Solitude Expansion...

[Dantheman]

-Not liking the inevitable backcountry emergencies that go with BC skiing.

Seriously? People collectively ski thousands of days every winter in the Wasatch BC, yet the last time I can recall life-flight being sent out was the Silver Fork slide two years ago where otter was buried. Sending out S&R to rescue BC skiers is a very rare occurrence at most.

[ThirdsSkier696969]

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.

Exactly, if anyone currently wants to go ski Silver Fork they can at anytime. Sitting around hoping that someone will build a lift so you can ski something is incredibly pathetic and futile. If you want to go ski Silver Fork the only thing currently stopping you is yourself.

Anyway on a different topic, it's not like the lifts in Utah drop you off in ideal spots anyway, pretty much all the decent terrain requires a hike or traverse of some kind. Expansion should deal with that first, would a lift up Baldy from Alta piss anyone off?

[Spats]

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.

Admittedly I haven't skied Solitude for several years -- but the season I skied there, I was surprised to look over while riding the Honeycomb lift and usually see more tracks across the way in Silver Fork than in Honeycomb Canyon where I was skiing. It always surprised me.

This meant that there had to have been more people skiing Silver Fork than Honeycomb Canyon (skinning takes much longer than lift rides), and since BC usage has increased since then, there are a significant number of people skiing Silver Fork (many more than "2").

Also, by surfing on the beach, you are not denying beach access to others. By constructing a lift and doing avalanche control, you are denying Silver Fork access to others. The equation is different when granting access to one group requires denying another group.

Second question for you:

What you say is true for basically every drainage in the Wasatch: more people would use the drainage if there were a ski lift up it. By that logic, the entire Wasatch should be covered with ski lifts and there should be no Wasatch wilderness at all, yes?

More examples: Let's put a cable car up Half Dome, charge people $25 to ride it, and decommission the hiking trail so that you are forced to pay the $25 and ride the tram. This would dramatically increase the number of people who could stand on top of Half Dome: that trail is long and dangerous. Greatest good for the greatest number, right? Who cares if there are ugly towers up the most iconic peak in Yosemite?

Why have roadless areas anywhere? Most people will never go more than 1/2 mile from a road in their lives...by having "wilderness" at all, we are discriminating against the overwhelming majority of couch potatoes. Don't like pickups and quads trashing the high alpine? Tough shit, it's "greatest good for the greatest number". Feel free to hike the jeep road, hippie.

"I want the lift because I'm a Solitude pass holder, I don't like BC skiing, and it benefits me personally" is a perfectly valid opinion, and since I don't live in Utah anymore, yours counts more than mine. I can't argue with that.

But it seems to me that calling a privatization-for-profit of public land a "public good" involves putting yourself on a very slippery slope that involves some very convoluted justifications.

Think about it carefully, is all I'm saying.

[Trackhead]

Seriously? People collectively ski thousands of days every winter in the Wasatch BC, yet the last time I can recall life-flight being sent out was the Silver Fork slide two years ago where otter was buried. Sending out S&R to rescue BC skiers is a very rare occurrence at most.

They send it out countless times more to rescue resort skiers. And it doesn't matter because it's of no cost to the public. Life Flight and Air Med are private companies.

[Trackhead]

We saw at least 18 people today in Grizzly, on a weekday, on a high avy danger day. Flag was tracked out, Toledo was tracked out, and Emma's, if it had more snow, would be tracked out. On a sunny saturday, all these places would be tracked out by BC skiers before noon. We don't need a lift to fuck it up any further.

Backcountry skiing is no longer a fringe sport, everyone and their grandma is doing it, all the time, all over the Wasatch. Thinking a lift in Solitude or a lift up Flag won't affect thousands and thousands of people is just proving that you are out of touch with the current state of the Wasatch.

[MultiVerse]

We saw at least 18 people today in Grizzly, on a weekday, on a high avy danger day. Flag was tracked out, Toledo was tracked out, and Emma's, if it had more snow, would be tracked out. On a sunny saturday, all these places would be tracked out by BC skiers before noon. We don't need a lift to fuck it up any further.

