Thread: the Wasatch's new worst enemy=TALISKER

IMBA doesn't know what it is doing, and has been captured by pro-wilderness interests; and that is around the country, not just here. They most definitely do not represent what is in the best interest of backcountry style mountain-biking in the central Wasatch.

People think that the Wasatch Crest trail is the only trail that need to be protected because it is the most popular. They are SO wrong. There miles of less known, less used gems that have not been as popular because they are more challenging or difficult to the average user, or have been kept secret. That does not mean that they are important trails that need to be protected from those who would shut them off like BRUTAH.

BRUTAH, stop supporting a bill that would restrict summer backcountry access to an important user group. If you were to ride a mountainbike, then maybe you would feel different.

The wilderness bill does nothing to stop development. In fact it give the GREEN LIGHT to snowbird to expand into what Save Our Canyons was originally founded to stop. Save Our Canyons has completely sold out here and you are just a sheep being led to slaughter here.

this is sweet



can't wait for an actual lift tower on the best mtn biike trail in utah

Is that the Crest? (Birsteshire [ph.]) Talisker is a douchenozzle of the highest order. I'm very interested to see the direction of Park City in the next 3-5 years. P.C. has the potential to be one of the great ski towns of the world. Problem is that P.C. is not run as a ski town. Dana, and his crew, along with the planning board, Talisker, and the other powers that be need to understand that the strength of the town it's not about a new reservoir in Round Valley, a new lift to Sillytude, or a new 5 star hotel at the top of Main Street. ...I just read that PCMR has placed a disclaimer on the 2012-13 season pass, which warns patrons of the possibility of there being no 2012-13 ski season at PCMR. ... Doesn't that make you just want to go out and spend big bucks at the Talisker kosher restaurant?

Originally Posted by BRUTAH

Silver fork would not be affected as its private property nor would most of cardiff be affected. plus none of those areas you listed are really mountain bike trails, they're hiking trails that people illegally ride. they're mostly too steep to pedal up, i usually see people pushing their bikes up and then riding down (and that's very rare to begin with). most mountain bikers don't use those trails for mountain biking for that very reason; they're too steep for good mountain biking.



that map would designate the area where skilink is proposed as wilderness hence blocking the development of that land.
the government can't just go in and take private property from its owners to designate it as wilderness, which the areas where snowbird and alta have proposed expanding into are privately owned......

I fucking love jacobs ladder, white pine is also a great grueler. Haven ridden many of the others but perhaps I should. None are illegal. If they already arent popular for biking, why do we need to ban bikes there, which is all this bill does?

Originally Posted by BRUTAH

this is sweet



can't wait for an actual lift tower on the best mtn biike trail in utah

Best in utah? Are you KIDDING? best in the SLC area yea, but if you think its the best in utah you need to head south. Hell, I'd say jacobs ladder to chost falls is every bit as good of a descent as any part of the crest of equal length.

Originally Posted by TheMessenger

IMBA doesn't know what it is doing, and has been captured by pro-wilderness interests; and that is around the country, not just here. They most definitely do not represent what is in the best interest of backcountry style mountain-biking in the central Wasatch.

People think that the Wasatch Crest trail is the only trail that need to be protected because it is the most popular. They are SO wrong. There miles of less known, less used gems that have not been as popular because they are more challenging or difficult to the average user, or have been kept secret. That does not mean that they are important trails that need to be protected from those who would shut them off like BRUTAH.

BRUTAH, stop supporting a bill that would restrict summer backcountry access to an important user group. If you were to ride a mountainbike, then maybe you would feel different.

The wilderness bill does nothing to stop development. In fact it give the GREEN LIGHT to snowbird to expand into what Save Our Canyons was originally founded to stop. Save Our Canyons has completely sold out here and you are just a sheep being led to slaughter here.

The IMBA has done more damage than good since now the pro wilderness eco nazis can say, see we have the support of the mnt bikers. BUllshit.

