# Ski-link



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

stopskilink.wordpress.com
Check out this page if you are interested in participating in this debate. 
The proposed lift would infringe upon some prime extended area real estate. I'd rather use it for hunting.

---
I am here: http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=40.642537,-111.836169


----------



## ktowncamo (Aug 27, 2008)

I do a fair amount of backcountry skiing in that area and it will be a permanent destruction to a pristine part of the Wasatch to have that lift in there....not to mention an easier argument to transform more of the Wasatch into a resort and therefore off limits to backcountry skiers and hunters. Perhaps an unlikely couple of user groups (Archery Hunters and Save Our Canyons) should unite to fight this proposed lift


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Amen! There's already enough acreage scared up closed off and ruined in the name of skiing. Enough already!


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

ktowncamo said:


> Perhaps an unlikely couple of user groups (Archery Hunters and Save Our Canyons) should unite to fight this proposed lift


Oil and Water


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

I am teaming up w soc! I would like to save our canyons.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

I have been in discussions with Carl Fischer, the Executive Director of Save Our Canyons, on this issue and have found that he is open to teaming up with the hunting community in a joint effort to protect OUR public land. 
A quick summary of what has been proposed: Talisker (A major Company that owns the Canyons Ski Resort and is based out of Toronto) would buy 30 acres of national forest to develop the ski link. This is a lift that would connect Solitude and the Canyons. By purchasing this federal land, Talisker would be able to circumvent the policy put into place by the Forest Service in 2007 that prohibits ski area expansion in the Wasatch Front. It also eliminates public input (the large majority of which are strongly opposed to the project). 
The ski link does not serve us as hunters. It barely serves the ski community. It is nothing more then a gimmick to sell lift tickets. 
They have billed it as a solution to the transportation problems in BCC and a boost to the economy, but all the benefits they have stated are unfounded. From what I can tell they have provided zero backing for any of the numbers they have come up with. It is to our benefit to get educated on this matter. The extended is in enough jeopardy as it is without a giant yuppy lift going through elk and deer habitat. 
BOOOOOOOOOOO SKI LINK!


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

So, what exactly does this mean in terms of archery hunting? Can one still hunt the area encompassed by this proposal? Can we access lands through it? I imagine that a lot of it is simply land leased from the forest service. And, what about those pesky Cardiff landowners and their entitlements?


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

Are there any other links that have more info on this? Can you post them up?


----------



## walter sobchak (Jul 3, 2009)

ski link would be in big cottonwood canyon spanning the northeast ridgeline from the top of bear trap to near brighton, depending on who is talking about it.

http://www.sltrib.com/sltrib/politics/5 ... a.html.csp

but there is also more planned:

http://www.ksl.com/index.php?nid=148&si ... velopments


----------



## TEX-O-BOB (Sep 12, 2007)

Ya! What about those pesky Forrest Service law breaking, entitlement complex havin, Cardiff land owners? :O•-:


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

The proposal is not to leased the land, it is to own the land. The 30 acres would become private property and its uses would be at the discretion of Talisker. I'd rather not leave it up to them. As far as the Cardiff guys go, I think they should be able to do whatever they want.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

The lift as proposed would end up a couple miles east of bear trap. Originally they wanted it to meet up with 9990 at the top of Bear Trap but they realized that was too much of a battle.
Horses ma, I'm glad you asked. If you look at my previous post I included a link to stopskilink.wordpress.com.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

Can you please elaborate on the impact you think this will have to hunters?


----------



## For-SkiLink (Dec 16, 2011)

If you are interested in the truth rather than over-reactions, go to www.skilink.com.


----------



## Treehugnhuntr (Sep 7, 2007)

Mr. Phillips (For ski-link), I'm not for or against this at this juncture, but why would we all consider the information in the link you provided "truth"? It seems to me when there's a substantial monitory gain involved that "truth" seems to be subjective and often times skewed to fit the objective founded by the beneficiary. 

So, what information can you give us that would cause people to sympathize with your assertion of truth vs. overreaction?

Are we able to obtain all of the records pertaining to this, such as financials etc.? Are there any items that are not completely transparent? After-all, these are public lands.

Will you be blocking off the access from the over reactionary Cardiff landowners?


----------



## walter sobchak (Jul 3, 2009)

For-SkiLink said:


> If you are interested in the truth rather than over-reactions, go to http://www.skilink.com.


You mean the "Truth" that Talisker paid for? That's as rich as Save our Canyons saying they paid for a study as to why SkiLink is bad.

I usually lurk on this site and have learned a ton from you all, but now I'm curious: How many of you on this site really hunt at ski resorts?


----------



## JERRY (Sep 30, 2007)

It says this will not increase access to the wasatch back country. Then it says it will open access to 6000 acres. Which is it? :roll: 

It won't impact the watershed. How is that possible?


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

It could affect hunting in two ways. Closing off once public land and damaging habitat.


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

The sale of this land would also set a precedence for other resorts to circumvent policies in order to expand and encroach upon more public land in the extended.


----------



## Finnegan (Sep 7, 2007)

Seems to me that there's more to this than just the link. The hope is that the link will draw more business. More business invites more development. I think the ski industry has already taken their fair share of the mountain and then some.


----------



## elk22hunter (Sep 7, 2007)

I am definately not one that is big on saving a beetle from his home when a freeway is needed. I am baffled on this project however and can't figure out how the good is going to out weigh the bad.

As far as those pesky Cardiff fork guys, they just like to be left alone. The forest Circus has caused them enough grief to last a lifetime. BTW, what does this have to do with them anyway. The link doesn't involve them. I am glad that you found a place to sit with the SOC. I have always believed that we need to "Save our Canyons" FROM "Save our Canyons".


----------



## elkfromabove (Apr 20, 2008)

This looks like just the foot in the door! Words like "first of it's kind", "I look forward to the day when someone can park at a resort in one canyon and spend the day skiing in another canyon", and from the bill, "The primary ski resorts in the Wasatch Range in Utah are situated within a 5 mile radius, but currently there is no convenient transportation link between the resorts." and " for skiing and other purposes", tell me all I want to know. We ain't seen nothin' yet, folks.


----------



## TopofUtahArcher (Sep 9, 2009)

elk22hunter said:


> ktowncamo said:
> 
> 
> > Perhaps an unlikely couple of user groups (Archery Hunters and Save Our Canyons) should unite to fight this proposed lift
> ...


Keep in mind Scott, if they quit drilling for oil and gas where you're at, your whole town would shut down...

I am for keeping lifts off that area.


----------



## bwhntr (Sep 12, 2007)

I am trying to understand the excitement here...exactly how does a skilift impact watershed???


----------



## idiot with a bow (Sep 10, 2007)

It may not as far as I am concerned. There is the threat that through the construction process as well as the added human element to the area that particles may be introduced into the water shed. And the county insists on the highest quality water possible, hence the fact that dogs and horses are not allowed in the watershed. 
That is not the issue that concerns me though. It is the selling of our public land to a private entity for the benefit of the few that is concerning. That and the way they have figured out a way to take the local public opinion out of the equation.


----------

