Jump to content
Jim's comments make the most sense to me. It seems clear that vacating this section of road is a bad idea,and not in the best interests of the majority of residents in the county. Access to quiet spots within the valley,particularly along the river corridor,should be encouraged and supported. I also urge the planners involved to reject this proposal.
As bad as large amounts of dog waste washing into our streams,rivers and lakes each year might be,I'm guessing that it is easier to clean up than seriously hazardous chemicals. I don't know how a water treatment plant deals with several gallons of lacquer thinner or its equivalent passing through its cleaning systems;they must have a way,because obviously this sort of thing happens.
I doubt cameras would be very effective in the middle of a remote slope;more likely they would just be another intrusion. Not so good in a driving snowstorm either. Perhaps they would be helpful near where trails merge,as Scott suggests. I'm never eager for more cameras to be watching me,so it would only make sense in spots where a clear benefit could be established.
Do you think this survey really provides any useful information? I would think those that come to town to ride challenging mountain bike trails would not be inclined to take surveys about the experience. They would be out riding.It's simply too early to determine whether such trails will have strong support;when the trails were approved,there seemed to be that support. This issue should be addressed again next year when there is more information to go on.
The headline implies that skiers might be fined for needing rescue on inbounds "slopes",which is obviously not accurate. The headline writer is probably not a skier.
Unless and until the new trails are built,or at least some of them,there is probably no accurate way to determine what the public desires. We are at the beginning of the trail building project,which was started when there was some pretty strong evidence that such trail were wanted. It is far too early to start questioning whether this is still true. Do you really think that tourists come to Steamboat because there is a strong interest in the Core Trail? I agree that the Core Trail is a good thing,and expanding it is desirable. Funds should be found to do this,but not at the expense of the trail building project that has been planned.
Very good letter,Robin. It is absolutely correct that those involved with planning and building the mountain bike trails in Buffalo Pass (and perhaps elsewhere in the valley) are top-notch people who know what they are doing and why. To question the work that these people are doing based on this survey is idiotic. It has been correctly pointed out that none of these trails have been completed yet,and therefor cannot realistically be factored into the survey results or conclusions. Why don't you wait at least a couple of years and see what people think then?
Heyho,way to go Ohio!
I would like to add my thanks to the Steamboat Ski Patrol and the personnel at YVMC for their care when I injured myself on the ski mountain in January. I know many of these patrolmen and women personally,and I feel that I haven't really thanked them properly for what they did for me. They know who they are;you folks are the best! I've always thought so,and now I know for sure. Thanks again for your caring professionalism.
You've lost me on this one,Mark. "Private solar electric production facility"? I need more information about that. I don't go along with the city's "blight" designation any more than you do,and I EARN my 100 days of skiing each year. You probably don't like beer anyway.
Last login: Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Contents of this site are © Copyright 2017 Steamboat Pilot & Today. All rights reserved.
Tablet version |