Could interconnect, other projects lead to one mega ski resort along Wasatch?

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Oct. 24, 2011 1:28 p.m.

    No thanks, Mr. Moots. I've done plenty of BC skiing. I'd rather spend my precious leisure time skiing down mountains, not slogging up them. But keep rocking that free heel!

  • Lilljemalm Gilbert, AZ
    Oct. 24, 2011 12:13 p.m.

    There are probably cheaper and easier ways to compete with Colorado resorts. As a lont time Colorado resident until 2 years ago, I know that a large proportion of Denver area residents who ski prefer skiing Utah over Colorado - better and more snow, cheaper, can stay in the valley. CO resorts are further from the city and more expensive. If you want to do something besides ski when you stay several days at a CO resort, you're more limited as to what you can do there. SLC offers more diversity of things to do than Vail, Steamboat, Aspen, etc.
    A former CO governor once said concerning the ski industry there that Colorado is very good at marketing a substandard product.

  • Mr. Moots Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 24, 2011 9:18 a.m.

    Backcountry skiing is maybe the best hobby ever. You should join the club and enjoy life Brave Sir Robin.

  • Brave Sir Robin San Diego, CA
    Oct. 23, 2011 2:46 p.m.

    What these enviros don't want the general public to realize is that ski resorts don't negatively affect the watershed. If we were to realize this, it would blow out of the water their only argument against ski resort expansion.

    At the end of the day, the only people truly affected by resort expansion in a negative way are backcountry skiers. Well, guess what Jeff Niermeyer's favorite hobby is? You guessed it - backcountry skiing.

    It sounds so much better for Niermeyer to say something like "this will ruin our water supply" than something like "this will make my personal hobby less enjoyable."

    Draw whatever conclusions from this that you want....

  • Fitz Murray, UT
    Oct. 23, 2011 11:20 a.m.

    The interconnect ski concept has been proposed in one form or another since I started skiing in the late 60s. This is not new. Now 40 years later, Brighton and Solitude have an interconnect run, sort of. Alta and Snowbird have an interconnect run. It has taken a long time for these two connections, such as they are, to come to fruition. The proposals in this story are all interesting ideas, but I will believe it when I see it. And that may be another 40 years.

  • stgjazzfan Saint George, UT
    Oct. 23, 2011 10:43 a.m.

    Ski resorts do not shut down the mountain for other uses, because the ski resorts do not own the land, it is leased conditional upon the use permits granted. And I'm at a loss as to how ski lifts effect water shed? This to me sounds like more of the drain Lake Powell dialog we were all forced to endure a few years back, because we had some dry years. Now the lake is full again and you don't here a word about anymore.

  • RedShirt USS Enterprise, UT
    Oct. 23, 2011 9:47 a.m.

    I wish that they would explain how adding more are to the ski resorts effects the snowpack. Skiing is on the surface, and theoretically does not remove snow from the area, so how does expanding the ski resorts do anything to the snow.

    The houses is understandable because you lose snow to the roads and melting earlier than normal.

  • Andy Cottonwood Heights, UT
    Oct. 23, 2011 8:55 a.m.

    Salt Lake City is in a desert and the population is expected to increase. We should do nothing that places Salt Lake's water supply at risk. Moreover, ski resorts should stay within their current boundaries. There are many others who use the national forest for recreation. Don't cut off their access in favor of the ski resorts.

    The public interest on both counts favors no expansion. Don't allow the expansion.

  • Red Salt Lake City, UT
    Oct. 23, 2011 8:51 a.m.

    One of the greatest treasures Utah has is OUR mountains. I love how close the ski resorts are to all of us living along the Wasatch front. It makes living here great.

    BUT, if every peak is covered with a lift that a ski resort "owns", then WE THE PEOPLE lose out. Unless they are giving us all a key to use the place as we want to, then I say let's keep the mountains open to all of us.

    We want to hike, bike, climb, back country ski, etc. without feeling like we are intruding on someone else' land, or flooding the area with tourists unwilling to get there on their own power.

    It is our land. I think we are all glad the resorts are there, but let's not let the resorts sprawl all over to every peak, cornice, hidden meadow or quiet lake there is.

    That would be a tragedy.

    (as well as cause the water issues discussed in this article)

  • mssr Provo, UT
    Oct. 23, 2011 3:17 a.m.

    SLC is beyond ridiculous when it comes to "protecting" its watershed. A vast majority of water comes from old mines and drainage tunnels that are laden with heavy minerals. Yet, you can't bring dogs up the canyons. Ski areas are environmentally sound. For the amount of money this generates for the area, I hope it goes through.