Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts

http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php/227668-the-Wasatch-s-new-worst-enemy-TALISKER?highlight=Talisker

This post refers to a proposed tram from The Canyons to Solitude. There are other posts on TGR on the same subject.

Of course the resorts are behind this; it does nothing but benefit all of them. They could market something that no one else in the country has.

I've worked in the state legislature (not in UT). "Resolutions" like this are barely worth the paper they're written on. They're basically what the legislature does when it doesn't want to/can't do something meaningful, but still wants to look like it's doing something. In this case, it looks like the State of Utah really has no say in the matter, being that it's a town, county and federal (USFS) ordeal. Notice there's no actual money or bureaucratic actions involved in that piece of fluff. Not impressive.

After a couple of back to back mediocre seasons I suspect they all believe it is better to join forces and try to succeed as a large group than fail as smaller individuals.  OK I know that the climate and weather isn't bad enough to destroy their primary industry yet.  But, things could be better down that way for sure.  Anybody here thinking that December or early January Utah trips are a good idea lately?  I suspect it will be within our lifetime that Utah's season will be February-April.

This is a no brainer. It's been talked about for years.
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

After a couple of back to back mediocre seasons I suspect they all believe it is better to join forces and try to succeed as a large group than fail as smaller individuals.  OK I know that the climate and weather isn't bad enough to destroy their primary industry yet.  But, things could be better down that way for sure.  Anybody here thinking that December or early January Utah trips are a good idea lately?  I suspect it will be within our lifetime that Utah's season will be February-April.

Random prediction. December and January definitely aren't money in the bank for booking a trip in advance, but they're not really bad either. I've seen plenty of storms in both months, and a couple in November.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

After a couple of back to back mediocre seasons I suspect they all believe it is better to join forces and try to succeed as a large group than fail as smaller individuals.

Umm, most resorts were over or near 700 inches last season (10-11).  I'd hardly call that mediocre.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

After a couple of back to back mediocre seasons I suspect they all believe it is better to join forces and try to succeed as a large group than fail as smaller individuals. 

You realize Snowbird and Alta had all time record snowfalls last year. Not only broke the record they shattered it. Snowbird IIRC had 92" more than the previous record. 

high speed rail in a loop serving the resorts and SLC, Park City and elevating it over the roads (less impact due to snow dumps) in the big/little canyons would allow Ski Utah to promote hotels, conference centers, downtown etc to it's fullest! This would help Olympic prospects.   yeah, that's the ticket!  otherwise build up some roadways up the mountains, sell some prime land for some development to offset costs! 

Seriously though, seems it's been said before, roads, lifts, etc .. Wasn't a less complicated (permits, land usage, etc) tram suggested (tried but failed) for Snow Basin to Ogden?

The economy isn't going anywhere? That's funny, coulda sworn that thing was cyclical.

A lot of assumptions in there. Here's another for you: The FL orthopedic surgeon probably doesn't want to spend half a day and five lifts to get from PC to his resort of choice. If they do this (which is still a big IF), it'd had better make sense on the ground, not just in analytical, snow job fluff.

Local sentiment (mostly) has been for this for years. Alta-Bird was a big success. Brighton is just over the hill from the top of Park City and you can hit Alta with a rock from Brighton. This is a no brainer and the additional environmental impact of adding a couple gondolas and lifts would seem, at first look, to be minimal. These resorts practically share a rope line as it is. It would be, in a word, awesome.

 Utah is 2/3 federal land, much of it wilderness (or desert where the Air Force blows #@$% up). This seems like prudent stewardship of existing recreational acreage. The Euros seem to do it well, I'm sure we can follow their example.

That pro local sentiment is an exaggeration at best. I'm sure much of Park City is for it, but I doubt the same is true on the other side of the ridge - unless maybe they're going to keep it running until 2 a.m. to service the nightlife scene. There's plenty of opposition as well as support.

