Solitude Expansion...

[Tin Woodsman]

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.

[Tin Woodsman]

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.

[tuco]

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.

[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.

[skifishbum]

PAAAAAAAHHHHHDDDDDDD

Alles Klar?

[tuco]

^^^ 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!

[skifishbum]

[StraightChuter]

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!

[skifishbum]

Pffft to much yackin
Time for a ski off to settle this
I got $20 on the Yeti

any takers
Nice pics Mr. wizzard thanks

[StraightChuter]

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.

[Sol Skier]

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

[Trackhead]

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.

[Johnny Deep]

Just a minute Poncho, that's my neck of Gaza.

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

[tuco]

Pffft to much yackin
Time for a ski off to settle this
I got $20 on the Yeti

any takers
Nice pics Mr. wizzard thanks

Chinese downhill?

On Flanigan's?

[Buzzworthy]

Pffft to much yackin
Time for a ski off to settle this
I got $20 on the Yeti

any takers
Nice pics Mr. wizzard thanks

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

[jsnowut]

That's the gayest photo i've ever seen - look at that back pole - nice.

This discussion is great -

2 guys advocating for a new lift - 1 skied mbeam 57 time (with a helmet on) and calls that skiing !!! - it's beating off - get a life. The other sprays about how he likes to ski the same line to get the bumps just right - that's wierd - and if that's what you're into you don't need more lift accessed.

The true divide (which is illusory) is not lift vs. backcountry - its what kind of skiing you like to do - powder vs. bumps. I think most of us can agree that no one likes to ski bumps - the only people that do are the ones that have to and they live in CO. Nobody gets' pumped when the bumps are 18" deep - on the other hand . . . Yeti may just be fooling himself. Here's the 101 tutorial why we all want SF preserved -

Dump = ski the resort more powder runs
Day after dump = probably still ski the resort at least in the am - grab the remaining untracked and let the bc settle
Next day start harvesting the Reserve - low danger untracked
next day go further get more as things settle out
on a typical year repeat until next storm arrives then start again.

Warning - a steady practice of this diet can lead to permanent brain damage and uncurable addictions.

It's pretty simple. What the lift advocates don't seem to understand is that right now SF is there for you - you just have to get out and get it - take the opportunity that exists. Back in the day with shitty skinny skis such was not the case - because you needed talent, but now with the awesome gear out there - any wanker that can ski mbeam can ski untracked in the bc.

Once you put a lift in the Reserve is gone - it's handed over to the grazers. Preserve the reserves.

[BobMc]

1 skied mbeam 57 time (with a helmet on) and calls that skiing !!! - it's beating off - get a life.

Perhaps someday I'll graduate to "hardcore mofo" like yourself. Next time I'm skiing Moonbeam I'll be sure to leave the helmet home so I'll look even hardercore while doing it.

[Tin Woodsman]

Yes, and of those 898,000 acres, how many are prime skiing terrain? Not many, which is the issue.

OK - fair point. But then let's not sully the issue with references to the poor displaced hikers and bird watchers and others you referenced who aren't interested in prime skiing terrain. This is clearly about lift-served vs. BC skiers. When you look at the numbers and usage, there is no question - zero - as to which model is more consistent with the FS' legislative mission.

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.

Boulder isn't on USFS land, so I'm not sure I see the comparison. It's not like the White Mtn National Forest, the closest one to Boulder, has been any less welcoming to ski area expansions.

Listen - I see your point. It's got to be extremely frustrating to see the prime terrain slowly brought in bounds, but since Snowbird came into existence, what have been the major terrain expansions in that zone? Outside of Mineral Basin, I can't think of one. It's not like ski areas now control a big portion of terrain that in your UT skiing lifetime had been B/C.

As for my vision of the Wasatch - I don't have one. What I think will likely happen is that in the long-term (20-30 years), the 7 resorts will be connected in some form or fashion. It won't be as extensive or convenient as the resorts want, and it will be more intrusive and expansive than the B/C community wants.

[Tin Woodsman]

That's the gayest photo i've ever seen - look at that back pole - nice.

This discussion is great -

2 guys advocating for a new lift - 1 skied mbeam 57 time (with a helmet on) and calls that skiing !!! - it's beating off - get a life. The other sprays about how he likes to ski the same line to get the bumps just right - that's wierd - and if that's what you're into you don't need more lift accessed.

