Utah Legislature Pushing to Link 7 Resorts - Page 4

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

 ...

 

The general population is mostly for the idea or is mostly against the idea.  This is all hogwash.  I have not seen a formal poll other than a small online click-and-see poll in the Deseret News (currently 55% in favor  of Skilink and 42% against).  IMHO this small poll should be viewed with caution since anyone can log on to vote (e.g., someone from out of state), people can vote several times, or a pro or con group can have all its members flood the poll votes that do not reflect the general population.  I have not seen a poll to predict if the general population considers this a political issue (with the population expected to vote along party lines).

 

Just to add to this, there is focus on here, understandably, on skiing, but the effect of MTB access issues is also a big local driver.  To sort of sum up, SOC has not been a big friend of MTB access in the area, so a lot of people who might normally be sympathetic, socially and culturally, to SOC's positions are at best leery of them, and inclined to think something like Skilink is a good alternative. 

Why would mountain bikers support the Interconnect just out of spite or distrust of SOC? That's a drastic oversimplification if I've read one. Bikers (along with all summer users) should be among the most watchful of this proposal. Unless privatizing land in the middle of national forest and stringing lifts over some of northern UT's most popular and scenic trails is somehow beneficial to biking.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

Why would mountain bikers support the Interconnect just out of spite or distrust of SOC? That's a drastic oversimplification if I've read one. Bikers (along with all summer users) should be among the most watchful of this proposal. Unless privatizing land in the middle of national forest and stringing lifts over some of northern UT's most popular and scenic trails is somehow beneficial to biking.

If you want a flowchart, it goes sort of like SOC anti MTB interests over a period of years and working to kill trails  >>>> to  MTBers looking for other partners to preserve trails and access.  As I am sure you already know.

That's a bit different than supporting Interconnect just to spite SOC, as your original claim implied.

Also, different political issues make for different sets of allies and enemies. As I'm sure you already know.

Quote:

Originally Posted by quant2325 

 

Skilink website (arguments for the SkiLink):  http://www.shilink.com   

 

Freudian link?

http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/truenature/truenature0601.html  "By ...opening up new wildlife habitat, avalanches boost the diversity of plant, insect, and animal species...“[slide paths] are biological hot spots in the landscape,”..."

I thought about this point again while doing more bird recon -- patches of different habitat existing together tend to be much more diverse, and either recent big slides or recent logging activity can be a key to determining where many bird species may be located, and in how great a number. 

Installing lift infrastructure, in particular cutting a lift corridor, is quite similar to an artificial slidepath.  Now, the Wasatch is not lacking in natural slidepaths, so it is true both that it doesn't necessarily need another one, and that it also can tolerate quite well the disruption resulting from all those slides (and from all the existing ski area infrastructure). 

Basically, don't believe the environmental alarmist hype. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

...Installing lift infrastructure, in particular cutting a lift corridor, is quite similar to an artificial slidepath. ...

  Well, except that avalanche paths don't have machinery and roads and infrastructure and tons of people running down the length of them or development like resorts and housing built next to them.  

I would put it differently - basically, don't believe deceptive developer bullshit. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

  Well, except that avalanche paths don't have machinery and roads and infrastructure and tons of people running down the length of them or development like resorts and housing built next to them.  

 

 

I would put it differently - basically, don't believe deceptive developer bullshit. 

Uhh...SkiLink involves condos or lodges in that bc corridor?  News to me. 

Again, don't believe the envrionmental alarmist hype. 

In reality, an issue in, say, PC, UT, is teaching the kids how to deal with the normal wildlife interactions, because of how wildlife-rich the area is.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V_N9yXDesDo&feature=related  this is fun because it relates to an actively used and maintained trail, but backyards there are also full of a surprising array of critters.  As in, backyards in developed areas, with roads and fences and all that, which the SkiLink would not be.

Ask a red-tailed hawk hunting along a slide path, or lift corridor, or road, if it cares which type of corridor it's utilizing. 

Ask the birds who work into a meadow after it's mowed, and the ones who work into a natural clearing.

Don't believe the hype.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Uhh...SkiLink involves condos or lodges in that bc corridor?  News to me. 

