Page 4 of 12 FirstFirst 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 ... LastLast
Results 76 to 100 of 289
  1. #76
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Hyperspace!
    Posts
    968
    last season was "a colorado snowpack, without the sun"


    powdork - open access is the policy now. why jeopardize that for a couple of surface lifts? this thing is being presented as an access to big lines, but these are fully accessible (no camping out) without lifts.

    Until mra can come forth with a clear plan that shows what access is - i'm for no restrictions at all - and how they can establish this through their insurance and the forest service then i see no reason to support this venture at all. maybe they have that all laid out - but their website is a pile of shit and doesn't answer any real questions.

  2. #77
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    11,541
    Quote Originally Posted by BFD View Post
    Discussion
    This avalanche was a perfect example of the type of snow conditions that persisted in the 2010/11 winter.
    Shallow snow, well developed weak layers above and below an ice crust, and the possibility of triggering
    avalanches long after storms. The Summit region is always a shallower snowpack than Turnagain Pass,
    but this year it was especially continental in character. On many occasions it only took small amounts of
    new snow to cause avalanche reactivity, and the hazard lingered longer than normal.
    http://www.cnfaic.org/accidents/accindex.php
    I included the full link. Summit is just down the road from Manitoba.
    if whether or not someone died within an eighty mile radius is the litmus test for whether there should be an open boundary policy we're all screwed.
    wendigo i can't for the life of me think why there would be any restrictions at all on skinning. there are many resorts that allow it, although most will stop you during snow safety operations. the mountain will not just be a springboard to the bc. that's how it's marketed here because that's the part we care about. there are plenty of folks in the surrounding area that could enjoy having a few rope tows nearby.
    if it gets one kid to turn from the road to meth onto the road to cannabis, then i think it's a success.
    powdork.com - new and improved, with 20% more dork.

  3. #78
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Sonoma & Truckee
    Posts
    7,887
    If this project has been scouted for a number of years, surely someone has a photo from later in the year with more snow coverage?? Would be curious to see how it looks then.

  4. #79
    Join Date
    Apr 2004
    Location
    cordova,AK
    Posts
    2,229
    if whether or not someone died within an eighty mile radius is the litmus test for whether there should be an open boundary policy we're all screwed.
    My post was not in regards to any boundary policy. I was just informing that it is not a typical maritime snowpack in this area. In my opinion a boundary policy is not something to worry about. This area will never be built. I am just posting to give the issue 6 minutes of fame.
    off your knees Louie

  5. #80
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    GRRD
    Posts
    1,366
    ^^I heard Eyak is building dh trails. How is that going?

  6. #81
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London Mountain
    Posts
    870
    I don't really care if this place is built or not, and I'm sure that MRA has more info on this than I could gather in a 4 page TGR thread, but after reading all of this, these are my thoughts:

    This seems like a great place for backcountry, but not a great place for a commercial operation.

    As previously mentioned, no one seems to give a shit about the inbounds terrain, which is described as "low angle" and "boring". This means that the majority of the action will be OB. Way more people will be OB, most of them with way less knowledge than the current ski touring crews in the area.

    If this place ever runs commercially, the lifts will deliver people to gnarly avalanche terrain. Most of these people are the ones who would never have ski toured up there. This will definitely drastically increase the gaper factor, regardless of if this is Alaska, France, or Michigan. Short of a Silverton style guide only operation, there will be no way of regulating people skiing on top of each other. Avalanches still happen, even in "safe Coastal" zones. There WILL be avalanche issues out of bounds, which WILL have to be dealt with by the patrollers who work there, or the local SAR group, regardless of what kind of boundary policy is in place. These are real people and real rescues. A 3 rope tow beginner/intermediate resort will have how many patrollers? What happens when shit goes down OB? The patrollers will respond. When that happens, it doesn't matter what the paperwork anybody signed in the valley.

    If the gnarly out of bounds was controlled, like the Blackcomb Glacier is, it would be different, but this doesn't seem like a possibility here.

    I'm all for small core ski areas, and this seems like a cool idea on face value, but I think it fails the reality test in the areas of financial viability and realistic backcountry rescue scenarios.

    My $0.02

  7. #82
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    GRRD
    Posts
    1,366
    ^^^I don't know the numbers but aren't the majority of people who travel and spend money are in the green/blue square category of skiers? I may consider the inbounds terrain low angle and boring but the average skier is gonna be stoked. I would bet that the beginner/intermediate terrain encompassed by Manitoba's boundary would be several times larger in area then Alyeska, Hilltop and Alpenglow combined. (local ak ski hills). That, among other things, is a long standing issue at Alyeska: limited beginner terrain in general and limited beginner terrain not below rain line.

