Entirely on Snowbird's private property - the resort claims that no bc skiing or hiking routes are affected, but they are silent about the iconic status of the So Ridge in the climbing community...
http://www.ksl.com/?nid=148&sid=13952239

This is not good.

It appears the top of the coaster would be approx 8500 feet of elevation. Is crossing Snowbird's property necessary for the South Ridge route?

The crosshairs in the center of this map seems to be the approximate location of the top of the proposed coaster. http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=40.58430,-11 ... 5C%2C%20ut

Note, on the map on the KSL link, up is not north.

I think Snowbird has put up enough crap in the canyon. When is enough enough? I say NO!

Unbelievable. The ski industry in Utah is disgusting. These rich corporations won't be happy until every square acre of the Wasatch looks like Las Vegas. I never ski in resorts unless people are in town and will buy me a ticket, but it looks like now Alta, Solitude, and Snowbird are on the "dead to me" list. Since this monstrosity will be on private land, there's little we can do as private citizens other than write a letter to the county board responsible for this sort of zoning decision.

Thanks, "Dick" Bass.

Ah, when I read the story just now I came here to see if there was any chatter.

I love Snowbird. I haven't skied there for decades but I take my fambly there in summer for vacation and we enjoy the activities.

BUT building a structure at the base of Superior is excessive. I hope it does not happen and will lend my name to any opposition.

"Snowbird Public Relations Director Jared Ishkanian says the area selected for the coaster is not used for backcountry skiing or hiking"

Riiiight.

It's only at the base of one of the most classic winter mountaineering routes in the Wasatch. Oh, and it is also at the bottom of one of the ski descents featured in "50 Classic Ski Descents of North America".

It's only at the base of one of the most classic winter mountaineering routes in the Wasatch. Oh, and it is also at the bottom of one of the ski descents featured in "50 Classic Ski Descents of North America".

Yeah, other than that, it shouldn't really affect skiing and climbing at all...assholes.

It's amazing to me that LCC is classified as a sensitive enough watershed that dogs aren't allowed up there, but people don't seem to have a problem with continuing to develop the canyon!

One route to stop proposed projects like this on private land is to show that it will have an impact on environmental health. Now I'm not sure how significant of an impact it will actually have, but hopefully the opposition groups are looking into it. Here in Cache Valley, a ski resort near Richmond (Rainey Ranch Ski Resort) was proposed on private property, up Cherry Creek. After a year of fighting, they ultimately withdrew their application for constructing the resort, largely due to the difficulty and high cost that would have been required in order to show that the resort would not impact Richmond's groundwater resources (and maybe they also realized that constructing a ski resort that peaks out around 7,000 ft is a stupid idea).

Geez, and here I thought those slopes were already attracting enough folks :

Does a person currently have to ask permission each time they want to cross the private property in order to hike, climb, or ski in the location of the proposed coaster?

jdzaharia wrote:Does a person currently have to ask permission each time they want to cross the private property in order to hike, climb, or ski in the location of the proposed coaster?

I don't think anyone did, or even knew where to ask. Most of these private inholdings in the National Forest watershed land are old mining claims. A couple of nutty landowners in Cardiff Fork did try (and fail) limiting non-motorized access but they are on thin ice themselves as they are habitually violating watershed restriction themselves by driving and snowmobiling where the watersed plan forbids it. So it tends to go in a spirit of peaceful coexistence, rather than "everybody complaining".

There is a private property sign at a gate on the old mining road turnoff at the base of the proposed coaster area, but nobody goes through this gate to access the South Ridge anyway. You are leaving the road and turning sharply uphill before the posted gate, and to every reasonable hiker or skier it would seem that one isn't ever crossing private property. But the coaster plan makes it clear the land between the road and the lower cliffs belongs to the resort too.

There may be little one can do to stop the stupid rollercoaster as the land is private and the watershed rules don't seem to apply to rollercoasters. But preserving the climbers' access is a separate story...

NO WAY!!!

http://saveourcanyons.org/news/salt_lak ... ersy/11011

This would ruin the Mt. Superior area. This can not happen.

I do not approve of this gimmick that will leave a scar, whether or not it remains in use over the years.

Reminds me of a place I visited when I was a kid, and its still there now:

http://carboncanyonchronicle.blogspot.com/2009/02/year-round-skiiing-in-carbon-canyon.html