HELI-FREE WASATCH ... the way it ought to be

i've been a supporter of the "movement" for awhile now, though others have been at it for decades. thinking about development in kennecott got me thinking about this again and i thought i'd post some links on the matter.

it's easy to argue that helicopter skiing just isn't necessary in the wasatch, since everything is so quick to access, that is, helicopters make more sense in the extensive wild country with difficult access, e.g., british columbia and alaska.

others would retort with a similar argument against the designation of wilderness, that it's accessible to those who are capable of (or who desire to) climb mountains to ski ... but that others who just want to ski should be able to without climbing, instead using a helicopter.

that debate is enough to drive people to blows ... but there are other very good reasons against allowing helicopter skiing in the wasatch, it's more a matter of how much do we recognize, care about, and value these reasons.


http://www.saveourcanyons.org/curren...li-skiing.html

http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=41608

http://helifreewasatch.com

Granted this is the first time I've heard of this subject so I'm probably missing the point(s).

1. Helicopters take people to ridgelines in 30 seconds that people hiking up a hill take hours to reach.
2. Helicopters are hella loud and break the "solitude" aspect so many hikers enjoy.
3. They "steal the freshies" meaning they do little work sitting in the helicopter and get first run in the fresh snowy pow pow goodness.
4. Helicopters land too close to hikers and blow a bunch of snow and debris at the hikers, they do not respect the 300 foot rule like they should.

So I do totally agree with these arguments but think it's a losing battle, here's why.

1. People who can afford heli's have vastly more money than people who have to hike to the summit. They will insert more influence in any given situation and will always get their way. Maybe call it the spoiled brat syndrome.
2. Assuming a helicopter was free, I bet all but the most "die hard" mountaineers would take a heli to the summit. They just cant afford it. I dont see many people walking up the slopes at the ski resort, they take the lifts cause they are easier and maximize the good stuff which is "going down".
3. Until a mountaineer gets blown off a mountain by a heli landing to close, or starts an avalance and kills some hikers, I dont think anyone is going to take the threat seriously.
4. I suspect it might just be a couple "bad apples" breaking these rules and the majority of heilcopter pilots are decent respectfull people.

Again, I'm very new to this subject so the only info I have is the links you posted.
:ne_nau:

EDIT: Oh yeah forgot one last point. "easy to reach location" isnt a valid argument IMO either. It may be easier to reach than "other" locations you posted but that doesnt mean a rich spoiled brat wants to waste an hour or 2 hiking it. They could always go somewhere else I guess, but I'm doubting they will.

Ski heli terrain first!

Whole lotta love for the heli folks here:

http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/vi...1608&start=120

-Brian in SLC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deathcricket

2. Assuming a helicopter was free, I bet all but the most "die hard" mountaineers would take a heli to the summit

---

wow, man, this is boldly presumptuous. i don't think i could be that bold

Quote:

---

3. starts an avalance and kills some hikers, I dont think anyone is going to take the threat seriously.

---

this is part of the problem, a reason for law suits. it's a serious issue and it should be taken seriously. your dismissive attitude (or the one you're suggesting most have) is what needs to be looked at seriously.

WPG operations have remained relatively constant over the long-term, while non-motored backcountry use has dramatically risen over the 35 years of WPG operation. the forest service can no longer neglect the issues this poses.

the liberal use of charges by the WPG does pose a hazard. i use the term liberal, because in utah there is one of the most unrestricted use policies of charge detonation anywhere around.

that should be of concern

Quote:

---

Again, I'm very new to this subject so the only info I have is the links you posted.

---

there is a lot of info on the save our canyons site which is worth reading. you can read the complaint they filed with the forest service too.

there are a number of other issues as well. i am a tree lover ... how about the liberal use of these charges results in a number of avalanches which destroy trees, unecessarily so. these trees are protected, yet this policy allows them to damage trees, at their own discretion, as a matter of snow safety. this is another one of those things that human-centric folks are all too quick to dismiss. bollocks

Quote:

---

EDIT: Oh yeah forgot one last point. "easy to reach location" isnt a valid argument IMO either.

---

i simply said it wasn't necessary here, whereas in alaska and canada areas are so remote or inaccessible that it would take considerable amounts of time to approach. in the wasatch (in particular the central wasatch) NOTHING takes a considerable amount of time to appproach.


regardless of the plethora of arguments one can find against helicopters, they simply change the backcountry of the wasatch, they affect it. this is undeniable. i think all arguments against (and there are many) all point to that: helicopters have impact. the issue is whether we care enough to reduce that impact. you must first place value on the issues at hand ... which are all too easily dismissed by the usual mentality

I was out photographing the elk in South Fork Provo Canyon this afternoon, and we had a nice visit from a powderbird. Eff, those things are loud. I was happy that the elk are so beat down from the harsh winter that they didn't get flushed off the ridge.

I don't really have an opinion one way or the other, but if the elk would've ran off after all the times I've been up there this week hoping they get close to the road, I'd have been a little torqued. I can see why the dirty ski hippies hate them.

Interesting counter arguments, again I'm not knowledgeable to refute the claims so will shut up. :) I can see both arguments, but think the people against helis are going to lose this one.

But I would just provide a little defense to talk about my "dismissive attitude". I think the main reason they "liberally" use the charges is to prevent avalanches that kill people. I don't have numbers, but would argue that many lives are saved by using them. I've seen nasty videos where a skier would set off an avalanche and either barely escape or get buried.

I guess basically I'm saying that you have numbers saying it saves lives blowing the crap out of the mountain, but not numbers saying people lose lives by accidentally being in the way of intentional avalanches. So until someone dies, no one is going to care? Hopefully I explained that a little clearer. I totally understand the "excessive use" argument, but they havent screwed up (and killed someone) yet right? I'm not saying I hope somebody dies, but those facts are hard to ignore or argue against. Someone could die (in an accidental spillway) vrs someone will die (if the avalanche happens while skiing). I can just picture some lawsuit because they didn't "blow up the mountain" enough.

I hadn't considered the destruction of the trees, hmmmm. Looking at the pics again, I can totally see all the trees in there now, and that is very very sad. It seems to me that the trees would actually hold the snow and prevent avalanches also. So by removing/destroying the trees, they are even worsening (is that a word) the problem. Not even mentioning the destruction of habitat and all that. A bald slope would have wayyy worse avalanches than a slope filled with trees right? That's probably the best argument right there I bet.

One last thing though... Using lots of charges vrs using a couple charges. Wouldn't using lots of charges be better since it would cause many but smaller avalanches vrs having a couple really huge ones? Would a small avalanche do way less damage than a big huge one? Just curious...