Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

It all depends on the prevailing rhetoric. 

You're dodging around here and overlooking my point with your (newly discovered) "it depends" POV.

Hmmm, can you point me to something where SOC, specifically, has done what you claim above?

Can you please point out where my contributions have been almost all conjecture?  

Here are some facts for you:

- The proposal includes selling public land to a private concern for development.  

- The proposal would bifurcate public lands

- The proposed tram would affect the viewshed.

- The proposal would impact the current use of the land by the public.

- The forest service opposes the proposal

- The Utah Ski and Snowboard Association opposes it

- Salt Lake City water officials, conservation groups and the mayors of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County have raised objections to the proposal.

That would be more than one fact.  For the record, all of those make the proposal seem like a negative thing to me.  But I'm open to other-than-conjecture discussion.  

I hope you're learning something from all this.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobMc 

 

 

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

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

 

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. 

My observations are based on length of season not on inches of snow.  Until they devise a way to charge people by the inch instead of by the day or hour Utah's seasons and income will continue to be more "mediocre" regardless of if they can get 20 feet of snow in a month or not.  Nobody with any brains is booking anything there before late January now.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

 

It all depends on the prevailing rhetoric. If you have a situation like right now where the rhetoric is charged in one direction due to statements made by select interest groups, then going against the grain risks what I said. If you are in a situation where the debate could be based on facts and issues rather than hearsay--which is all the proof either side has put forward so far--then this risk does not exist on the scale I stated.

 

Is this going to increase or decrease the amount of influence that the LDS has over the overall ski and apres ski scene there?  I'd think that 7 independents would likely offer a lot more diversity than one megga resort would.

This gets pretty tiresome.  Lots of wildlife likes disruption.  Whether by avalanche, forest fire (which is a natural process) or cutting trees down for infrastructure such as lifts, or for that matter logging roads.  Everything from wildflowers to some types of birds (both game birds and raptors) do much better in disrupted pieces of forest than in monolithic, mature stands of trees.  I'm not saying, nor are any of the enviro types I'm referring to saying, that cutting down trees willy-nilly is a good thing, or that construction in high alpine areas above treelines necessarily provides the same offsetting benefits that cutting a few trees within a forest does, but those benefits, overall, are there.  No different from going out with a dog and seeing what the dog turns up along the edges of a slidepath, versus deep in the woods -- the slide path will hold a lot more wildlife along the edges, while deep in the woods can be a sleepy place.

As for all the continued requests that I "name names" of people who think the interconnect would be cool, it continues to underscore the e-intimidation and even potential e-stalking dynamic going on here.  Lots of people think lift-served skiing is cool, including lift-served skiing in the Wasatch.  Want me to name names to support that statement, too?   

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

This gets pretty tiresome. 

I apologize for asking you to back up your broad (IMO & IME unsupportable) assertions.  I'm just looking for something to mitigate my disbelief.  If it gets too tiresome please move on.  It's just the internet.  

Well, there's disruption and there's disruption.  Forest fires and avalanches don't leave loud people-populated machinery And development in place.  Fires in particular leave sprouts and ash pits that some wildlife find attractive.  This isn't the case with lifts and development.

Actually, not everything.  There are a lot of species that do best in climax ecosystems but don't do well in transitional ones.  You misunderstand ecosystem progression.  FWIW, I have a strong background in natural resources - forestry degree+32 years in federal land management agencies.  

Cheatgrass and invasive non-native species often do well in human-disturbed ecosystems.  Disturbance in and of itself is not necessarily a good thing.  Some types are much, much better than others.  

  You don't have to get all martyr-like on me.  I just said that your "a lot of people support this, I just can't name them" isn't winning me over.  And those sentences I bolded are so...I don't often see you playing such a weak hand here.  Did you read that definition of straw man arguments that I linked?  

You're sounding pretty paranoid. I haven't seen an iota of "e-intimidation" or "e-stalking" "here". All I've seen is a pretty good discussion with two rather polar sides. For the most, it's even been civil, if a bit heated. In fact, you yourself said we'd need to Google to find evidence, which means it doesn't exist here.

You really can't say that there is a "large group of supporters," without showing some evidence of that. Hiding behind some perceived e-lynching that only you seem aware of doesn't really make your argument any stronger. I don't think anybody wants a list of names, but you should at least have some type of evidence that actual citizens (not government officials trying to look like they're doing something or corporations that will make bank) like this. Otherwise it's basically one man trying to project his own opinion to the masses.

