Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   11/10/22

      Huge thank you to Bellingham based The American Alpine Institute for being our sole sponsor, taking care of our hosting costs,  which is our biggest cost.  @Jason_Martin  of AAI reached out to me, and really wanted to support the forums.  They have supported us in the past,  and now stepped up to support us again.  They will be our sole sponsor for 6 months.   Big time, and they are a local climbing related company to boot!  
Sign in to follow this  
JoshK

Silverton

Recommended Posts

I guess that other thread got locked? I read an article about this place today. I think it's a neat idea, but having to pay that much money to be "guided" seems kind of silly. I guess it sort of sits between true backcountry and lift skiing. The funny thing is I've heard you can get cat skiing access for not that more.

 

TLG, you said you skied there? I checked out all the pictures on their site and it looks neat but not all that impressive terrain for all their ranting. I can think of 50 hike n' skis with better terrain (and prettier scenery.) Do they plan on opening this up for non-guided cheaper skiing anytime?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
JoshK said:Do they plan on opening this up for non-guided cheaper skiing anytime?

That awaits the beauraucrats at the BLM in Washington. F&*king feds. Seems like it's easier to get a clearcut approved.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yep, cj's got the gist. from what i understand aaron doesn't want it to be guided; he's forced by law to run it that way ... for now. something about avalanche studies and whatnot, but basically it's all bureaucratic bull that has to be waded through and fought against. and as for the cost, he's also limited to 40 clients/day so you try and do the math. (luckily he's not in it for the money.)

 

i'm not sure what pictures you've seen, josh, but the terrain really is impressive. i mean REALLY impressive. and it is also REALLY beautiful. lift-served skiing to over 13,000 feet if you throw in a little bit of hiking ... and all you can see are gorgeous peaks and pretty much nobody else except the people in your group.

 

i'm not saying there aren't more beautiful and more "extreme" hike-to spots in the country. that's not the point. if it wasn't so out of my budget i'd definitely be spending more than a few days there this season, and i know a bunch of other people who feel the same way. hopefully things go well for aaron and his crew and the access becomes a little cheaper and less limited some day. until then, you can either chew a hole in your wallet or "hike to" some other terrain nearby or elsewhere.

 

it's the kind of place that develops a cult following among hardcore skiers. their motto: "got balls?"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

all motos aside......

 

what stops the everyday joeblow from getting their own tracks. it is on public land right? so anyone is allowed there.

 

and not in it for the money...that is THE most assinine statement. maybe he is not in it for the money, but i am sure his investors are.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
erik said:

all motos aside......

 

what stops the everyday joeblow from getting their own tracks. it is on public land right? so anyone is allowed there.

 

and not in it for the money...that is THE most assinine statement. maybe he is not in it for the money, but i am sure his investors are.

 

erik, you're free to do and think whatever you want. rolleyes.gif all aaron's investors get is free advertising or some kind of exchange. they aren't getting any money from profits - now or later. there are a lot of people in this world who don't put money at the forefront of their lives. it's just a means to what we need and want ... and most of us don't need or want much. there are also a lot of people with money who are willing to put it where their hearts are.

 

you don't like it; you don't ride the lift. it's that simple. wave.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you never answered my question about it being public land and skiing whenever you wanted without using the lift.

 

and thanks for the lesson on life, i seemed to have missed that one....

 

rolleyes.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

yes, i did. i said you're free to do whatever you want. and so is everybody else. actually i honestly don't know the specifics about the legality, but i believe that in the winter (when silverton is open for business) that land is considered under lease ... so if that's the case then technically you're not supposed to poach and can probably be fined. whatever the case, i think most people have a little more respect than that anyway. and it's not like there's a shortage of sweet "free" terrain in the area.

 

just go skiiing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if it's anything like mt. bachelor's and others' agreements with the forest service, you're free to wander through any time you like, as long as you don't become "a hazard" or interfere with mountain operations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is old, but anyway ...

 

New ski area feeling BLM squeeze

Wednesday, December 26, 2001 06:43 PM GMT

by Chris Bradford

 

[Denver Post Online]--The newly constructed Silverton Mountain ski area is now facing scrutiny from the Colorado Bureau of Land Management (BLM). Silverton Mountain, the only ski area to be built during the past 20 years in Colorado, gives access to public land via a single double chair lift. It seems as though Silverton is being treated unfairly by the BLM when compared with environmental assessments done at other areas in Colorado. $1000 fine for each unguided skier on public land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thelawgoddess said:

i honestly don't know the specifics about the legality, but i believe that in the winter (when silverton is open for business) that land is considered under lease ...

