Thread: the Wasatch's new worst enemy=TALISKER

Originally Posted by Trackhead

In a hypothetical scenario, if you were in a state prison, would you mutter those words as Bubba lumbered over to you while in the shower?

Accept Bubba's inevitable sodomy, mitigate the damage, and move on? If you do that, your ass is officially now open to all who want a piece. Enjoy the perpetual ass fucking.

Fuck no, i would have hit bubba with a shiv day 1 to assert my dominance.



But really, do you believe that we will never see a resort expansion or new development anywhere in the wasatch from now to forever?

Originally Posted by skifishbum

hopefully it snows this season and you all
STFU and SKI our canyons
and bring 25 pages worth of stoke

yeahhhh, not to worried about links or new lifts around the canyons...I'll be up early,getting fresh turns, no matter what! only avy danger can slow my season . I had super fun ,this previous year...even w/ mcl re hab,i got 40 + days ;inc 5 night hikes;chest shots memorial day weekend to end it !

Let me clarify my view

I am 100% against skilink. Every aspect of it is poorly thought out and the way that Talisker is going about gaining approval to build is immoral and should be illegal. I believe that all the ski resorts in the Wasatch will continue their efforts to expand, with the land they already own or on their forest service permits, beyond their existing boundaries. Several resorts have already shown they are not content to stay within their current boundaries, and it’s unrealistic to believe their development proposals will be denied forever. I'm not happy about it, but I believe we will one day see some of the different canyons connected with lifts. There is too much private land and too much money for the state and municipal coffers to realistically believe expansions will be prevented forever.

Public opinion is against skilink, and rightfully so. Beyond the failings of the actual plan, Talisker did a terrible job introducing it to the public then trying to ram in down our throats. But Talisker and the other ski companies will one day wise up and figure out development proposals and PR gambits that will swing the majority of the local population to their side. They will trade their private land for permits into the areas they want to expand into while promising no additional environmental impact and other myths that cannot be disproved until after the damage is done. They will find a way to get around watershed restrictions and do whatever else it takes to get their expansion approved.

Every resort will try to do this (maybe not Brighton). One will eventually succeed, and once one does the floodgates will open and the Wasatch will be further developed in a very inefficient and haphazard way. I would rather see all the interested parties get together now, before any additional development begins, and figure out a long-term plan for the future of the Wasatch. Take all the private land that could be used for expansion and deed it over to the FS in exchange for development approval of low traffic low impact areas. Figure out a way to ensure that this is the last expansion they ever get, so 20 years later when the resorts want to do it again it is impossible for them to do so. But that kind of compromise will never happen; both sides are so entrenched in their positions they will never give ground.

There will be lawsuits, injunctions, community meetings and god knows what else all delaying the process, but in the end the resorts will expand. I sincerely hope I’m wrong, but that’s what I see happening.

Any talk of a long term plan or compromise is foolish. None of the environmental shitheads will ever be happy unless all development is banned forever. Anything less than that is going to be completely unacceptable.

Originally Posted by TheMessenger

Any talk of a long term plan or compromise is foolish. None of the environmental shitheads will ever be happy unless all development is banned forever. Anything less than that is going to be completely unacceptable.

I am also opposed to the ski link but I wonder how viable an inter-connect is considering the current state of the ski industry. I spend all my time in LCC both in bounds and in the BC. If anyone wants to disagree with me that is fine but I do not see the same numbers of skiers as 10 or 15 years ago. I also get the sense looking around that the age continues to advance and younger skiers are not taking the old timers places. Sure over Christmas the lines are long and specific weekends get crowded but on a regular basis are the crowds not smaller? We have had a number of ski area closed in recent years, some related to real estate (Yellowstone Club) and others that just cannot make it. I know that skier visits have been flat forever but if the money is in real estate sooner or later if you run out of skiers the real estate scheme doesn't work either. My point being is if the number of skiers goes down an inter-connect and its costs may not make long term sense.

Originally Posted by mc_roon

Fuck no, i would have hit bubba with a shiv day 1 to assert my dominance.



But really, do you believe that we will never see a resort expansion or new development anywhere in the wasatch from now to forever?

Wasatch NF plan calls for no further ski area expansion.

'nuf said.