The true divide (which is illusory) is not lift vs. backcountry - its what kind of skiing you like to do - powder vs. bumps. I think most of us can agree that no one likes to ski bumps - the only people that do are the ones that have to and they live in CO. Nobody gets' pumped when the bumps are 18" deep - on the other hand . . . Yeti may just be fooling himself. Here's the 101 tutorial why we all want SF preserved -

Dump = ski the resort more powder runs
Day after dump = probably still ski the resort at least in the am - grab the remaining untracked and let the bc settle
Next day start harvesting the Reserve - low danger untracked
next day go further get more as things settle out
on a typical year repeat until next storm arrives then start again.

Warning - a steady practice of this diet can lead to permanent brain damage and uncurable addictions.

It's pretty simple. What the lift advocates don't seem to understand is that right now SF is there for you - you just have to get out and get it - take the opportunity that exists. Back in the day with shitty skinny skis such was not the case - because you needed talent, but now with the awesome gear out there - any wanker that can ski mbeam can ski untracked in the bc.

Once you put a lift in the Reserve is gone - it's handed over to the grazers. Preserve the reserves.

Awesome. Perhaps you should stand on the corner of the Soli entrance like the Jesus freaks do with their "Repent!" signs, barking at the skiers as they arrive. Only then will the 98% of skiers who don't prefer to go B/C skiing see the light.

[Christopher3000]

What the hell is that guy doing in that photo?

[skifishbum]

That's the gayest photo i've ever seen - look at that back pole - nice.

This discussion is great -

2 guys advocating for a new lift - 1 skied mbeam 57 time (with a helmet on) and calls that skiing !!! - it's beating off - get a life. The other sprays about how he likes to ski the same line to get the bumps just right - that's wierd - and if that's what you're into you don't need more lift accessed.

The true divide (which is illusory) is not lift vs. backcountry - its what kind of skiing you like to do - powder vs. bumps. I think most of us can agree that no one likes to ski bumps - the only people that do are the ones that have to and they live in CO. Nobody gets' pumped when the bumps are 18" deep - on the other hand . . . Yeti may just be fooling himself. Here's the 101 tutorial why we all want SF preserved -

Dump = ski the resort more powder runs
Day after dump = probably still ski the resort at least in the am - grab the remaining untracked and let the bc settle
Next day start harvesting the Reserve - low danger untracked
next day go further get more as things settle out
on a typical year repeat until next storm arrives then start again.

Warning - a steady practice of this diet can lead to permanent brain damage and uncurable addictions.

It's pretty simple. What the lift advocates don't seem to understand is that right now SF is there for you - you just have to get out and get it - take the opportunity that exists. Back in the day with shitty skinny skis such was not the case - because you needed talent, but now with the awesome gear out there - any wanker that can ski mbeam can ski untracked in the bc.

Once you put a lift in the Reserve is gone - it's handed over to the grazers. Preserve the reserves.

BWWWAAAAAAHHHHH Wrong fuckin answer jong this pic of skidog is much much gayer

You take that? Try tilting the camera next time
Sorry but I'm afraid your gonna have to bring a bit more than this
gay tr of you and the dog skinning up alta groomers and skiing suncups in order for me to take what your saying cearal. Got sumthin better?
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boa...ghlight=#18236

[tone capone]

All due respect to everyone here...

There is equal stupidity and wisdom at all levels in this thread, but you are entitled to your opinions. All I can say is this.

If people want to ride lifts, aren't there enough already? Do you really need another beat ski hill to ski crusty moguls and sluffed out steeps? Isn't the uphill capacity of lifts in the Wasatch sufficient for the greater good of the millions of people who prefer beat ski hills and crowds? Go ahead and argue against me, I know how you feel, I felt the way you do myself once, and then found out I was wrong just in time to know what I was missing.

I mean, I really disagree with the whole down with capitalism/save the earth with carbon credits that everyone seems to think will be the road to a bright and promising future, but...

Seriously, If you like skiing beat crusty moguls, aren't there enough already? Easily accessed, relatively safe, quality sidecountry is a treasure. With today's advancements in gear, it is a shame if you can't appreciate the experience of skinning uphill for an hour or two and having a true unsanitized skiing experience. It is a shame you don't know what you are missing.

