after a 15 to 20 inch storm. You are the first one in the parking lot of Days Fork. Stoked. You put your shit on and break trail for 2 hours between you and your touring partner. 5 minutes before you hit your destination some douchebags in a heli drop off a bunch of other douchebags right on top of your line. In the whole scope of reality there is no way said douchebags in heli did not see you and your skin path leading up there, but fucking landed anyway, even though there are plenty of lines to be had in vicinity(this really did happen,by the way) Fucking douchebags.

Other than that, no problem with helis.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by YetiMan

what is your problem with the heli skiing?

---

I don't have a problem with heliskiing in general, but do have a problem with the Wasatch Powderbirds and their butt-buddies in the Forest Service who issue them permits to bomb the living hell out of the Wasatch backcountry.

Quote:

---

Run me through the quick summary of why it's wrong for the forest service to permit helicopters to fly in the forest...other than you personally don't like people tracking your snow up?

---

Sorry - you've been outed as wire-riding tourist who picks a ski resort based on how much acreage it has and pays full price for a day ticket. I don't owe you anything but pity.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StraightChuter

Sorry - you've been outed as wire-riding tourist who picks a ski resort based on how much acreage it has and pays full price for a day ticket.

---

:fmicon: :fmicon: :fmicon:

^^^me wants a pair of those neon and black banded pants

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StraightChuter

I worked for the Forest Service for a season as well and have also dealt with them on permitting and land use issues, which is where my "cynical impression" comes from. I think the foot soliders of the FS (Rangers, Avalanche Forecasters, etc.) care a lot about the environment, but the agency as a whole is tasked with managing/profiting from the the natural resources. Backcountry skiers, hikers, bird watchers, hunters and picnickers contribute zero to the permitting process, whereas ski resorts and heli operations contribute cash. I don't think that has anything to do with the greatest good for the greatest number of people, especially looking towards the future. It is hardly a conspiracy theory as it is right out there in the open. When and if enough people value open space to push it into the Wilderness or Park realm, that will be a different thing, but until then the FS (For Sale) is going to manage it for a profit. It is their job.

---

You're getting increasingly aggro and increasingly wrong. Yes, the agency's mission per its founding legislation is multiple use, managing for the benefit of the most people. The four Cottonwood resorts comprise about 7000 acres and are used very intensely. That leaves about 898,000 acres for everyone else to play in, w/o counting the 700,000 acre Cache portion of the WCNF. By your own admission, Silver Fork will be skied much more frequently if this expansion goes through. Whether you like it or not (and it's clear you don't) the VAST majority of the skiing public prefer lifts to get them to the top. While an expansion is no doubt in Solitude's interests as well, let's not let your apparent antipathy to capitalism mask the fact that this sliver of land will clearly be enjoyed by more people than it currently is hosting. It's not like Soli wants to put a strip mine in there. Allowing such an expansion is entirely consistent with the scope of their legislated mission. It may well get shot down for other reasons, but your crypto-marxist are too far off-base to be taken seriously.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tuco

Imagine that it Feb 2004. You show up the morning after a 15 to 20 inch storm. You are the first one in the parking lot of Days Fork. Stoked. You put your shit on and break trail for 2 hours between you and your touring partner. 5 minutes before you hit your destination some douchebags in a heli drop off a bunch of other douchebags right on top of your line. In the whole scope of reality there is no way said douchebags in heli did not see you and your skin path leading up there, but fucking landed anyway, even though there are plenty of lines to be had in vicinity(this really did happen,by the way) Fucking douchebags.

Other than that, no problem with helis.

---

Wow. One heli full of skiers can track out all of Days Fork in 5 minutes?

Impressive.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman

Wow. One heli full of skiers can track out all of Days Fork in 5 minutes?

Impressive.

---

The particular flake we were on only has a handful of lines. Once you're as far up as we were, there is not traversing to another area, so yes tracked out in five minutes. As stated, plenty of lines in the vicinity, no need to land on top of us. Your comprehension of the situation.


Impressive.

^^^ Devil's advocate:
1) Touring is all about the climb. Be glad that you were able to enjoy such a nice morning breaking trail;


No doubt that the guy was a douchnozzle (many skiers are), and had many other options, but he paid $$$, so he got what he paid for, without concern for you.

PAAAAAAAHHHHHDDDDDDD
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...m/ss0006-1.jpg
Alles Klar?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by schindlerpiste

^^^ Devil's advocate:
1) Touring is all about the climb. Be glad that you were able to enjoy such a nice morning breaking trail;


No doubt that the guy was a douchnozzle (many skiers are), and had many other options, but he paid $$$, so he got what he paid for, without concern for you.

