Comments on: Avalanche Control on the 210: Flagstaff Foment http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/ Gear Articles for Gearheads Wed, 01 Feb 2012 23:04:02 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.5 By: Residential plots http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-397363 Residential plots Tue, 13 Dec 2011 10:30:00 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-397363 If the proposed lift is built it will truly throw this balance out of whack. If the proposed lift is built it will truly throw this balance out of whack.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: John dowson http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-175562 John dowson Thu, 24 Mar 2011 21:04:36 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-175562 Thank You for this post. Just found it on google and i have to say that i;m really really surprised :) Thanks again and cheers dude! Thank You for this post. Just found it on google and i have to say that i;m really really surprised :)
Thanks again and cheers dude!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: dina http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-165444 dina Tue, 15 Mar 2011 01:52:47 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-165444 someday I'll visit park city! someday I’ll visit park city!

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Snowbird Must Have More Lobbyists | Backcountry Beacon http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-18463 Snowbird Must Have More Lobbyists | Backcountry Beacon Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:39:00 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-18463 [...] Remember our article about Alta’s recently hoped-for expansion plans? [...] [...] Remember our article about Alta’s recently hoped-for expansion plans? [...]

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: JGW http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-1678 JGW Mon, 05 Apr 2010 20:26:21 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-1678 Great news! Local congressman Jim Matheson will introduce a bill this coming Leg. session that will attempt to limit expansion in watershed areas--rumor is that Alta and Solitude are unhappy with the bill (Wasatch Wilderness and Watershed Protection Act) as it staunches the 'potential' plans for expansion for both those resorts. Interestingly, there's talk of expanding Snowbird into a non-watershed area near American fork canyon after a compromised land swap deal. Check out a local story on the issue: http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14811828 Great news!

Local congressman Jim Matheson will introduce a bill this coming Leg. session that will attempt to limit expansion in watershed areas–rumor is that Alta and Solitude are unhappy with the bill (Wasatch Wilderness and Watershed Protection Act) as it staunches the ‘potential’ plans for expansion for both those resorts. Interestingly, there’s talk of expanding Snowbird into a non-watershed area near American fork canyon after a compromised land swap deal.

Check out a local story on the issue:

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_14811828

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 0

]]> By: Will R http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-415 Will R Sun, 07 Feb 2010 01:42:51 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-415 There are several points here that I think make building a lift totally absurd. As far as avalanche control goes there are many other ways to do it. Gas X tubes, etc. The skier compaction myth is just that. Not any reliable sources that I can find support it. If a lift was allowed to be built on Flagstaff would snowboarders be allowed to go up on it? If so would Alta then be opening the rest of the mountain to snowboarders? If snowboarders were not allowed up the lift on Flagstaff would the entire upper section of Little Cottonwood be cut off to snowboarders? Why make an area that already is used by tons of backcountry skiers even more populated? Will this lift increase the number of backcountry rescues needed? From my time living here seems like the resorts with open gates have lots more rescues to deal with. Also is the closed to up hill traffic rule for real? If so that makes the building of this lift even worse! You would cut off an access point for not only skiers but snowboarders as well who would now not be allowed to use the lifts at Alta, if their current rules continue. Also, as has been pointed out, who will pay for this lift? Will UDOT be helping to fund it? If so then Alta is already becoming like many bigger corporations by using public funds for a private companies benefit! If any one has answers to these questions please respond. Basically what I'm getting at with all these questions is that it seems sill,y if there are other ways to do avalanche control work, to build a lift that is not needed or wanted to the top of a peak that will only give the in bounds public mediocre skiing/riding at best. There are several points here that I think make building a lift totally absurd. As far as avalanche control goes there are many other ways to do it. Gas X tubes, etc. The skier compaction myth is just that. Not any reliable sources that I can find support it. If a lift was allowed to be built on Flagstaff would snowboarders be allowed to go up on it? If so would Alta then be opening the rest of the mountain to snowboarders? If snowboarders were not allowed up the lift on Flagstaff would the entire upper section of Little Cottonwood be cut off to snowboarders? Why make an area that already is used by tons of backcountry skiers even more populated? Will this lift increase the number of backcountry rescues needed? From my time living here seems like the resorts with open gates have lots more rescues to deal with. Also is the closed to up hill traffic rule for real? If so that makes the building of this lift even worse! You would cut off an access point for not only skiers but snowboarders as well who would now not be allowed to use the lifts at Alta, if their current rules continue. Also, as has been pointed out, who will pay for this lift? Will UDOT be helping to fund it? If so then Alta is already becoming like many bigger corporations by using public funds for a private companies benefit! If any one has answers to these questions please respond. Basically what I’m getting at with all these questions is that it seems sill,y if there are other ways to do avalanche control work, to build a lift that is not needed or wanted to the top of a peak that will only give the in bounds public mediocre skiing/riding at best.