The only people this really benefits is PC residents and visitors. At least it benefits them on paper - I'd be surprised if it didn't cause overcrowding issues in PC if/when implemented. It's hard enough to find a parking spot there now. Don't see much advantage for Cottonwood skiers or Valley residents. If I skied LCC or BCC regularly during the prime season, I'd shudder at the idea of PC tourists being dumped in every day.

Whatever, hopefully if they pursue it, it will at least make sense (not like the five-lift Canyons debacle). And they'd do well to stop treating everyone like brainless idiots with their transparent 'traffic benefits' and the like. Just sell it like it is: a skier's Disney World for wealthy, spoiled, fickle tourists that just must have it all.

If the state wants tourism dollars so bad, maybe it should unshackle state and church once and for all and bring liquor laws into the 21st century. I'm quite sure that Utah's weird, church-state image is more damaging to ski tourism than the lack of gondolas between canyons.

wow,

that'd be quite the resort system ... I don't back country ski but it would certainly be amazing to see, in a somewhat sad way.  I won't pretend to be against such wild dreaming but on the initial level, just don't "feel" it bringing in enough traffic (pun too) to cover the added manning, grooming, avi control, etc for such wide coverage.

I suppose from the map, one can play a pc meal game and try out segments, but seems too that at least a few resorts are quite user dedicated.  I recall Brighton being quite local in support, would it really benefit from such a plan?  I personally liked Brighton quite a bit simply for it's night skiing, was quite fun. 

Map too, I knew they were all "just over the hill" but didn't realize how really amazingly close they were.  No wonder back country folks would go against any such plans.  Amazing gift of an area!

There is a thread on Park City and their lease ..... how all this factors into the deal seems could be interesting.

Last time out in SLC, wife and I could barely explore a resort in a given day, we plotted to visit one every day and having not previously visited, just touched the surface of each resort for the 6 hrs or so skiing each day. 

This will be interesting to follow ...  population in SLC exploded, maybe there is sufficient population and travel to support such expansion, my folks house was country 30 yrs ago, today it's a development ..

This is kinda true- To his credit, John Huntsman, when he was governor, worked closely with the owners of High West Distillery to clear the red tape to get that established. Without his help, no way would they be bottling and selling whiskey on Park Avenue in P.C.  I learned a lot in my brief and  highly educational brush with Summit county politics. Regardless of the church,  be the leaders Jewish, Catholic or whatever, they will listen carefully to all public input, nod sagely, and then do exactly what they and the developers want.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

Some compelling discussion against the project from a local:

"For the record, I’m not opposed the idea of linking all the resorts together, but I think it has to be done in the least  obtrusive way possible to begin with to see if tourists even care, which I suspect they won’t. I’ve done the SkiUtah Interconnect once, which is was enough to understand why it is affectionately known as “The SkiUtah Disconnect.”  After finding out it takes all day to ride lifts to and from Alta and the Canyons, the thrill will be gone but the chairlift bedsores will remain."

I agree. 

Before they go and build a bunch of lifts, they should focus on getting the resorts to work out lift ticket agreements.  Deer Valley and PCMR have shared a border for thirty years and they haven't been able to figure one out yet?

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

...This is one huge win-win for the ski areas and the tourists, although environmental groups like Save Our Canyons don't see it that way.  It is a massive win for Utah.  ...

And yet, I read where 90% of locals are opposed to the project:

http://thegoat.backcountry.com/2012/03/15/a-tour-of-the-proposed-talisker-skilink-in-utah/

And the forest service also opposes it:

http://saveourcanyons.org/news/uinta_wasatch_cache_national_forest/forest_officials_oppose_solitude_canyons_skilink_gondola/12

The plan calls for selling forest service land to Talisker, which, according to the Salt Lake Tribune, raises objections from "Salt Lake City water officials, conservation groups and the mayors of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County,": 

http://saveourcanyons.org/news/uinta_wasatch_cache_national_forest/canyons_releases_gondoloa_studies_skeptics_not_sold/121211

The New York Times wrote: 

http://saveourcanyons.org/news/uinta_wasatch_cache_national_forest/proposed_gondola_would_link_utah_ski_resorts/121011

The Wasatch is probably the highest-use backcountry ski area in the US.  That should count for something.  The almighty dollar gained at any cost should not dictate what happens on public land.  "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow."