 Read much?  I wrote: "or development like resorts and housing built next to them."  

Seriously?  You're comparing a hiking/biking trail with no machinery over/in it  and non-continuous traffic to a tram lift and associated development?   

Talk about 'don't believe the hype.'

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 Read much?  I wrote: "or development like resorts and housing built next to them."  

 

 

 

Seriously?  You're comparing a hiking/biking trail with no machinery over/in it  and non-continuous traffic to a tram lift and associated development?   

 

Talk about 'don't believe the hype.'

 

 

 

Do you have any idea what SkiLink is supposed to be?  A gondola.  That's it.  No lodge, no condos, no additional facilities.  No one is talking about building resorts and housing next to the gondola. 

No, virtually everyone here skis or rides lift-served.  Someone who, say, patrols lift-served terrain at a resort is intimately involved in the operations of something -- a ski resort -- that has a far larger footprint than the proposed gondola.  So they should know better than to scream the sky is falling because a gondola might get built a few hundred miles from them. 

Now, someone reading your posts could get the idea that what is being talked about is in fact a major ski area expansion, with resorts and housing and such.  That of course would be hugely misleading -- no new subdivisions, lodges, condos, or other similar facilities are planned.  This is symbolic of how people try to conjure grave environmental fears when nothing of the kind is warranted.

As for the MTB trail, a MTB trail, with regular ground-level traffic, and a lift, with intermittent gondolas passing overhead, both are things that wildlife get used to real fast.  People who ski regularly get to see all sorts of things from lifts -- I've seen moose, elk, mule deer, whitetails, and all sorts of other things, sitting in a chair on a moving lift. 

Don't believe the hype.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Do you have any idea what SkiLink is supposed to be?  A gondola.  That's it.  No lodge, no condos, no additional facilities.  No one is talking about building resorts and housing next to the gondola. 

 

No, virtually everyone here skis or rides lift-served.  Someone who, say, patrols lift-served terrain at a resort is intimately involved in the operations of something -- a ski resort -- that has a far larger footprint than the proposed gondola.  So they should know better than to scream the sky is falling because a gondola might get built a few hundred miles from them. 

 

Now, someone reading your posts could get the idea that what is being talked about is in fact a major ski area expansion, with resorts and housing and such.  That of course would be hugely misleading -- no new subdivisions, lodges, condos, or other similar facilities are planned.  This is symbolic of how people try to conjure grave environmental fears when nothing of the kind is warranted.

You know, don't you that Talisker - the people proposing the gondola - is a real estate development/equity company?  And that the wording of the proposal in no way limits it to the gondola?  Are you naive, or do you just think that I am?  

As to what I do for a job - at a ski area that's been in place since the 50s - and where I live...well, that's just weak.  FWIW it's national forest land, belongs to all of us.  Upon reflection, your input is just as open to criticism on a similar level, but I wouldn't go there.  

And if you continue to insist that a gondola construction's impact will have no more impact than a hiking/biking trail...well, I'll come back when you want to compare apples to apples.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

You know, don't you that Talisker - the people proposing the gondola - is a real estate development/equity company?  And that the wording of the proposal in no way limits it to the gondola?  Are you naive, or do you just think that I am?  

 

As to what I do for a job - at a ski area that's been in place since the 50s - and where I live...well, that's just weak.  FWIW it's national forest land, belongs to all of us.  Upon reflection, your input is just as open to criticism on a similar level, but I wouldn't go there.  

 

 

And if you continue to insist that a gondola construction's impact will have no more impact than a hiking/biking trail...well, I'll come back when you want to compare apples to apples.  

Yes, you work, at a ski area, with far more infrastructure in place than any gondola, much less this one, would entail.  It would actually be pretty easy to take down the lifts at your resort and let everything revert back to a nondeveloped state -- but that would be stupid, because well-run resorts are great things. 

As far as my input, it's pretty darn consistent.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

Yes, you work, at a ski area, with far more infrastructure in place than any gondola, much less this one, would entail.  

Well, then wouldn't that put me in a very good position to judge what the problems posed might be?  I think so.  

We're not talking about a resort - you're wandering wa-a-a-ay off track here...as usual.  