Dude, want to find the chukar, find the cheatgrass.  It's often that simple.  I said, up above, that I'm not in favor of just cutting trees down, but the reality is you do find a greater density of wildlife in disturbed areas.  Unfortunate fact for people predicting the end of the world from a lift, but fact nonetheless.  Ask people who look for birds where you find them, even for blue or spruce grouse, it ain't in the deep dark forest.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

It all depends on the prevailing rhetoric. 

You're dodging around here and overlooking my point with your (newly discovered) "it depends" POV.

 

Quote:

However, SOC and others have created an environment where being associated with being for this issue is considered not a matter of merely opinion on the parties involved, but one where it is considered highly offensive to be associated with the other side. 

 

Hmmm, can you point me to something where SOC, specifically, has done what you claim above?

 

Quote:

And yes my contributions have been almost all conjecture. So have yours...

 

Can you please point out where my contributions have been almost all conjecture?  

 

Quote:

Until actual facts about this are released almost everything in this thread is conjecture other than the initial post about how the state legislature passed a motion of support for linking the resorts and the seven areas did not dissent against the plan. That is pretty much the only fact we have right now. 

 

Here are some facts for you:

- The proposal includes selling public land to a private concern for development.  

- The proposal would bifurcate public lands

- The proposed tram would affect the viewshed.

- The proposal would impact the current use of the land by the public.

- The forest service opposes the proposal

- The Utah Ski and Snowboard Association opposes it

- Salt Lake City water officials, conservation groups and the mayors of Salt Lake City and Salt Lake County have raised objections to the proposal.

 

That would be more than one fact.  For the record, all of those make the proposal seem like a negative thing to me.  But I'm open to other-than-conjecture discussion.  

 

 

I hope you're learning something from all this.  

 

I have learned that I am incorrect in some of my assumptions, and I apologize. Carry on with the debate sans my under-informed opinion. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

 

 

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

 

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. 

 

 

 

My observations are based on length of season not on inches of snow.  Until they devise a way to charge people by the inch instead of by the day or hour Utah's seasons and income will continue to be more "mediocre" regardless of if they can get 20 feet of snow in a month week or not.  Nobody with any brains is booking anything there before late January now.

 

They opened in mid-November and were still skiing on the 4th of July last winter. So far this winter is a bit of an anomaly (at least there, here in PA its becoming a pattern of more rain and less if any snow).

It would be interesting to have concurrent poll along this discussion with simple question : Should there be lift connection between Utah's 7 ski resorts?

Just curious ... My unofficial count so far shows that "no way" group is in a slight majority to a "go for it group". This could be a good quasi-poll since this site is frequented by "real skiers". 6:5 or so, anyway-too close to call. 

TGR is something like 90%-10% in favor of "no way". I guess those people are no "real skiers" (?).

Borat eats chukar and smokes cheatgrass.

One thing that turning 7 independents in to one giant entity does is reduce competition and increase potential for monopoly exploitation.  Say they decide to charge $150.00 for lift tickets and black out season passes Dec 25-Jan 2, MLK, and President's weekends?  If there weren't several other comparable places still open within the area that might be a pretty realistic concern.

Quote:

Originally Posted by crgildart 

One thing that turning 7 independents in to one giant entity does is reduce competition and increase potential for monopoly exploitation.  Say they decide to charge $150.00 for lift tickets and black out season passes Dec 25-Jan 2, MLK, and President's weekends?  If there weren't several other comparable places still open within the area that might be a pretty realistic concern.

I don't believe the plan is to make it one entity. More like the current deal between Snowbird and Alta.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tylrwnzl 

 

They opened in mid-November and were still skiing on the 4th of July last winter. So far this winter is a bit of an anomaly (at least there, here in PA its becoming a pattern of more rain and less if any snow).

IIRC, they weren't open anywhere near 100% in Nov-Dec of 2010.  It didn't used to be a problem to find Utah and Colorado resorts 100% open in early December. And, that was before western resorts invested in snow making infrastructure.   It is now the exception to the rule.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 


ROTFL. There's a lot more to it than birds, isn't there? Especially at ski area elevations. And what native species do the invasive species - both avian and mammalian - displace? <-Valid question for true wildland advocates. If, to name an example, catfish replace trout after a dam is built is that desirable? I notice you don't mention the displacement of native perennial grasses and mammals and the increase in fire danger that cheatgrass brings with it. Read any Aldo Leopold?
And to be correct, you do not always, or even mostly, find greater wildlife concentrations in human-disturbed areas. Yours is a perfect example of a little knowledge being dangerous. You should stop reaching.

