Ski Resorts

[MULE]

I hear alot of bithing about what ranchers pay to graze on federal land but never heard a peep about this here.

clicky linky

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/4913992.htm

 

[ELKCHSR]

Good find Mule…
My take on this is that the revenue created by having these businesses is really a fair trade off. I would bet that besides the direct collection of taxes. There is hundreds of millions brought in by ski equipment sales, gas, lodging, and all the other business based revenue getters that is created by having these resorts in the first place, not to mention the winter jobs it creates for countless thousands...

 

[MarlandS]

There was a link to another Mercury News article on about this very thing last year...it didn't go very far here, wonder if I can find it to see if anythings changed since last year..

Here's the thread from last April...... http://www.huntandlodge.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic&f=31&t=000716

 

[dgibson]

Whoever posted that earlier article sure was a bright fellow!

Mule, I still think that arrangement sucks. I doubt much will ever be said about it, though, because skiing is popular, and because it's kind of contained. Skiers stick to the established area and do their thing; not much chance of high-profile damage outside of that. Ranching and similar stuff get lots of attention because they're widespread throughout the range and often clash with other interests. Or so it would seem.

 

[Elkhunter]

Skiers stick to the established area and do their thing.

Not true. Backcountry skiing is a very popular activity. Everyone is in search of new or untouched powder. Then there is the Heli-Skiing. But for the most part you are actually correct. The activity of skiing is over the snow and damge not happening as compared to the cattle. I do think they should pay more for the use of the land. It does appear that they are paying a little for such a great return.

 

[dgibson]

I stand corrected! I was thinking of the ski resorts, with pre-cut slopes and paths. Heli-skiing?

 

[Oak]

Personally, I think ski areas are a load of crap we all pay for. But hey, I'm not a skier.

Sure, ski areas are confined to small areas, but it seems like they are applying for expansions every year. They don't pay a fair price for use of the land, and use is basically restricted to skiers.

But I think the most detrimental effects of ski areas is the development around them that is eating up valuable (and irreplaceable) winter range for wildlife. A drive up the Eagle River valley between Dotsero and Vail Pass here in CO would make you sick. Everywhere you look there is condominiums and $5 million houses on the mountaintops and south-facing slopes above the valley. Add to that the increased jet traffic into regional airports near ski areas and it begins to have a pretty big impact.

I know that they bring in an incredible amount of revenue to the state, but we're going to pay the price in the long run. We're just selling our soul.

Hey, you asked.

Oak

 

[1_pointer]

Even though I do ski a bit, I agree with Oak. I'm not to keen on any private industry making a buck on public land, especially if it closes the land to other uses. I don't see how these resorts can continue to expand given that the total number of skiers is dropping. I guess that's why all day lift passes cost up over $50 in many places.

 

[Elkhunter]

I also am a skier and have been almost all of my life. I agree with Oak on the development issue.
Tyler, would you include the Outfitter business in your statement? Ski areas do not close the land to other uses. Ski areas are quite active during the sumer months for hikers, bikers and for just enjoying the mountains. Pleas expand on this if you would. Thanks.

 

[BuzzH]

I agree with Oak on the ski hills.

Well heck since skiing doesnt close the slopes to other users, maybe I ought to rent a snowmachine and head on over to aspen or vail for a couple days of fun! Hell, maybe even take a rifle and pistol along for a little shooting fun.

As far as the outfitters go, there should not be a law in WY that forces you to hire a guide in the wilderness. Its a self-serving lop-sided law. I dont however have anything against the outfitting industry as long as they are strictly regulated.

 

[Elkhunter]

As far as the outfitters go, there should not be a law in WY that forces you to hire a guide in the wilderness. Its a self-serving lop-sided law. I dont however have anything against the outfitting industry as long as they are strictly regulated.

I can agree with that 100% Buzz.
What I am trying to figure out is why the Outfitting business is any different that the ski business.

 

[BuzzH]

Why I think theres a huge difference is the amount charged for the use.

While outfitters certainly dont over-pay for what they get, the ski hills are ridiculous.