I'd like to see you go back and respond to the links I posted from straightchuter.com above.  

Enough of your oversimplified, one-sided nonsense. It's not a huge win for everyone, unless you're just drinking everything Talisker and co. are shoveling without using a brain cell. It's not all loss, either, unless you're a 100 percent backcountry skier or a non-skiing environmental type that wants to keep the status quo.

What it is a big cluster f#$@ that will probably do some good, some bad and some indifferent for the industry and the state as a whole. I'm guessing it'll help ski tourism, with the biggest spike in the short term, but not nearly as much as the rhetoric-filled smoke that Talisker is successfully blowing up some people's backsides. The only interests that it's a massive benefit for are the resort industry and those politicians/citizens that don't ever step foot in the CCs and are all over whatever extra revenue they can get their hands on.

You know, when I was in Poli Sci 101, I really didn't understand politics as defined as "who gets what, when and how." But examples like this illustrate why that somewhat vague definition is quite perfect. This is a struggle between a variety of interests. Talisker and other resorts want to expand and make money. Backcountry skiers want their terrain left alone. Environmentalists want to protect the watershed and wildlife. Hikers and other users want to maintain the sanctity of the trails, forests and mountains. Some Utahns want the extra revenue. Politicians want to look like they're doing something for the state's economy and their latest scheme - the vapory Olympic bid that seems conceived just as another excuse for the SkiLink - while (possibly) doing more for their own personal economy. Everyone has a stake, and there'll be winners, losers and indifferents, but it sure as hell isn't a "massive win" for everyone. You'd have a little more credibility if you'd recognize that and quit regurgitating whatever you read from Talisker's latest press release.

Also this thing has nothing to do with summer tourism, and there are much better ways to promote that than by building a bunch of lifts that no one cares about after April. I'm not sure what summer visitation is like at ski resorts, but I'm guessing it pales in comparison to the three NPs that bring in well over a million visitors a year, mostly spring through fall.

Why would he bother when he could just disappear for another two weeks and resurface to link the latest Talisker fluff?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

...This is one huge win-win for the ski areas and the tourists, although environmental groups like Save Our Canyons don't see it that way.  It is a massive win for Utah.  ...

 

And yet, I read where 90% of locals are opposed to the project:

http://thegoat.backcountry.com/2012/03/15/a-tour-of-the-proposed-talisker-skilink-in-utah/

 

[SNIP]

 

The Wasatch is probably the highest-use backcountry ski area in the US.  That should count for something.  The almighty dollar gained at any cost should not dictate what happens on public land.  "If the camel once gets his nose in the tent, his body will soon follow."

 

 

 

Very specific with that data. The article claims "Two studies have found that over 90% of locals are opposed to the link". What it doesn't say is that was a poll taken at a Save Our Canyons meeting or something of the like. Very rarely is 90% of an objective population agreeing on anything. I bet if you walked into downtown SLC right now and asked 100 people if they think the government should have killed Osama bin Laden you would have a tough time getting 90 people to say yes. 

Really, a "public land" argument? Lets see as backcountry it is realistically accessible to I will guess less than 2500 individuals. Sure in theory I could hike out there and ski, but you would chew me out for not having the right gear or the know how to do it--because I don't and thus stay out. If the plan goes through you open great skiing terrain to tens of thousands of skiers. And yet this is more restrictive on public land rights? If it is on federal land you still have the right to hike it and ski regardless of if its part of the resort, so they're not keeping you out (excepting perhaps avi closures). Only if you are biased toward keeping it in what is most conducive to you and not the public. 