Originally Posted by schindlerpiste

Is that the Crest? (Birsteshire [ph.]) Talisker is a douchenozzle of the highest order. I'm very interested to see the direction of Park City in the next 3-5 years. P.C. has the potential to be one of the great ski towns of the world. Problem is that P.C. is not run as a ski town. Dana, and his crew, along with the planning board, Talisker, and the other powers that be need to understand that the strength of the town it's not about a new reservoir in Round Valley, a new lift to Sillytude, or a new 5 star hotel at the top of Main Street. ...I just read that PCMR has placed a disclaimer on the 2012-13 season pass, which warns patrons of the possibility of there being no 2012-13 ski season at PCMR. ... Doesn't that make you just want to go out and spend big bucks at the Talisker kosher restaurant?

tis the crest! sweet signage and very friendly and welcoming! I'm sure they'll be allowing backcountry skiing when the put in their lift

i think its becoming more and more anonymous that TALISKER IS BAD FOR PC, REAL BAD.

and leroy, do you just love being the biggest douchebag on TGR?!? seriously, i never read anything of substance from you. If you can't see that more protection is needed in the cottonwoods then you're naive. I'm an avid mountain biker and I would be fine to lose a few areas to bike to gain more land protection for future generations. do you actually believe that if skilink is defeated that some other asshole in a few years won't be pushing for more land in the cottonwoods for development?

in all seriousness, I think major changes are coming to the wasatch in the next five years. and those wilderness areas in the lower canyons will be the only remaining oasis for those seeking powder a few days after a storm. personally, i'll take powder skiing over a nice tacky singletrack any day.

I love the sign! It's wrong however. It should say "Keep Out! Save Our Canyons wants to eliminate mountain biking from this area!" You see, Canyons / Talisker is extremely mountain biking friendly, and would never, ever close the Wasatch Crest Trail. There are two main exits from the Wasatch Crest when headed north. One exit is Millcreek Canyon, which is restricted to even / odd days for bikers. The other exit is through Canyons resort. Canyons resort hosts many excellent biking trails, including the mid-mountain, Ambush, Holly's, and Rob's to name a few. They host a NORBA events every year or so, and have a gondola and chair accessed terrain park. I feel sorry for the mis-informed individual who felt so passionate about his feelings that he went to the trouble to haul that sign up there. Oops! Skilink won't change a thing as well. The opponents would have you believe that there will be limited access to the terrain -in order to elicit an unfounded emotional response, like with the sign- but as with the mountain biking, it just won't be so. I'm hoping this sign gets a ton of press, and Canyons can repudiate it's absurdity. Free advertising is priceless.

Originally Posted by BRUTAH

tis the crest! sweet signage and very friendly and welcoming! I'm sure they'll be allowing backcountry skiing when the put in their lift

i think its becoming more and more anonymous that TALISKER IS BAD FOR PC, REAL BAD.

and leroy, do you just love being the biggest douchebag on TGR?!? seriously, i never read anything of substance from you. If you can't see that more protection is needed in the cottonwoods then you're naive. I'm an avid mountain biker and I would be fine to lose a few areas to bike to gain more land protection for future generations. do you actually believe that if skilink is defeated that some other asshole in a few years won't be pushing for more land in the cottonwoods for development?

in all seriousness, I think major changes are coming to the wasatch in the next five years. and those wilderness areas in the lower canyons will be the only remaining oasis for those seeking powder a few days after a storm. personally, i'll take powder skiing over a nice tacky singletrack any day.

Really bro? What do you define as 'of substance' exactly? My posts in this thread werent insulting anyone, just pointing out a fallacy that you posted as well as a dissenting opinion that I thought might be of interest.

Also, I would be in favor of some development, including a wasatch interconnect, however, like many people in this thread have said, the proposed ski link is a really awful proposal for an interconnect, for several reasons which have already been hashed out ad nauseum in this thread.

Also, I think if youre wanting fresh powder in the wasatch youre living in a fantasy world. There is just too much population and not enough easily accessible terrain to satisfy the masses. I agree things are changing, and do value protecting wild lands from development, but ski areas are hardly the same thing as mines or logging, people will still be able to enjoy the land, just not as backcountry. The wasatch is already crowded as fuck and even the wilderness areas are hardly what I would call real wilderness. There is a lot of actual wild wilderness all over the west that I think is more worth protecting as wilderness which will exclude mountain bikes. Northern utah really doesnt have that many great mnt bike trails, and I see no need to limit them. The crest is swell but it pales in comparison with most of southern utah, or even colorado or montana riding. Northern utah does have TONS of great hiking trails on which bikes either arent allowed or just cant go.

