This is the STUPIDEST thing I have read. How is driving individual cars more GREEN than a ski lift? With such a focus on individualism, no wonder this country is falling apart
Bwahahaha… missed this one. Replacing ski lifts with cars will be especially effective in avalanche conditions when the cars get an express ride to the bottom.
I am so surprised to read this article and how it describes the fight between proponents of a gondola versus cars. The question which of the two is better is impossible to answer, because both solutions are bad.
In fact, downhill skiing is probably the most environment-unfriendly sport of all. The infrastructure needed (regardless whether it is a road+parking, or gondola skilift) is enormous and it requires destruction of the mountain forever. In addition, for the ski slopes you need to cut square miles of timber. Then there's the worst: snow cannons, which utilise enormous amount of water and often result in lowering of groundwater level. In essence, the downhill ski resorts should not be built at all, and if they are, it is due to pressure from gear manufacturers and the tourism ecosystem. There are however, many sport disciplines available (including back-country skiing) that do not require devastation of the environment, and still allow creating a tourism ecosystem - and they should be promoted.
I am sharing my European perspective here, I would be interested to hear how things are perceived differently in the US.
This is a stupid comment because ski resorts take up very little land in comparison to the immensity of the mountains, and all the water from snowmaking goes back into the environment when it melts in the spring
Who in their right mind would want to sit in a vehicle for hours looking out the window at all the powder going to waste and then trying to find a space big enough to put their boots and skis on and try to figure out to get back once their at the bottom. A gondola is the better way the road would only benefit those sightseers during the summer.
My brother uses a wheelchair. It was very windy yesterday and he said he couldn’t come over because of the risk of getting blown away. I suggested getting a parachute to enable to take advantage of the wind.
He also paraskis, so this is definitely a great addition to the Paralympics. Para-paraskiing.
Anyone clutching their pearls over the impact of the proposed gondola has obviously never looked out the window of a plane flying over the area and has no sense of perspective. The gondola's tiny footprint in relation to the vast amount of land encompassed by the Wasatch is plain to see.
Strongly disagree with this. If the cottonwoods are just an unremarkable tiny spot in the Wasatch, why are we so dependent on it for our water, and why do so many people visit them? And if you don’t think they are special, why would you want there to be a gondola there?
I admire your passion but please don't mischaracterize my statement. I did not describe the area as unremarkable nor did I state that the area is not special. In fact, I have been visiting the area for over 38 years because it is such a wonderful place. The point I'm making is that the proposed gondola would impact an incredibly small amount of land in relation to the vast amount of land contained within the Wasatch range. The wilderness will continue to exist long after you, me and our future generations cease to exist. You can voice your disagreement with my opinion without resorting to exaggeration, distortion or making outright false accusations.
Tony, thank you for this clarification and I apologize for mischaracterizing your perspective. I moved here from California 3 years ago, which makes me an outsider I suppose, but I nonetheless love nature and am deeply saddened about human impact on it. I completely agree that the Wasatch is a vast place. My question for you is how does that make putting a massive gondola system in a particularly special part of it more acceptable?
David, I appreciate the apology. Your question prompts the questions often asked in regards to ANY development, ie. "what's appropriate, what's the trade-off, how much is too much" which certainly are reasonable questions to ask. Over my 48 years of skiing I've heard those those questions asked countless times whenever any ski area development project was proposed. One side argues that ANY growth will bring about the end of the entire wilderness ecosystem. The other side argues that the additional jobs and economic growth are worth any sacrifice to the environment. I'm somewhere in the middle because, in hindsight, neither extreme has happened. The feared environmental disaster never happened. The economic panacea bringing wealth and prosperity to all also didn't happen. Time will tell what this latest proposal brings about.
This is the STUPIDEST thing I have read. How is driving individual cars more GREEN than a ski lift? With such a focus on individualism, no wonder this country is falling apart
Really? You actually believe that this is written with earnest intent? WOW! 😄🤣😂🤣
Maybe my favorite comment ever.
Well, I believe they call it sarcasm.
https://www.alta.com/red-snake-letter?utm_source=Inntopia&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=14491091
Is this satire?
