Solitude Expansion...

[jwolter7]

YM:
"I guess given good terrain I'd rather get on a chair at the bottom and ski laps than cross country ski uphill and get 1 or 2 runs a day on better snow."

F:
in response to Yetiman.. you are ignorant!

[Slaag Master]

i have hiked, skied, camped, worked, n lived in silver fork. going back to 1982. what does that mean? i dunno. but i remember what one man said when asked to sell land 4 development: "when your children's children think themselves alone in the field, the store, the shop, upon the highway, or in the silence of the pathless woods, they will not be alone. In all the earth there is no place dedicated to solitude."

[Spats]

sfotex is right.

The problem here is that Solitude is asking to take a huge chunk of public land solely for its own profit, with no compensation to the public who will forever be locked out of their own public lands.

I notice that all the people supporting the expansion are already Solitude pass holders. That's great for you -- but you are asking the other 99.99999% of the world to pay $62/day to enter their own public lands, just so 0.00001% of the public can have a chairlift that benefits them personally.

YetiMan: I love you, I really do. But don't you see the irony in passionately protesting the fact that you couldn't surf your favorite spot for free because a trailer park owns the tidelands and charges access ([ame="http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?t=173331"]Police Looking For You Thread[/ame]) -- while supporting Solitude in their effort to annex public land and charge access to Silver Fork, denying access to backcountry skiers?

[ill-advised strategy]

apples and oranges.

The action on the part of the beach "owner" reduces the amount of public enjoyment of a public recreation asset. The action on the part of solitude increases the amount of public enjoyment of a public recreation asset.

The minorities are switched. In the beach situation the minority is the 2 individuals who want the 500 members of the public kept away from their private beach; with Solitude the minority is the 2 BC skiers who want the 500 inbounds skiers kept away from their favorite place to ski tour.

The major fallacy of the BC side of this argument is thinking that the only party who benefits from a bigger better ski area is the owner of the ski area...that the opposing parties are 1 resort owner and a community of BC skiers...where in reality it's a small community of BC skiers vs. a larger community of inbounds skiers plus everyone who benefits from tourism in Utah plus taxpayers in general who benefit from permit revenue.

Stand at the top of Hidden Peak any given ski season day and watch how many members of the public enjoy mineral basin. Now, imagine if that was out of bounds....BC.. A handful of hardcore dudes are going to go out there and deal with snow safety and skin back up and all that relatively miserable shit that most of the public doesn't like (because they ski for FUN, and skinning....and digging your blue faced buddy out of avy debris...and figuring out what to do if you break some equipment back there...aren't fun...) leaving the bigger part of the public out of enjoying that land. Not only are the larger group of the public not using and enjoying their land, but they're paying for search and rescue when hardcore guy screws up, ski patrol is getting called back there to assist with burials and injuries a few times a year...etc etc..Sure it's good for the harder core perspective on things, better snow back there if it's a risky area limited to people who don't mind dying to ski pow. But let's not pretend that's the greatest good for the most people...and if it's not, it's probably not going to be the best option for the forest service.

Now maybe if you want to say that one BC skier is 100 or 500 times more worthy of enjoying Silver Fork than some regular non-mountaineering skier because of their willingness to die in a slide and XC ski to get in/out...fine. But let's call it like it is, if you're for denying the permit, you're for an option of less public use of that land, not more, and less benefit to the common taxpayer, not more.

The majority of the public owners of that land have no interest in being on it at all, but each and every citizen is just as much an owner as StraightChuter...If the FS can bring economic gain to the area via tourism in the forest, they will; that's a good use of USDA lands (it's not a park!), that action finds the greatest good for the most people. Not the greatest good for a few BC skiers, the greatest good for the public as a whole comes from running lifts so that regular people can enjoy skiing on their forest.