I see eco nazis that want to turn everything into wilderness to be a bigger threat across the west as a whole than ski areas by a mile, and I really get tired of hearing people refer to wilderness as a legal designation as if it is inherently good and synonymous with real wild wilderness.


Also I usually dont say this kind of shit unless its funny but since you're calling me the biggest douche on tgr I might as well do my best to live up to my reputation, this:

i think its becoming more and more anonymous that TALISKER IS BAD FOR PC, REAL BAD.

makes absolutely no fucking sense.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Also, I think if youre wanting fresh powder in the wasatch youre living in a fantasy world. There is just too much population and not enough easily accessible terrain to satisfy the masses. I agree things are changing, and do value protecting wild lands from development, but ski areas are hardly the same thing as mines or logging, people will still be able to enjoy the land, just not as backcountry. The wasatch is already crowded as fuck and even the wilderness areas are hardly what I would call real wilderness. There is a lot of actual wild wilderness all over the west that I think is more worth protecting as wilderness which will exclude mountain bikes. Northern utah really doesnt have that many great mnt bike trails, and I see no need to limit them. The crest is swell but it pales in comparison with most of southern utah, or even colorado or montana riding. Northern utah does have TONS of great hiking trails on which bikes either arent allowed or just cant go.

I see eco nazis that want to turn everything into wilderness to be a bigger threat across the west as a whole than ski areas by a mile, and I really get tired of hearing people refer to wilderness as a legal designation as if it is inherently good and synonymous with real wild wilderness.


Also I usually dont say this kind of shit unless its funny but since you're calling me the biggest douche on tgr I might as well do my best to live up to my reputation, this:

i think its becoming more and more anonymous that TALISKER IS BAD FOR PC, REAL BAD.

makes absolutely no fucking sense.

1. The Wasatch has shit tons of "fresh powder" to ski in the bc, all the time.
2. The argument that it's "not real wilderness" and hence not worth preserving is myopic. Plain and simple. When the Wasatch wilderness was designated in the 1970's, it was done to keep the ski areas and future developers at bay. Without it, the NW Couloir of the Pfeiff would have a chair lift over it, Lone Peak would have a lodge and a bunch of shitty condos, the Wasatch would be a shithole.
3. Ski areas are synonymous with development. Skiing isn't the point, selling over priced condos is. You can't have ski area expansion without real estate and massive infrastructure following.

I rode the Crest today and didn't see the above sign. I think that photo is shopped. Or, the sign was removed within 24 hours of that picture being posted here.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

Also, I think if youre wanting fresh powder in the wasatch youre living in a fantasy world. There is just too much population and not enough easily accessible terrain to satisfy the masses.

Seriously? Maybe if your idea of "easily accessible" is rolling into the tram line at noon. JONG.

Originally Posted by leroy jenkins

I see eco nazis that want to turn everything into wilderness to be a bigger threat across the west as a whole than ski areas by a mile

I hear the Eco-Nazi Lobby has been making big campaign contributions this year. Hopefully the ski corporations are able to hold them off with those bake sale earnings.

Originally Posted by Trackhead

1. The Wasatch has shit tons of "fresh powder" to ski in the bc, all the time.
2. The argument that it's "not real wilderness" and hence not worth preserving is myopic. Plain and simple. When the Wasatch wilderness was designated in the 1970's, it was done to keep the ski areas and future developers at bay. Without it, the NW Couloir of the Pfeiff would have a chair lift over it, Lone Peak would have a lodge and a bunch of shitty condos, the Wasatch would be a shithole.
3. Ski areas are synonymous with development. Skiing isn't the point, selling over priced condos is. You can't have ski area expansion without real estate and massive infrastructure following.

1)11/12 winter ≠ shit tons of snow. But still, you could find some to 8's to close on Cardiac even after weeks of no snow, and that's near the highest-traffic bc pitch around.
2)Having the non-capital-W wilderness designated as National Recreation Area would suit me fine. I can still pedal the trails without concerns about corporate land grabs.
3)If anyone is curious about the motive for building the SkiLink chair, just swing by the Colony At White Pine Canyon's Sales Office to compare/contrast the giant scale model of the hypothetical built-out development to what's actually there today. Something like 1/3 of the lots have been sold and sales for the other 2/3 have been flatline since 08. The lift would be wildly impractical for getting from PC to BCC... unless you have a happen to be in the market for a $26,200,000 home right at the base of the proposed lift.

