Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 789 Location: just below the radar, just above the paraquat
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:06 am Post subject: Are you ready to pay to backcountry ski in the Wastach
MGK is posting this as a public service, The owners of land in the Wasatch are demanding that backcountry skiers be charged a tax:
Quote:
30 November, 2010
SO Forest Service Office
Intermountain Forest Service Supervisor Harv Forsgren
Forest Service, USDA
8236 Federal Building
125 South State Street
Salt Lake City, Utah 84138
Tel. 801-236-3400
Fax. 801-524-3172
Uinta-Wasatch-Cache Forest Service Supervisor Brain Ferebee
324 25th Street
Ogden, Utah 84401
Tel. 801-625-5306 (Ogden Regional Office 4)
Fax. 801-625-5359
Forest Service Legal Council Ken Paur
507 25th Street
Ogden, Utah 84401
Tel. 801-625-5112 (Ogden Ranger District)
Fax. 801-625-5914
RE: PETITION FOR EQUAL SKI TAXATION (Tri-Canyon backcountry Forest Service ski permit fees) by private land owners to require Forest Service permits for all backcountry skiers in Tricanyon
area (Big Cottonwood Canyon, Millcreek Canyon, and Little Cottonwood Canyon), to perform Forest Service's backcountry avalanche control responsibilities, and to get a fresh Salt Lake District Ranger
Dear Forest Supervisor Harv Forsgren,
As you know, there has been years of conflict between Cardiff Fork landowners and backcountry skiers in the Cardiff bowl area of Big Cottonwood Canyon. We would like to propose a long term solution.
We would like the Forest Service to require permits for skiers using Forest Service property in the Tricanyon area (Tri-canyon backcountry ski permit). A proposed fee schedule of $3 per day or $300 per season could generate an additional $100,000 with just 350 season permits. That's a 10% increase in the total Forest Service ski fees collected in Utah from backcountry ski users who have heretofore been non-payers. The permits would be available only to those who have acknowledged the private land
inholdings of the backcountry ski permit area, have been supplied information about the boundaries of these inholdings, and sign a liability waiver in favor of the Forest Service, State, County, and private landowners. We believe that this simple step would provide a permanent solution to the recurrent and
sometimes severe conflict that occurs in this area.
Silver Fork, Cardiff Fork, and Day's Fork offer world renowned backcountry skiing. Myself, Kevin Tolton, Cyle Buxton and others are private land owners in Cardiff Fork and Day's Fork.
We lease our land to Wasatch Powderbirds. Our lease rates are devalued by the Forest Service artificial heli-skiing ban on Sundays and Mondays. The Forest Service has for many years, participated in a pattern of harassing private canyon property owners in an attempt to get their land for cheap. In many cases, the Forest Service has teamed up with dubious environmental groups like Salt Lake City Public Utilities. As part of this scheme the Forest
Service has neglected and failed to perform key Forest Service land management responsibilities essential in providing backcountry user safety. For example, the Forest Service has failed to conduct thorough land title research which would lead to proper cadastral surveys to be able to accurately define and mark Private Property-Forest Service boundaries.
This in turn has led to needless conflicts between private canyon land owners and backcountry users who are intentionally un-informed or mis-informed about the demarcation between private and public lands. The Forest Service has also failed to conduct the legally required title research specified by the
Forest Service Manual which would show the valid, legal, existing rights-of-way to private property inholdings. In the case of Cardiff Fork, we have private property surrounded by a Forest Service
inholding. This failure by the Forest Service has lead to public land user conflicts with private canyon land owners and contention that has also put the Forest Service in a position of violating its own
regulations. The current policy of deferring to the “pure” skiers has put local environmental politics over public safety.
The Forest Service is also failing to provide basic avalanche control work on heavily used backcountry Forest Service land. Similarly, the Forest Service has failed in its public safety mission by turning a
blind eye to known dangers created by one group of “pure” skiers on other paying groups of skiers competing to use the same avalanche-prone area. The Forest Service also turns a deaf ear to common sense solutions, practical input, and well reasoned logic from private land owners (the main stake holders) who are intentionally excluded from the formulation of public land use policy.
The Forest Service must be fully cognizant of all facets of public safety on public land which can only be accomplished with greater regulation of the backcountry community. More regulation will protect the watershed and safety of all canyon users.
Who is up there? How many people? What are they doing? Where are they? Are they in any dangerous conflict with each other by the current un-regulated backcountry skiers? Is one group
positioned in a way which puts another group at a greater avalanche hazard risk?
The Forest Service cannot provide effective oversight without requiring permits of all users including the “pure” skiers.
Clearly, the Sunday and Monday heli-skiing ban in the Cardiff and Day's Fork canyons is not based on real environmental issues, but a form of Forest Service payback to the backcountry loud crowd's
endless protests and environmental rants. This is a form of Forest Service appeasement which unjustly rewards the squeaky wheel, loud mouth trespassers.