Originally Posted by bigdude2468

I am also opposed to the ski link but I wonder how viable an inter-connect is considering the current state of the ski industry. I spend all my time in LCC both in bounds and in the BC. If anyone wants to disagree with me that is fine but I do not see the same numbers of skiers as 10 or 15 years ago. I also get the sense looking around that the age continues to advance and younger skiers are not taking the old timers places. Sure over Christmas the lines are long and specific weekends get crowded but on a regular basis are the crowds not smaller? We have had a number of ski area closed in recent years, some related to real estate (Yellowstone Club) and others that just cannot make it. I know that skier visits have been flat forever but if the money is in real estate sooner or later if you run out of skiers the real estate scheme doesn't work either. My point being is if the number of skiers goes down an inter-connect and its costs may not make long term sense.

That's how I see it too. I don't think interconnect will ever happen:

1. The market won't support it.
2. Two of the key players are in litigation, with one trying to shut the other down and take it over. This alone could be in the courts for years?
3. Two others don't allow snowboards and don't seem inclined to change.

Lorraine Januzelli-WCNF "The proposed expansion would not be in the public interest. The information and circumstances that supported the decisions made in the 2003 Forest Plan have not changed significantly. If anything, the importance of offering backcountry recreation opportunities and protecting community watersheds for a growing urban community has increased since 2003."

This was in response to the Silver Fork proposal from a few years back.

http://www.fs.usda.gov/detail/uwcnf/...TELPRDB5172894

Originally Posted by Trackhead

Lorraine Januzelli-WCNF "The proposed expansion would not be in the public interest. The information and circumstances that supported the decisions made in the 2003 Forest Plan have not changed significantly. If anything, the importance of offering backcountry recreation opportunities and protecting community watersheds for a growing urban community has increased since 2003."

i'm relieved that the development situation is not as dire as i thought it was. I sincerely hope the next forest plan maintains the same stance as the current one.

Originally Posted by bigdude2468

I spend all my time in LCC both in bounds and in the BC. If anyone wants to disagree with me that is fine but I do not see the same numbers of skiers as 10 or 15 years ago.

Yeah I'll disagree with you. skiing is more popular than ever. There are (a lot) more skiers now than 15 years ago. The only reason you don't notice it is because of increased capacity; i.e. resort expansion and high speed lifts. The very thing envirofucks want to stop.

Envirofucks despite their claims, will turn the wasatch area into an overcrowded, trafficjammed shithole mess.(more than they have already made it)

The key is more access, to both inbounds and outbounds, not less

Originally Posted by TheMessenger

Envirofucks despite their claims, will turn the wasatch area into an overcrowded, trafficjammed shithole mess.(more than they have already made it)

Can you please elaborate in detail how environaziassfuckinghomohippieelitists will turn the Wasatch into an overcrowded, trafficjammed shithole mess?

Thanks.

by restricting access

The irony of that is that it causes more overcrowding, not less. It achieves the exact opposite of the intended effect and a less efficient use of resources.

It's not easily understood by some, because the environmentafuck approach is not based on any sort of rational basis.

Originally Posted by TheMessenger

by restricting access

The irony of that is that it causes more overcrowding, not less. It achieves the exact opposite of the intended effect and a less efficient use of resources.

It's not easily understood by some, because the environmentafuck approach is not based on any sort of rational basis.

What access is restricted? Where is overcrowding occurring in your view?

C'mon man. Don't play an idiot. I know you are smart enough to understand it.

Originally Posted by TheMessenger

C'mon man. Don't play an idiot. I know you are smart enough to understand it.

Sorry, looks like you are not right. Just looked it up and skier visits nationwide in 2010/2011, 60.54 million, were essentially the same as in 07/08, 60.502 million. I am sure they were down significantly last year season due to low snow but those numbers are not out there that I could find. For the Rockies that include CO, ID, MT, NM, UT and WY visits in 2010 / 2011 were 20.900 and in 05/06 they were 20.717 million, also the same. As far as growth is concerned 2010/2011 was 21% higher than the first year they have listed which is 78/79, over 30 years ago. Not exactly a booming industry with the growth rate averaging a staggering 0.061%.

Originally Posted by TheMessenger

C'mon man. Don't play an idiot. I know you are smart enough to understand it.

Not sure that I am. Hence the question.

Blame it on the hippy, econazi bong hits during my flunky college years in Bozeman.

I do think the environmental argument against one more lift is pretty weak-- what's impacted, environmentally? Some scrub oak and aspen groves? Aesthetically, it sucks. But environmentally? eh.

Far more persuasive is that this is well-used public land, and you don't just suddenly up and sell that shit because some corporation says they want it. In a just world, someone would attach a rider to this bill that also sells 30 acres of much-beloved dirt road to SUWA to close motorized access, just because that's about equally ASS. See who supports it then.

