Utah Mags: Keep Alta from stealing our backcountry

Smokey McPole · 03-31-2009, 05:36 PM

Did Witherspoon ever tell you about the engine he designed that ran on water?

**Lone Star** · 03-31-2009, 05:50 PM

whoa, i say this dude early season at alta last year. had some contraption on his backpack and dynafit bindings.... good to see ya again buddy!!

**Tye 1on** · 03-31-2009, 08:21 PM

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

Looks like that fine point was made, in spades.

Care to share how the meeting went?

**Blurred** · 03-31-2009, 08:42 PM

More proof that......

Utah=better than Colorado

hahaahahaahhaahha

**Trackhead** · 03-31-2009, 08:48 PM

Originally Posted by Lone Star

whoa, i say this dude early season at alta last year. had some contraption on his backpack and dynafit bindings.... good to see ya again buddy!!

Good to see you and your Alta buddies too! Glad your pen is going to get a little bigger eventually. Must suck being all bunched up like that all the time waiting for a dog to tell you where to go.

**MultiVerse** · 03-31-2009, 09:11 PM

All of the speakers were well prepared and made good arguments but Andrew McLean, in particular, resolved any indifference about a lift on Flagstaff and instead I’ve decided to get involved in attempt to prevent the lift. The broad strokes:

1) Mr. Fitzgerald with UDOT says that a howitzer can be used when the recoilless rifle ammunition runs out.

2) Onno Wieringa says that Alta currently has no plans to put a lift in on Flagstaff.

3) Andrew McLean’s presentation on the potential impact of a lift on Flagstaff was eye opening… so much has been lost already. It’s not just one lift, it’s about what we want the Wasatch to look like 5, 10, 15, 50 years from now.

4) The corporate council from Black Diamond has dealt with these issues before in places like Squaw and it might not be prudent to trust point number two above. Either way, Black Diamond opposes and will oppose a lift up Flagstaff.

**Tye 1on** · 03-31-2009, 09:30 PM

Originally Posted by David Witherspoon

Thanks for the report.

have to agree with ya

**Nathan Explosion** · 03-31-2009, 09:42 PM

So when are ya gonna give me my SOC sticker, Dave?

**Trackhead** · 03-31-2009, 09:57 PM

Originally Posted by ePiech

4) The corporate council from Black Diamond has dealt with these issues before in places like Squaw and it might not be prudent to trust point number two above. Either way, Black Diamond opposes and will oppose a lift up Flagstaff.

I'm glad BD voiced their opinion. They are influential in the market and the community, and their opinion and support matters.

**Straight Edge** · 03-31-2009, 11:46 PM

Turnout at the meeting was off the hook.

Head UDOT forecaster at Alta, Liam Fitzgerald, said their plan is to replace the outdated recoilless artillery with a howitzer. They have the funding to replace the P-ridge gun. Basically, no lift is needed. All just a smokescreen for development.

Viva La Resistance!

Tonight's theme song for the Resistance: http://www.amazon.com/Politicians-In...8564569&sr=1-1

**Dendritic** · 04-01-2009, 01:10 AM

Here are the sound bytes from KUTV:

http://www.kutv.com/mediacenter/loca...rticleID=88293

(stupid commercial plays before news clip).

Fox 13 was also there but left early.

More tomorrow...

**Lone Star** · 04-01-2009, 06:32 AM

i wonder if there would be this much controversy if Alta received as much snow as, say, Keystone, Breck, or Vail.......

nah

hahahahahahahahahhaha

**CentoUno** · 04-01-2009, 07:47 AM

Bump for keeping Flag Lift free...

**Wasatch_Expat** · 04-01-2009, 08:36 AM

It was pretty clear to me that UDOT wants to keep their guns and is just fine with the idea of using a Howitzer. Onno tried to lure us all in by saying that with the growth of usage in LCC, a gun isn't safe, and eventually someone will get hit if we continue using one. He was soft selling the lift, even though he stated "we have no plans for a lift." I smell a rat.

To Onno's point of the gun not being safe, I ask "how many people have been hit by the recoilless rifle or shrapnel therefrom in the last 50 or so years that it's been used versus how many people have died off 9990 since the Canyons put a lift there?"

**Lonnie** · 04-01-2009, 09:30 AM

Originally Posted by Wasatch_Expat

he stated "we have no plans for a lift." I smell a rat.

THE SKY IS FALLING!! THE SKY IS FALLING!!

**lionelhutz** · 04-01-2009, 09:33 AM

I have no dog in this fight. If there's a lift there's a lift. I'll ride it. If there isn't - well good. Less development is always a good thing.
But here is my quesiton...to those opposed to the lift.
Please tell me your personal reasons against it.
Note- I don't want to hear your "arguement about why it's bad"...I want to know why you personally oppose it.
thanks.