If this is a public policy debate, the small special interest group of BC skiers is on the minority side. Nothing wrong with that per se, but let's not misrepresent who's trying to pull one over on who here. FS policy would be distorted by favoring the smaller group, just like tideland policy is distorted by favoring oceanfront homeowners over recreating public in the ocean.

[wra]

apples and apples.
Stand at the top of Hidden Peak any given ski season day and watch how many members of the public enjoy mineral basin. Now, imagine if that was out of bounds....BC.. A handful of hardcore dudes are going to go out there and deal with snow safety and skin back up and all that relatively miserable shit that most of the public doesn't like (because they ski for FUN, and skinning....and digging your blue faced buddy out of avy debris...and figuring out what to do if you break some equipment back there...aren't fun...) leaving the bigger part of the public out of enjoying that land.

Skied Mineral Basin for years. It was a wonderful place until they built a lift. Last time I passed through on an Alta to White Pine tour I was threatened with arrest for...tresspassing.

[Trackhead]

Stand at the top of Hidden Peak any given ski season day and watch how many members of the public enjoy mineral basin.

Another area for expansion that never gets used by the public.


Didn't have a ticket, but had to get to Mill Creek some way.

[ill-advised strategy]

Skied Mineral Basin for years. It was a wonderful place until they built a lift. Last time I passed through on an Alta to White Pine tour I was threatened with arrest for...tresspassing.

wow. that's completely bogus. It shouldn't be that way at all.

I'm surprised they would even go there. It's your land.

[tuco]

I'm a pass holder at Soli and don't want to see this happen.

Yeti- It's great your looking out for the greatest good for the public and all. This being the case, don't you think it's a little short sighted to make this a BC skier vs. resort skier argument? Do you really believe that it is just BC skiers that enjoy SF the way it is now. There are a lot more users of public land up there than just skiers. Go hiking up there on a weekend in the summer. Hell the first tour I did up there early last year I saw quite a few bow hunters and a couple were up there pretty high. So if your going to make this about the public, you better include all the users(public).

[skiski]

There are a lot more users of public land up there than just skiers. Go hiking up there on a weekend in the summer. Hell the first tour I did up there early last year I saw quite a few bow hunters and a couple were up there pretty high. So if your going to make this about the public, you better include all the users(public).

Exactly. I frequently hike in all of the drainages without ski lifts. I rarely hike in drainages with lifts. In the summer you can see how much the lifts disturb the ground. It looks like shit.

[ill-advised strategy]

I'm a pass holder at Soli and don't want to see this happen.

Yeti- It's great your looking out for the greatest good for the public and all. This being the case, don't you think it's a little short sighted to make this a BC skier vs. resort skier argument? Do you really believe that it is just BC skiers that enjoy SF the way it is now. There are a lot more users of public land up there than just skiers. Go hiking up there on a weekend in the summer. Hell the first tour I did up there early last year I saw quite a few bow hunters and a couple were up there pretty high. So if your going to make this about the public, you better include all the users(public).

fair enough....

and it's not me or my position, none of us here get to make the decision...I'm just arguing a point (or several points). Honestly I think there is something compelling about leaving the norther pow circuit alone...but as I said, let's not pretend that best serves the stated FS policy.

Is having a lift in an area detrimental to off season recreation? Summer hiking, hunting etc? By that logic this (pic shown) has been developed and spoiled because it's inside a ski area:

[skiski]

fair enough....

and it's not me or my position, none of us here get to make the decision...I'm just arguing a point (or several points). Honestly I think there is something compelling about leaving the norther pow circuit alone...but as I said, let's not pretend that best serves the stated FS policy.

Is having a lift in an area detrimental to off season recreation? Summer hiking, hunting etc? By that logic this (pic shown) has been developed and spoiled because it's inside a ski area:

I don't think cecret lake is ruined, though it would be less scenic if that picture were taken aiming in the direction of the lift towers. Albion basin is a little bigger than a lot of the drainages around here and thus you don't notice the lifts as much as some other places. It would still be a nice place to hike without them. However, contrast that to collins gulch. In collins you are always aware you are in a ski area.

