Wednesday, October 31, 2012
Black Diamond stands with more than 80 outdoor and local businesses in opposition of Utah SkiLink
Black Diamond, along with a coalition of over 80 snowsports and outdoor brands and local Utah businesses, today announced its formal, united opposition to the Utah SkiLink—a proposed gondola that would connect Canyons Resort in Park City with Solitude Mountain Resort in Big Cottonwood Canyon. The proposed project would require the US Forest Service to sell 30 acres of public land, located in some of the Wasatch Range's most popular ski touring terrain, to developers while bypassing existing jurisdictional and environmental protections.
"SkiLink threatens our precious watershed, and shuts out the interests of the multitude of existing stakeholders involved." Black Diamond CEO Peter Metcalf said. "The industry is against SkiLink but in favor of more sustainable and true Wasatch-wide transportation solutions that benefit all ski areas and the entire community."
To download a .pdf version of the press release, CLICK HERE.
CLICK HERE to download a list of the supporting outdoor brands, local businesses and conservation groups.
To read the letter addressed to Utah Governor Gary Herbert and other Utah legislators that these businesses signed, CLICK HERE.
To sign the petition opposing SkiLink at Change.org, CLICK HERE.
Tags for this Article:
skilink, wasatch, groups-we-support, backcountry, touring, knowledge, ski, culture, employees, events, news
Photos
Build My Own Feed
United States / English 
17 Feb 2013, 9:56PM
does anybody know the URL for the Page that supports the Snow-Link?
1 Nov 2012, 5:46PM
Not being a local, but being an avid skier who's been fortunate enough to spend a few days skiing the Canyon, and being another citizen to whom federal lands belong, I'll just add my sentiment that our public wilderness areas should generally never be sold to developers or violated by ski lifts. The last of our wild natural areas should be protected as such, for the benefit of wildlife, wilderness experience opportunities, etc. To me, that alone settles the issue. But it also appears from the other posts that there's no compelling argument to give this project an exemption from that perspective based on specific local circumstances, but rather, just the opposite.
1 Nov 2012, 10:24AM
I think you guys have swayed me with your thoughtful reasonable arguments against this. I appreciate a thread that doesn't go off the deep end. I am intrigued by BCPOWDR's comment about Guardsman Pass. Seems like there could be some sort of passenger cat that could carry people to test to see how many people cared to make the trip from PC to Solitude. There is already a road there, why not use it.
31 Oct 2012, 4:39PM
The Skilink plan is wrong in many ways. It is motivated by greedy land and corporate developers and although it sounds like it could be a fun way to ski more than one resort in a day, the reality is that linking Canyons to Solitude doesn't make much sense for the actual skiing experience. The landscape here is different than that of the Alps. It is doubtful that the fewer people driving around the Wasatch thanks to the Skilink gondola will offset the environmental impact caused by the building of this thing and all the energy and water consumed by it and of course the much prized land development that will accompany it. So that is just a poor pretext for them to build it. I understand the need for growing the economy but if we ruin the land than it is going to be detrimental to the skier's experience and then to the economy. Our responsibility is to see further than the developers who really don't care much about the skiing, they just want to grow their wallet.
The other important point is that the beautiful backcountry is one of the Wasatch pride and it attracts some tourists and seasonal and permanent workforce too. It is important to leave some land undeveloped for people to enjoy as is, and for wildlife to live in, there is already a lot of pressure on the wildlife here. Having a big gondola and ski runs cross the center of the Wasatch will cause more conflict and endanger their fragile presence here, it may not be worth a lot for some, but for many of us, seeing a moose is really a cool experience. I am not allowed to bring my dog in the cottonwood because it is a watershed and they will allow another huge gondola to be built?
BTW, I do enjoy skiing in resorts at times and I love the backountry so I am not just being a purist.
It's ok if not everyone travels to UT to ski because we don't have a the Skilink, if they want to go spend some money in Europe to ski between resorts that's good, they need our money there too, there is not enough powder in Utah to accommodate an infinite number of skiers, developers don't see it that way of course, but when at 10:30 when on a powder day everything is skied out, we feel it...
my 4 cents...
31 Oct 2012, 3:11PM
HOW DO WE OPPOSE IT? I live in Oregon, we successfully defeated a ski resort expansion on Mt HOOD in 2006. For those of us who think of skiing as getting out in the backcountry and earning your turns it is obvious why this is a terrible idea.
31 Oct 2012, 1:31PM
After reading through the website, it does seem that this is a bad idea for two major reasons:
1. It's not the size of the 30 acres, it's the way they are trying to get them. Avoiding USFS permitting procedures that are in place to keep development in-check, and, instead, lobbying state legislators directly. This sale will go entirely unnoticed, buried deep as a rider on some enormous budget bill and Talisker (the developer) will have gotten exactly what they want. Sorry folks, but this is buying favors in lieu of law at the highest level and is not the preferred way to run a country. Is this a precedent we want to set?