  8. #83
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Location
    London Mountain
    Posts
    870
    ^^^^ I think you're right, the majority of the "travel to ski" crowd are probably intermediates, but I think that just reinforces my point. A segment of those people are going to head straight out of bounds with no avy gear and no clue. Nothing short of a barb wire fence will stop them, especially if there are already tracks heading out there.

    As someone else said, personally I hope it happens, because I'd like to ski there, but I think it's going to be tough to make a go of this.

    Good discussion though. 4 pages and only a few instances of the usual "you suck!" "no you suck!" TGR shit slinging

  9. #84
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    northern BC
    Posts
    14,119
    http://www.bbss.ca/hankin

    a roll-your-own back country ski area, I earned some grant money out of this gig which along with a picking up garbage will become 115 carbon DPS wailers
    Last edited by XXX-er; 10-15-2011 at 03:09 PM.

  10. #85
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    169
    Be sure to check this month's Powder Magazine for a featured article on Manitoba Mountain, "The Skier's Answer".

  11. #86
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    GRRD
    Posts
    1,366

  12. #87
    Join Date
    Jun 2010
    Posts
    169

    Correction

    The only error in Mr Hansen's brilliantly written piece is that MRA is actually a LLC, registered in Colorado, not a non profit as mentioned in the article.

  13. #88
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    102
    So the juno wall is the centerpeice terrain feature. It drops into a terrain trap, and is low elevation and south facing...... The snowpack will be thin and fall apart the second the sun hits it. It looks cool, but like earlier posters wrote, it is only safely skiable a few weeks a year. Seems like north facing terrain at elevation works better to ski on or am I miising something? Is there anything like that on Turnagin? Is there a representative from the MRA that could explain why they chose a low elevation south facing terrain feature to build their resort on?

  14. #89
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    11,541
    Quote Originally Posted by shreddacord View Post
    So the juno wall is the centerpeice terrain feature. It drops into a terrain trap, and is low elevation and south facing...... The snowpack will be thin and fall apart the second the sun hits it. It looks cool, but like earlier posters wrote, it is only safely skiable a few weeks a year. Seems like north facing terrain at elevation works better to ski on or am I miising something? Is there anything like that on Turnagin? Is there a representative from the MRA that could explain why they chose a low elevation south facing terrain feature to build their resort on?
    what are you talking about? who said it was the centerpiece terrain feature? it's getting attention because of the perceived dangers involved. i would guess the stuff off silvertip into the block creek drainage would have better exposure and have easier access back into the "resort".
    powdork.com - new and improved, with 20% more dork.

  15. #90
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    102
    What are you talking about? Silvertip is a different mountain then where the proposed rope tow goes. It is 1500 feet higher and a mile away. The proposed rope tow drops you right on top of the top of Juno headwall. unless you ski west next to the rope tow, which is 25 degrees at best. Isn't east and north better for ski purposes? And isn't high elevation better then low elevation? Wouldn't those mid elevation rock bands be sugar factories? And wouldn't it shed from Mid march on due to sun. If the terrain into block creek is north, east, and higher then why the fuck not build a tram there? Trams are cooler then rope tows. Actually rope tows are for kids last time I checked. I mean fucking really, a chick in an avy one course fresh of the boat from Vermont would call that a dangerous as hell terrain trap and a retarted place to drop people off on.......
    It's a fucking death hole

  16. #91
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    girdweed
    Posts
    1,059
    ^^^ you sir are rather uninformed and ass-umptive, simma down francis.
    The south facing aspect is 1 option of many, obviously depending on conditions, and by no means is it the dominant terrain off the top. The entire cirque leading to the peak is the obvious terrain with 200+ degrees of aspect to chose from. The Juneau headwall is usually wind hammered and bony. Turnagain pass has tons of terrain but, for multiple factors, is not an option for development. Also, the base of Manitoba is a few hundred feet higher in elevation than the pass. Hell ya a tram to the top of silvertip, that was the original idea, then reality sunk in...
    Also, there's no beginner way down from the top.
    Last edited by AKturnanburn; 10-16-2011 at 05:09 AM.

  17. #92
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Closed Area
    Posts
    1,120
    wow. shitting on chicks, vermonters and rope tows. i can almost see the spittle on your screen.

  18. #93
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Agrestic
    Posts
    4,259
    Quote Originally Posted by powdork View Post
    who said it was the centerpiece terrain feature?
    I'd say they are since I've yet to see a picture of inbounds terrain and Powders pic is the headwall.

