Thread: Breck Peak 6 battle goes Facebook

Originally Posted by AdironRider

This^^^^ is the crux of the argument. It has nothing to do with trees, or wilderness, or anything other than I want to keep this area as much to myself as possible. Same for Talisker in the Wasatch.

Which would be a fine argument if you were talking about someplace untouched. But your talking about an area that has already been logged, developed, etc for decades. The enviroment argument just doesnt hold.

So just be honest about it like CMSummit, and just admit you want to keep people out of there so you can go use it more yourself. Thats fine and all, albeit selfish, but quit toeing the high road like your some saint to try and prevent a couple dozen acres of trees in a ski resort boundary "wilderness".

Actually it's different than the Wasatch. I can't even bring my dog on a walk in the area Talisker is trying to buy because the watershed is so sensitive to both use and development. And nobody can buy that land either, except for wealthy developers with former politicians on their payroll. And the land is untouched aside from a single track bike trail and some game trails.

And the North Ridge of Big Cottonwood Canyon is largely undeveloped actually, it's full of wildlife and meadows/lakes. Towards Solbright it is somewhat developed and there is the Guardsman pass road (which is a much more logical place to put in a connection with a better, more centrally located resort in Park City).

Bullshit. There are 50+ ski lifts within a 10 mile redius or so. Sensitive to smugness maybe, but thats about it.

Originally Posted by Summit

WTF are you even talking about? Look, I don't know about Utah, but I do know:

1. Europe's interconnect system is very cool and I wish the US had that type of mountain culture, lifts everywhere connecting every valley (but without the circus villages at the bottom of every lift). Why not if there's already a road on both sides of the ridge? Colorado is 3x the size of Austria, but Austria has 12x the number of ski areas.

2. Colorado has about 23,000,000 acres of forest lands, 47% is USFS, 70% is public, 30% is private. The 23 ski areas cover less than 40,000 acres. That is 0.17% of Colorado forests that are within a ski area boundary. We could double or triple the size of every ski area and the ecosystem wouldn't notice. Learn more here.

3. Pretty much any Front Range area that is truly wilderness worthy is already a wilderness and ski areas are no threat to existing wilderness experience.

Well said sir! Been trying to make that same argument to allow a cat to shuttle skiers alongTrail Ridge Road in RMNP. Could open TONS of new terrain and the cat would never have to leave the existing road. It would merely act as a shuttle. If only NPS would cave as easily as the USFS...

Sorry, didn't realize you knew so much about that watershed. I thought you were just grouping in the Talisker issue in order to support your point of view on Breck without actually understanding that particular issue.

I know plenty about it, and the same thing I said about Breck applies completely to the Talisker situation. A gondola is not going to have any effect there, just like a tree stand in a ski area boundary is not going to be the end of civilization at Breck.

You want to keep it more to yourself. Its fine, I feel the same way on Teton Pass, but I realize thats my personal preference, but thats all it is a preference. Im not spewing bullshit about watersheds and trees as some front to try and cover it up.

Now the backroom dealing about how the Talisker situation is going on is most definitely not the way to go about it, but the end game is not environmental apocalypse as you sumise.

Originally Posted by AdironRider

I know plenty about it, and the same thing I said about Breck applies completely to the Talisker situation. A gondola is not going to have any effect there, . . .
Now the backroom dealing about how the Talisker situation is going on is most definitely not the way to go about it, but the end game is not environmental apocalypse as you sumise.

It don't think anyone will argue it is going to be an environmental apocolypse. But it won't help the watershed. Look at the land around the lifts at Solitude or Brighton in the summer. It looks like a construction area, and when it rains, you get puddles on the churned up soil, and you can see it running thick and brown down the service roads. It just looks different than the same rain falling on adjacent vegetated slopes. I am not a scientist. Perhaps the difference is just visual, but it sure seems to me that you have a significantly different quantity and quality of sediment in the runoff on land that has been disturbed for lifts and the service roads that inevitably accompany them.

But, for the record, I wouldn't take sides regarding expansion around Breckenridge. I don't know the existing uses and available areas. I think it's best left for the people who live there to decide.

My objection regarding the wasatch is centered around the process, and the fact that the central wasatch is a small, heavily used range, with tons of ski areas. The more you give to ski areas, the more you force increasing numbers of people who don't want to recreate on a ski area into a smaller and smaller space.

Originally Posted by skiski

My objection regarding the wasatch is centered around the process, and the fact that the central wasatch is a small, heavily used range, with tons of ski areas. The more you give to ski areas, the more you force increasing numbers of people who don't want to recreate on a ski area into a smaller and smaller space.

I don't know about UT, but there's not a shortage of true BC. There is a shortage of side country, but if you expand boundaries, you theoretically create more sidecountry (not always). Peak 5 and 6 were sidecountry. Now Peak 4 is side country and SKY is even easier sidecountry. It is kind of weird that they exend their boundary to the summit of 5....

That line of reasoning would lead me to conclude John Muir was one of the most selfish bastards to ever walk the earth. I mean shit, all that land he saved for his walks!

No apocalypse was mentioned, just unnecessary degradation done in an unsavory and economically questionable manner.

Originally Posted by skiski

It don't think anyone will argue it is going to be an environmental apocolypse. But it won't help the watershed. Look at the land around the lifts at Solitude or Brighton in the summer. It looks like a construction area, and when it rains, you get puddles on the churned up soil, and you can see it running thick and brown down the service roads. It just looks different than the same rain falling on adjacent vegetated slopes. I am not a scientist. Perhaps the difference is just visual, but it sure seems to me that you have a significantly different quantity and quality of sediment in the runoff on land that has been disturbed for lifts and the service roads that inevitably accompany them.

