A Conflict of Interest

There is no way around the fact that the backcountry is a place of growing interest for winter recreation enthusiasts. From skiers and snowboarders to snowmobilers and heli-skiers it seems everyone has their own idea of a good time. It has become easy, however, for user groups to step on the toes of others resulting in some, often heated, discussions of who is right and wrong and why. The Wasatch Range is no exception to this.

So why are issues of use a seemingly recent problem? The answer lays mostly in the great increases in technology of the gear which makes it all possible. Snowmobiles are lighter and faster, ski touring gear is more functional, ski areas have expanded and helicopters are still there to fly around and drop off skiers. Before ski areas started to operate, few people skied. When heli skiing started few people hiked for their turns and today almost anyone can access remote terrain on a snowmobile. Today, thousands hike for their turns and ski areas, heli skiers and snowmobilers take the brunt of the heat for getting in the way. So who is right and who is wrong? There must be a middle ground somewhere.

In my opinion untracked snow on public land is a commodity and each user group is entitled a portion of it proportional to the size of the user group. Snowmobiles consume snow rapidly so they deserve less time to operate or access to areas that are limited in size. Heli skiers should follow a similar protocol. Ski tourers shouldn’t be punished because of the fact they consume snow more slowly. Most Utah public land areas outside of Mill Creek and the Cottonwood Canyons are a virtual free-for-all for snowmobilers, altering other user group’s experience and having a disruptive toll of some maximal level on the wildlife.

In the Cottonwood Canyons around Salt Lake City snowmobiling and dogs are prohibited on public lands due to these areas being within the city water-shed. Ski areas are permitted to operate in these areas however, as well as helicopters, thousands of motor vehicles and of course people are allowed to be there. Some regulations are likely for the best as these areas have really become busy with people, but the question still remains where we should draw the line and what is prohibited for watershed reasons and what is, in all reality, prohibited for preserving the user experience.

On private lands, land owners should ideally be able to do what they want and use snow as they please. A problem arises though when private and public lands are close to one another, where boundaries are vague and where access to private areas may involve the use of public ones, as is the case in Cardiff Fork in Big Cottonwood Canyon. In Cardiff, as in many areas of the Mountain-West, public lands surround private stakes, many due to the fact that they were originally used for mining purposes. Cardiff, being the virtual epicenter for ski touring in Utah, has been the site of years of heated debate over motorized use in an otherwise hiking only area… besides heli skiing. Sound confusing? That’s because it is confusing! Add a land owner or two who likes snowmobiling as a form of recreation, thousands of the ski touring public crossing their private land, and groups of heli skiers lapping around over-head and you have a complete fuck-scene!

What are your thoughts?

Help support Utah Backcountry Skiing with a purchase from... Backcountry.com!

Avoiding Avalanches in a known to be Dangerous Snowpack

It was a matter of time before backcountry conditions became vastly unstable here in Utah. Weak snow formed over a several week period and then the snow came in on top leaving a slab; a perfect recipe for an avalanche.

So when conditions are dangerous, as the last several days have proven to be with dozens of large avalanches and a fatality today in Big Cottonwood, how do we avoid getting caught?

At a certain point snow analysis goes out the window. When it is known that it is lethal in the backcountry it is more valuable to spend time with a slope meter and a map in your hands than it is spending that time digging pits. When we know that slopes are dangerous the only things that you are going to find by digging pits is what you already know or conflicting information, which may lead you to believe that slopes perhaps are safer than they actually are.

When it is as dangerous as it is out there at the moment you need to be certain that you are in terrain that is mellow or you will likely die! Stay in terrain that you know is mellow,  you need to be certain it is. Stay out of complex terrain where small navigational errors or other mis-judgements will bite you in the ass!

When everything is telling you that it is very dangerous out, think and don't be an idiot alpha. On that note, be careful what other group members influence you to do. Use your own brain!

Lets look at the avalanche off of west Kessler today:
UAC Kessler preliminary report here

I normally try to avoid passing judgement related to avalanche accidents but this is so far out there I feel somewhat obligated to break down the massive red flags that were evident here. It was a big, steep slope, one that funnels debris when it slides. It was slope above a cliff band, with lethal avalanche hazard present and dozens of other recent avalanches reported in the area. This accident happened in complex terrain... all of Kessler is complex in fact. Hello!?
With the known avalanche hazard this is was no place for a ski tour unless everything affecting the slopes route you would be on had already slid and slid recently.

Things the group did well: one person died, not everyone in the group.

The bottom line:
With deeply buried instabilities; just because avalanches are less frequent after a storm cycle ends it does not mean that you cannot trigger them. The difference is often only whether the slope will avalanche naturally or whether it will wait for you to trigger it (difference between High and Considerable Hazard). Think about that a bit.

With a deeply buried persistent weakness in the snowpack as there is at the moment, slopes usually get a bit more stubborn to slide over time but this isn't to say that they aren't going to still slide though. During a storm avalanches may be easily triggered or are even releasing naturally. In the days just after, slides may not be going naturally anymore but are still easily triggered; maybe even by just being near slopes, walking on ridge tops, etc. you may cause slope to slide. As days turn to weeks, slopes commonly hang on a bit more, even when the structure of the snow is still compromised beneath, often resulting in a mixed bag of user feedback (this is when most accidents happen). These are the sort of conditions where a slope test may not lead you to believe there is still a dramatic instability. Ten tracks may be on a slope and then all wash away in a slide as the eleventh skier gets smoked. If the snow structure is prime for it, all that is necessary is to find the right spot on the slope for it to fail. With a deep instability this often translates to finding a thinner portion of the slab above, where the weaknesses beneath can more easily be affected (this is the same reason why these sort of avalanches commonly break down slope, away from ridge-lines a little ways where thicker wind deposited pillows may allowing a skier a few misleading turns before breaking away).