It is not wise to ban Wasatch Powerbirds from heli-skiing on Sundays and Mondays for the following reasons:
• The Tri-Canyon Area first emergency responder is more often than not Wastach Powerbirds. On the basis of public safety alone there should be no Sunday and Monday ban. Having a
helicopter withing minutes of one of Utah's most dangerous and most congested winter canyons is a life saving benefit. The current Forest Service heli-skiing policy fails to protect the public
while promoting the personal rights of a few back county skiers (the elite “pure” skiers who earn their powder runs”) over the public safety of the many canyon users. The current Sunday
and Monday ban may cost a life or limb some day while providing no off setting public benefit. Political appeasement of environmental activists is not a public benefit.
• Utah's ski customers (international, out-of-sate, and in-state) have limited windows to enjoy Utah's famous powder. Imagine an international skier from France taking the non-stop flight
from Paris to Salt Lake City arriving on Saturday being told, “No heli-skiing for you in the world famous Cardiff Bowl on Sunday and Monday. Only “pure” skiers are allowed on Sundays and Mondays.” This is not good customer service. There is no reasonable basis to close our canyon on Sundays and Mondays to our lessee – Wasatch Powerbirds.
• Unequal treatment of Utah Heli-skiing companies as compared to other Heli-sking companies operating on United States Forest Service land. It's unlikely the Forest Service Heli-skiing
permits ban Sundays and Mondays in Colorado.
• The artificial Sunday and Monday ban promotes a sense entitlement to Save Our Canyons, Salt Lake City Public Utilities (ski “purists”), and other so-called “pure” skiers that characterize
their brand of skiing (free loader skiing on Forest Service and private property) as the most “pure” type of skiing preferred by the federal government (Forest Service). The granting of
deferential and preferential treatment of one style of access (skinning/hiking) over another style of access (lift assisted, snowmobile assisted, helicopter assisted) by the federal government contradicts federal policies of equal treatment. This is arrogance not supported by any federal law. This un-American and divisive Forest Service policy of un-equal treatment in Utah should
stop. The current policy is most likely illegal. It's all about the “powpow,” the “cold smoke,” and “who gets first turns.”
• The “pure” skiers who name call “paying” skiers “powderturds, “powderthugs,” “or “slacker recreationists” are criminally trespassing on our heavily posted private lands. The lack of
Forest Service permits for backcountry skiers in the non-wilderness designated Wasatch Mountains encourages criminal trespass on our lands, and the hoarding of premium “powpow,”
“cold smoke,” and “first turns” by free loaders and free basers (bowl hoarders).
• Lawsuits and legal liability. Recently, the Utah Supreme Court ruled that the State of Utah could not hide behind the “Government Immunity Act.” The Forest Service is being actively
sued for $2 Million in Federal Court for not posting bear warning signs.1 A boy was killed by a bear in American Fork Canyon. The parents sued. It looks like the State and/or Forest Service
may be on the hook for big bucks. Where are the avalanche hazard waring signs in the Cardiff bowl? Where are the permits with liability waivers to protect the Forest Service, State, County, and private land owners?
• Preventing one $2 million liability claim for one young “pure” skier's death due to misreading snow bomb craters as safe and avalanche clear would be well worth requiring ski permits in
designated high avalanche skied areas like the Tri-Canyon area. When “dawn patrolers” or “pure” skiers see the snow bomb craters left by Wasatch Powderbirds, they may falsely assume the area is safe when it fact it is not. If they kill themselves, of course, it will be all of our faults.
We will all be sued even though our land is posted, “Private Property – No Trespassing.” The so-called “powderturds,” and “slacker recreationists” help pay millions of dollars in Forest Service
ski taxes to the Forest Service. (On a side note: Some view Forest Ski taxes as a double tax upon the public. Moreover, the Forest Service does nothing to improve or maintain ski services.) Those that insult and demean Utah's paying ski customers ironically are the free loaders who not only pay nothing for skiing but increase the operating costs of the Forest Service, Utah's ski resorts, and private property owners with frivolous and meritless environmental impact studies and demands.
These “pure” skiers have signed no liability waivers like paying ski customers do. These “pure” free loading skiers hog the best ski areas including key ridge top landing points for heli-skiers. A lot of the hogged ridge tops are private property which the “pure” free loading skiers trespass on . On the basis of legal liability and our litigious society (Utah has about 10,000 lawyers), all skiers in high avalanche areas must sign a liability waiver on a Forest Service Special Use Permit.
Donut Falls was closed by the private owner because legal liability to the owner, Sierra Partners.