You definetly are on to something here. However there should be Best Management Practices (BMP's) in place to control/mitigate pollutants associated with runoff of that type (and yes sediment is considered a pollutant). Sounds like a case of shitty engineering or construction/maintenance in that instance. Most new projects have to adhere to strict environmental standards that control the pollutant loads that are allowed to be discharged from the project's area of disturbance and erosion control measures *should* be implemented to help with that. Construction causing more than an acre of disturbance triggers the need for a SWMP plan to control run-off and pollutants so I'm positive the design will be in place for that.

I'm not surprised the USFS approved this. they approve most projects. sorry to the colorado locals for the loss.

as far as the tree removal for lifts vs. logging argument, well that is weak. the logging industry relies on forests and they know that. its not the early 1900s anymore, their practices are much more sustainable than before. its akin to environmentalists crying about hunting when hunting groups contribute much more monetary donations for wildlife conservation projects.

as far as the wasatch is concerned........

the lift will definitely affect the watershed. just putting it in will mean they will have to allow the water in big cottonwood to bypass the water treatment plant during most of construction, in a year like this summer that could be detrimental.

furthermore, the USFS does NOT approve of skilink. hence, the backdoor political maneuvers. and when the USFS doesn't approve a project its probably not a good thing considering their pro-development stance on most projects. big and little cottonwood accounts for 60% of the water for salt lake valley; one of the fastest growing areas in the US. so that water is not only important now but important in the future. maybe that's why the SLC watershed; US congress appointed in 1902 to protect the wasatch water for a growing population, is against it.

that coupled with the fact that talisker owns land to the east of where they want to steal public lands and could be used to connect pc to big cottonwood.

does summit county rely on the ten mile range for provide water for a million plus people??? i think not.
how much rainfall does colorado receive annually?? probably a little more than the second driest state in the nation (utah)

sorry but the breck situation in colorado and the talisker situation in utah are vastly different. if they weren't different talisker wouldn't have to release a bunch of baloney misinformation about the lifts impacts and pad the wallets of politicians because the USFS would support it.

look at the upside breck locals, at least vail resorts isn't going to put a lift up peak 6 that will mainly run downhill........

Originally Posted by BRUTAH

does summit county rely on the ten mile range for provide water for a million plus people??? i think not.

Not solely, but the Ten Mile Range does play a role in supplying a metro area of a million plus people with water. All of the Ten Mile Range lies upstream of Dillon Reservoir and that reservoir is a water supply for the Front Range through the Roberts Tunnel.

Originally Posted by DasBlunt

Saving all those trees is reason enough to care. Greedy fucks.

The best thing they could do in Summit County is to cut down at least 3/4 of the trees.

There is no need for an environmental reason to argue against expansion. Easily accessed, undeveloped areas have real value in that they're used and loved by local people. This should be argument enough to prevent the government from allowing rich fuckers to destroy such places for profit.

Originally Posted by I've seen black diamonds!

There is no need for an environmental reason to argue against expansion. Easily accessed, undeveloped areas have real value in that they're used and loved by local people. This should be argument enough to prevent the government from allowing rich fuckers to destroy such places for profit.

One more convert! See how good it feels to just be honest with yourself and admit, I just want this place to myself.

Destroy? Come on man, putting another ski lift a couple hundred yards to the right of 20 others isn't destroying shit.

Here's a great shot of Peak 6.5 that PappaG took some years ago when he, TeleHoar and myself were up there:

^ that doesn't suck

Originally Posted by AdironRider

One more convert! See how good it feels to just be honest with yourself and admit, I just want this place to myself.

Destroy? Come on man, putting another ski lift a couple hundred yards to the right of 20 others isn't destroying shit.

Pretty sure both of these expansions are on the order of miles, not football fields. You're starting to make me all butthurt with your conquer the mtns philosophy. The self motivation thing is kind of irksome b/c it takes a well rounded argument and substitutes a misguided perception of it which also paints others in an unfavorable light.

Originally Posted by cmsummit

Here's a great shot of Peak 6.5 that PappaG took some years ago when he, TeleHoar and myself were up there:

What's the rest of that area look like? Because this picture shows about 400 vertical feet, which will get tracked out on an average Breck day in approximately 45 seconds.

Originally Posted by cmsummit

Here's a great shot of Peak 6.5 that PappaG took some years ago when he, TeleHoar and myself were up there:

Nice photo. Honestly, it'll be nice to have some more biggish hits with steep landings in avy controlled terrain.

Under control, this area will probably hold snow better than the Lake Chutes, which get wind-raped and can be too steep for our dry snow. That area is well protected from wind, loads up nice and proper and is closer to 40-45 degrees if I remember right. Like Peak 7 but with deeper snow and some decent cliffs to huck.

Been wanting to hit that upper cliff on the right for a couple years now. Great launch pad and steep landing. Good enough to send her 50' probably. Unfortuneately, the basin below has always looked like too big of a terrain trap to risk it when the snow is right. There's some good stuff (much smaller) at the top of 6 proper as well, but is less sketchy, so I've been able to hit it on occassion.

You whiners can still go bum wiggle down peak 4/5. Granted... the snow isn't as good, or at least doesn't ever look as good. Never been that far, myself.