I don't know that chukar really are displacing much of anything for a good bit of their habitat, even if they aren't from this neck of the woods originally.  In some parts of UT and NV, chukar and other non-native species may compete with each other.  As far as catfish versus trout, I like 'em both.  I also can find native cutthroat very close to some of the areas in question -- not stocked populations, native strains that never left -- so it's not like the fish are hurting.  I can also find non-native rainbows, brook trout, and browns that no one wants to get rid of. 

In terms of wildlife concentration, look down at SLC on a clear day and look at all the trees, then look closer at the great diversity of wildlife around it.  Before the first settlers arrived, SLC was primarily arid grassland.  It carries a much bigger head of "wild" animals than it did before it was settled.  Same for Vegas, same for Phoenix, etc.  I think we can both agree that, if SOC had been around at the time of the first settlement of SLC, that they would have been dead-set against the place being settled, just as they are against anything being done to enhance lift-served skiing, now. 

It's not limited to the west.  There are more deer now than there were at the time the first Europeans arrived.  That includes deer being so plentiful in some areas of the east coast that they are pests.  There are probably more wild turkey now than at the time the first Europeans arrived. 

I odn't think that the interconnect is going to be particularly impactful for better or worse in terms of wildlife concentration of diversity.  But, in terms of the net effect of human disturbance, you are trying to paint a far bleaker picture than the reality jusifies. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

I don't know that chukar really are displacing much of anything for a good bit of their habitat, even if they aren't from this neck of the woods originally.  In some parts of UT and NV, chukar and other non-native species may compete with each other.  As far as catfish versus trout, I like 'em both.  I also can find native cutthroat very close to some of the areas in question -- not stocked populations, native strains that never left -- so it's not like the fish are hurting.  I can also find non-native rainbows, brook trout, and browns that no one wants to get rid of. 

  Remember a little while ago when I wrote that you were a good example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous?  The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists native cutthroat as threatened in Utah, as well as chubs, pike minnows, and suckers.    

Overlooking that being a straw man argument, let's think about why that might be - um, because the predators are all gone?  You don't have much of a knack for looking at the big picture.  Bear, wolves, cougars, ferrets, lynx and others are all hurting.  Deer are hardly a good indicator of general wildlife or habitat health.  Sage Grouse and spotted owls and other native birds are in trouble in the Great Basin.  So perhaps you might want try another tack, one that doesn't rely on cherry-picking little factoids.  

Can I take it that you concede my points about cheatgrass?

Oh, and try a little harder to drop that ad hominem thing with SOC.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

 

  Remember a little while ago when I wrote that you were a good example of how a little knowledge can be dangerous?  The US Fish and Wildlife Service lists native cutthroat as threatened in Utah, as well as chubs, pike minnows, and suckers.    ...

 

 

There was a time when biologists actually thought some of the strains of cutthroat that I'm talking about were extinct.  Then they actually thought to look for them.

They are very common -- easy to find, in large numbers, across a large part of the state.  If you like small rods, small water and fun hikes and don't mind lots of rattlesnakes, they are beautiful fish.

As it relates to a few new pieces of ski infrastructure, the exisitng ski lifts, lodging, road construction, etc. didn't have a devastating impact on, say, those trout.  I think it is pretty likely that a few new pieces likewise aren't going to hurt things.  Impact on water supply I understand is a different issue, and something that I think should be continually studied, and I have every confidence that there will in fact be an excess of study of all possible issues before anything actually gets done. 

Basically, one big problem with the official modern environmental movement here is crying "wolf" whenever someone just wants to block development for other reasons. 

Now, are you really asserting that a few new pieces of ske area infrastructure, anywhere, are going to devastate the rapidly expanding wolf population, or the elk or bear, or say the incredibly plentiful coyotes, when you talk about predator populations?  How bout Sage Grouse?  I'm sure you know that it is natural for bird populations to fluctuate very widely for reasons completely unrelated to human activity, and grouse species do this just like all the others.

As far as mentioning Spotted Owls, that's very telling.  Concern over Spotted Owls in Oregon obviously cause thed devastation of economies and whole communities tied to logging in the PNW.  With all the human cost that comes when the economic backbone of an area is taken away quickly.  That was one hell of an oopser, wasn't it?  Turns out the Spotted Owl in the PNW is being outcompeted by the Barred Owl.  All those Dads put out of work as loggers for nothing.  Environmentalists have a horrible track record on these things.  But the point then was more Logger Bad than it was actually studying an issue. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

There was a time when biologists actually thought some of the strains of cutthroat that I'm talking about were extinct.  Then they actually thought to look for them.

