There is no place on this planet as unique as the Central Wasatch Mountains. Its close proximity to a large city, ease of access, quality of snowfall, and multiplicity of user groups all interacting and overlapping in such a tiny area can’t be found anywhere else. Within 20-30 minutes of a large metropolis you can snowmobile, snowshoe, X-country ski, trail run, helicopter ski, fish, hike, picnic, snowmobile, resort ski, backcountry ski, cat ski, and much more. Many see it as overdeveloped, but there are still many places you can go where just an hours hike will take you away from it all. There is a balance of developed and undeveloped spaces that exist here for the millions of people who live near by and go to the mountains for many different reasons. We have a diverse little range with so much to offer!
Unfortunately, for some, enough is never enough. The ski industry, that has already acquired almost all of the upper reaches of both Little and Big Cottownood Canyons, continues to scheme and try to expand their piece of the pie.
Over the past several years Wasatch Front locals have formed groups like Friends of Flagstaff and Stop Ski-Link as opposition movements to stop this expansion. After seeing the passionate response and success of the people coming together, I was inspired to help create a more permanent organization. One that would represent the backcountry population and remain in place instead of having a group pop up every time a new threat arrived. Mark Menlove from Winter Wildlands Alliance gathered a group of us together and challenged us to create an advocacy group. A handful of dedicated skiers volunteered and the Wasatch Backcountry Alliance was born.
For the past two years we’ve worked on growing our membership, creating infrastructure to disseminate information, raising funds to fight future issues, and becoming the voice for BC users in the media and in the political realm. I’m VERY PROUD and inspired by what this group has accomplished in a short time and with limited funds.
And then Mountain Accord came along.
The Wasatch Backcountry Alliance (or WBA) was invited to join the Mountain Accord (or MA) process, and we did, but with much skepticism. For the past year, we as a board have done an incredible job trying to figure out what the hell this “process” is and have done our best to protect the backcountry. We have attended all the meetings and instigated many of our own and our efforts helped change many things in the final blueprint. I’m sure we were a much bigger pain in the ass than they had expected from such a small group of volunteers.
Despite all that WBA has done, since the beginning it just felt all wrong to me. I’ve had a hard time getting behind it and fully participating. The MA process has done such a poor job of engaging and involving the pubic in a real way. Perhaps it has been by design because recent similar mountain development projects and their surveys have overwhelmingly shown that the public wishes to see no more expansion of ski areas in the Central Wasatch. The limited feedback MA has received from the public has also been opposed to more development in the canyons. Yet what have we gotten with the Mountain Accord? Every single ski area receives lift or base area expansion! How is this in “accord”? It’s ignoring the wishes of the very people these MA decision makers and stake-holders are supposed to represent.
I respect the work that everyone at the WBA did in trying to wheel and deal and politic, but this isn’t what I signed on for. The WBA wasn’t created to jump in with Ski Utah, the ski areas, and developers to help plan resort expansion, but to oppose it and protect the backcountry.
The large majority of the local population has spoken out on many occasions and clearly stated that they wish to see no more development in the Central Wasatch. My main issue with Mountain Accord is that it isn’t listening to the public and is proposing that EVERY SINGLE SKI AREA WILL SEE NEW DEVELOPMENT with lifts or lodging! And the WBA therefore isn’t representing it’s membership by continuing along with the MA.
The counter argument is that the MA compromise will lock up land for no future development. Well, most of this land we are “getting” (Mount Superior/Flagstaff) is already highly questionable if it can even be developed in the first place. And as of now Alta isn’t giving up Grizzly without a huge list of exceptions. Seems like a huge win for the resorts. Enough chairlifts and day lodges already fill the canyons. The mountains have already been compromised enough in my view and I can’t sign off on this blueprint.
A few weeks ago the Wasatch Backcountry Alliance board discussed whether or not as a group we should endorse the final draft of the MA and whether we should continue to work with them in the planning process. I voiced my opposition, my concerns of supporting MA, and voted against endorsement. In the end, I was the sole dissenting vote. I can’t imagine standing proudly at the final signing of this MA mess and being proud of what we have done to these mountains. I have decided to resign from the WBA for the following reasons:
-I believe any changes in the Wasatch mountains should reflect what the local people want. The MA is not representing the desires of the mass majority of the people of the Wasatch Front. By its participation, the WBA is not representing the desires of the backcountry users it represents.