Originally Posted by Long Duck Dong

I rode the Crest today and didn't see the above sign. I think that photo is shopped. Or, the sign was removed within 24 hours of that picture being posted here.

People posing in front of the sign were a regular staple whenever I logged into facebook for the past week. It was definitely there last Monday. I wonder if it was the FS or Talisker that contributed the hours to taking it down?

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

Seriously? Maybe if your idea of "easily accessible" is rolling into the tram line at noon. JONG.


I hear the Eco-Nazi Lobby has been making big campaign contributions this year. Hopefully the ski corporations are able to hold them off with those bake sale earnings.



1)11/12 winter ≠ shit tons of snow. But still, you could find some to 8's to close on Cardiac even after weeks of no snow, and that's near the highest-traffic bc pitch around.
2)Having the non-capital-W wilderness designated as National Recreation Area would suit me fine. I can still pedal the trails without concerns about corporate land grabs.
3)If anyone is curious about the motive for building the SkiLink chair, just swing by the Colony At White Pine Canyon's Sales Office to compare/contrast the giant scale model of the hypothetical built-out development to what's actually there today. Something like 1/3 of the lots have been sold and sales for the other 2/3 have been flatline since 08. The lift would be wildly impractical for getting from PC to BCC... unless you have a happen to be in the market for a $26,200,000 home right at the base of the proposed lift.



People posing in front of the sign were a regular staple whenever I logged into facebook for the past week. It was definitely there last Monday. I wonder if it was the FS or Talisker that contributed the hours to taking it down?

Well said Gnarwhale, When I was a young eco nazi (in love) we fought long and hard to get that wilderness. Now is the time to get more! Let us do it for future generations....beats giving it away to foreign greed heads.

Originally Posted by Trackhead

1. The Wasatch has shit tons of "fresh powder" to ski in the bc, all the time.
2. The argument that it's "not real wilderness" and hence not worth preserving is myopic. Plain and simple. When the Wasatch wilderness was designated in the 1970's, it was done to keep the ski areas and future developers at bay. Without it, the NW Couloir of the Pfeiff would have a chair lift over it, Lone Peak would have a lodge and a bunch of shitty condos, the Wasatch would be a shithole.
3. Ski areas are synonymous with development. Skiing isn't the point, selling over priced condos is. You can't have ski area expansion without real estate and massive infrastructure following.

I wholeheartedly agree with #1. Tons of powder, always. You've just got to work harder for it sometimes.

#2, kind of. Wild lands are certainly worth protecting. There are millions of acres in the west which are excellent candidates for wilderness designation. But I also contend that the area where skilink will be is not "real wilderness". It is hemmed in by five major ski resorts. Skilink opponents have bemoaned in writing how when they climb to the top of the Wasatch Crest, they can actually (Gasp!) see houses at The Colony, and for whatever reason, it ruins their day. The area is currently populated by power lines, antennas (and associated buildings), dirt roads, etc. The Wasatch Crest is an awesome mountain biking trail, which harms nothing. It would be a shame to lose it to wilderness designation.

#3 True, many ski areas are an engine for real-estate development. But many aren't. And there is no such thing as an over-priced condo. Skiers buy them at prices that the market will bear. These skiers are not some hypothetical monsters which have a greed to destroy the land. They are folks like you and I who strap on there diamer bindings, search for freshies, and are generally happier in a blizzard than the often overrated bluebird day. Ironically, since taking possession of Canyons Resort, the "evil" Talisker has not built one new condo, mega-mansion, nothing. They've put tens of millions into new lifts erosion control, etc. Looking at real-estate models, it would appear that the end-state of Canyons' ambition would be to have a condo village at the very base of the cabriolet, an area which is currently a dusty huge parking lot. I don't have a problem if they want to turn a dusty parking lot into a vibrant area with shops, restaurants, water features, underground parking, etc. This village will have a direct skilink connection, so that you can ride from the base of Canyons and ski Alta, Snowbird, Brighton and Solitude without having to drive. Skilink is one lift which will have no discernible environmental impact. It won't even harm your freshies; you can't ski off of the top of it, and doing laps is very problematic. www.skilink.com

^^^ Much better post than the free advertising angle. HOWEVER, while, perhaps to date, Talisker has not built any condos at the Can., I'm sure that NO ONE who lives in the area actually believes that is not its long term plan. We have all seen models, and heard talk of homes and condos that will one day surround the mid-mountain pond, as well as the Red Pine Lodge. More likely, the only reason that there is no current homesite construction is the poor economic conditions.
Not even the deep pockets of DeBeer's Diamonds wants to build in the current climate.
I think that you should call a spade a spade, and not try to bullshit the bullshitters on this board.