 

Are you not the LAW goddess? confused.gifwave.gif

 

Seriously though, I have heard of BLM restricting access to certain sites. But AFAIK, most ski areas operate under a permit from the USFS that allows them to operate their lifts and such. It does NOT mean that the ski area owns the land (although they sometimes act as though they do).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

oh, i interpeted your statement as a personal one...as there seemed to be no actual reference to my question.

 

and yes the investors do get something, they get advertisement, they get their name out there. it even sez so on the website. "to let your customers know you are supporting grassroots ski op" .(or something to that effect) so they are attempting to market the small ski niche, just as your article stated that the BLM or whomever was giving unfair advantage to the bigger resorts. they are marketing this.(or something to that effect). so........................................

 

either way have fun, with your motto's

 

hahaha.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
iain said:

if it's anything like mt. bachelor's and others' agreements with the forest service, you're free to wander through any time you like, as long as you don't become "a hazard" or interfere with mountain operations.

It's my understanding that access is restricted to the general public for avalanche hazard reasons (I'll dig up the article sometime soon). Sure their are backcountry areas with the same terrain, but for ease/speed of access to quality, lightly used terrain, it's pretty unique.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i think you're right, cj, about the land being closed to the public due to avalanche concerns. i think that's really what the big deal is. aaron got permission for limited access, and is working on opening it up. if people are caught poaching that will jeopardize what he's trying to do. i guess some people have done that on purpose in the past because they oppose his ideas. but he's got A LOT of supporters. and i definitely agree ... it's pretty unique! thumbs_up.gif

 

i hope you can come check it out for yourself some time!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thelawgoddess said:i hope you can come check it out for yourself some time!

I'm hoping to swing down their this winter for some climbing (hear there's nice ice!), and some skiing. I hear the country's awesome down there. I actually had reservations for their first season, but those feel through frown.gif due to the loss of employment.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Found an article that says the following:

 

In response to the Silverton incident, the BLM has now closed access to the land adjacent to the Silverton Outdoor Learning and Recreation Center except to Silverton employees and guests, Heli-Trax operators, property owners and the sheriff’s department.

 

“It’s the safest option right now,” Brill said. “The BLM decided to close the whole area because these people couldn’t understand our avalanche warning signs. This way, there won’t be any possibility for confusion.” (© 2002 Ski Press Media, Inc).

 

Full article is here: http://www.skipressworld.com/us/en/daily_news/2002/02/colorado_backcountry_brawls_raise_slope_rage_concerns.html?cat=

 

That's messed up. It seems (to me) unfair that BLM should close the land to the general public, and only allow people pursuing commercial use (guided skiing) of the land.

 

That said, I don't condone what those "trespassers" did (in the Silverton iincident). But the BLM has overreacted. IMHO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Stephen_Ramsey said:That said, I don't condone what those "trespassers" did (in the Silverton iincident). But the BLM has overreacted. IMHO.

I would say that, except that Silverton's opening is being held up until they can demonstrate proper avalanche control for the whole area. Isn't part of proper avalanche control restricted access? Don't ranchers get to restrict access to their leased BLM land?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...think about it from the BLM's point of view. If you worked for them and were responsible for their risk management, it would be in your best interest to control that backcountry. Baker and Crystal have the same issues with adjacent land. If I understand the rules correctly, the assumption is that if you have the gumption to hike up to the top, you have the skills necessary to make your own judgements about risk. If you're a gumby a need a lift to get up there, you are more than likely going to look for someone to sue if you get yourself in trouble. My 2 cents at least.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Figger_Eight said:

Well...think about it from the BLM's point of view. If you worked for them and were responsible for their risk management, it would be in your best interest to control that backcountry. Baker and Crystal have the same issues with adjacent land. If I understand the rules correctly, the assumption is that if you have the gumption to hike up to the top, you have the skills necessary to make your own judgements about risk. If you're a gumby a need a lift to get up there, you are more than likely going to look for someone to sue if you get yourself in trouble. My 2 cents at least.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't Crystal & Baker on Forest Service land? I think that's been part of Silverton's problem - they're the first ski area to use BLM land, and the agency is starting from sratch on how to oversee & regulate, and has a much different history of land regulation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×