Mine isn't?  But that's not what you were saying - you said that since I work at a ski resort and lived hundreds of miles away then my POV is suspect.  

Try to stay on point.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

...

 

We're not talking about a resort - you're wandering wa-a-a-ay off track here...as usual.  

 

 

 

Mine isn't?  But that's not what you were saying - you said that since I work at a ski resort and lived hundreds of miles away then my POV is suspect.  

 

Try to stay on point.  

I'm not wandering off-track, at all.  We are talking about lift infrastructure for a gondola in the case of SkiLink.  You were trying to make it sound like this will entail "resorts and housing built next to [the gondola]" as people can read in your post up above.  This is in fact misleading -- there are no proposed additions in the form of lodges, housing, etc., and we are only talking about a connecting gondola -- but it is also curious that you would be so anti-lift, when you actually work as part of the lift-served ski resort industry. 

Do you think the lifts at your area are environmental tragedies?  I don't think they are, but if you as a local think so, maybe work to right the ship, there, before worrying about other people's lifts.

Since you were concerned that slide paths don't have resorts and housing built next to them, and I've clarified that SkiLink will not involve building resorts and housing, either, for all I know you're now rethinking things and deciding it might actually create another local biodiversity "hotspot," as detailed in the case of slide paths in http://archive.audubonmagazine.org/truenature/truenature0601.html  .  In that case, we're not only not off-track, we may have made real progress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

I'm not wandering off-track, at all.  We are talking about lift infrastructure for a gondola in the case of SkiLink.  You were trying to make it sound like this will entail "resorts and housing built next to [the gondola]" as people can read in your post up above.  This is in fact misleading -- there are no proposed additions in the form of lodges, housing, etc., and we are only talking about a connecting gondola... 

I addressed this earlier, but you ignored it.  I either reminded you or enlightened you that Talisker is a real estate developer/equity firm.  And I also mentioned that there is no exclusion for real estate development in the proposal, and since the land would become private property under the proposal, I think it's fair to fear that development would take place.

You seem to be unable to; a) resist making it personal instead of addressing the points, and b) avoid strawman arguments.  Didn't we already discuss those upthread?  But let's see if I can address those points.  First, it doesn't have to be all-or-nothing.  I can like some lifts and think others are a bad idea, can I not?  Or is that not allowed?  And what I do locally is outside of your knowledge and outside of the discussion at hand.  I'd strongly suggest that you drop it, because it has no bearing on whether the proposed lift in Utah is a good idea or not.  

Uh, you haven't clarified that SkiLink will not involve development.  You only ignored my points about Talisker's likely objectives.  Please show me where development is excluded.  The rest of the passage above is pure goofy association, the idea of gondola construction creating a local biodiversity hotspot is - as I've pointed out upthread - a total fantasy disconnected from any reality.

Edit: Hey, when did this get moved to Apres-ski? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

I addressed this earlier, but you ignored it.  I either reminded you or enlightened you that Talisker is a real estate developer/equity firm.  And I also mentioned that there is no exclusion for real estate development in the proposal, and since the land would become private property under the proposal, I think it's fair to fear that development would take place....

 

Uh, you haven't clarified that SkiLink will not involve development.  You only ignored my points about Talisker's likely objectives.  Please show me where development is excluded.  The rest of the passage above is pure goofy association, the idea of gondola construction creating a local biodiversity hotspot is - as I've pointed out upthread - a total fantasy disconnected from any reality...

You either are being incredibly disingenuous, or know absolutely nothing about the proposed project.  The whole SkiLink proposal explicitly states that only a gondola is proposed.  I assure you that, if after all the review processes are complete, some Talisker exec were to maybe suffer a manic episode and start building a lodge, "just because," not only would he be fired pretty quickly, but there would be all sorts of civil and potentially even criminal penalties associated with that little bit of fun.  Just because you own land doesn't mean you can do whatever you want on it. 

I suggest you read the actual SkiLink proposal, then study how development of any sort -- gondola included -- can get done, before posting completely misleading stuff online. 