Backcountry skiing is no longer a fringe sport, everyone and their grandma is doing it, all the time, all over the Wasatch. Thinking a lift in Solitude or a lift up Flag won't affect thousands and thousands of people is just proving that you are out of touch with the current state of the Wasatch.

Quoted for truth. Somebody was even nice enough to put a skin track on Superior and then center punch it today. Last Saturday, I saw two separate families (husbands, wives, kids) skin up the summer road then skirt Albion and ski short shots below Catherine's, it's a family affair.

[ThirdsSkier696969]

We saw at least 18 people today in Grizzly, on a weekday, on a high avy danger day. Flag was tracked out, Toledo was tracked out, and Emma's, if it had more snow, would be tracked out. On a sunny saturday, all these places would be tracked out by BC skiers before noon. We don't need a lift to fuck it up any further.

Backcountry skiing is no longer a fringe sport, everyone and their grandma is doing it, all the time, all over the Wasatch. Thinking a lift in Solitude or a lift up Flag won't affect thousands and thousands of people is just proving that you are out of touch with the current state of the Wasatch.

Watch out, your risking the wrath of the Yeti. Only a lift accessed terrain can be enjoyed by more then 2 people a day. How can you not understand that backcountry is an inefficient use of space that doesn't contribute to the tax base. It has the same value as surface parking and vacant lots

[Trackhead]

Watch out, your risking the wrath of the Yeti. Only a lift accessed terrain can be enjoyed by more then 2 people a day. How can you not understand that backcountry is an inefficient use of space that doesn't contribute to the tax base. It has the same value as surface parking and vacant lots

I'm not an accountant, nor do I claim to be even remotely intelligent. But Black Diamond, REI, Wasatch Touring all sell a lot of backcountry gear. Does that contribute to the local economy?

[Cyber Cop]

can we just have the ski off already?

[ThirdsSkier696969]

I'm not an accountant, nor do I claim to be even remotely intelligent. But Black Diamond, REI, Wasatch Touring all sell a lot of backcountry gear. Does that contribute to the local economy?

sarcasm, sorry

[Trackhead]

sarcasm, sorry

I got it, I was just reiterating your point.

[ill-advised strategy]

Admittedly I haven't skied Solitude for several years -- but the season I skied there, I was surprised to look over while riding the Honeycomb lift and usually see more tracks across the way in Silver Fork than in Honeycomb Canyon where I was skiing. It always surprised me.

This meant that there had to have been more people skiing Silver Fork than Honeycomb Canyon (skinning takes much longer than lift rides), and since BC usage has increased since then, there are a significant number of people skiing Silver Fork (many more than "2").

That was intended to be a ratio. Nobody in their right mind could look at silver fork and solitude from across the canyon and conclude that more people are using the BC area than the inbounds. That argument is moot. When Silver fork is mogul fields we can start comparing the inbounds traffic and the out of bounds traffic.

Also, by surfing on the beach, you are not denying beach access to others. By constructing a lift and doing avalanche control, you are denying Silver Fork access to others. The equation is different when granting access to one group requires denying another group.

Maybe, and that's tricky, but I really don't think that you can't skin around or hike around on your FS land if it's a ski area other than when they're doing something dangerous like avy work. It's not supposed to be gated and restricted to paid access...the lifts yes but the land no. It seems like it goes that way at times, but it shouldn't.

Second question for you:

What you say is true for basically every drainage in the Wasatch: more people would use the drainage if there were a ski lift up it. By that logic, the entire Wasatch should be covered with ski lifts and there should be no Wasatch wilderness at all, yes?

I suppose if I put my policy-guessing hat on here and take a stab at trying to address this in terms of what I've already laid out I'd have to say that where development stops is where the public benefit from it versus some other use stops. If there are significant enough reasons for wild areas (the public appreciates wilderness, the wildlife, the public watershed, etc etc) than the expansion of lift served skiing stops there...
That may very well mean it stops right where it sits and we have no expansion, I tend to think that with the USDA trying to best utilize the land for the most public good, they'll look at more revenue and more recreation for more people as a stronger case...
That's what I've tried to state in the latter part of this thread.