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

Seriously? Maybe if your idea of "easily accessible" is rolling into the tram line at noon. JONG.


I hear the Eco-Nazi Lobby has been making big campaign contributions this year. Hopefully the ski corporations are able to hold them off with those bake sale earnings.



1)11/12 winter ≠ shit tons of snow. But still, you could find some to 8's to close on Cardiac even after weeks of no snow, and that's near the highest-traffic bc pitch around.
2)Having the non-capital-W wilderness designated as National Recreation Area would suit me fine. I can still pedal the trails without concerns about corporate land grabs.
3)If anyone is curious about the motive for building the SkiLink chair, just swing by the Colony At White Pine Canyon's Sales Office to compare/contrast the giant scale model of the hypothetical built-out development to what's actually there today. Something like 1/3 of the lots have been sold and sales for the other 2/3 have been flatline since 08. The lift would be wildly impractical for getting from PC to BCC... unless you have a happen to be in the market for a $26,200,000 home right at the base of the proposed lift.



People posing in front of the sign were a regular staple whenever I logged into facebook for the past week. It was definitely there last Monday. I wonder if it was the FS or Talisker that contributed the hours to taking it down?

I think we're more in agreement than may be apparent. THe eco nazi lobby doesnt need to give campaign contributions, they have gotten great biking trials closed down all over the west. It hasnt happened much in utah but I've seen it in colorado and montana. Remote trails that are hardly used by anyone but mnt bikers get made out to be in danger of non existent development or in danger of mnt bike tires destroying said trails that no one else uses and a bunch of uppity do gooder city dwelling transplants from california decide to take action and get said trails closed down.

I would support something that prevented development and otorized travel while not restricting mnt bikes or paragliders and such, but that NEVER happens. Any time the above mention situation takes place it always becomes legally WILDERNESS, like brutah wants.

Now that I think of it, how sthe LLC trail running these days? Didnt that get shut down for being in danger from imaginary destruction via mnt bike? I know people still ride it but it got closed right/?

Originally Posted by Trackhead

1. The Wasatch has shit tons of "fresh powder" to ski in the bc, all the time.
2. The argument that it's "not real wilderness" and hence not worth preserving is myopic. Plain and simple. When the Wasatch wilderness was designated in the 1970's, it was done to keep the ski areas and future developers at bay. Without it, the NW Couloir of the Pfeiff would have a chair lift over it, Lone Peak would have a lodge and a bunch of shitty condos, the Wasatch would be a shithole.
3. Ski areas are synonymous with development. Skiing isn't the point, selling over priced condos is. You can't have ski area expansion without real estate and massive infrastructure following.

lets talk about all those condos and hotels alta ski lifts builds !? then we can chat about why alta buys everything cash and has no debt.

Originally Posted by schindlerpiste

We have all seen models, and heard talk of homes and condos that will one day surround the mid-mountain pond, as well as the Red Pine Lodge.

As a next-door neighbor to Canyons, I can honestly say that I've not seen one model, illustration, concept, etc. regarding any such plan. Can you please provide a link? Access and space seems problematic, though not impossible. The area you mention is full of lifts, runs, and the pond. Where would the road go? I'd love to see something regarding this. If it's true, I wouldn't have a major problem with it. It's in the middle of Utah's largest ski resort. It's in an already developed area.

The important part of the equation is that the real-estate discussion we are having is now on the correct side of the ridge. The Park City side. Other than the Skilink, no additional development will occur on the Big Cottonwood side of the ridge. Skilink will have only a 30-foot corridor, no ski runs, etc., so development will be impossible.