For as much as I love skiing lifts and getting some laps in, I can say after the installation of a new lift at our local hill, what we are now missing is irreplaceble. And yes, irreplaceable by the new sidecountry at the new boundary too, because all "acreage" is not equal and not suitable for everyday, low risk, sidecountry adventures.

The ability to go through a gate, climb a bit, make our own descisions, utilize the proper terrain for each condition, ski a really steep slope that hasn't been ski cut or bombed day in and day out, to get away from powder day fever and make a few mellow low angle laps, right outside your local ski hill, gone. I truly pity those everywhere who's relatively safe and easy access sidecountry is pilfered in the name of increasing "skiable acerage" for people who prefer beat crusty ski hills and to share any powder experience they ever have with 18,000 other douchebags between 9:00 and 10:00 am, half of them putting in traverses in every 50 feet.

Again, let it be known, that I appreciate ski hills. I ride alot of lifts. I ski beat crusty moguls. I get up at 7:00 am so I can wait in line like a sheep to ski powder for three runs at the ski hill, but seriously, if you have good boundary policies and good quality skiing in your sidecountry, get a pair of alpine trekkers and go check it out. I gaurantee it is an experience worth the effort even with that pitiful mode of uphill transport. Maybe "resorts" should be marketing those opportunities and prompting the idea that the public is entirely CAPABLE of experiencing skiing in this way. God knows everybody and their mother has touring gear these days anyways. Maybe the future of skiing can evolve in this way that terrain expansion doesn't rely solely on lift expansion.

/end blog.

Quoted for exactly what I was trying to say after I posted.

Dump = ski the resort more powder runs
Day after dump = probably still ski the resort at least in the am - grab the remaining untracked and let the bc settle
Next day start harvesting the Reserve - low danger untracked
next day go further get more as things settle out
on a typical year repeat until next storm arrives then start again.

Warning - a steady practice of this diet can lead to permanent brain damage and uncurable addictions.

It's pretty simple. What the lift advocates don't seem to understand is that right now SF is there for you - you just have to get out and get it - take the opportunity that exists. Back in the day with shitty skinny skis such was not the case - because you needed talent, but now with the awesome gear out there - any wanker that can ski mbeam can ski untracked in the bc.

Once you put a lift in the Reserve is gone - it's handed over to the grazers. Preserve the reserves.

[Trackhead]

Save Our Canyons new recruits. Young, motivated, ruthless.

[Mofro261]

Seriously, If you like skiing beat crusty moguls, aren't there enough already? Easily accessed, relatively safe, quality sidecountry is a treasure. With today's advancements in gear, it is a shame if you can't appreciate the experience of skinning uphill for an hour or two and having a true unsanitized skiing experience. It is a shame you don't know what you are missing.

For as much as I love skiing lifts and getting some laps in, I can say after the installation of a new lift at our local hill, what we are now missing is irreplaceble. And yes, irreplaceable by the new sidecountry at the new boundary too, because all "acreage" is not equal and not suitable for everyday, low risk, sidecountry adventures.

The ability to go through a gate, climb a bit, make our own descisions, utilize the proper terrain for each condition, ski a really steep slope that hasn't been ski cut or bombed day in and day out, to get away from powder day fever and make a few mellow low angle laps, right outside your local ski hill, gone. I truly pity those everywhere who's relatively safe and easy access sidecountry is pilfered in the name of increasing "skiable acerage" for people who prefer beat crusty ski hills and to share any powder experience they ever have with 18,000 other douchebags between 9:00 and 10:00 am, half of them putting in traverses in every 50 feet.
.

Fuck all of you advocating MORE people drop resort skiing and take up BC skiing. Now all of a sudden my easy access is being overrun by joeys who can't ski for dick looking for the "pure" skiing experience and tracking out my stashes, while making poor decisions in the BC.

Way to all over my uphill experience.

[ill-advised strategy]

Simple question time:

Would skiing be better with or without lifts in mineral basin?

Would skiing be better with or without the Alta supreme lift?

Just wondering where everybody stands....

I like skiing both of those areas with lifts, and wouldn't be in them if they were out a gate where I had to take my life in my hands w/snow safety and spend 9/10's of my time there xc skiing on a skin track...

It seems like the majority of people here would prefer if those lifts were gone...is that right?