Comments about ‘Will a skier's boon be a bane or a blessing to wildlife?’

Return to article »

land north of Logan lies between wildlife and wilderness areas

Published: Saturday, Oct. 20 2012 9:27 p.m. MDT

Comments
  • Oldest first
  • Newest first
  • Most recommended
101Ways
Taylorsville, UT

Why is there even any question what would happen to wildlife and nature? The answer is obvious and the reason is selfish greed by the incorporated Utah government with no accountability as an elected representative government.

I have to disagree with property owners leasing land from the BLM on long term leases that they have a right to clear cut forest and put in roads and alter the lay of the land and water shed. Leasing is restrictive and conditional use permits.

Corporate America and Corporate Government should he restrained and held accountable as care takers not land owners. Corporations and business come and go, but the land will always be there and we don't want it blighted and look like the deserted cities across this nation. Save wilderness for social non destructive uses.

We all talk about the environment and ecology and preserving species of animals and wildlife but give little thought about the preservation of man as a species and his total environment and total needs, not just men with toys to play with. Put their toys to work on farms and growing food and preserving nature, not tearing it down beyond repair.

Brave Sir Robin
San Diego, CA

@101Ways

"Why is there even any question what would happen to wildlife and nature? The answer is obvious..."

Actually the answer is not as obvious as you think. Multiple independent studies conducted here in Utah, Colorado, California, and Vermont have concluded that ski areas have zero impact on the watershed and they actually have a positive impact on wildlife, particularly big game. You can search the internet for these studies - it's easy.

And having more ski areas actually reduces the production of pollution and greenhouse gas. How? Because skiing is a zero-sum game...people who want to ski are going to ski, and they're going to drive wherever they have to drive in order to do it. So do you want somebody from Logan driving 10 miles to a local ski area, or 50 miles to Snowbasin? If you like cleaner air, you want them driving to a local ski area.

Come on, people...if we're going to have a debate about this proposed ski area, let's get educated on it instead of spewing the typical environmentalist scare tactics.

foxy lady
Logan/Cache, UT

You're right 101Ways. Wildlife will be negatively impacted, like the wildlife biologist Glen Gantz stated.

In the article, developer John Chadwick said, "I think there will be more deer and elk here than ever before." This is a developer's pipe dream. The resort is sandwiched between a wilderness area and state wildlife area. It's all "Critical Winter Habitat" for elk and mule deer.

Come on, really, there will be more deer and elk eating the "grasses" planted by the developer? Just how will they do that? Paw their hooves through the packed snow while dodging downhill skiers?

How much of the habitat will be null and void of its potential because of this industrial intrusion? It certainly won't increase.

The fundamental question here is who to believe; a developer dreaming of big bucks or a certified wildlife biologist with nothing to gain financially?

to comment

DeseretNews.com encourages a civil dialogue among its readers. We welcome your thoughtful comments.
About comments