-I believe we should always continue to stand against unwanted development in the mountains. As nice as it sounds that the MA will put an end to future development, resorts will always want more land, more condos, more growth. Business relies on growth and enough is NEVER enough. Unless these lands are put into wilderness status someone will find a way to try and develop them. We’re supposed to believe that another “accord” won’t take place in 10 or 20 years and the ski areas won’t want another piece?
-I don’t believe in or even understand the MA planning “process”?! Having been part of it for the last few years I’m still not certain what this non-legal, non-binding MA is? We’ve all climbed on board this train and we don’t know for sure where it’s heading.
-I don’t accept that the Mountain Accord has not acknowledged climate change or taken it’s effects into account in any way. With climate change and it’s projected effects on our snow, (effects that we may already be experiencing based off the past 4 winters) does it make sense to dump tons of money on tunnels and transportation and increase development in an industry that might not exist in 20 years?
This has been a very long and drawn out decision on my part. Hopefully I’m totally wrong, but my decisions to this point feel right. I’m OK with not pleasing others in order to stand up for what I believe in, and so this is what I’m doing now. I still believe in the reasons we formed the WBA, but maybe we don’t need an organization with a three letter acronym and a sweet logo in order to protect the Wasatch. Maybe we just need individuals who care and are willing to speak up and act out.
Long live Wasangeles!
I appreciate the honesty and passion. I had to jump off the MA bus when I saw what it might do to American Fork Canyon with the 416 acres Snowbird was seeking to boost their expansion into Mary Ellen Gulch and further into Mineral Basin and when Snowbird told us that they had ambitions for housing on Miller Hill. I have seen what happened to the PC side of Guardsman pass over the past few decades and couldn’t bear to lose AF in the same way. I had to bail and join https://www.facebook.com/ProtectAmericanForkCanyon?fref=ts and fight to get the 416 acres off the table and to take a stand against further SB expansion in AF. Much respect to you Noah and thanks for all the time you and Jaime and others put in with the best intentions and effort.
please shot me an email with your cell. i have an idea !
My opinion about Mountain Accord is …. everything had already been studied by the Wasatch Canyons Tomorrow study. It is hard to argue with “getting everyone together” and saving the “water shed.” But nothing, other than more talking and spending several million dollars seems to have happened.
I appreciate stumbling onto this blog-scussion, as I have been blissfully ignorant to many of the political activities at hand. It has been hard not noticing the new lifts under construction this summer. While Im fully aware what a rare breed we backcountry snow ninjas are, the legend of sasquatch lives on with little evidence, and I’ll keep believing. Several years ago I proposed skiing a beautiful watershed glacier, positioned drool drippingly visible from the hazy summer blacktop of Boulder CO. my friends bailed, from fear of getting caught in the watershed, and I was stuck with a dozen,festive, mil surplus snow camo ponchos to hide from the law. In retrospect, the fine would have been rather affordable as compared to the cost of a ski resort experience, a weekend in wendover, or a cool tattoo. I tend to also act as Noah does when activism calls. While trying to involve myself with bicycle advocacy, Ive found my actions in outreach, and simply riding my bicycle far more satisfying than politicing. I will continue to use the land, thus representing and occupying a small part of its public utility. It takes all kinds of people, and I greatly appreciate knowing there are people like Paul getting involved in the business end, as I tend to be less inclined to engaging with the resorting business. As an Engineer, I’m all too aware of the immense force that is represented by exponential economic and human population growth, and tend to respect it in a similar manner as I do avalanches. Wilderness is one of the few remaining American costs Im still proud to pay taxes for, but I wish it were more enforcable and manageable. This fall I watched, from the timpanogos summit, human pets chasing wild, jaketed, goats across a very dry alpine meadow.
Noah, while I agree with many of your points, you may have a different view point if you had attended some of the Mountain Accord meetings and witnessed WBA fighting for preservation of the backcountry and environment. The Accord would look a lot different, for the worse if WBA was not at the table. WBA was the 1st of only 2 groups to present an independent plan for transportation in the canyons. Transportation in Millcreek Canyon was not included until WBA put up a fight.
Kudos for sticking to your guns, both in joining WBA and in leaving it. What’s a fella to do when he’s not being heard?