In other news, as one stands at the base of Canyons and looks to the right, one can see the hill on which Rosebud's Heaven trail traverses. The entire hill is privately owned, and there was recent talk of developing it, necessitating the re-alignment of Rosebud's. I was instrumental in preventing this from happening, using leverage which is not apparent to those not involved in the process. Before you label me as a build-everything-out-at-any cost kind of guy, nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe Skilink is a responsible way to prevent thousands of cars from making the round-trip to and from the Cottonwoods at a minimal impact.

for those on here that seem to be proponents for the skilink, why do you legal ownership of the corridor is being proposed?

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

In other news, as one stands at the base of Canyons and looks to the right, one can see the hill on which Rosebud's Heaven trail traverses. The entire hill is privately owned, and there was recent talk of developing it, necessitating the re-alignment of Rosebud's. I was instrumental in preventing this from happening, using leverage which is not apparent to those not involved in the process. Before you label me as a build-everything-out-at-any cost kind of guy, nothing could be farther from the truth. I believe Skilink is a responsible way to prevent thousands of cars from making the round-trip to and from the Cottonwoods at a minimal impact.

What were your motivation for keeping Rosebud from being developed? Did you consider that "wild land worth protecting?"

Let me get this right: you're strongly in favor of commandeering public land for private enterprise, then throw up a fight when your neighbor wants to build out his private property? The hypocracy!

Reading between the lines, I'd guess you're someone whose property valuation has fallen since 2008 even though you're still paying off the mortgage loan you took out to buy it at some higher price. You're maybe concerned about how a Rosebud development will effect your investment. Maybe houses over Rosebud's would crimp your view, or turn your cul-de- SAC into a thoroughfare, or keep you from advertising your house as having trailhead access or something. So you put up a stink and succeed in halting the plan.

On the other hand you're thinking," If SkiLink gondola kickstarts sales of Talisker's huge invintory of empty condos and and bank-owned manses, just maybe that might translate into increased value for my property. Amirite?

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

#2, kind of. Wild lands are certainly worth protecting. There are millions of acres in the west which are excellent candidates for wilderness designation. But I also contend that the area where skilink will be is not "real wilderness". It is hemmed in by five major ski resorts. Skilink opponents have bemoaned in writing how when they climb to the top of the Wasatch Crest, they can actually (Gasp!) see houses at The Colony, and for whatever reason, it ruins their day. The area is currently populated by power lines, antennas (and associated buildings), dirt roads, etc. The Wasatch Crest is an awesome mountain biking trail, which harms nothing. It would be a shame to lose it to wilderness designation.

Indeed, not what I consider a "wild" place either and I'd be crushed if biking was banned.

Still, your hyperbole sounds like something off a Murdoch channel: "If we dont all line up behind this forced sale of public land to a foreign corporation then the eco-nazis will win the war to keep you out!" Maybe we could get Cheney to make a vague statement about al Queda in the aspens and suspected WMD's in USA Bowl and then Blackwater... I mean Xe Services... err, I mean Academi can bring in their mercenaries and sieze the parcel on behalf of Talisker.

Why not acknowledge "keep things as they are" as option? Maintaining the status quo seems perfectly acceptable to me.

Contrary to what you infer, the proposed SkiLink is the force that is driving the calls for Wilderness designation. Expansion of Wilderness designation up BCC would not have the backing that it has now if a certain foreign corporation wasn't manuvering to grab a swath of what we'd all believed to be sacrosanct.

It's also not a question of if the resorts will ever be interconnected. The question is where the resorts will connect and and SkiLink is a poor route. The lift system between the Canyons and PCMR are mapped out. That planned development is on land that the Colony and Talisker already own, so they wont need a congressional provision to build it. On top of that, Talisker now owns most of PCMR's turf and another parcel on Guarsman's pass. In my opinion, a lift over Guardsman Pass parking lot that connects PCMR to Brighton would be less intrusive to ski/bike/trail recreation than SkiLink and doesn't require the Canadian real estate corporation to bribe their way into a forced sale of land that right now belongs to every American.

Here's the map for proposed expansion of Canyons to the PCMR boundary plus dozens more yet-to-be-sold $2,500,000 chunks of aspen grove:

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

And there is no such thing as an over-priced condo. Skiers buy them at prices that the market will bear. These skiers are not some hypothetical monsters which have a greed to destroy the land. They are folks like you and I who strap on there diamer bindings, search for freshies, and are generally happier in a blizzard than the often overrated bluebird day. They are folks like you and I who strap on there diamer bindings, search for freshies, and are generally happier in a blizzard than the often overrated bluebird day.