The paying ski customers are kicked off Forest Service land not only on Sundays and Mondays by the free loading “pure” skiers, by these same backcountry “powpow” poachers who also hog the paying permit areas (including all private property “powpow” stashes) on the basis of environmental activism which is a facade for economic racism. Economic racism is class hatred where the more carbon based access backcountry skiers are derided
and excluded by the so-called lesser carbon based access backcountry “pure” skiers. These “pure” skiers drive most of the way up the canyon in their carbon mobiles and walk (skinning) part of the way to justify their hoarding of the “powpow.” This is their “purer” form of “the natural experience” which is nothing more than a super brand of environmental piety which puts pine cones over people and junk science over jobs.
This special brand of environmentalism is used to justify criminal trespass and vandalization of private property in the canyons. Private roads are vandalized. Boulders and trees are placed on private roads. A gate was torn down. A bridge was torn out. Cameras were torn down and stolen. If you are trespassing and get photographed, then “just steal the camera.” While trespass is serious, stealing private surveillance equipment is even more serious. Yelling, screaming expletives and flipping off
heated exchanges (F-bombs) that almost results in physical altercations and violence, (F-bomb invectives) directed at the private, tax paying, law abiding land owner by these free loading “pure” skiers is not uncommon, but crosses the line of civility.
The so-called “pure” skiers are wrongfully using selected Forest Service employees to pressure private land owners off their lands by failing to research and know federal law ( Forest Service Manual).
Instead of “Don't ask. Don't tell,” selected Forest Service employees practice, “I don't know. I can't tell” which intentionally confuses the law to change the administration of the law which is nothing more than employees legislating from their rangers desks instead of Congress. Somehow the so-called personal rights of environmental activists trump the personal rights including
the recorded private property rights of others. This is a break down of our rule of law society. How can perceived personal rights to ski “the natural way” of non-land owners be superior to the
personal rights and private property rights of land owners?
backcountry trespassers are putting private property land owners' life and property at risk, because of the Forest Service's lack of effective resource management allowing a few perceived personal rights and personal political agendas established by some superior type of ski access to trump private property rights of canyons land owners.
Salt Lake City Public Utilities has teamed up with the Forest Service acting in concert to encourage user conflicts especially between canyon land owners and the trespassing public hoping to lead them on a legal collision course pitting property rights against perceived personal rights. Activist Forest Service employees fail to follow the law, make up new laws, mis-apply the law or don't
even know what the law in the first place. Even where the Forest Service Manual requires a Forest Service lawyer's legal opinion, no opinion is asked for. If a legal opinion is contrary to the employee's
opinion, then the public is told it's an old opinion, or the old administrator was misinformed, acting without legal authority, or was just plain wrong.
Salt Lake City's special brand of environmental activism is merely their special tool to redistribute the State's wealth and power to Salt Lake City coffers and un-elected, and unaccountable
environmental activist employees.
We strongly recommend the the Forest Service require ski permits with liability waivers for the Tri-Canyon high avalanche area 1) to protect the backcountry skiers' safety, 2) to protect private propertyrights, and 3) to protect the Forest Service, State, County, and private land owners from liability lawsuits.
The Tri-Canyon ski permit with liability waiver can be a nominal $3 per day fee like daily canyon entry frees and $300 per ski season pass. The Forest Service needs to control the ski activity in known
high hazard avalanche areas which creates massive liabilities and increases the burden of trespass and legal liability on us (the private property owners).
Because the Forest Service allows and encourages skiers on Forest Service land abutting ours, it bringspublic traffic who don't respect our private rights nor have entered into ski liability waivers to protect Forest Service and us from liability get-rich-quick lawsuits.
The Tri-Canyon area is a unique, high hazard, highly used avalanche control area deploying Howitzer 105mm explosives, 5 pound high explosive charges (bombs). Wasatch Powderbirds is licensed to use the new Daisy Bell avalanche control device. The Forest Service should co-ordinate a comprehensive avalanche control which would include permits for the backcountry skiers. The backcountry skiers must pay their fair share of avalanche control, search and rescue, and Forest Service administrative oversight costs to regulate, enforce regulations, and maintain public safety.
These “pure” skiers are deluded into believing the special brand of ski access that is provided by the Forest Service, State, County, and private land owners (tax payers) is free (has no costs). It's time for these “pure” skiers to be included in the cost ski tax matrix.
Wasatch Powerbirds Monday and Sunday restriction, and requirement to post travel plans in advance cuts into their profits which in turn increases public search and rescue costs.
Please consider removing the Sunday and Monday ban, and advance travel plan notice.
Please help us protect the Forest Service resources (public land) and our resources (private land) by
strengthening backcountry ski regulation to require a Tri-Canyon permit (nominal fee $3 per day/ $300 per season) with liability waivers for skiing in the known dangerous Tri-Canyon area to limit future liability lawsuits against the Forest Service and us (private property owners).