As far as a lift corridor creating a border with edges and boundaries between an open, relatively grassy area and, depending upon elevation and terrain, forest, that's exactly what it does.  And, in moderation, that does in fact create biodiversity.  Piers create great habitat for fish at the beach.  Ditches create great pheasant habitat in the Dakotas.  From the perspective of either trees, or raptors, or other wildlife, they don't really know from avalanche versus bulldozer and chainsaw, slidepath versus lift corridor.  An open space with a variety of vegation simply is. 

Now, one thing that would be cool, if permitted from a regulatory standpoint, would be for the gondola corridor to be actively managed for maximizing biodiversity within the "hot zone" it creates.  There are already plans to try to minimize visual impact of lift infrastructure with vegetation.  While simply having the lift corridor there will increase biodiversity from what was there before a lift -- again, within reasonl -- consciously managing to provide habitat for a broad range of animals could likely boost that "hot zone" effect even more, and set a good standard for other similar projects..

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

You either are being incredibly disingenuous, or know absolutely nothing about the proposed project.  The whole SkiLink proposal explicitly states that only a gondola is proposed.  I assure you that, if after all the review processes are complete, some Talisker exec were to maybe suffer a manic episode and start building a lodge, "just because," not only would he be fired pretty quickly, but there would be all sorts of civil and potentially even criminal penalties associated with that little bit of fun.  

Speaking of disingenuous, I asked you to show me where development was excluded.  And this is the very soul of disingenuous:

The only thing misleading is your reading of the proposal and the nature of firms such as Talisker.  

  We're not talking about piers or ditches, Mr, Strawman.  And just because one species does better in a disturbance doesn't mean that others don't suffer.  And wildlife habitat disturbance isn't the only thing wrong with the gondola proposal as I've pointed out.  

Sorry, but gondola lines are a lot more disturbed than an avalanche path.  People don't run trucks up and down avalanche paths, there's no machinery in avy paths, and avy paths don't take a year to construct.  

I didn't see any of that in the proposal.  Please direct me.  You won't.  You never step up when I ask for citation.  You just suppose.  

Amazing.  And disingenuous.

The idea of a european style linked mega resort in a place as amazing as the wasatch is pretty exciting. On the other hand I'm sure there are a fair number of people for whom these are already interlinked and I imagine they don't like the idea of doing it with lifts. I don't blame them, a certain kind of ski experience will be lost for them.

Surely you're not that naive. You think that big developers are pushing this thing just to benefit tourists? Sure, maybe there'll be a small boost in tourism just for the novelty of the thing - up until people figure out that you have to pay more money just to ride lifts for half a day. But the big money (i.e. the reason that developers thought of this in the first place) is in building more condos and houses right next to the gondola. Then they can put their best deal-closing bull s#itter up in front of clients and sell "the world's only multi-resort experience that combines a world-class ski town with the Greatest Snow on Earth, all at the foot of your door" That's sure to appeal to those type rich folks who value one thing (status/ exclusivity) more than money.

Yeah, because big business and politicos never say one thing to get what they want and then do another

On the plus side, you articulate yourself pretty well for a guy that was born last week.

Where the hell did you get that idea from? The only studies I've seen show that the vast majority of residents are against it. Internet comments, as incidental as they may be, show a whole lot of opposition, too. I think you're making the sad assumption that support from politicians - who regularly act in favor of business interests (read: donors and/or bribers) over people's interests whenever feasible - equates to support from the greater public they represent. That's a Grand Canyon-like leap.

That's exactly how government works ... in high school textbooks. Reality check: Politicians get elected and then do things that are in their own interests, not necessarily the interests of the public. Many of them (particularly state and federal legislators) don't even have to worry all that much about reelection thanks to the way the parties stake their turf in slicing up voting districts. It would take a pretty monumental blunder for certain politicians to get voted out of office.

In reality, politicians constantly go business interests first because money is the biggest part of a campaign. S#~tty, self-interested politicians with a lot of money still manage to get elected, while bright, "for the people" candidates without financial backing may as well not even bother getting their name on the ballot. Money controls the conversation, which never has to get back to unpopular decisions if the guy driving the ship (i.e. the guy with the most money and best campaign) doesn't want it to. Some voters are very passionate and informed, but most don't have half a clue (I recognize that guy's name, I'm voting for him!!)