[BobMc]

Ever been to Cecret Lake on a summer day? The lifts must not bother too many people, it's one of the most if not the most crowded hikes in the Wasatch.

[wra]

wra, if serious would like to try one, never have yet. Assume start up old HC return road? Not digging frozen's idea, sorry man.

Sorry, missed that first go around.
I have the following boards: 159, 165, 178 swallow tail and 195 swalllow tail. All are mounted goofy surfer stance and back for tip rise. Can remount but I don't have strap bindings at the moment. Can maybe get demos in about a week.
I'd take the bus to Alta and get to Silver Fork from Grizzly Gulch.

Ever been to Cecret Lake on a summer day? The lifts must not bother too many people, it's one of the most if not the most crowded hikes in the Wasatch.

It's about a mile from the end of the summer road and only sees crowds on weekends. Same as Lake Mary from Brighton.

[tuco]

Is having a lift in an area detrimental to off season recreation? Summer hiking, hunting etc? By that logic this (pic shown) has been developed and spoiled because it's inside a ski area:

If you were to ask me personally I would say no. But I've spent alot of time around Soli in the summer and you really don't see that many hikers up there, and the ones you do probably have ridden the summer lift half way up. So yes,I do think that it does deter alot of folks. I've most definetly never seen a bow hunter on the resort land. We are also talking about snowshoers and people on their touring(fish scaled type) skis.

Also, if you think about it, with a lift in there you would be making it more exclusive. Using you formula of 500 resort skiers and 2 BC skiers. Right now you have the potential of 502 users, because the only thing keeping you out of there is yourself. With a resort in there you have cut out the 2 bc skiers and thus have only 500 users, therefore being made more exclusive for the public to use their own land. If avy danger is your only reason you don't want to venture back there, then you better ski groomed runs only, because the potential for avalanches is prevalent on any ungroomed slope. The events,in bounds, at quite a few resorts(one being one canyon over) just last year should remind us of this danger.

[tuco]

Ever been to Cecret Lake on a summer day? The lifts must not bother too many people, it's one of the most if not the most crowded hikes in the Wasatch.

Same can be said for any lake that is that accessible, whereever it is. People are drawn to water.

[cololi]

Well, if the public comment received in response to the County's master plan update for the canyons, a majority of people do not want to see more resort development in Big Cottonwood, but would rather see more trailheads developed. Sounds good to me. Add me to the opposed list. This is a major watershed area for Salt Lake. Installing lifts, access and maintenance roads and ski runs (God forbid that they plan on this) increases erosion, which degrades the water quality, stream quality, and 4 season recreation, such as hiking, biking, hunting, fishing and backcountry skiing and snowshoeing. I think that outweighs the benefit to the solitude clients.

[ThirdsSkier696969]

I'm loving reading all of this, I no longer live there but greatly enjoy the particular area.. Let me attempt try to sum up the issue, you can all tell me if you think I'm right or wrong.

Basically I can currently go to Utah and ski Silver Fork for free, if the FS hands it over to Solitude I'll have to pay to ski there. How does that increase access?

Also resorts have a tendency to close areas for various reasons, how does that increase access?

[StraightChuter]

wow. that's completely bogus. It shouldn't be that way at all.

I'm surprised they would even go there. It's your land.

This is exactly the point Yeti - it is public land and everyone is welcome here as long as you pay for a pa$$, obey the rules and increase your daily spend. It is about as public as Disneyland, yet the ski resorts don't even own it.

[LittleYellowFriend]

Actually I think Snowbird owns Mineral Basin outright. Its private property. Someone correct me if I'm wrong.

[StraightChuter]

Right, because skiing used to be so much more affordable when adjusted for inflation.

I think it actually use to be much cheaper twenty years ago before every resort felt they had to add snowmaking, endless highspeed quads, gondolas, a fleet of Piston Bully groomers and people to run them, mega base lodges, mega mid mountain lodges, valet parking, covered parking, on snow hosts, etc..