I don't think the argument that novice skiers, vacationing skiers, little kids, families etc. can just go on up there right now if they want and they aren't because they're lazy and that makes them less owners of the public land than the special uber-citizens who earn the right to exclusive use of the area....I don't think that viewpoint will hold much water with an agency tasked to serve all US citizens. The fact of the matter is that this site has had numerous occasions where people have demonstrated a contempt for people who don't live like them (your walmart threads, calling people fat and lazy and gapers...etc etc...), this is one occasion where your judgmental opinions of people who don't enjoy vigorous and dangerous mountaineering-style skiing do not make you more of an owner of this land than them. The most timid person in the flattest, warmest place in this country owns as much of that land as you do. This comes down to more benefit for more people, not benefit to the more deserving group according to your values. You can either accept that, or build your case from a false premise.

More examples: Let's put a cable car up Half Dome, charge people $25 to ride it, and decommission the hiking trail so that you are forced to pay the $25 and ride the tram. This would dramatically increase the number of people who could stand on top of Half Dome: that trail is long and dangerous. Greatest good for the greatest number, right? Who cares if there are ugly towers up the most iconic peak in Yosemite?

As stated earlier in this thread, the mission of the Park Service is largely preservation whereas the mission of the Forest Service is largely utilization. This is the great thing about the forest service, you can go have fun on the land without some faggot biologist telling you not to step on the ferns or scare the owls. It's our land to enjoy. The park service strives to keep you away from those areas in furtherance of a preservation objective. They usually wish to limit recreation because recreation has impact. As a person who enjoys recreation I find that model frustrating.

Why have roadless areas anywhere?

Because there is a large enough contingent of people who have lobbied for a preservation agenda within these areas of the forest service. Within the forest service's utilization model they've made some determinations that primitive areas benefit a user group and permit a kind of recreation that many people enjoy....that keeping certain areas wild allows for a group of citizens to be satisfied.

Most people will never go more than 1/2 mile from a road in their lives...by having "wilderness" at all, we are discriminating against the overwhelming majority of couch potatoes. Don't like pickups and quads trashing the high alpine? Tough shit, it's "greatest good for the greatest number". Feel free to hike the jeep road, hippie.

Like or not it's public USDA land, and your lifestyle gives you no more citizenship than somebody who is 1000 lbs and hasn't left his house for years. You and he are the same level of citizen and have the same ownership over that land. The value judgments are yours, but in fact, many people may find your lifestyle to be just as unappealing as theirs is to you. You are equals under the law and within the policy of the agency who decides whether or not to issue a permit here.

The skiers position in this is surely to decide that the most dedicated skiers have more weight in this process, but if I'm doing anything here it's to say that no, being a better or more dedicated skier means nothing to this process. Your enjoyment of a day of skiing BC pow in Silver Fork as it is can't be measured against some little beginner kid from florida's day of skiing groomed in the resort. We all tend to get this attitude that we're better than them because of our choices, and that if we differ in opinion that we're right, but beware of that kind of thinking in this kind of a process, because self-righteousness doesn't get you anything when some administrator is trying to figure out how many people benefit and for how long from a policy decision.

But it seems to me that calling a privatization-for-profit of public land a "public good" involves putting yourself on a very slippery slope that involves some very convoluted justifications.

This has been going on for years (timber/grazing...etc etc), the reason the FS is Agriculture and not Interior is that (for better or worse) these lands are viewed as a production resource. If we're talking about slippery slopes and convolution here, allowing a very vocal minority their way in a matter like this sets precedence for very vocal minorities to control the agenda of the forest service nationwide on any use prioritization issue. That seems all well and good until your (not you specifically...) side loses....when the 200 people who really really need jobs get a strip mine on the national forest even though 10000 people don't want to see that happen to the land... Hey, they're hard working miners and you're just a bunch of lazy ass townies...or whatever..any number of dystopian scenarios could be drawn wherein the vocal minority gets priority in the national forest.