I'm not just paranoid or anti-government. I learned about the idealistic government you're talking about when getting a poli sci degree. Then, I worked in politics for several years and saw how it really works. Night and day.

On a separate note, just because it's federal land, doesn't mean everyone in the country has an equal stake.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

...S#~tty, self-interested politicians with a lot of money still manage to get elected, while bright, "for the people" candidates without financial backing may as well not even bother getting their name on the ballot....

I see what you did there, in terms of working in a link between intelligence, being "for the people," (whatever that means), and ???? well, and what, exactly? 

Do you use ski lifts?  If so, does that make you "against the people, and for the Man?"  Maybe even not too bright, like the ch*tty politicians you warn us about? Or, are you just skiing, taking part in a wholesome and environmentally friendly activity, just like millions of other good people who ski lift-served recreationally and/or work for ski resorts.  I'll even go out on a limb here, and say that the IQ of lift-served skiers probably is at least as high as the average population, at least if you back out telemarkers from the sample. 

Personally, I may pull that average down a bit, but I was by a few slide paths over the last couple days again.  It may come as a surprise to extremely bright, "for the people" types out there, but slide paths can be pretty disturbed on a continual basis -- some that are fairly steep not only go routinely in winter, but can have scree bellies with constant rockfall in summer, and others that go less frequently can get choked up with brush that then gets ripped out again the next time it goes big down to the ground.  Obviously, when something goes much bigger than normal, and, say, takes out a bunch of mature trees and leaves them scattered like matchsticks, that's real, real disruptive.  All of that disruption again helps to make them key parts of their local environment -- key growth zones for different plants, and key feeding zones for the full chain of wildlife. 

Don't believe the hype. 

As far as pulling a switcheroo and deciding to plonk a new ski area extension down, instead of the planned gondola, there are a lot of permits and approvals that are needed to build anything in that area.  Again, maybe I'm not sufficiently bright, but how exactly is the "Man" supposed to pull a switcheroo and just build a ski area extension after the gondola, with no other infrastrucure, gets permitted?  Are they going to wait until all the "bright" people in the Wasatch go on August vacation? 

Quote:

Originally Posted by CTKook 

I see what you did there, in terms of working in a link between intelligence, being "for the people," (whatever that means), and ???? well, and what, exactly? 

 

Do you use ski lifts?  If so, does that make you "against the people, and for the Man?"  Maybe even not too bright, like the ch*tty politicians you warn us about? Or, are you just skiing, taking part in a wholesome and environmentally friendly activity, just like millions of other good people who ski lift-served recreationally and/or work for ski resorts.  I'll even go out on a limb here, and say that the IQ of lift-served skiers probably is at least as high as the average population, at least if you back out telemarkers from the sample. 

 

Personally, I may pull that average down a bit, but I was by a few slide paths over the last couple days again.  It may come as a surprise to extremely bright, "for the people" types out there, but slide paths can be pretty disturbed on a continual basis -- some that are fairly steep not only go routinely in winter, but can have scree bellies with constant rockfall in summer, and others that go less frequently can get choked up with brush that then gets ripped out again the next time it goes big down to the ground.  Obviously, when something goes much bigger than normal, and, say, takes out a bunch of mature trees and leaves them scattered like matchsticks, that's real, real disruptive.  All of that disruption again helps to make them key parts of their local environment -- key growth zones for different plants, and key feeding zones for the full chain of wildlife. 

 

Don't believe the hype. 

 

As far as pulling a switcheroo and deciding to plonk a new ski area extension down, instead of the planned gondola, there are a lot of permits and approvals that are needed to build anything in that area.  Again, maybe I'm not sufficiently bright, but how exactly is the "Man" supposed to pull a switcheroo and just build a ski area extension after the gondola, with no other infrastrucure, gets permitted?  Are they going to wait until all the "bright" people in the Wasatch go on August vacation? 

Reread the quoted statement again, please. It's pretty short, so it won't take you too long.