2. Watch Andrew's video about how you access this thing. How many people are really going to use it? How many people buy lift tickets to two ares in a single day? It's just a new toy for a select few, definitively not an effective transportation option. I've skied The Canyons. Once. The layout of the lifts is atrocious (the terrain marginal)and this is building something huge on top of that hideous foundation that is horribly inefficient and difficult to use.
No to Ski Link.
The Whistler/Blackcomb thing I can understand.
31 Oct 2012, 1:29PM
Why not plow the road over Guardsman for folks that want to get back and forth vs. istalling a lift that would only benefit few, and be an eye sore to our mountains winter and summer?
31 Oct 2012, 1:27PM
The claim is that this will benefit only owners of million dollar properties and does not serve to reduce road traffic. That is, this benefits a few at the potential cost of environmental damage and other collateral damage that is usually associated with construction in scenic/wild/natural habitat. Hopefully the growing opposition will create a venue for compromise that reduces road traffic and provides safe/reliable transit to everyone, not just a few. Hopefully it is not the aim of this protest to preserve limited access to the many who could enjoy the Solitude. Utah's environment is an asset to the people of Utah. With limited options for industry, low population yet high unemployment, the people of Utah need to ensure safe tourism growth to facilitate a livelihood most skiers take for granted. This can be done without excessive risk, and cooler heads may prevail. Gondolas are awesome. I'm FOR Gondolas FOR everyone.
31 Oct 2012, 1:24PM
Have you seen the inversions in UT? Less emissions would be a positive thing. But I am also curious how the watershed will be affected? How many acres will be altered? What percentage of the trails (hiking, biking, etc.) will be affected? I would like to support but I can't do it blindly.
31 Oct 2012, 1:19PM
SKILINK marks a tipping point, a return to the parcellation and destruction that saw its forests depleted, its waters polluted, and its minerals extracted without regard. It was only through consolidating ownership of much of the land in Big and Little Cottonwood Canyons, under the stewardship of the Forest Service, that these canyons have been rehabilitated at all, and that they don't mirror Kennecot's "Cerro Rico" in the Oquirrhs to the west.
As a lifelong resident of the Salt Lake Valley, with ties going back two centuries, I see this project for what it is: a willful disregard for the mistakes that have been made in the past, a commitment to a series of blunders that will erode our canyons like pit mines and granite quarries and saw mills whose scars are still so clearly visible.
Whether you oppose this project for its threat to the watershed, whether you oppose it because it will convert a beautiful fork into a utility corridor, whether you oppose it because it transforms a place that exists outside the marketplace into a teller by which money is paid out and received, or whether you oppose it simply because Talisker has acted in bad faith, has circumscribed the public at every step and unleashed its PR Machine to silence all protest: your opposition is sound.
SKILINK is a farce. A ruse. A trojan horse.
DEATH to SKILINK!
31 Oct 2012, 1:07PM
Ski Link is about many things, and very little is about skiing. The Congressionally mandated Uinta/Wasatch/Cache National Forest Plan does not open new areas in Big Cottonwood Canyon for ski resort expansion. This is a rolling and advancing plan designed to be forward looking and comprehensive with many years of thought and study behind it. Changes to the plan are possible and the proponents of the gondola have chosen not to work with the Forest Service, but instead to end-run the Forest Service’s plan by going to Congress directly to force the Forest Service to sell to land. The Forest Service plan is not in favor of selling public land to corporations, foreign or domestic. Thirty acres sounds small, however, these thirty acres are a over mile long and just yards wide with the potential of cutting Big Cottonwood Canyon in half. If this public property becomes private property for personal profit for the few, the public could lose many backcountry skiing routes, hiking trails, and mountain biking routes that run the length of the canyon.
Few if any cars drive from Park City to Solitude on any given day. Yet hundreds of skiers south of Big Cottonwood Canyon might choose the shorter drive to Solitude and then take the gondola to The Canyons. This will only increase the car pollution and congestion in Big Cottonwood Canyon and in the Salt Lake City water supply. For a Park City skier to go to Solitude, they must ride four Canyon’s chairlifts to get from the parking lot to the gondola… probably slower than the drive around. As the Park City ski resort is being hostilely forced out of their lease by the Canyons Resort, the same company is expanding its tentacles south into Big Cottonwood. I don’t want them there. The precedent of forcing the US Forest Service to sell public land for the profit of the few sounds like a large step backwards. Shame on our Governor, Senators, and Representatives who would sell the public’s land for the profit of the few.