---

True, but in the end, if they would have flown 5 extra seconds to another LZ, I could be saying how cool they were to do that. They could save themselves the animosity that comes with shit like this. Really, I could give a fuck about the PowderBird operations. I don't care that they operate here, just moves like this are bullshit. You don't land on top of people.

This isn't the only time this has happened. Happened in Mineral Fork once, but terrain in there was different, so no big deal.

Once, in AK, touring up Mount Billy Mitchell in the Chugach, we were headed for a line, and when the heli spotted us, they turned tail and got the fuck out! We talked to them later and they wanted to ski the exact line we did, but went elsewhere(with their paying customers), out of respect for the touring party. Granted the Wasatch is no Chugach as far as plentiful terrain,but to me, it was a bullshit call no matter how you look at it.

I'm just saying that they could save themselves alot of bad PR by not doing stupid things. But the guy getting what he paid for is not an argument that makes any sense in this situation cause he would have got what he paid for on any line they skied that day.

Oh well, it's over and done with and I'm not pissed(anymore). Just saying it could have been a positive story(for them) instead of a negative.

Now, on to more important things, like finding out when the DPS magical, mystery tour is coming to town!

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...bum/ski051.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tin Woodsman

You're getting increasingly aggro and increasingly wrong. Yes, the agency's mission per its founding legislation is multiple use, managing for the benefit of the most people. The four Cottonwood resorts comprise about 7000 acres and are used very intensely. That leaves about 898,000 acres for everyone else to play in, w/o counting the 700,000 acre Cache portion of the WCNF. By your own admission, Silver Fork will be skied much more frequently if this expansion goes through. Whether you like it or not (and it's clear you don't) the VAST majority of the skiing public prefer lifts to get them to the top. While an expansion is no doubt in Solitude's interests as well, let's not let your apparent antipathy to capitalism mask the fact that this sliver of land will clearly be enjoyed by more people than it currently is hosting. It's not like Soli wants to put a strip mine in there. Allowing such an expansion is entirely consistent with the scope of their legislated mission. It may well get shot down for other reasons, but your crypto-marxist are too far off-base to be taken seriously.

---

Yes, and of those 898,000 acres, how many are prime skiing terrain? Not many, which is the issue. There would be much less opposition if Solitude wanted to put in a chairlift at the Storm Mountain picnic area. My feeling is that the FS is selling off the crown jewels of the Wasatch. In that regard look at Boulder, Colorado - love it or hate it, the forced open space has made that a highly desirable place to live, unlike Vail which is just basically Las Vegas in the mountains.

Increasingly aggro? Yes, perhaps, and yes, it is probably pointless as Utah and the FS are 99% inclined towards expansion anyway, so it is all a moot point. I mean, you gotta keep up with Colorado. So while I'm getting aggro on a website, Solitude, Alta and Snowbird are calmly hiring lawyers and planner to work with the FS to figure out how to make it happen. The public input process is quickly dispelled when the resorts trot out their three aces - an adorable little kid, a person in a wheelchair and a senior citizen, all of whom say how nice it would be to have a lift or lodge they could enjoy. This pretty much seals the deal as it is being done in the name of our children's future, our beloved parents and those less fortunate than ourselves. Break out the chainsaws and backhoes boys!

Pffft to much yackin
Time for a ski off to settle this
I got $20 on the Yeti
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...um/smr257a.jpg
any takers;)
Nice pics Mr. wizzard thanks

Tin - just for reference, what is your future vision for the Wasatch? My reference point comes from being born here and having skied here for the last twenty years (resort and backcountry) and seeing relentless pressure put on the mountains both from below and above.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...um/smr257a.jpg

---

Yeti Roc Blocks...in the backcountry? That's fusion man.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by StraightChuter

There would be much less opposition if Solitude wanted to put in a chairlift at the Storm Mountain picnic area.

---

Just a minute Poncho, that's my neck of Gaza.
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery/albums/...entral/1_G.jpg

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Just a minute Poncho, that's my neck of Gaza.
http://fritzrips.com/Gallery/albums/...entral/1_G.jpg

---

Make that at least one person that will get pissed off.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

Pffft to much yackin
Time for a ski off to settle this
I got $20 on the Yeti
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...um/smr257a.jpg
any takers;)
Nice pics Mr. wizzard thanks

---

Chinese downhill?

On Flanigan's?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

Pffft to much yackin
Time for a ski off to settle this
I got $20 on the Yeti
http://i5.photobucket.com/albums/y19...um/smr257a.jpg
any takers;)
Nice pics Mr. wizzard thanks

---

Just $20? Man, this is a sure thing.