**MultiVerse** · 04-01-2009, 10:38 AM

Originally Posted by lionelhutz

I have no dog in this fight. If there's a lift there's a lift. I'll ride it. If there isn't - well good. Less development is always a good thing.
But here is my quesiton...to those opposed to the lift.
Please tell me your personal reasons against it.
Note- I don't want to hear your "arguement about why it's bad"...I want to know why you personally oppose it.
thanks.

With apologies for the blog:

To really understand this issue you have to understand the specific geography of the central Wasatch. A lift on Flagstaff would dramatically change backcountry access in this area. Aside from being great skiing under the right conditions, Flagstaff and the Emma ridge are gateways into even more remarkable terrain.

Since no uphill travel is allowed in Utah, Alta would essentially gain de facto control over much of the central Wasatch between BCC & LCC because even though there are many other possible routes, once an area becomes slack-country it loses much of its touring appeal. More importantly, it starts the ball rolling to even more development down the road.

The aesthetic issue of wilderness versus development as well as protecting SLCs’ watershed goes beyond inbounds skier versus BC skier. Andrew McLean used the example of The Canyons and the 9990 lift. If you’ve ever skied at The Canyons then you can immediately recognize that it’s all one giant real estate venture that amazingly has only just begun to be fully developed.

I’m not opposed to development per-se and I’m not a member of any environmental organizations, plus much of the terrain will never be developed, and I work as an engineer but I do believe in sustainability and that some areas—even if they are right next to a road—should remain off limits and open to all citizens rather than just paying customers.

Again, for someone who doesn’t know the geography, this can all seem like just a bunch of whining hippies losing their favorite stashes but I don’t believe it’s that simple in the case of a potential Flagstaff lift.

**Sol Skier** · 04-01-2009, 10:46 AM

ePiech - What do you mean by 'no uphill travel is allowed in Utah'?

**MultiVerse** · 04-01-2009, 10:57 AM

Originally Posted by Sol Skier

ePiech - What do you mean by 'no uphill travel is allowed in Utah'?

Someone more knowledgeable than me should chime in but most ski resorts in Utah do not allow uphill travel (which state law supports) on their runs. Kind of a moot point since skinning uphill in close proximity to alpine skiers doesn’t sound very safe or very fun but the door is closed either way.

**lionelhutz** · 04-01-2009, 11:03 AM

epeich- I know the geography just fine.
So your point is....that if the lift goes up they kill touring in the area (both served by the lift as alta terrain and beyond) because of no uphill traffic on ski area land rules?

"once an area becomes slack-country it loses much of its touring appeal."
Seems like a personal choice to me- not sure if it is reasonable to use that as a reason.
"Don't put this lift in because you will make these runs less fun for me and my friends."

**Lonnie** · 04-01-2009, 11:04 AM

Originally Posted by ePiech

Since no uphill travel is allowed in Utah, Alta would essentially gain de facto control over much of the central Wasatch between BCC & LCC because even though there are many other possible routes, once an area becomes slack-country it loses much of its touring appeal.

To be fair, alta would only gain control of the north side of LCC. SInce there is no access back up from BCC, how can you say Alta would gain control of that? How many tourists skiers going in to Catherine's drop down in to AF canyon or down towards Heber? As for the other stuff about losing touring appeal, that's a personal choice value judgement.....

**Sol Skier** · 04-01-2009, 11:09 AM

I see, you guys are worried that you will have to buy a ticket to access all the backcountry behind Flagstaff, since Utah law won't allow you to hike up 'inbounds' terrain?

**Lonnie** · 04-01-2009, 11:11 AM

Just wait til Brighton wants to put a lift up Wolverine...

**lionelhutz** · 04-01-2009, 11:21 AM

Originally Posted by Lonnie

Just wait til Brighton wants to put a lift up Wolverine...

I'd use that lift.

**skifishbum** · 04-01-2009, 11:22 AM

Cause I don't want no damn gapers with camelbacks and powder cords
skiing my precious pow

Didn't make it to the meeting sounded fun
Did hook up with a visiting mag Gimpy and his splitter buddy JT and extended some wasatch hospitility and showed them super secret stashes of Davenport, Keyhole/hideaway park, Bananna days and Days draw. They skinned up Grizz G.
Stevo, Caleb and I went the gaper slackcountry route and rode a few lifts and traversed out.
Not sure if that made us less core or if our turns were any less sweet but
whatevs
here is my soundtrack with more crappy helmet cam stoke not as entertaining as cry baby pics and whining/cunting but shit skied good and was damn fun
Not a lot of peeps out must have been saving themselves for more important things

Thanks for the company, cocktail and keeping the never met a maggot I didn't like mantra going Gimpy
Mums the word on those super secret stashes kay