31 Oct 2012, 1:06PM
Awww John, you know what happens when you assume. And actually, John, if Rick is a U.S. citizen, he has the same right as anybody to comment. Federal land is the birthright of all Americans John. Not just some uppity snob who thinks it belongs only to him or her. And skiing isn't the only use of public land. Maybe Rick's a hunter, or snowmobiler, or shed collector, or miner, or backpacker, or landscape phootographer or snowshoer or, the head of an environmental organization, or...
31 Oct 2012, 12:58PM
Hmmm...what's the deal with skirting NEPA? And likewise with the USFS opposition? They are pro-development more often than not. Few people have more insight or credibility than Peter Metcalf. Besides, Peter Metcalf runs an equipment compnay, not a ski resort, so I don't see where he's concerned about competetion. And finally, a Canadian developer? So far the math to go forward with this project doesn't add up yet. And Rick, since this is federal USFS land, you have precisely the same right to comment as any other U.S citizen - as much as Utah would like to think that they control the land. They don't. YOU do.
31 Oct 2012, 12:49PM
For those who aren't seeing the opposition, you should look further into the plans for this gondola. My main reason for opposing this project is because it will be building a lift that goes through some backcountry terrain. I can understand people not caring about that.
The fact is, where they plan on starting the gondola is just flat-out inconvenient. Here is a bit of a crude map that shows how you'd have to access the SkiLink:
https://sphotos-a.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ash3/548716_10151116350887304_1809580661_n.jpg
To me, it just doesn't make sense, and doesn't do anything to help with traffic up BCC and LCC. I think there needs to be greater efforts made in public transportation up these canyons before we go all Euro on them. Not to mention (let me put on my tinfoil hat for a minute) that this makes me think Talisker is going for a land grab, with intentions to build "The Colonies" type developments in the beautiful Utah backcountry.
31 Oct 2012, 12:49PM
John W,
How would most people know the ridge in that photo will be impacted by the gondola? Neither the press release or the stop skilink webpage do a very good job of explaining their position and rationale for blocking the gondola. They make broad statements like "SkiLink threatens our precious watershed" and "require the US Forest Service to sell 30 acres of public land, located in some of the Wasatch Range's most popular ski touring terrain", but don't go any further. How does it threaten the watershed? 30 acres doesn't sound much; is it 30 acres that ski tourers need to access other terrain? What environmental protections would be bypassed?
31 Oct 2012, 12:41PM
I am opposed to this project, but my main opposition is location. The logical location for an interconnection link is at the head of BCC in the Guardsman's Pass area. This would allow downtown Park City to be linked to BCC via PCMR. The Canyons could be linked to PCMR as well.
I believe that Canyons does not support a logical interconnect solution because they want the Skilink project for themselves for marketing and real estate purposes.
If a LCC/BCC/Park City interconnect is wanted by the majority of Utah citizens, all the resorts should work together to design a minimally invasive solution that makes sense. Skilink does not make sense. And I am not even getting into the way Talisker (Canyons owner) has tried to circumvent the normal process for ski are expansion.
31 Oct 2012, 12:19PM
I'm not familiar with the area in question. As a B.C. nordic skier, I recognize the
need to balance recreational development with the protection of the environment. I would concur with Random Guy that you should move beyond a "broad-brush" condemnation of this gondola project and specify in detail what are the specific environmental problems/risks. 30 acres seems somewhat insignificant to be in a flap over. The Alps are home to many gondolas that enhance universal accessibility, particularly for those too old to climb, ski or snowshoe to the ridges/summits. They enable people of limited physical capability to experience the glory of these surroundings. We need to remember that alpine areas are not just a reserve for hikers and mountaineers.
31 Oct 2012, 11:55AM
Hey Rick S.- thanks for your thoughts. And thanks for coming to Utah to ski! I lived in Switzerland for a couple of years and have been on the l'Aguille de Midi tram on Mont Blanc several times. I've seen the expanse of the Alps, and I've seen your beautiful mountains in Colorado as well. Having grown up in Salt Lake, I can say that while I love the Wasatch, it doesn't compare in size. 30 acres up there is a huge percentage of what's left of the public land that we're allowed to recreate on without paying for a lift ticket or resort fee.
Secondly, if you come to UT to ski (thank you) I'm willing to bet that you don't go to the Canyons to do it. If you do, you're missing out on the great snow and hills that Utah is known for. SkiLink will only benefit people who ski the Canyons resort—take a look at the map here: http://stopskilink.org/why-we-oppose-skilink , and you'll see why. It would require riders to take up to 5 lifts just to get to SkiLink.
I don't have any special interests, other than that I love the Wasatch and would rather we keep our mountains OURS rather than sell them to foreign real estate companies and start charging people $100+/day to access them. Just my opinion.