 

They are very common -- easy to find, in large numbers, across a large part of the state.  If you like small rods, small water and fun hikes and don't mind lots of rattlesnakes, they are beautiful fish.

Hey, my favorite fishing here in NM is for Rio Grande cuts way up the mountains with my 7'6" buggy whip...but the fact remains that, unlike you wrote, the fish seem to be hurting in UT.  

The issue was that you claimed the PC project could have some benefits for wildlife and I asked you to name some.  Still not seeing any, but I'm waiting.  And I was addressing your odd comments about deer in the east and cutthroats.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cirquerider 

 

Well, in the context I was writing I think that's a stretch, but point taken.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

 

Hey, my favorite fishing here in NM is for Rio Grande cuts way up the mountains with my 7'6" buggy whip...but the fact remains that, unlike you wrote, the fish seem to be hurting in UT.  

 

 

The issue was that you claimed the PC project could have some benefits for wildlife and I asked you to name some.  Still not seeing any, but I'm waiting.  And I was addressing your odd comments about deer in the east and cutthroats.  

 

 

Well, in the context I was writing I think that's a stretch, but point taken.  

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today it has completed a status review of the Bonneville cutthroat trout, a fish found primarily in Utah and parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Nevada in the Bonneville Basin, and has determined it does not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.

Based on a thorough review of all available information and peer review comments, the Service concluded that viable, self-sustaining Bonneville cutthroat trout populations are well distributed throughout its historic range and are being restored or protected in all currently occupied watersheds."  http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/08-55.htm

They are doing fine. 

Again, environmental concerns are often over-hyped. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

"The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service announced today it has completed a status review of the Bonneville cutthroat trout, a fish found primarily in Utah and parts of Wyoming, Idaho and Nevada in the Bonneville Basin, and has determined it does not warrant listing as a threatened or endangered species under the Endangered Species Act.

Based on a thorough review of all available information and peer review comments, the Service concluded that viable, self-sustaining Bonneville cutthroat trout populations are well distributed throughout its historic range and are being restored or protected in all currently occupied watersheds."  http://www.fws.gov/mountain-prairie/pressrel/08-55.htm

 

They are doing fine. 

There are cuts and there are cuts.  The Lahontan cutthroat are still listed:

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=UT&s8fid=112761032792&s8fid=112762573902

As are cherry-picked assurances.   Although I caught some grief for this, I still think you should try to work on the big picture instead of focusing on factoids.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

 

There are cuts and there are cuts.  The Lahontan cutthroat are still listed:

http://ecos.fws.gov/tess_public/pub/stateListingAndOccurrenceIndividual.jsp?state=UT&s8fid=112761032792&s8fid=112762573902

 

 

As are cherry-picked assurances.   Although I caught some grief for this, I still think you should try to work on the big picture instead of focusing on factoids.  

 

We're drifting away from the problems posed by the PC tram proposal.  

 

Yes and if we were talking about trout populations in NV, which is the center of the old Lake Lahontan drainage, worrying about Lahontan cuts would be appropriate.  I realize that you likely just don't know the different populations and weren't being intentionally misleading in talking about cuts in UT being endangered or threatened, but it again shows that environmental fears are often over-hyped.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahontan_cutthroat_trout  The lahontan cuts are not native to UT, though they are found there.  So, let's not be too concerned about cuts in UT.  Concerned about whirling disease and other issues faced by all trout, yes, but the cuts in UT are doing fine.  The Colorado cuts in some portions of the state aren't quite as broadly established as the Bonnevilles (which themselves have lots of substrains) , but they are doing well also.

I don't think we are drifting away from the problems posed by the PC tram proposal.  In addition to the fairly open intimidation tactics, that have already been discussed, there's a lot of talk of environmental this and that.  As we have just seen, it's real easy to shout environmental alarms, but the facts often don't support them.  I do see a need for a thorough envirnomental review, but I also see that "antis" will try to abuse that process.  ALthough, if SOC wants to hold a Lahontan cut fundraiser, more power to them. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Yes and if we were talking about trout populations in NV, which is the center of the old Lake Lahontan drainage, worrying about Lahontan cuts would be appropriate.  I realize that you likely just don't know the different populations and weren't being intentionally misleading in talking about cuts in UT being endangered or threatened, but it again shows that environmental fears are often over-hyped.  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lahontan_cutthroat_trout  The lahontan cuts are not native to UT, though they are found there.  So, let's not be too concerned about cuts in UT.  Concerned about whirling disease and other issues faced by all trout, yes, but the cuts in UT are doing fine.  The Colorado cuts in some portions of the state aren't quite as broadly established as the Bonnevilles (which themselves have lots of substrains) , but they are doing well also.