According to Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow question: “What approach should the County take in regulating land use in the canyons?” “62% “ responded “Strengthen regulations.”2
Strengthening the back county ski regulations to include the free loading backcountry skiers is in line with public sentiment regarding the Tri-canyon area.
The Forest Service has the primary duty to provide for avalanche control and safety in the backcountry.
While others like UDOT, and ski resorts (Alta, Snowbird) perform avalanche control on within their jurisdictions, this does not abrogate the Forest Service's primary responsibility for safety on Forest Service lands used by backcountry skiers. The Forest Service should be doing their own avalanche
control.
It's time to put people over pine cones, jobs over junk science. Let's take the free out of free loading backcountry skiers in high avalanche hazard areas like the Tri-Canyon Area. It's time for equal
treatment and equal ski taxation of backcountry skiers in the Tri-Canyon Area.
Sincerely,
Cardiff Canyon Private Land Owners – Friends of Cardiff Canyon
Kevin Tolton (801-608-3456)
Emily Tolton
Evan Johnson (801-369-3400)
Cyle Buxton (801-910-3399)
Kelli Buxton
Jim Garside (801-471-6469)
Leslie arside
Wayne Crawford (801-231-3531)
Christine Crawford
Judd Macintosh
Debbie Macintosh
John Anderson
Paul Southam
Josey Southam
P.S.
If in fact, Salt Lake City were serious about homeland security, public safety, water quality, and jobs,
Salt Lake City would tear down the Big Cottonwood Water Treatment Plant and replace its meager
23,000 acre-feet of usable water from Big Cottonwood Creek with a series of wells in the creek itself. The cost to pump ($62.50 per acre-foot) this well water is equal to the cost ($62.50 per acre-foot) to treat the surface water. 31,000 acre-feet of Big Cottonwood Creek's 54,000 acre-feet (57%) runs to
waste to the Great Salt Lake to become 12 times saltier than sea water.
A reasonable person would prefer to drink non-chemicalized well water filtered through 500 feet of earth instead of surface water chemicalized at an old plant open to terrorist mischief, hazard waste spills, decomposing plant and animal water, and human error.
The main reason the treatment plant will not be replaced for the public good is that Salt Lake City would loose control of its ability to enforce Salt Lake City's special brand of environmentalism on the rest of us. Remember the Legacy Highway debacle which cost Utah an extra $380 million, a less safe I-15 due to banning big rigs on Legacy Highway, an inferior road due to the requirement of asphalt
instead of concrete?
_________________ Home in time for supper with some tales to tell!
I don't mind paying $3 for something, but I do think it would be hard to create a letter that would make these folks appear to be bigger assholes. I'm not really up on the history here, and it's a bit rambling, but their "solution"-- might as well call it a "commonsense compromise" with no sense of irony-- seems to be:
Part 1: Charge backcountry skiers for no particular service. Hey NFS, you like money, right?
Part 2: Get backcountry skiers to do what we want.
Part 3: Get everything we want from the NFS.
What an awesome solution. That really sounds like it will solve whatever points of contention they have with everyone else... stamp your feet and demand your way with some punitive fees thrown in.
Last edited by stevesliva on Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:27 am; edited 1 time in total
Joined: 10 Dec 2009 Posts: 288 Location: Essex Junction, VT
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 12:25 am Post subject:
Wow...some people are way too bitter to be allowed to speak. _________________ I've lived and skied the west...now it's time to punish myself and live east...not sure what went through my head.
Joined: 07 Apr 2005 Posts: 1277 Location: Star IDAHO
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:03 am Post subject:
interesting letter.
I did not know about the tresspassing issues on the Wasatch. I've read many of the posts regarding the WPB conflicts, but I was unaware that there is private landowner intrests involved.
The name calling in the letter is laughable, and as an active public land user in Idaho I see absolutely no obligation on the part of the forrest service to do avalanche control, exept to protect FS assets, or parks.
It was very interesting to learn that some of the ridgetop landing zones are private lands leased to the WPB. If that is, in fact, the case, and many bc users are tresspassing, then i suspect some enforcement is indicated. Not more regulation.
I lookforward to reading the rebuttal posts which should be posted shortly.
Joined: 12 Oct 2005 Posts: 442 Location: Maynard's Neighborhood
Posted: Wed Dec 01, 2010 1:39 am Post subject:
ghostofcarl wrote:
hdiddy wrote:
It reads like a spoiled brat on a tantrum.
so do most of Maynard's posts, it's a Wasatch match made in heaven
Inside sources tell me this is just Maynard's way of passing the time at the office while the rest of you are out skiing.
Funny how it does not mention the "pure" sledders that are amongst the Friends of Cardiff Canyon who are known to high mark in the "world famous" Cardiff Bowl on occasion.
Could be time to pick up and move .. to Jackson, or maybe Summit County _________________ Try "mid-fats" , you may like them!
All times are GMT Goto page 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8Next
Page 1 of 8
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