  19. #94
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    102
    yeah, Look at the picture, the Juno headwall is by far the main terrain feature. There is some north off the the top, small vertical and limited. No east?!?!?!!? The other thing is the headwall is low elevation and south facing.

    My question to the MRA is why not north and east at elevation? Turnagin is big with lots of options, Is this really the best zone?

    As for shitting on chicks, Vermonters, and rope tows..... Sorry chicks, I did not mean to put you in such blowdick company. I only shit on them when asked to.

  20. #95
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Tahoe
    Posts
    11,541
    Quote Originally Posted by shreddacord View Post
    yeah, Look at the picture, the Juno headwall is by far the main terrain feature. There is some north off the the top, small vertical and limited. No east?!?!?!!? The other thing is the headwall is low elevation and south facing.
    actually, you can barely see the juneau headwall in the powder pic and if you were standing at the top of the juneau headwall you could drop off south down to juneau creek, OR NORTH down to block creek.
    how have you made it to the ripe age of 13?
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Click image for larger version. 

Name:	manitoba.jpg 
Views:	249 
Size:	271.7 KB 
ID:	101517  
    powdork.com - new and improved, with 20% more dork.

  21. #96
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    8,505
    One question. Do all the people that want the things a resort type of ski area offers not qualify as skiers?

    Interesting discussion as far as it goes but claiming to speak for the "SKIERS' comes off a little strange.

  22. #97
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    102


    the whole zone faces west is low and the big headwalls face south and drop into terrain traps. The only north is to the lookers left of the rope tow. You want north or east? Good luck bootin up Silvertip.....and the ridges don't connect unless you can levitate. With all the terrain on Turnagin why west, south, and low? And the mythical coastal snowpack is just that. A myth.

  23. #98
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    GRRD
    Posts
    1,366
    Quote Originally Posted by shreddacord View Post
    So the juno wall is the centerpeice terrain feature. It drops into a terrain trap, and is low elevation and south facing...... The snowpack will be thin and fall apart the second the sun hits it. It looks cool, but like earlier posters wrote, it is only safely skiable a few weeks a year. Seems like north facing terrain at elevation works better to ski on or am I miising something? Is there anything like that on Turnagin? Is there a representative from the MRA that could explain why they chose a low elevation south facing terrain feature to build their resort on?
    I think AKTB summed it up the best. There are many aspects to choose from, depending on conditions. The elevation is relatively high and south aspects are generally skiable from November to mid march-ish. North sides are good though May.

    As you can see from the clay model and google earth image, there is a huge amount of terrain going off the east side of Silvertip towards Johnson. That is neither here nor there, the issue is the actual OB gate policy and who is rescuing who.

    As far as liability goes here's a rhetorical question: What if I park my car along the highway and tour into the mountains and get buried or hurt. Is the state liable for providing access?

  24. #99
    Join Date
    Mar 2010
    Posts
    102
    The terrain off the back of Silvertip is the only east and north and there is no way in hell you can get to it without bootin straight up that thing. As for elevation. The top of the rope tow is 3500 feet. The deep safe snow pack is above that?!?!!?? Any avy safety person will tell you juno headwall and the terrain trap is a disaster waiting to happen, again and again. This is where the rope tow drops you and regardless of liability, rescue or any other thing, why dump people on top of that thing? MRA should be looking for a north and east cirque between 3 and 5 with aprons and deep snow pack, not dropping people on top of a south facing 2000 foot headwall that dumps into a death hole with a shallow snowpack that gets huge sun effect. Has anyone asked a profesional what the logistics would be on a rescue out of there? Undoable would be the answer.

  25. #100
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    GRRD
    Posts
    1,366
    Mr. Shred, now you are just being obtuse. The obvious approach to the top of Silvertip would either be to follow the ridge on skins from top of rope tow or drop off north side and skin up the 'south and inaccessible' ridge you highlighted.

    And could you define 'low' as in elevation? Are you in Colorado, then yes, all the terrain is considered low. have you skied in Alaska through the dark of winter? Then you'd know that skiers generally seek out southern exposures because that is where the sun is! I know that sounds crazy but there are a good 4 months of the season where the sun has relatively little affect on the snow (as compared to march-may). But like mentioned before, daily observations of the conditions would be made and probably posted somewhere with strong suggestions of where to ski or not to ski.

    That is another issue with Alyeska, the entire mountain is in the shade of max's for several months and it is annoying.

    And if it came down to it, the 210th Mountain Division is pretty good at what they do

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •