-
Powder Journal
Share Stoke and Obs, Raise Money For Charity. - Write an Article
Everyone has a story, tell it here. - Add a Photo
It doesn't count unless you take a picture - Add a Video
If you get gnar with no video, did you really get gnar? - Add a Route
Help build the only interactive backcountry ski atlas - Add an Event
Let us know about any hoot-nannys and shin digs.
-
Powder Journal
Ski Area Expansion: How much is enough? | UNITED STATES, COLORADO | 04/17/2009, by Swiss Miss
Breckenridge Ski Area announced plans to expand the mega-resort to a fifth peak: a mountain currently regarded as great side-country skiing (Peak 6). Resort officials claim that the purpose of expanding the ski area is to spread out the skiers and make up for the lack of beginner and intermediate terrain. Breckenridge currently has about half the skiable terrain as Vail with more skiers per season. It's true that the number of expert runs outnumber the beginner runs, with over 25 green runs, 26 blues, 37 blacks, and over 35 expert only runs. However it's hard to believe that the area is not big enough, with 33 lifts spread over four peaks. Is it really driven by the lack of space, or is it money?
Peak 6 Breckenridge
Peak 6 is a popular backcountry destination because of its ease of access. Many Colorado backcountry ski destinations require a long tour for good turns. One post on TelemarkTips.com states: "Losing Peak 6 as a backcountry area would be huge. This is a really popular ski peak for area residents and front range bc skiers. The cool thing is it doesn't take a huge commitment slogging in to finally get some turns." On the other hand, Manny G., splitboarder and Breckenridge local explains: "Peak 6 is a nice sidecountry area, but if I'm going to go backcountry skiing, there are other good places to go that I don't have to buy a lift ticket to access." Are we being selfish trying to keep the powder turns on Peak 6 all to ourselves without sharing it with those too lazy to hike? Unfortunately, the loss of backcountry skiing terrain is likely one of the least of the negative implications to Breckenridge.
Peak 6 Breckenridge
Expanding to Peak 6 would have many negative implications on the town and the environment. Breckenridge's motto is "Perfect Mountain. Perfect Mountain Town." Perfect for whom? For those who can afford the multi-million dollar mansions and condos on the slope? Breckenridge has grown from a town of less than 600 people in the sixties to one of over 2,400 today, with even more during peak seasons. Such tremendous growth has caused traffic jams and a severe lack of affordable housing for residents and workers. With expansion of the ski area comes the need for more employees, and those employees need to live somewhere. Last I checked, the average ski bum can't afford those slopeside mansions.
It may not seem like ski areas do much damage to the environment, but in reality, they do. Cutting runs and space for ski lifts damages old-growth forest, adding to the loss of evergreen forests from beetle-kill in most of Colorado's Front Range. Slope cuts also cause habitat fragmentation for important species in the area such as lynx and marten. Installing a base lodge and sewer system could contaminate the important wetlands of Cucumber Gulch. In 2008, the Ski Area Citizens Coalition gave Breckenridge an "F" on their environmental report card, which takes into account the impact on roadless areas, old growth forests, purchase of wind energy, use of cleaner burning biodiesel, energy efficient upgrades, and more. Is it smart to allow a huge resort like this to expand on their already poor policies?
Breckenridge isn't the only ski resort that is expanding. Crested Butte announced plans to expand onto Snodgrass Mountain. Telluride just opened a lift on Revelation Bowl and is researching the feasability of another in Upper Bear Creek. Several others resorts are also in the planning stages.
What's going on in your area? How much is enough?
That's Our Opinion. What's Yours?
jeremy wrote on 04/17/09 at 10:48:41 am pst:
I know that Jackson Hole has plans of providing lift access to both Rock Springs and Casper bowl. Would be a major bummer for locals who enjoy the easy hiking for powder turns. And I don't think it would really accomplish anything for the tourists. Sounds like a terrible waste of money, nevermind the environmental and social impacts.
Mclovin wrote on 04/18/09 at 7:02:38 pm pst:
I really hope that Jackson doens't ruin what they have going for them
Dark Star wrote on 04/20/09 at 11:49:44 am pst:
Thanks for sharing Swiss Miss. This article is for surely on point and is a welcome perspective for snow sliders that want to understand how we can do this and have it be good for our environments and communities ...how much is too much? For Breck, or J-hole if they decided to expand further, it's nothing but the hope for some extra bucks.
I look forward to the day when other socio-environmental concerns are brought to the table in an equal manner regarding decision making, rather than just the perpetual arguments in favor of high rates of return on investments.
Sounds like Breck is just trying to "keep up" with the other expansions. Too bad they all weren't doing huge restoration projects for the irreparable damage ski resorts provided to their local environments. Then there could be a rush to do something good, rather than build more affluent centered real estate, expand, etc. etc.
Thanks again for sharing-I wonder how one could help any local movement protest/oppose this expansion? Would that be celebrated locally? Or be looked at as BS?
Swiss Miss wrote on 04/20/09 at 1:24:14 pm pst:
I'm not sure of any local movements yet, but BSA (Backcountry Snowsports Alliance) has information and regular updates: http://www.backcountryalliance.org/work/summit/breckenridge-peak-6-expansion.php
Thank you all for your opinions on this, we'll have more environmentally geared articles coming up in the next month or so.
David Meyer wrote on 04/21/09 at 12:48:41 am pst:
Great to hear. I sure encourage the environmental articles. While skier numbers have been flat for the last 20 years, ski areas have turned thousands of backcountry acres into groomed backdrops for real estate developments.