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 1

]]> By: Webman http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-403 Webman Sat, 06 Feb 2010 01:59:26 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-403 Skier compaction is a myth. Check out this monster avalanche at Alta on 1/24/2010: http://tinyurl.com/altaslide Skier compaction is a myth.

Check out this monster avalanche at Alta on 1/24/2010:

http://tinyurl.com/altaslide

Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 1

]]> By: wally http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-323 wally Thu, 28 Jan 2010 03:07:28 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-323 I think we can all agree that Little Cottonwood Canyon is a very unique and special place for skiing. In my mind the main reason for this is the combination of lift, heli, and backcountry served opportunities. As both a backcountry and resort skier for over 25 years in Little Cottonwood I believe the current situation is pretty balanced. The way I measure this is… When I’m skiing the backcountry I wish there were fewer tracks and more terrain and the same is true when I’m skiing in-bounds. If the proposed lift is built it will truly throw this balance out of whack. The uniqueness of Little Cottonwood will be gone and for many backcountry skiers upper Little Cottonwood won’t be worth the drive. The resort skiers may rejoice this lift but in the end it will just make the place less wild, less remote and less appealing to those seeking adventurous skiing opportunities. I vote to keep the balance and unique opportunities of skiing Alta alive.

I think we can all agree that Little Cottonwood Canyon is a very unique and special place for skiing. In my mind the main reason for this is the combination of lift, heli, and backcountry served opportunities.

As both a backcountry and resort skier for over 25 years in Little Cottonwood I believe the current situation is pretty balanced. The way I measure this is… When I’m skiing the backcountry I wish there were fewer tracks and more terrain and the same is true when I’m skiing in-bounds.

If the proposed lift is built it will truly throw this balance out of whack. The uniqueness of Little Cottonwood will be gone and for many backcountry skiers upper Little Cottonwood won’t be worth the drive. The resort skiers may rejoice this lift but in the end it will just make the place less wild, less remote and less appealing to those seeking adventurous skiing opportunities.

I vote to keep the balance and unique opportunities of skiing Alta alive.

Well-loved. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 6 Thumb down 1

]]> By: Willy Dangero http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-321 Willy Dangero Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:44:27 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-321 Andrew . . . when the lift gets built & you no longer see Alta as an attractive place, let me know. I'll be happy to buy your place from you. & since you believe that "profiteering" is a bad thing, I'll happily pay you whatever it is that you paid for the place when you moved in. Wouldn't want you to make any profit off of your place since you obviously believe profit is only something evil people seek. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 1 Thumb down 8

]]> By: Willy Dangero http://backcountrybeacon.com/2010/01/avalanche-control-on-the-210-flagstaff-foment/comment-page-1/#comment-320 Willy Dangero Wed, 27 Jan 2010 23:38:09 +0000 http://backcountrybeacon.com/?p=1542#comment-320 Backcountry is just that "back country." Anything that sits right on top of a public road cannot truly be considered backcountry. Also, the only reason why anyone can access Flagstaff & Superior by amongst the dozen other peaks within the Wasatch Range by car is because of highways 210 & 190 and the only reason those roads exist is to serve the resorts & residents of those resort areas. Therefore, if it improves the available terrain for the paying public, then it should take priority over the wishes of some lazy backcountry aficionados. Get yourself a sled & head to the Uintas. The terrain is better there anyway & that, my friends, is truly what backcountry is all about. Hidden due to low comment rating. Click here to see.

Poorly-rated. Like or Dislike: Thumb up 0 Thumb down 8

]]>