You realize that the land in question exists outside of winter, right? The problem here isn't making public land more accessible, it's that public land is essentially being whored out for private gain. And skiers are just the tip of the iceberg in terms of the public that affects. I don't know about you, but I enjoy seeing trees and wildlife when I hike or bike, not metal towers, cables and swaths of clear-cut.

Bob Lee's saying is quite apt. If Talisker can get this through the door, next up is more public land acquisition, more development and more marginalization of open multi-use. One of the opposition pieces I read mentioned the idea of a gated condo community on Desolation Lake. Sounds absurd now, but watch Talisker desensitize the public and massage opinion with this project and a few others, and then it'll be "Well, the adjoining land is already developed, what's the harm? More tax dollars!! Here, here!!"

Also, the plan is to connect existing terrain, not open up new terrain to tens of thousands of skiers(?).

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

Very specific with that data. The article claims "Two studies have found that over 90% of locals are opposed to the link". What it doesn't say is that was a poll taken at a Save Our Canyons meeting or something of the like. Very rarely is 90% of an objective population agreeing on anything. I bet if you walked into downtown SLC right now and asked 100 people if they think the government should have killed Osama bin Laden you would have a tough time getting 90 people to say yes. 

   Dude, I have to say that their two surveys are a lot more convincing than your "I betcha..."  But whatever, the next part is where you really fall down.  

What's wrong with that?  Do you have a background in public land management?  Like decisions on how to apportion use?  Be careful here.

You've never skied bc in the Wasatch?  It's overrun.  Seriously.  

Okay, but you're just one person.  And the important thing is that you could - but if the project goes through, the area we're talking about would then be private, and running through the middle of public land.  

No, "you" don't.  It's an interconnect, not new ski terrain.  Go back and read the cited sources carefully.  

I never said - nor did anyone else that I saw - say the tram was more restrictive on public lands, just that it would cease to be public land. And you also (glaringly) missed the point that the land would pass from the public and be sold to Talisker.  It would be private, and more restricted - they could keep you off of it.  Tell ya what, c'mon back after you've read carefully.  

Again, did you miss the threats this project would pose to the watershed and continuity of public lands?  

Edit: what JoeUT said.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

Ok, I just took three surveys of myself and found a 100% disagreement with your post. There is absolutely no sourcing there. So my betcha is just as valid. How do you know the "two surveys" were not all but the same thing? 

Let's not be ridiculous, 'kay?  Look, I know some of those people and I believe they are not liars.  You seem to be saying they are liars, so I'm guessing that you don't know them.  

That doesn't seem to be the case.  You should just stop addressing this in "because usually" and "How do you know...?" generalities and conjectures and instead put forth some observations or facts.  

You seem to be unclear on the concept of private property, and you also seem to be ignoring the impact of development on wildlands.  I noted before that you don't seem to have skied bc in the Wasatch or even been there - that might explain your overlooking the impacts of development.  I think the locals have a fairly good idea of what the impacts might be.  Later in your post, you state that you have a problem with conjecture, well...

Let's review: what you said was "If the plan goes through you open great skiing terrain to tens of thousands of skiers."  That great skiing terrain is already open to all the skiers - all the tram would do is connect resorts.  It won't open any more terrain - period.  

Well, yes I would have a problem.  If you had read the opposing points of view like I suggested or even watched that video, you'd at least be aware of the impacts on the public lands.  But, speaking of conjecture, your mention of leasing is the only one I've seen in this whole long discussion.  

So, after intimating that the people opposing the project are liars, now you're saying that the federal officials charged with managing the lands aren't competent to effectively judge whether selling the land to a private concern would be detrimental.    I'm at a loss.  You seem kind of clueless here - I'm still wondering about your basis for making these kind of statements.  Let me ask again, do you have a background in land management or even any interaction with federal land managers?  Not the guy who takes your money in the campground, but natural resource management professionals?  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

 

 

Let's not be ridiculous, 'kay?  Look, I know some of those people and I believe they are not liars.  You seem to be saying they are liars, so I'm guessing that you don't know them.  