SkiLink is not being rammed through for the benefit of skiers who mount Diamir AT bindings, though maybe they'll still allow you on the lift with them.

I have no idea which residents are or aren't out to "destroy the land" but it's not a neighborhood of Ted Turners and Warren Buffets either. Just before it's collapse, ENRON built what was at the time the largest property in the Colony. I'd hedge that there's a grip of Colony owners who bought their 15,000 square foot chalets with proceeds from recession-inducing mortgage schemes, derivative trading, and who continue to enjoy six-figure bailout money bonuses.

$26,200,000.00 sale price. $44,473.84 in annual property taxes and another $11,900 in HOA fees. And that's not nearly the biggest or most expensive place up there, just the most expensive that's for sale now. Forgive me if I have a hard time imagining my value system matches the guy who decided he needed a single-family house with 15 bathrooms, 9 bedrooms, and 3 kitchens.


But all that's beside the point.

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

As a next-door neighbor to Canyons, I can honestly say that I've not seen one model, illustration, concept, etc. regarding any such plan. Can you please provide a link? Access and space seems problematic, though not impossible. The area you mention is full of lifts, runs, and the pond. Where would the road go? I'd love to see something regarding this. If it's true, I wouldn't have a major problem with it. It's in the middle of Utah's largest ski resort. It's in an already developed area.

I havent heard about mid-mountain development either, but I'd be curious to learn more if that's in the works. There's certainly some buildable land around MM lodge and existing roads up to that don't cross ski runs if the Osgathorpe's are playing along.

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

The important part of the equation is that the real-estate discussion we are having is now on the correct side of the ridge. The Park City side. Other than the Skilink, no additional development will occur on the Big Cottonwood side of the ridge. Skilink will have only a 30-foot corridor, no ski runs, etc., so development will be impossible.

Do you have source for the assertion that Talisker has no interest in BCC? They did hire on the Solitude Mountain Manager last year and that's helped to spur rumors to the contrary. And their acquisition of PCMR land happened under the radar. Could they pull something similar with Solitude then begin using the same Congressional rider technique to attempt a forced sale Silver Fork? It'd be naive to think that's impossible and it's a strategy congruent with their expansion elsewhere.

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

#2, kind of. Wild lands are certainly worth protecting. There are millions of acres in the west which are excellent candidates for wilderness designation. But I also contend that the area where skilink will be is not "real wilderness".

I'm talking about the value of existing Wasatch Wilderness designation, not the Crest.

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

Other than the Skilink, no additional development will occur on the Big Cottonwood side of the ridge. Skilink will have only a 30-foot corridor, no ski runs, etc., so development will be impossible.

I'm not generally a fan of a slippery slope argument, but there are plenty of other ski runs on USFS lands. There's zero guarantee they won't try to develop that side. Give a nice swathe of public land, let them put in a lift, and they'd be stupid not to start applying to operate on that side. Sure, they'd likely get shot down, but they'll just ask again every 10 years.

Originally Posted by stevesliva

I'm not generally a fan of a slippery slope argument, but there are plenty of other ski runs on USFS lands. There's zero guarantee they won't try to develop that side. Give a nice swathe of public land, let them put in a lift, and they'd be stupid not to start applying to operate on that side. Sure, they'd likely get shot down, but they'll just ask again every 10 years.

Never, ever underestimate the vile corruption of Reps Bishop, Lee and Chaffetz. These Bastards would cut your throat for a dime.

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

Do you have source for the assertion that Talisker has no interest in BCC? They did hire on the Solitude Mountain Manager last year and that's helped to spur rumors to the contrary. And their acquisition of PCMR land happened under the radar. Could they pull something similar with Solitude then begin using the same Congressional rider technique to attempt a forced sale Silver Fork? It'd be naive to think that's impossible and it's a strategy congruent with their expansion elsewhere.

No, Mike Goar was hired on to the Canyons in the fall of 2007.