  Looking back, you said, "it's not like the fish are hurting" and I posted references to fish that were hurting.  Fine though, we'll let the people that read this be the judge of how to view that.  

And we'll also have have to let the readers be the judge of this.  I called you on your use of as hominem, as well as your vague and broad over- and misstatements such as possible benefits to wildlife, and everything doing much better in disruption, and possible meaningful recreational benefits for locals.  I think your assertion of open intimidation tactics is bullshit too.  But hey, in the interests of a balanaced POV, you don't suppose the "pros" would try to abuse the review process?    

No.  What I said was,  "I also can find native cutthroat very close to some of the areas in question -- not stocked populations, native strains that never left -- so it's not like the fish are hurting. I can also find non-native rainbows, brook trout, and browns that no one wants to get rid of."  As people can read, up above.

Someone not familiar with the local environment in UT could think that Lahontan cuts are local fish.  I get that.  It's not overall a big deal.  Trying to insist that they're local fish, when they're clearly not, and when I was clearly refering to local fish, is by contrast symptomatic of the enormous bullshit that seems to surround environmental concerns. 

So, groovy, no interconnect  because of the plight of the Lahontan cutthroats that are living -- and slowly being restored in some places -- quite a drive away in NV and some parts of OR, etc.  If the point is to argue against something without concern for actual facts, then that's good enough. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

...So, groovy, no interconnect  because of the plight of the Lahontan cutthroats that are living -- and slowly being restored in some places -- quite a drive away in NV and some parts of OR, etc.  If the point is to argue against something without concern for actual facts, then that's good enough. 

  Well, if we don't focus on the minutia and rabbit trails that you've led us down, then we can see that the discussion is about whether environmental concerns are legitimate or not.  That leap of logic and/or putting words in my mouth is impressive though, and perhaps it makes sense to you but it's an absurd twist of the discussion.  

You made some claims that I thought were absurd:

And wrote something I found misleading, comparing forest fires and avalanches to development:

And you defended these by bringing up isolated species and getting all reductio ad absurdum.  Now you're claiming that I want Lahontan trout status to stop the PC proposal.  That hardly shows concern for the actual facts.  

Lots of enviornmental back and forth in this discussion so far, but I have yet to see any business plan to justify it-I'm curious to see if that data exists. My backround: I made my second trip to Utah in March, but as my daughter and her family moved to SLC in January (W. Jordan to be specific), I foresee spending a lot of time skiing in Utah in the future-possibly even a winter place out there.

Here's a few questions and thoughts:

1.Brought up before, but what about tickets and passes? I haven't been able to find anything like the CO epic pass or the Copper/WP/Steamboat pass, so how will this work? Given the current land dispute between PCMR and Talisker/Canyons cooperation seems an unlikely event.

2. Who's going to use it? Seems like the main emphasis is to get Park City visitors to BCC and LCC. How long will it take to get there? I can't see Mom and Dad gathering up the young ones from their condo, taking two or three trams/chairs/ gondolas and making their way to Alta or Snowbird.Yep, they might do it once to say they did it, but every day-doubtful. Is the typical Park City visitor someone who is attracted to the higher level skiing at the LCC resorts? Any projected ideas as far as skier traffic on the interconnect?

3. Seems to do nothing for the visitor who stays in the SLC/suburbs proper. One of the attractions of Utah skiing is access-not having to stay at a particular mountain (unlike much of CO). I don't see how this will benefit any of them-no one is going to drive up any of the canyons and take the interconnect to another area.I guess the case could be made about driving to Park City and taking it to Alta/Snowbird if the canyon road is closed, but will it actually happen?

Bottom line-does it make any kind of business sense or is it just a grand scheme with no real value and the potential to despoil more of the mountains? Until I see realistic projections, I'm a skeptic.

Is there still people who live no where near the Wasatch fighting to prove this is such an awesome thing while locals say differently? Ah yah.....thought so. I would say that if you don't live there, then your opinion counts for very little.

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecimmortal 

Is there still people who live no where near the Wasatch fighting to prove this is such an awesome thing while locals say differently? Ah yah.....thought so. I would say that if you don't live there, then your opinion counts for very little.

Normally true, but considering its federal land it means locals have as much say in its use as those of us that live 2000 miles away.