 

I'm not saying they're liars, I'm saying their so called studies prove nothing unless they actually present some data. Who was surveyed, what were they asked? For instance if they asked "Do you oppose Talisker destroying the Wasatch?" of course you are going to get 90%. I'm simply pointing out that an unsourced line in an article by a non-objective party is not authoritative.

 

That doesn't seem to be the case.  You should just stop addressing this in "because usually" and "How do you know...?" generalities and conjectures and instead put forth some observations or facts. 

 

Its kinda how internet forums work. We sit around BSing about ideas and conjecture. If we didn't there would be very little to discuss.

 

You seem to be unclear on the concept of private property, and you also seem to be ignoring the impact of development on wildlands.  I noted before that you don't seem to have skied bc in the Wasatch or even been there - that might explain your overlooking the impacts of development.  I think the locals have a fairly good idea of what the impacts might be.  Later in your post, you state that you have a problem with conjecture, well...

 

I have skied backcountry, but not in the Wasatch. I will also admit it was on the East Coast and not too gnarly. However I have skied the Wasatch inbounds about a half dozen times. Again the locals do, but we do not actually have a reliable number to see if they agree or disagree with it. 

 

 

Let's review: what you said was "If the plan goes through you open great skiing terrain to tens of thousands of skiers."  That great skiing terrain is already open to all the skiers - all the tram would do is connect resorts.  It won't open any more terrain - period.  

 

What makes my argument so hard to understand. The gondola does open more terrain. Lets just look at the Alta/Bird connection as an example. Before they were connected if you skied at Alta you did not have access to the terrain at Snowbird without hiking or driving over to Snowbird and getting a separate ticket. The actual amount of terrain is not expanded (much), but the area that is effectively open to the skiers at either resort now is. More terrain is opened to skiers because now they have access without having to pack up and drive to another area. 

 

 

Well, yes I would have a problem.  If you had read the opposing points of view like I suggested or even watched that video, you'd at least be aware of the impacts on the public lands.  But, speaking of conjecture, your mention of leasing is the only one I've seen in this whole long discussion.  

 

I did read the articles, although passed on the video. What I was getting at with my initial discussion is that public land does not mean protected land. Yes it will have an impact. Some people don't like change, some people do. Some Federal land is kept completely devoid of development while other parts are developed so the public can get more use from them.

 

So, after intimating that the people opposing the project are liars, now you're saying that the federal officials charged with managing the lands aren't competent to effectively judge whether selling the land to a private concern would be detrimental.    I'm at a loss.  You seem kind of clueless here - I'm still wondering about your basis for making these kind of statements.  Let me ask again, do you have a background in land management or even any interaction with federal land managers?  Not the guy who takes your money in the campground, but natural resource management professionals?

 

I didn't say they were incompetent and even admitted they know more about it than I do. However as has been pointed out in that article they haven't actually done a study to determine what the impact will be. If I pee on a tree when I'm hiking that impacts the watershed too, but its minimal. They won't know what the impact will be until they actually do a study. Stating that it will have an impact is obvious, they have not made any statement of how significant that impact will be.

 

I took a year long course on environmental science that covered watersheds, land development, and conservationism. I have interaction with federal land managers. I went bushwhacking through the jungles of Costa Rica with one a few months ago. 

 

Also I think it should be added that I really don't know whether or not this is a good idea. That's all I'm highlighting. I just get tired of the "corporations are all evil don't let them do anything" group spawning as much propaganda as the corporations marketing department does. All I am saying is that until there is actual research done--not educated guesses by land managers, not informal polls by environmentalists, not marketing BS from Talisker, and not tax revenue generation support from the Governors office--then I will see whether or not it is a good idea.