Now, did I say anywhere that the first group of politicians (i.e. self interested ones) weren't intelligent? No, no I didn't. I didn't make any such correlation - it takes a certain amount of intelligence to get yourself into office and use it to your advantage. The point is is that those in office aren't necessarily the pinnacles of democratic representation and they aren't necessarily the best people for the job.  They're just the ones that know how to play the game better than the rest. Part of that game is keeping your donors happy so that you have the money to get reelected. In an ideal world, every elected official would be highly intelligent and capable, and would do what they're supposed to do: represent their constituents interests, period. But we're in the real world, not an ideal world.

You ran completely off the rails in the middle there. As has been the case since the start of this thread, the issue isn't lift served skiing as a whole, it's this misguided effort that a lot of people feel is greatly imbalanced in terms of cons over pros. I know it probably helps your argument to paint it as a matter of "happy, go-lucky lift served skiers" versus the environmental extremists, but that was never really the case.

Did you have a point with that whole tangent about slide paths? If so, it was disrupted more than the environment you were talking about. I thought this thread was about the Interconnect/SkiLink, not "Nature Time, with CTKook."

Switcheroo? It's not a switcheroo; it's called a long-term plan. You get your foot in the door while slowly desensitizing the public to the idea. (Well, there's already that lift straight through the middle of the area...what's the harm in a few extra condos). If you 100 percent believe developers are investing the time and money on this thing just to offer tourists a more robust skiing experience, well there isn't much arguing with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

[CTKook] ran completely off the rails in the middle there. As has been the case since the start of this thread, the issue isn't lift served skiing as a whole, it's this misguided effort that a lot of people feel is greatly imbalanced in terms of cons over pros. I know it probably helps your argument to paint it as a matter of "happy, go-lucky lift served skiers" versus the environmental extremists, but that was never really the case.

 

...If you 100 percent believe developers are investing the time and money on this thing just to offer tourists a more robust skiing experience, well there isn't much arguing with you.

Quoted for truth.  

It would be nice to keep strawman arguments out of this discussion.  

It's kinda funny how "bright" "for the people" enviros can try to shut off debate from anyone who disagrees with them.  It is quite legitimate to ask what, exactly, is supposed to be so devastating about one lift, in an area with hundreds of lifts, particularly in the case of opponents of that lift who themselves routinely ride other lits.  There's no strawman there.

In terms of JoeUT's reference to bright, "for the people" politicians, there is in fact a clear implication that they,well, are brighter than others, and that being "for the people" means, in this case, presumably being against the project in question.  It's an effective propaganda tool, that type of subtle characterization of one's opponent's as not simply holding differing opinions, but being downright less-bright -- I get that.  It's funny to see it employed in this type of case.  To have the nuanced intelligence to know, out of hundreds of lifts and thousands of slide paths, precisely which is environmentally devastating -- and so not to be ridden -- while the others are benign, truly may take some processing power, though, I give you that.

In this thread, we've seen Lahontan cutthroat trout held up as a sign of envriomental stress in UT -- and they aren't even native there (and are in fact expanding in their drainage).  There's been a lot of other enviro b.s.  It is therefore also relevant to note how much disruption is routine in the ecosystem in question.  A lot of the people reading this probably haven't spent much time around slide paths in summer, for instance, and so might be surprised to see how similar they are in some ways to ski areas in summer (and in fact, some inbounds ski runs are in fact classic slide paths, the two are compatible).  Because of the enormous enviro scaremongering, it helps to point out that a simple gondola does in fact have a very light environmental footprint.  It helps to allow people to see that when environmental concerns are being voiced, it generally represents a case of "I don't like it," or "I think it will seem cool to say I don't like it" being voiced in the language of environmentalism.

. 

Yes, it is. And it's been answered exhaustively. You don't have to change your opinion, but stop pretending like your "question" wasn't answered five times over. The answer is why there are two sides to this debate. 

If you can't differentiate between lifts that already exist within resort boundaries, and those that straddle resorts and pierce through contiguous undeveloped land,  again..no arguing with that. Also, I haven't done an inventory on ski lifts in PC and the Cottonwoods (or entire Wasatch, for that matter), but I'm pretty sure they don't rank in the "hundreds." Talk about using subtle mischaracterizations to inflate your point.