For more information about common early season snowpack weakness and avoiding slides relating to such see my prior post: Avoiding Early Season Avalanches

Help support Utah Backcountry Skiing with a purchase from... Backcountry.com!

Ski Area Expansion and Canyons 'SkiLink'

The seven ski areas of the central Wasatch fall within three distinct areas: the Wasatch back areas of Park City, Big Cottonwood Canyon and Little Cottonwood Canyon. Each area remains separate from one another and holds their own distinct character. Hopefully it will stay that way.

This year the Canyons resort has upped the ante with a proposal to link the Park City side to Big Cottonwood with a ski lift called ‘SkiLink’. So what does this mean for the Backcountry skiing in the area? I’ll give you a hint; it’s similar to playing with fire.

 The Canyons resort, or just ‘Canyons,’ as it is now called (everything said latte must be good), wants more. And they might just well need more to maintain their current assets, the resort is a real estate development with some skiing nearby; not a proper ski area. It seems they want to draw an eye; to differentiate themselves from the other Park City based resorts. The ability for Canyons guests to go to a different ski area for a day could be an appealing draw. This plan seems less to do with an inter-connected system of ski areas and more to do with a marketing stunt and the possibility for more in the future.

At first glance it seems like a no brainer, connect all the resorts in the region and ski around with glee. Ski for miles, like in Europe, and go where you please. The problem with this concept here in Utah from a backcountry skiing standpoint is that although more terrain may be accessed by lifts that you often can’t go where you please, even in areas on public land. Ski areas can charge whatever they want to use their services (nearing double the cost of skiing in europe) and close areas or access to areas at their discretion, largely due to liability concerns. Aside from the fact that new in-area terrain ruins areas that were once less touched, new lift served areas allow for more limitations on where it is possible to go even outside the ski area. For example, Snowbird closes the ridge access from Hidden peak to the American Fork Twin Peaks (and everything beyond) and for the majority of the season. So not only is the terrain within the ski area a rat race but the terrain beyond it is difficult or impossible to get to unless you walk up from outside the ski area. From a backcountry skiing standpoint the Snowbird tram might as well not even be there and is a far cry from the grand backcountry access points of the Alps such as the cable cars up La Meije in La Grave or Chamonix’s Augille du Midi.

Anyway, back to the dirt:

Canyons ‘SkiLink’ does not claim to expand ski terrain officially or affect the adjacent backcountry ski terrain it travels over in Big Cottonwood Canyon. The plan involves a point to point lift from the Solitude base area to a high elevation in-area neighborhood of the second home elite on the other side of the ridge (within Canyons). There is no planned top station on the ridge to immediately allow access to the backcountry and it would take several ski lifts to access the lift from Canyons base or to get back to the ridge to ski back to Big Cottonwood.

You might ask: why? Canyons claims that the lift will cut down on traffic on the Big Cottonwood road as less people would then have to drive around from Canyons if they chose to, which few currently do. For some reason nothing is said about the additional people that will drive up Big Cottonwood from Salt Lake City because the lift is there; undoubtedly increasing traffic overall in the canyon: HELLO!!!???

Skiers from Canyons would likely still be allowed access to the backcountry and into Big Cottonwood from other access points within the ski area, such as through the current access point off the 9990 lift, virtually creating a massive, unpatrolled, easily accessible backcountry area all the way down into Big Cottonwood. The fact that several lifts would be necessary to turn backcountry laps would surely make it necessary to purchase an all day ski pass for nearly $100 a day (opposed to single ride options such as that offered on the Millicent lift a few miles farther up Big Cottonwood at Brighton for $12).

The terrain affected leading back into Big Cottonwood is fantastic ski touring terrain and a reasonably safe area to travel for those in the know when avalanche risk is higher. It is a sanctuary when other areas are dangerous. Contrary to what Canyons states, this area would indeed be ruined for ski touring by resort skiers going out of the boundary if it remained permissible to do so; many of which skiers would undoubtedly not be able to safely deal with being out of bounds. The average clientele at Canyons is less than the self sufficient type.

All of the purposed lift expansion and adjacent backcountry also lies within the Salt Lake City Watershed. With the increased use of the area there will surely be impact to it. Lifts require fluids and maintenance overall and resort skiers leaving the boundary are animals too. Canyons beg to differ.

Canyons also argue there will be significant economic benefit from the lift development over the short and long term. My guess is that there could be some economic benefit over the short term but that global warming will ultimately drive Canyons out of business far before the ski areas in the Cottonwoods as it snows significantly less there and is lower in elevation.

My biggest fear of the entire idea of ‘SkiLink’ is what really may  be being planned; what I would guess is more real estate and or a purchase of Solitude. It would be very sad to see the McMansions of the entire Park City area infiltrate Big Cottonwood. There are thousands of lots in Big Cottonwood and nearly everything has a price tag. The Park City area is a disease really. If we really want a euro style skiing area, we need to lose liability concerns and get rid of the real estate mongers pushing on-mountain private homes; then we’ll talk.

Canyons 'SkiLink' development is pending approval by the USFS or waiting on the approval of an over the top maneuver as Utah senators in Washington favor the idea. 30 acres of Forest Service land must be eased for the proposal to go through. Stinky politics is all over this one.

The negatives on the land: straightchuter

Latest Findings of Canyons preliminary report disputed: The Salt Lake Tribune

Have a look for yourself: http://www.skilink.com/

What are your thoughts?

Help support Utah Backcountry Skiing with a purchase from... Backcountry.com!