The determination to make here is which user group constitutes more citizens and which use is more beneficial to more people.

On the expansion side I have:
-inbounds skiers/skiers who prefer lift access and avy control and can/will pay for it.
-everyone who benefits from tourism
-all citizens who benefit from government revenue both taxes from solitude and permit fees to the USFS.

On the non-expansion side I have
-BC/sidecountry skiers
-wildlife assets/hunters/folks who enjoy wildlife
-possible watershed? (everyone who benefits from drinking water originating in that area)

[ThirdsSkier696969]

This isn't concrete data, but it add evidence to the idea that growth in the sport is moving towards backcountry users:

"“Backcountry equipment, consisting of skins, probes, shovels, beacons and accessories brought in $6.8M for the year [2008]. The category grew 22% in units and 19% in dollars. Randonee/ AT boots, bindings and skis sold $2M altogether and increased sales by 5% in units and 11% in dollars over 2007.”

and then there is the Resort Scene

"Last year's ski season saw a decline of 6 and a half percent, according to Ski Utah president Nathan Rafferty. He blames last year's economic woes on the decline, but says this year, he is seeing more optimism in the market and is hoping that will bring ski numbers up by 3% this year."

If you factor in the population growth along the Wasatch Front those Ski Utah numbers are pretty bad.

[ThirdsSkier696969]

I don't think the argument that novice skiers, vacationing skiers, little kids, families etc. can just go on up there right now if they want and they aren't because they're lazy and that makes them less owners of the public land than the special uber-citizens who earn the right to exclusive use of the area....I don't think that viewpoint will hold much water with an agency tasked to serve all US citizens

What about the poor. The simple fact of the matter is the vast majority of people will be unable to afford the access to the area with your schemes. Median Income in Utah for a family of 4 is $71,919 Those people can currently access the area for free, how does charging a family an additional $200 per day usage fee improve access in any way. In your words were reserving the area for the special uber-rich citizens who earn the right to exclusive use of the area

[Tin Woodsman]

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.

So a sample size of one is all you require? There are plenty of examples to the contrary.

More to the point, I presume you are touring around in leather boots, 3-pin tele bindings and low-tech skinny skis while wearing woolens and an army surplus backpack, right? Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite by decrying higher prices people pay for a better lift-served experience w/o looking in the mirror at the increase in your own expenditures for better technology.

[Jer]

Wow. So now "the poor" are people who can only afford a touring setup and avie gear and a goretex outfit and I'm "uber-rich" because I can occasionally buy a Solitude lift ticket? That's nuts.

[criscam]

i've heard "the greatest good for the greatest ammount of people" argument...

if x=the number of soli skiers on any given day and y=the number of silver fork skiers, then right now the soli/silver fork area sees x+y skiers using this area on a given day. if a lift goes in, then there will be x skiers using this area.
do you really think an additional lift in silver fork will generate that many more customers? (seriously asking)
maybe it will (until the flagstaff lift goes up and steals them all back )




i like math.

[zion zig zag]

So a sample size of one is all you require? There are plenty of examples to the contrary.

More to the point, I presume you are touring around in leather boots, 3-pin tele bindings and low-tech skinny skis while wearing woolens and an army surplus backpack, right? Otherwise, you're just being a hypocrite by decrying higher prices people pay for a better lift-served experience w/o looking in the mirror at the increase in your own expenditures for better technology.

Ok, so prove to me that lift prices haven't outpaced inflation.

As far as gear, I'm not even sure it's kept up with inflation. But feel free to give numbers that disprove that.

[ThirdsSkier696969]

Wow. So now "the poor" are people who can only afford a touring setup and avie gear and a goretex outfit and I'm "uber-rich" because I can occasionally buy a Solitude lift ticket? That's nuts.

So when did having "a touring setup, avie gear and gortex" become necessary for accessing free public land, or go back country skiing / snowboarding? The basic fact is that access to Silver Fork is free and almost completely unrestricted, access to Solitude costs $62.

