Comments about ‘Solitude hoping to expand into Silver Fork Canyon’

Just don't put any more condos up there.

If it's just skiing then we're not losing forests.
Stop the scare tactics and let's ski

Silver fork is a wonderful place for hiking, snowshoeing, cross country skiing, and back country skiing. It contains a great deal of accessible, relatively safe, intermediate backcountry ski terrain. It is also a nice place to hike in the summer. All of that would be lost if they expanded.
Solitude is a fine resort as it is. Why does it need to be as big as Snowbird?
The DeSeelhorsts need to rethink their business model. There should be a place in the market for a midsized, family friendly resort with diverse terrain to make a profit. Instead, they want to incur significant expenses in hopes of expanding their customer base. In the process, they will have to ramp up their prices, and will run of the families and those looking to avoid a crowd who currently frequent their nice, not so little resort. If they do not want it as it is, maybe they need to sell it.

I have skiied most of the resorts in Utah during my 65 years of skiing. Most if not all of them operate using private/public lands administered in conjunction with the U.S. Forest Service. To my knowledge the Forest Service has done an excellent job in protecting and safeguarding our mountain terrain that borders the ski areas. What makes the Silver Fork Canyon so valuable to Solitude is it's vast north facing slope. A couple of ski lifts in that beautifull canyon will not destroy the environment, but it certainly would allow a lot of people to enjoy the serenity and solitude.

Phrases like "All of this would be lost if they expanded" are too much of a blanket statement for me. And blocking all development, as Save Our Canyons seems to try to do, is a bad call.

True, making land into a ski resort that wasn't previously changes it a bit. This can be seen at existing ski resorts. There is no longer as much of a "wilderness - feel" to the land, there is more human traffic, and presumably less or maybe different wildlife.

Yet look at the number of people that get up and enjoy the mountains because of resorts like Solitude. Consider the amount of use that Solitude gets. A lot more people are able to enjoy nature because Solitude is a resort, instead of wilderness. The wildlife there is still incredible, and it brings lots of tourism to the state.

I think the best use of public land is to let Solitude develop the land in a sensible way.

Solitude does not allow uphill travel in their resort. If they are allowed to develop in Silver Fork Canyon they will block public access to public land. So yes, all public use will be lost. There are parts of the Solitude resort that can be easily accessed from public land, but if one accesses public land inside the resort boundaries without paying Solitude first, they can be charged with trespassing. This is as an infringement on personal freedom to pad the pockets of the wealthy.

The biggest concern should be about the effect of this expansion on Big Cottonwood Creek, a major drinking water source for the Salt Lake valley. Ski slopes are notorious for being a source of silt, especially during construction.

And ditto to BC Sparks. Good work, Save Our Canyons.

To "Save us from save our canyons" - I like to hike in the wasatch in the summer. I rarely hike in areas where there are ski lifts. You don't see it in the winter, but the ski lifts leave a real scar on the land when the snow is gone. (Which cannot be good for the water quality). So, to me, as it pertains to hiking, I really do believe that it will be lost for all practical purposes.
And in winter, if you do not want to pay a Solitude lift ticket, access will be lost to you. It's a nice canyon in which to snowshoe or cross country ski.
Lastly, if we allow this one, where do we stop? Do we allow every lift someone wants to put in the Wasatch? Downhill, lift served skiing is nice, but there is a LOT of area in the Wasatch available for that. Save some for the rest of us.

Boycott Solitude. This is OUR land WE pay the taxes to support it--and will continue to if Solitude gets there way, except you'll have to pay even more to use it. If they develope Silver Fork and Alta gets their way with Flagstaff and Grizzly Gulch, and the Bird with White Pine, then there will be no wasatch. This is PUBLIC land--we pay the taxes on it. We should get the benifit NOT Solitude. No more resort developement.

The resort business hasn't turned a profit for 15 years. Regardless of what the FS or Solitude says about the "rules" this IS about real estate, they will find a way to fill that land with condos and ritzy ski shops. It is ALWAYS about real estate

"the resort lacks the high-elevation bowls and chutes " What about Honeycomb and the Fantasy Ridge? Those are high-elevation bowls and chutes...

It may be about real estate, but unfortunatly it is about Forest Service revinue also. As was stated, the alpine skiing industry has been stagnant since the 80's, but in the same time period, the backcoountry ski industry has been growing by almost 50% every year. The number of backcountry skier in the Wasatch Mountains has been doubling every 2 to 3 years for the lasy decaded. The Forest Service should be protecting public access to public land for these growing user groups, however the Forest Service doesn't make money from backcountry skiers and snowshoers, but they will make a bundle from permits if they allow Solitude this expansion.

I say let them expand more people will be able to enjoy the canyon. Summer activity will not be effected, and the plan will generate money for the state; both with increases in tourism and the fee paid by Solitude.

There's really no good argument against doing this. While there might be a slight increase in siltation during construction, it's a small percentage of normal siltation that comes from dirt/salt washing off the canyon road. Backcountry access won't be affected - you can still ski/snowshoe to the area behind Solitude from the Donut Falls trailhead. And you'll still be able to hike there in the summer just like you can hike at any other ski resort.

The fact is, ski resorts have an almost negligible environmental impact (I'm talking about lifts, not lodges), which is why they don't encounter much resistance in expansion discussions.

The bottom line is, oppponents of this are a handful of backcountry skiers who don't want to share their stash with resort skiers, so they are playing the 'environment card'. This is Utah environmentalism at its finest.

The environmentalists are making the same tired arguments they made when Snowbird wanted to expand into Mineral Basin. Watershed, backcountry access, deforestation, etc. That project went ahead, and you know what? All those fears the enviros raised turned out to be false. Just as they will be in this case.

Save us from 'Save us from Save our Canyons'.

Since when as the industrial skiing complex defiling more pristine land been news. Utahns have zero pride when they are confronted with money.

Utah, the hazardous waste dump of choice for the world.

The Canyons belong to all the people, not just available at the whim of some private Ski Company who wants to expand. Tell them NO!

I am tired of environmentalists. Nothing but scratched cds.