This site http://skigreenguide.com tracks news and information on how each of us can play a part in keeping the snow deep and long. Spread the knowledge!
dave downing wrote on 04/21/09 at 5:57:37 pm pst:
I've gotta say, i'm for most ski area expansions as crowded resort skiing sucks, the ski areas are too expensive either way, and usually, when 1 peak is expanded too, another becomes reachable as sidecountry. All the while 100's more peaks are beyond where most people are willing to go. So embrace the new terrain. looks great to me.
As for the population of breck, 36k ???? My research showed 2,400 in 2000 Census. Did the author mean 3,600 which would be about double the size of the town in 1880 (1,657) and still 38% smaller than aspen.
Swiss Miss wrote on 04/22/09 at 09:27:37 am pst:
That figure came from this article by the Denver Post: http://www.denverpost.com/headlines/ci_12020754. "Forty years ago, Breckenridge had 548 residents, one paved road and a single ski slope. The town is trying to hang on to that feel, even though at peak times its population swells to more than 36,000." Unfortunately it looks like I have slightly misquoted this, thanks for pointing that out. Looks like the population does still hover around 2400, and although I'm sure it does get into the tens of thousands at peak times, 36,000 does seem too high.
Editors wrote on 04/22/09 at 09:35:25 am pst:
We went ahead and corrected the article. Thanks Dave!
uhh ohh wrote on 12/12/09 at 4:55:38 pm pst:
in order for these resorts to continue being "the best" they have to expand. i know many people live in a different world, but the u.s. is still capitalistic, and the owners of these resorts want to gain profits. it difficult to understand for many people but its reality. might as well accept it...
COskiier wrote on 01/13/10 at 3:15:00 pm pst:
Here's some true facts. Resorts have hardly any negative effects on the environment. Complaining about extra terrain opening up is only heard from those that enjoy the sensation of a full day of hiking/skiing. Fact is most locals would love to have easier access to their favorite 'backcountry'. If you want true backcountry, and want a full day of hiking/skiing untouched slopes, you aren't going to be looking at terrain around a resort, there's better stuff out there.
Paul wrote on 03/30/10 at 09:28:59 am pst:
The Ski Area Citizens' Coalition www.skiareacitizens.com works to promote environmental stewardship. By evaluating ski area responsiveness to the needs of environmental stewardship, local communities, and the recreational public in a manner that is consistent to changing economic and environmental policies, we can potentially influence current business practices and trends to be increasingly more eco-friendly. Now that is progress!
WarPigSinFin wrote on 10/23/10 at 4:01:43 pm pst:
Peak Oil is going to render Mega Resorts obsolete. No cheap oil = No cheap energy (to run all those lifts) and certainly no cheap travel. No tourists on vacation. Much fewer commuters from Denver. Backcountry skiers will rule where lifts once ran!
Unless a resort is designed to serve the local community, it'll fail. One rickety old two-seater to the top of each peak would about do it.
Dark Star wrote on 10/25/10 at 10:14:35 am pst:
Great Comment WarPigSinFin!
ellen wrote on 01/13/11 at 4:45:45 pm pst:
I ski Peak 6 often. It is one of the few places we have for backcountry skiing in Breckenridge and so when one of the comments above tells me to go and enjoy the 100 other peaks in my neighborhood, I just want you to give me a few suggestions. I've lived here 25 years, and we just don't have great winter backcountry skiing here. Unlike the rest of my backyard, Peak 6 sees less wind than other peaks and is relatively avalanche safe. Much of our terrain below treeline is not skiable - dense woods and generally a poor snowpack.
Another misconception is that you need a lift ticket to access peak 6. Not true. It is actually a great backcountry experience because you really do feel out there. If you don't want to ride the lift (which saves you about 45 minutes)we often will skin through the woods from the bottom. You really feel quite removed from the adjacent ski resort.
But despite the great skiing on Peak 6, what is really upsetting are the environmental consequences. Most of our lodgepole forest is dying due to mountain pine beetle epidemic. For those of you who don't live here, let me just tell you it is heart wrenching to be on top of Peak 6 and look across the valley and see nothing but red, dead trees. We are just beginning to see this. You should know that almost 200 acres of healthy spruce and fir will all be destroyed for this expansion. It is a massive loss of healthy habitat - and about as wild as it gets with no trails, and no roads.
I live in an incredibly busy national forest and Peak 6 is so unique because there are very,very few folks that ski or hike on this peak. I would guess a couple hundred a year. The rest of our peaks and drainages are bisected with roads, trails, crowded parking lots and huge human impact. Peak 6 is really as close as it gets to wilderness and yet this expansion will totally destroy it. This lift will also not help what it is supposedly being advocated for - to help crowds and offer more intermediate terrain. Intermediate skiers will not want to be anywhere near this lift on a cold, windy, whiteout day. Springtime freeze/thaw conditions means that often the terrain up here will be icy. Please help us save peak 6. When the EIS is released in March, your letter can make a difference.
Marilyn Hollinshead wrote on 01/14/11 at 02:45:07 am pst:
Development is not needed here. Let's keep one mountain pristine for the future.
Dave Abbey wrote on 04/25/11 at 04:55:58 am pst:
Just spent a week there, and with good Spring weather for the break, it was probably our last time.
Learn from McD and others. When the number of patrons goes down, as all ski resorts are finding, don't increase costs for those who still do ski. $92/day for a lift ticket is waaay to high for those of us who are 'middle class'skiers.