[MultiVerse]

A few modifications in bold for YetiMan's consideration:

On the expansion side::
-inbounds skiers/skiers who prefer lift access and avy control and can/will pay for it.
-everyone who benefits from tourism
-all citizens who benefit from government revenue both taxes from solitude and permit fees to the USFS.

On the non-expansion side I have
-BC/sidecountry skiers/Snowshoers.
-Summertime bikers & hikers since Solitude currently sees fewer people during the off-season than the trail system across the road (Mill D etc.). Would there be a similar drop off during the summer in Silver Fork?
-Existing Solitude pass holders opposed to expansion (see below).
-wildlife assets/hunters/folks who enjoy wildlife
-Watershed, 24% of SLCs water supply comes from BCC creek:

-No additional parking allowed per the 2003 Revised Forest Service Plan which has watershed protection as the highest priority.

-The backcountry industry in Utah i.e. BlackDiamond, Utah Mountain Adventures, Wasatch Touring, etc.



An example taken from public comments:

I hold a season's pass at Solitude and have for the last fifteen years. I say leave the resort in its' current boundaries. Let's stop the growth up there. Though it would be fun to get lifted to the top of the ridge at Silver Fork!

In Solitude's expansion proposal they state that they need the new terrain in order to compete with the two LCC resorts in terms of terrain. Is it possible that one effect of the expansion will merely poach Alta & Snowbird skiers rather than greatly expand the use of public lands resulting in a diminished experience for some Solitude skiers who ski in BCC for the solitude?

[BobMc]

I was at Solitude several times this summer. The place isn't a ghost town, every time I was there the trails were quite busy. They've even got a hippy golf course that quite a few people enjoy.

As far as the lack of parking. You folks do realize that eventually that won't be a problem. In all of UDOT's reports one of the biggest things standing out is they wish to restrict vehicles in order to mitigate avalanche danger. I'm betting the day will come when you won't be able to drive up either canyon. Maybe not soon, but eventually.

[BobMc]

PS. Just think, instead of parking lots in the canyons, we can have more condos!

[MultiVerse]

I was at Solitude several times this summer. The place isn't a ghost town, every time I was there the trails were quite busy. They've even got a hippy golf course that quite a few people enjoy.

Agreed, the mountain definitely gets used in the summertime, it's just that Solitude is a saner place to ride when the Wasatch Crest / Mill D trail is unsane due to all the bikers and hikers. This is a good thing IMHO, it just runs counter to the numbers argument.

Plus, there's always parking available on the road after the Moonbeam condo expansion takes place but before UDOT steps in, heh.

[ill-advised strategy]

if x=the number of soli skiers on any given day and y=the number of silver fork skiers, then right now the soli/silver fork area sees x+y skiers using this area on a given day. if a lift goes in, then there will be x skiers using this area.

i like math.

Well I suppose I do too.

So let:
x=dedicated touring BC/OB skiers
y=dedicated inbounds solitude skiers
z=Solitude skiers who tour as well.

At this time the area sees x + z.

Post expansion the area sees y + z.


and SaltMind: thanks for good edits...well played, I was hoping somebody would go there. I think adding to/removing from, and quantifying and enumerating that balance sheet is what is going to be going on at the agency (who knows though, I'm just taking my best guess here)...and perhaps we can influence it and/or predict what will go on with our own estimates.

[stevey s]

[quote=YetiMan;2657512]

Maybe, and that's tricky, but I really don't think that you can't skin around or hike around on your FS land if it's a ski area other than when they're doing something dangerous like avy work. It's not supposed to be gated and restricted to paid access...the lifts yes but the land no. It seems like it goes that way at times, but it shouldn't.

)

You think wrong. Ski areas that lease land from the FS Can, AND DO, have people arrested for Tresspassing for accessing the land (not the lifts)

Heck, you can be arrested for tresspassing on your own property (http://www.wfrv.com/news/state/story...O5ZpoKOOQ.cspx)