Mr. Gnarwhale, Dude, Sir,

Sorry, man. You are so off base on your suppositions, that I have neither the time nor the energy to engage in your eco-nazi rants. And I mean that respectfully. We're just coming from two completely different places. Simply said, I reply on these boards and the Salt Lake Trib page in order to give an alternate opinion, and to dispel the outright lies being spread by the opposition. I don't think I could change your mind about Skilink in a million years, and I said the same to McClean. In bringing info that I have to light, I've been accused by the opposition of working for Talisker / Canyons, and all sorts of other crazy made-up stuff.

In reality, I've been skiing at resorts and backcountry for around 40 years. I started at Hoodoo in Oregon, and graduated to Bachelor and Hood. I raced at Montana State, then went to Tahoe for 20 years and am now in Park City. I average 70-100 days per year, lately at Canyons and Snowbird. Politically, I'm in the middle. My conservative friends think I'm a hippie, and guys like you think I'm Hitler.

Yes, I support Skilink. As a skier, I realize that it will result in one of the best skiing experiences on the planet. This has absolutely nothing to do with the price of my house, as you have implied. After years and years and years of eating Top Ramen for every meal, wondering how I'd get my next season pass, and forgoing gaiters because I couldn't afford them, I'm fairly comfortable, thank you. I'm under no illusion that out of the 100 or so lifts in the Wasatch, that this one more will somehow light the real-estate market on fire so that I can live happily ever after. Hell, I live in PC. I AM living happily ever after, in my opinion. And in such matters, mine is the only one that counts. So to clarify, you're wrong on my housing situation.

As for the Canyons parcel where you accused me of being a hypocrite: It's complicated. You see things in black and white, I see greys. I am not claiming to have preserved the land. It is still under private ownership, and I did nothing to infringe on the property owner's rights. To make a long story short, the owner of the land went bankrupt. The bankruptcy judge wanted to sell the parcel of land to eliminate the guy's debt. The problem was, part of the solution was tearing into Rosebud's, which was not on the property. Why? To settle a bankruptcy claim? No thank you. Development will most likely occur on the parcel in the future. I would fully support a ski lift going over Rosebuds, as it is minimally invasive. I feel the same way about the Wasatch Crest trail, and the implications of the sign, several posts above. Canyons / Talisker has set a precedent of being mountain bike friendly, so the implications of that sign are false. Trail access will be maintained in both the parcel I mentioned above, and the Wasatch Crest. You're jumped to pretty big conclusions regarding the parcel, the value of my house, etc., and I respectfully submit that you are wrong again.

All of the other stuff that you posted is just pretty much a class-warfare rant, and I'm not going to go into it with you. Yes, Ken Lay of Enron was a major dickhead egomaniac, and his house is for sale. I'm not going to let it bother me too much. Actually, not at all.

You are pretty naive when you state that you thought the Forest Service land was "sacrosanct". Your government is a force which has an insatiable desire for money. Nothing is sacrosanct. Eminent domain, anyone? Just see what happens when Talisker waves a 15 million dollar bill in front of Washington's face. Those staid Senators will be running towards the money like a bunch of teenage girls being led into a Justin Beiber concert! Hundreds of ski areas lease land from the Forest Service, and it would not surprise me one bit if the Skilink land in question did not turn into a lease as well. Negotiations 101: Ask for a buy, you get a lease. Ask for a lease, you get nothing.

Lastly, I will reiterate that I'm merely here to dispel lies, as a skiers skier. (Of course, many will claim that I'm not hardcore enough, so my opinion doesn't matter. Whatever.) I've been absent this board for a while, until the bogus sign showed up, above. Talisker / Canyons has an excellent trail access / mountain biking record, and with Skilink this will not change. If passing under a liftline on you're ten-mile Wasatch crest ride just absolutely destroys your day, I feel sorry for you. It's inconvenient to mention that you were riding on dirt roads, passing buildings, antennas, power lines, etc. on said ride. Skilink will not kill the watershed. Big Cottonwood will not fill with houses. The animals will not die. A 30 foot gondola corridor is not going to destroy a ten-mile ridgeline's worth of powder. The area hemmed in by five major resorts is not "pristine wilderness", etc. etc. etc.

If you feel differently, fine. It's kind of odd when you invoke all sorts of weird real-estate scenarios, however. You will not hear me screaming at the top of my lungs to invoke the right of Skilink to go in. It's out of our hands, we're along for the ride. I think it would be great.

'Nuff Said,

isj