Bummer about the rest. Politics and land grabs have never been pretty.
Thanks a ton Adam!
Thanks for taking a stand at all, Noah. The majority (myself included), always sit impotently aside waiting for others to do it, then bitch about it when it doesn’t go our way.
It’s people like you, Paul, and others with community involvement, on whatever level, that I hold a lot of respect for.
I don’t find it disrespectful that you chose to “drop out”, you opted out, because it wasn’t the direction you envisioned. I’m sure you’ll still have a voice in the community.
I hope there’s some terrain left when I eventually move back. If not, maybe I’ll just stay in Alaska. You’re free to couch surf anytime you want.
Way to stick to your ideals. While I don’t live in that area, I have been there and played in those mountains and I agree, there are already plenty of resorts and business presence. Keep up the good fight.
Thanks Andrew!
I’m sorry you chose to drop out of this process and cast disrespect on those who did participate. Some fundamental problems that those advocating no resort development, period, choose to ignore are: a) The resorts have some private land in the canyons that are considered backcountry and, within limits, can do as they please with them, including denying access to backcountry users. Are you ready to get ticketed for skiing the Emma ridges or Cardiac Bowl? b) The Utah legislature would love to privatize the entire Wasatch and eliminate backcountry. MA proposes a process to prevent that from happening. c) Watershed protection trumps everything, even skiing, and the current lack of permanent protection puts that at risk. d) Resolving these issues is very complicated and MA provided the opportunity for everyone to come to the table, state their position, and negotiate how the conflicting goals might be achieved. Crafting that into action items and executing them is the next step. That is how complicated deals are worked out. e) Unless we can figure out how to stop population growth and climate change, the Wasatch is going to change. Insisting on no change is like insisting that it snow tomorrow. Good luck with that.
This is a frustrating and excruciating process and could have been better managed, no argument there. Everyone involved feels deeply and passionately about their position. We live in this weird society in which everyone gets a voice, even those we disagree with. Individuals who care and are willing to speak up and act out are at the table fighting for what they believe in. Individuals who don’t care, don’t have the stamina for this effort, or don’t think it matters if they participate walk away. You may be standing up for what you believe in, but you are removing your voice from the discussion and your voice no longer has the ability to make a difference.
Hi Paul,
Our views of what is disrespectful clearly differ. I think it’s disrespectful to the public for them not to have their wishes represented at MA by the .org that was created for that very purpose. Happy to address your points-
a)- I see this as a fear based threat that would only piss off the public and cause really bad publicity if they did close access to terrain they’ve been allowing us to travel. Why would they do this anyway if they haven’t done it for the past 40 years? And, IF they did happen to do it I believe that the proper .org’s would get together and either help purchase the land, or gain easements, or work out a solution. I see this as a very small issue with even smaller likelihood of it happening and there are solutions if it comes up.
b)- I have no idea what you are talking about here, and have heard no such thing, but it doesn’t sound realistic that they can take over forest service land and private land. Sounds like more scare tactics, but if you have more info I’d be glad to hear about it.
c)- Again, I have heard nothing about backcountry skiing adversely effecting watershed or the possibility of us having our access limited. I feel like you’re just proving my point in that these silly little fears are not a fair trade-off for all the development we’ll see with MA.
d)- You are right, this is the process, but the people aren’t being fairly represented is my argument.
e)- Change is eminent and I never said to do nothing. We need some real transportation and parking solutions, but we don’t need more resort development. By your own admission about change and growth you help prove my point that growth/change will always exist. The MA can’t tie up and SAVE the Wasatch forever and ever. It may postpone development a little bit. Good luck with that!
I appreciate your wanting to discuss this Paul. You’re passion about this is clear my friend. You know your direction so take it and I wouldn’t tell you to do otherwise.
Cheers,
You present many good points. I am curious as to what your solution is. What has the best chance to minimise development for the next 20+ years?
Thank you for you excellent efforts!
Hey Scott, Thanks for nice comments. Sounds like I’ve upset some of the board with this. That wasn’t my intention, everyone there has done such an amazing job! I just think we lost sight of our mission, or at least how to go about it. The solution I see is getting WBA/SOC and whoever else will join us to engage the public, cause a stink, pull out of this and end the process. The way I see it we are instantly giving up 20+ years of development in one shot without a fight and with minimal gains.