Thank you Black Diamond for standing with us!
31 Oct 2012, 11:51AM
Rick,
It is more about the land grab that a non US company is trying to pass, and how this is a real estate transaction for Canyons/Talisker, and it is being veiled as a transportation alternative.
" Talisker never even opted to ask the USFS for the ability to lease or buy the land. Some studies have shown that up to 94% of Salt Lake County residents want to halt further resort expansion. Due to this Talisker knew they would stand no chance against the public and opted to go down the shady path of lobbying congress to push through a bill that would require the USFS to sell 30 acres that is not for sale. The USFS did not know of the attempted land grab until the bill was written. Thank you Andrew McLean for the corrected information."
It also takes a $96.00 lift ticket purchased at the canyons to get to the SkiLink, which requires 5 lift rides and at minimum a travel time of 30 minutes of lift riding plus the time spent skiing the mellow groomers over to the base of the gondola. There is no public road up there. Then another Solitude ticket once you are on the other side. Joint tickets have not been even mentioned at this point.
You know when resorts open early season and try to say they have the most runs open because they call something "upper" and "lower" and " ______ connector" for what is essentially one trail? I think of this in the same vein as that, a massive advertising ploy for the Canyons/Talisker that will only benefit a small number of skiers.
I understand the view of those not in Utah, but we are trying to protect our watershed, as well as our public lands from shady land grabs.
31 Oct 2012, 11:21AM
If there's something outrageous about this gondola, I'm not seeing it. If I knew more about the negative aspects, I might support blocking it. But you don't do a very good job of explaining what's so bad about the gondola other than it wouldn't be free to ride...and then, who cares? It would link two ski resorts that you have to pay to play. What are the environmental impacts you speak of? How will it impact the watershed? You need to simplify and clarify your messages.
31 Oct 2012, 11:11AM
Rick
You obviously don't get it. I assume you are the lazy type of skier that takes lifts all of the time and never hikes to earn your turns. As pictured, hiking across a ridge like that and then taking your time to soak in the majesty and beauty of the Rocky MOuntains is awesome. It's so peaceful and serene. It's the best feelign then to clip into your bindings and thoroughly enjoy every turn on the way down. Until you've done that and understand what that's about, then you have no grounds to comment on a matter such as this.
31 Oct 2012, 11:00AM
I have skied all over Europe and in Utah. Solitude is my favourite ski are in the world. Its name says it all: the peaceful envirnoment is why we go there and adds real value to the sustainability of the Canyon. Linking the Canyons to Solitude is like trying to mix oil and water: environmental disaster. Canyons would be better to sort out the stones on the groomers that always kill my skis when I go there.
31 Oct 2012, 10:53AM
I agree with Rick S. Opposition to this project seems like it is more motivated by anticompetitive forces than environmental forces. Would this project result in more or less emissions than the multitude of cars or buses that are currently circumnavigating the Wasatch range?
31 Oct 2012, 10:41AM
No to ski-link!
31 Oct 2012, 10:35AM
Sorry, but I disagree with your opposition to the SkiLink plan. Since I am not a UT resident I have no say in the matter, but I ski there often and since I live just "next door" in CO, I do believe I understand the impact, environmental and financial implications of the project. I've also spent quite a bit of time in Europe, have skied and otherwise visited many interconnected ski resorts. For some reason in the U.S. this endeavor is fervently fought by special interest groups whose motivations I don't agree with. With SkiLink I read in the info you sent me that it will require selling a total of 30 acres for the project? Really? That's it? If it were here in CO I would vote in favor of it without hesitation. 30 acres can be recovered very, very easily if only the opposing interests (people) had even a slight interest in compromise. While I don't have a say due to the fact that I don't reside in UT, I am a tourist who brings tourist dollars to your state, and I do so ONLY to ski. It is a significant inconvenience to drive around to the various resorts I like to ski. I do it, but it always is on my mind how fun, convenient, unique and enjoyable it would be if I could ski many of those resorts without getting back into my car. In Europe, that was a very enjoyable thing to do. It also reduced the need for vehicles which of course reduces emissions etc. Personally, I think the emissions topic is minimal, but the convenience factor would help UT tourism revenues, mind share within the market on a national if not industry wide scale. The impact on the environment is minimal at worst once the construction is complete. I've seen projects like this before and the environmental impact is so small it isn't worth mentioning in most cases, and I believe valid in the case of SkiLink. Still, people will fight anything that isn't THEIR idea or project, or threatens to increase competition for their business. That is America today, I get it. I'm as environmentally protective as anybody I know, but I'm also a realist. There's already so much more stuff going on there and everywhere else in the ski world that has far worse environmental impact than this project would have, that I wonder why the opposition isn't getting as worked up about those issues as they are for a project like this.