Bwahahaha… missed this one. Replacing ski lifts with cars will be especially effective in avalanche conditions when the cars get an express ride to the bottom.
I am so surprised to read this article and how it describes the fight between proponents of a gondola versus cars. The question which of the two is better is impossible to answer, because both solutions are bad.
In fact, downhill skiing is probably the most environment-unfriendly sport of all. The infrastructure needed (regardless whether it is a road+parking, or gondola skilift) is enormous and it requires destruction of the mountain forever. In addition, for the ski slopes you need to cut square miles of timber. Then there's the worst: snow cannons, which utilise enormous amount of water and often result in lowering of groundwater level. In essence, the downhill ski resorts should not be built at all, and if they are, it is due to pressure from gear manufacturers and the tourism ecosystem. There are however, many sport disciplines available (including back-country skiing) that do not require devastation of the environment, and still allow creating a tourism ecosystem - and they should be promoted.
I am sharing my European perspective here, I would be interested to hear how things are perceived differently in the US.
This is a stupid comment because ski resorts take up very little land in comparison to the immensity of the mountains, and all the water from snowmaking goes back into the environment when it melts in the spring
Who in their right mind would want to sit in a vehicle for hours looking out the window at all the powder going to waste and then trying to find a space big enough to put their boots and skis on and try to figure out to get back once their at the bottom. A gondola is the better way the road would only benefit those sightseers during the summer.
April Fool! 🤣🤣🤣
Any ecological problems could be solved with the disappearance of 75% of the world’s population. Line ‘em up and shoot’em.
😏
That was some crazy story. I had to check to see if I was reading an article from the Babylon Bee. 😂
Sigh. An April Fool's day post that is neither clever or funny and wasted my time.
My brother uses a wheelchair. It was very windy yesterday and he said he couldn’t come over because of the risk of getting blown away. I suggested getting a parachute to enable to take advantage of the wind.
He also paraskis, so this is definitely a great addition to the Paralympics. Para-paraskiing.
🤣. Were these folks dropped on the heads at birth? Oh, wait, a delayed April Fools joke. Still LOL.
Giant helium balloons and helicopters would be great
This should really be a piece about how much opposition there is to buses, which I think are the solution. Gondolas surely are not the answer.
Anyone clutching their pearls over the impact of the proposed gondola has obviously never looked out the window of a plane flying over the area and has no sense of perspective. The gondola's tiny footprint in relation to the vast amount of land encompassed by the Wasatch is plain to see.
Strongly disagree with this. If the cottonwoods are just an unremarkable tiny spot in the Wasatch, why are we so dependent on it for our water, and why do so many people visit them? And if you don’t think they are special, why would you want there to be a gondola there?
I admire your passion but please don't mischaracterize my statement. I did not describe the area as unremarkable nor did I state that the area is not special. In fact, I have been visiting the area for over 38 years because it is such a wonderful place. The point I'm making is that the proposed gondola would impact an incredibly small amount of land in relation to the vast amount of land contained within the Wasatch range. The wilderness will continue to exist long after you, me and our future generations cease to exist. You can voice your disagreement with my opinion without resorting to exaggeration, distortion or making outright false accusations.
Tony, thank you for this clarification and I apologize for mischaracterizing your perspective. I moved here from California 3 years ago, which makes me an outsider I suppose, but I nonetheless love nature and am deeply saddened about human impact on it. I completely agree that the Wasatch is a vast place. My question for you is how does that make putting a massive gondola system in a particularly special part of it more acceptable?
David, I appreciate the apology. Your question prompts the questions often asked in regards to ANY development, ie. "what's appropriate, what's the trade-off, how much is too much" which certainly are reasonable questions to ask. Over my 48 years of skiing I've heard those those questions asked countless times whenever any ski area development project was proposed. One side argues that ANY growth will bring about the end of the entire wilderness ecosystem. The other side argues that the additional jobs and economic growth are worth any sacrifice to the environment. I'm somewhere in the middle because, in hindsight, neither extreme has happened. The feared environmental disaster never happened. The economic panacea bringing wealth and prosperity to all also didn't happen. Time will tell what this latest proposal brings about.