Originally Posted by BobMc
A. I will! I think this is nothing but a money and terrain grab! Who are you kidding
I'd challenge people that want to give away the Wasatch to get out and see how small this area really is. The beauty of the topography that makes everyone want to string lifts across also gives us in the valley (and a growing crowd of touring tourists, heh) a place to get away from the lifts and what not. Skin up to the top of Patsey Marley, take a look around, be glad you made it and ski pow on the way down.is currently taking public comment
A terrain grab? It's all on private property. That was established a couple of pages back. A money grab? Is anyone robbing you? The Forest Service is currently taking public comment on whether it's appropriate to charge a fee for access to Wasatch trailheads. If instated, these fees will generate approximately 36 million dollars per year. I guess it is I who would feel robbed, being charged to hike on public land & all.
No one is "giving away" the Wasatch. Again, Designated Wilderness Area acreage vastly outnumbers ski area acreage at roughly 5:1. Honestly I'm not trying to "sell" One Wasatch, but how many times do I have to argue the point? As great as your challenge to explore the Wasatch is, I suppose that most won't take you up on your offer. However, I actually have explored a vast majority of the range, and am comfortable that if you want a wilderness experience, you can have it and One Wasatch will have no bearing on it. Mill B, Stairs Gulch, Pfiefferhorn, Mt Aerie, Lone Peak, Thunderbolt Ridge, Timpanogos, and Box Elder Peak -to name but a few-encompass tens of thousands of acres that will be nowhere near the few lifts that will connect the resorts. And let's not kid ourselves- the resorts are a mile or less apart, we're not talking about a remote wilderness experience here, anyway.
CB Garret says that the only ones supporting or in favor of One Wasatch are business owners, developers, or condo owners. I am none of the above, and apparently it's biggest fan. I've talked to several dozen people who also have no financial interest. They are from both in SLC and Park City. Like me, they are highly supportive of the concept, but for their own and different reasons. I'd like to ski from PC to steeper terrain; they'd like to ski from the areas with a relative dearth of groomers, ski over to PC and ski the groomers and have lunch downtown, then ski back to to their SLC base. To each their own
I agree that it's great to preserve Wasatch acreage- to an extent. The recent deal in which the Boy Scouts are selling 848 acres to the Forest Service is an excellent idea, and to be applauded. The expansion of Wasatch Wilderness areas as laid out in the Mountain Accord is admirable as well, no doubt it will be tweaked a bit. But again, the small areas -slivers- of land that separate the ski areas are obviously not prime -or otherwise- candidates for wilderness designation. Build the lifts, already!