Look at any decent sized ski resort, the return they get for what they pay to use the land is huge. Why even charge them anything?

What the FS needs to do is look at the amount of revenue each ski resort makes and take a percentage of the money being taken in.

I bet on a per-capita basis, the outfitters pay many, many, many, times more for their temporary use of the FS land than a ski resort. Plus, last time I checked just because an outfitter finds a good place to hunt, a bunch of development doesnt spring up around his secret spot. They dont cut trees down or have hundreds of thousands of clients either.

Huge difference.

 

[Elkhunter]

OK, I can see that. How about tif the ski areas paid the same as the outfitters. I mean what ever it costs an outfitter to use an area per acre, the sam for the ski areas. It would surely cut into their bottom line and at least slow down the development. From what I have seen here, is the ski area is the biggest backer to the growth and development around the ski area.
Just trying to understand thais a litle clearer.

 

[Elkhunter]

I think that is one of the reasons for so much backcountry skiing anymore. The ski areas have raised the price for a day of skiing so much that it takes the fun out of what used to be a good value. Most ski areas are between $50 - $60 for a day. It has always been an expensive sport without a doubt, but it has gotten to a point of being rediculous. I really do think that they are getting off easy from the FS.

 

[ELKCHSR]

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR>Well heck since skiing doesnt close the slopes to other users, maybe I ought to rent a snowmachine and head on over to aspen or vail for a couple days of fun! Hell, maybe even take a rifle and pistol along for a little shooting fun. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
What ever you like, its a free country.

<BLOCKQUOTE>quote:</font><HR> As far as the outfitters go, there should not be a law in WY that forces you to hire a guide in the wilderness. Its a self-serving lop-sided law. I dont however have anything against the outfitting industry as long as they are strictly regulated. <HR></BLOCKQUOTE>
I fully agree with this statement.

 

[Oak]

I know that they're not closed down to all uses other than skiing, Elky. Look at the link Mars posted in the third post. I mentioned it when the topic was brought up last year. But in general, use is severely restricted. For six months of the year access will cost you $50 a day. I just don't see how an outdoor enthusiast who doesn't ski or make a living from the ski industry could think ski areas are a great deal for the USFS.

Oak

<FONT COLOR="#800080" SIZE="1">[ 02-19-2003 01:00: Message edited by: Colorado Oak ]</font>

 

[Elkhunter]

Buzz, the snow machine thing isn't that far fetched.

http://www.snowdevils.org/snowmobilehillclimb.htm

For most folks, even for those with plenty of experience astride a snowmobile, there is challenge and adventure aplenty in northwest Wyoming.

Simply touring Yellowstone National Park or tackling a few dozen of the hundreds of miles of the Continental Divide snowmobile trail are memorable challenges for the average snowmobiler. But for some even these opportunities appear pedestrian. For some, the World Championship Snowmobile Hill Climb beckons.

Not impressed? You say you've climbed some pretty decent hills on your own snowmachine? Well consider this: the "hill" in the world championship hill climb is Snow King Mountain.

Snow King rises 1,500 vertical feet above the town of Jackson. The hill climb course follows a route that, near the summit, steepens to nearly a 45-degree angle. Hill climbers who lose it on the upper reaches of the course often tumble hundreds of feet back downhill.

It is not an event for the meek, as David Shepherd knows. Shepherd is one of the handful of drivers ever to make it to the summit. "It takes a lot of work to win, but guts mainly," Shepherd told a Jackson Hole Guide newspaper reporter once.

"Guts and a good sled will take you over the top." Even spectators face challenges. Prime vantage points for viewing the race high on the course are on the same steep slopes that frustrate so many drivers. It is difficult simply to stand upright along some sections of the course.

 

[ELKCHSR]

That would be way to cool!!!

 

[dgibson]

Well, Mule, we've discussed it thoroughly; what say you about the subject?

 

[Lostagain]

Elk=== Shep was a good friend of mine... sledder from hell, he finally died in an avalanche a coupla years ago.