[ill-advised strategy]

For the record I'm still only convinced of several things:

me personally:
-Not liking skinning.
-Not liking the inevitable backcountry emergencies that go with BC skiing.
-Liking to ski off lifts.

The forest service's doctrine:
-Greatest good for the most people for the longest time.

I think there are points on both sides here.

I'm saying that one user group will be excluded regardless. BC touring skiers aren't going inbounds and inbounds skiers aren't touring. The larger group in terms of numbers is the inbounds skiers. In terms of the taxpayer, one plan is negative revenue (in terms of zero income and the occasional S&R) and the other is revenue positive.

If the way it turns out is something of a land grab, a private entity assuming the right to exclude the public from a piece of land that's a problem, but as far as I can tell, and by the numbers it looks to me like more people are out on the forest where there are lifts running and patrol working.

More people may not be a good thing, but if you're arguing a forest service permit application, you would want to think about it on their terms....

[zion zig zag]

I think it actually use to be much cheaper twenty years ago before every resort felt they had to add snowmaking, endless highspeed quads, gondolas, a fleet of Piston Bully groomers and people to run them, mega base lodges, mega mid mountain lodges, valet parking, covered parking, on snow hosts, etc..

You're right. The first time I skied Alta in 1991 the day ticket price was $21, now the price is $66, more than double what it would be if it were just keeping up with inflation.

[Buzzworthy]

Sorry, missed that first go around.
I have the following boards: 159, 165, 178 swallow tail and 195 swalllow tail. All are mounted goofy surfer stance and back for tip rise. Can remount but I don't have strap bindings at the moment.
I'd take the bus to Alta and get to Silver Fork from Grizzly Gulch.

A few more dumps and some settling is needed for me to feel comfy, did not like seeing them crack on Sunday (inbounds, nuts).

I have bindings I can mount to the plates. I do ride regular and a 163 normally. 165 should work just fine I would imagine.

I am a BC novice still so talking to me about what you see and what to continue to look for, especially in certain areas would be nice. Hopefully we can talk SFB into coming too when we get closer to do this.

[tuco]

I think it actually use to be much cheaper twenty years ago before every resort felt they had to add snowmaking, endless highspeed quads, gondolas, a fleet of Piston Bully groomers and people to run them, mega base lodges, mega mid mountain lodges, valet parking, covered parking, on snow hosts, etc..

And the team of lawyers being paid to fend of douchebags that can't take responsibility for their own actions!

[tuco]

For the record I'm still only convinced of several things:

me personally:
-Not liking skinning.
-Not liking the inevitable backcountry emergencies that go with BC skiing.
-Liking to ski off lifts.

The forest service's doctrine:
-Greatest good for the most people for the longest time.

I think there are points on both sides here.

I'm saying that one user group will be excluded regardless. BC touring skiers aren't going inbounds and inbounds skiers aren't touring. The larger group in terms of numbers is the inbounds skiers. In terms of the taxpayer, one plan is negative revenue (in terms of zero income and the occasional S&R) and the other is revenue positive.

If the way it turns out is something of a land grab, a private entity assuming the right to exclude the public from a piece of land that's a problem, but as far as I can tell, and by the numbers it looks to me like more people are out on the forest where there are lifts running and patrol working.

More people may not be a good thing, but if you're arguing a forest service permit application, you would want to think about it on their terms....

First-No one is being excluded from that area now, except for maybe by yourselves. So no postives here. So really the larger potential group is with no lifts.

Second-The forest service doctrine is fine. I just don't see how this is the best good for the most amount of people because now your excluding people that couldn't use that area with lifts in there,so potential users go down(not the greatest good for the most people).
Also, if they have to change the way water is treated it's going to cost taxpayers lots of money= more taxpayers than people using lifts=greater good to the most people.