Originally Posted by stevesliva

Far more persuasive is that this is well-used public land, and you don't just suddenly up and sell that shit because some corporation says they want it.

This is so concise, I wish I had said it. So much of the anti ski-link argument boils down to this. When you want to build infrastructure on someone else's land, and that land is not for sale, and you have to get an act of Congress to award you that land, it is probably a good idea to back up and think about it.

Originally Posted by stevesliva

I do think the environmental argument against one more lift is pretty weak-- what's impacted, environmentally? Some scrub oak and aspen groves? Aesthetically, it sucks. But environmentally? eh.

I'm not emotionally invested in the environmental aspect of this argument, but do you think you're more informed than the NF when it considers water quality as a barrier to further ski area development?

Go talk to folks living in East Canyon about water quality and ski resort expansion. Afterwards you might reconsider it as a weak argument.

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/TMD...TMDL_Part5.pdf

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/wat...es/EASTCYN.pdf

Originally Posted by stevesliva

Far more persuasive is that this is well-used public land, and you don't just suddenly up and sell that shit because some corporation says they want it.

Do I hear an echo?

Originally Posted by bigdude2468

Just looked it up and skier visits nationwide in 2010/2011, 60.54 million, were essentially the same as in 07/08, 60.502 million.

skier visits is a miss-leading number.

If someone skis 100 days, they have 100 skier visits. if someone skis 40 days they earn 40 skier visits. this only applies to folks skiing inbounds opposed to the backcountry (duh).

the simple fact is that the number of skiers is going down and the average number of days per active skier is going up, so skier visits is basically flat.

Originally Posted by Trackhead

I'm not emotionally invested in the environmental aspect of this argument, but do you think you're more informed than the NF when it considers water quality as a barrier to further ski area development?

Go talk to folks living in East Canyon about water quality and ski resort expansion. Afterwards you might reconsider it as a weak argument.

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/TMD...TMDL_Part5.pdf

http://www.waterquality.utah.gov/wat...es/EASTCYN.pdf

Simply because I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude, what am I supposed to conclude? That the artificial lake downstream of a sewage treatment plant did not improve as trout habitat after the Canyons exploded into being?

Originally Posted by stevesliva

Simply because I'm not sure what I'm supposed to conclude, what am I supposed to conclude? That the artificial lake downstream of a sewage treatment plant did not improve as trout habitat after the Canyons exploded into being?

Erosion = increase Nitrogen/Phosphate release = increased eutrophication rate

Increased nitrates in drinking water and on crops = fucked up sperm morphology and motility

Additives to improve temperature threshold for snowmaking are things like organo-silicone and others are toxic to ovaries, thyroid, testes.

Go talk to folks living in East Canyon about water quality and ski resort expansion. Afterwards you might reconsider it as a weak argument.

I will agree that East Canyon Creek is awful, and it's in trouble. But it's slowly getting better. Progress is being made to rehabilitate it, through thousands of hours of volunteer work to replenish stream banks and provide shade to cool the water temperature. Perhaps you and I have stood side-by -side planting willow shoots to help solve the problem? The study that you posted above states that property owners along the stream are aware of the problems and are working to fix them.

According to the study, "Pollutant sources include golf courses, dairies and other cattle operations, construction and development sites, erosion and loss of riparian habitat, and discharge from the municipal wastewater treatment facility". Hardly damning of the ski industry! Conspicuosly absent from the report is the fact that the creek and it's tribuaries flow through several commercial nurseries. A huge point-source for nitrogen (fertilizers) which results in algea blooms and oxygen deprivation in waterways.

So just so I have this straight...East Canyon Creek has been defoliated, runs through nurseries, cow pastures, golf courses, numerous strip malls, a major auto repair shop and an outlet mall, goes under a major interstate, and gets fed by a sewage treatment plant. And somehow it is the fault of Canyons that it is polluted? Great logic.

It begs the question, once again: If ski areas are so bad for the environment and water in particular, how can we reconcile the fact that Salt Lake's pristine, highly rated drinking water comes from an area with four major ski resorts, 36 lifts, and their inherent roads, infrastructure, etc? Your suppostion makes no sense. Whatsoever.

Originally Posted by itsnowjoke

how can we reconcile the fact that Salt Lake's pristine, highly rated drinking water

lol

highly coveted maybe, cuz thats all there is.
This lift is a joke. Stop making a case for it. It's not even worth an argument.