Welcome to SP!  -
Areas & RangesMountains & RocksRoutesImagesArticlesTrip ReportsGearOtherPeoplePlans & PartnersWhat's NewForum

Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Regional discussion and conditions reports for the great state of Utah, from the alpine peaks to the desert slots. Please post partners requests and trip plans here or in the Utah Climbing Partners section.
 

Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Dmitry Pruss » Tue Jan 11, 2011 3:02 pm

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
User Avatar
Dmitry Pruss

 
Posts: 837
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:17 am
Location: Utah, United States
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts

The following user would like to thank Dmitry Pruss for this post
Dan Shorb

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Kai » Tue Jan 11, 2011 4:00 pm

This is not good.
User Avatar
Kai

 
Posts: 694
Joined: Thu Jun 23, 2005 2:26 pm
Location: Salt Lake, Utah, United States
Thanked: 53 times in 39 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby jdzaharia » Tue Jan 11, 2011 5:29 pm

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.
User Avatar
jdzaharia

 
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: Texas, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Scott Wesemann » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:03 pm

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

 
Posts: 568
Joined: Thu Jun 10, 2004 12:18 am
Location: American Fork, Utah, United States
Thanked: 0 time in 0 post

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Ed F » Tue Jan 11, 2011 6:57 pm

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.
User Avatar
Ed F

 
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 8:15 pm
Location: High, Low, and in Between, Utah, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 13 posts

The following user would like to thank Ed F for this post
Dan Shorb, TyeDyeTwins

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Matthew Van Horn » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:29 pm

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.
User Avatar
Matthew Van Horn

 
Posts: 729
Joined: Wed Mar 22, 2006 10:00 pm
Location: Farmington, Utah, United States
Thanked: 24 times in 12 posts

The following user would like to thank Matthew Van Horn for this post
Dan Shorb

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby PellucidWombat » Tue Jan 11, 2011 8:46 pm

"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".
User Avatar
PellucidWombat

 
Posts: 1137
Joined: Thu Feb 27, 2003 6:50 pm
Location: Berkeley, California, United States
Thanked: 48 times in 34 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Ed F » Wed Jan 12, 2011 3:31 pm

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.
User Avatar
Ed F

 
Posts: 993
Joined: Sat Sep 07, 2002 8:15 pm
Location: High, Low, and in Between, Utah, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 13 posts

The following user would like to thank Ed F for this post
Garfimi

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby lcarreau » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:13 pm

Ed F wrote: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.


Image
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 843 times in 637 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby jackstraw0083 » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:45 pm

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).
User Avatar
jackstraw0083

 
Posts: 65
Joined: Mon Sep 19, 2005 6:36 pm
Location: Culpeper, Virginia, United States
Thanked: 10 times in 6 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby lcarreau » Wed Jan 12, 2011 6:56 pm

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

Image
User Avatar
lcarreau

 
Posts: 4046
Joined: Thu Sep 06, 2007 10:27 pm
Location: Court of the Crimson King, Arizona, United States
Thanked: 843 times in 637 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby jdzaharia » Wed Jan 12, 2011 10:11 pm

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?
User Avatar
jdzaharia

 
Posts: 330
Joined: Tue May 02, 2006 5:48 pm
Location: Texas, United States
Thanked: 16 times in 14 posts

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Dmitry Pruss » Wed Jan 12, 2011 11:01 pm

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...
User Avatar
Dmitry Pruss

 
Posts: 837
Joined: Mon Apr 18, 2005 1:17 am
Location: Utah, United States
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts

The following user would like to thank Dmitry Pruss for this post
jdzaharia

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Garfimi » Thu Jan 13, 2011 4:56 am

NO WAY!!!

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

This would ruin the Mt. Superior area. This can not happen.
User Avatar
Garfimi

 
Posts: 57
Joined: Fri Sep 22, 2006 6:58 am
Location: Kaysville, Utah, United States
Thanked: 2 times in 2 posts

The following user would like to thank Garfimi for this post
Dan Shorb

Re: Rollercoaster proposed for Superior's South Ridge

Postby Dan Shorb » Thu Jan 13, 2011 5:39 am

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
我不知道杰克
Dan Shorb

 
Posts: 583
Joined: Thu Apr 08, 2004 2:06 pm
Thanked: 40 times in 28 posts

Next

Return to Utah

 


  • Related topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

© 2006-2013 SummitPost.org. All Rights Reserved.