Skip to content

The Gondola Squawble Continues

Like grandpa, like grandson? Grandpa Wirth cuts the ribbon at the Pipestone National Monument in 1958; Andy Wirth cuts the ribbon at the ski-in Starbucks at Squaw Valley more than 50 years later.
Like grandpa, like grandson? Grandpa Wirth cuts the ribbon at the Pipestone National Monument in 1958; Andy Wirth cuts the ribbon at the ski-in Starbucks at Squaw Valley more than 50 years later.

Another round of salvos was fired this week regarding the proposed gondola connection between Squaw Valley and Alpine Meadows. As we have already reported, the issue has caused quite a rift between those that think it’s the greatest idea ever, and those that believe it is not. Although there has been a lot of discussion over many issues regarding the proposal, much of the controversy has centered on the routing of the gondola through the Granite Chief Wilderness area. We reported on Sierra Watch’s concerns about the gondola route earlier this month.

Squaw Valley Ski Holdings CEO Andy Wirth came out swinging this week. In an email sent to SquAlpine employees, Wirth harshly attacked Sierra Watch’s Executive Director Tom Mooers. The email offered little in the way of actual facts that refute Sierra Watch’s concerns about the route. Here’s what it said:

Scenics at Alpine Meadows and Squaw Valley, CA.

BASE TO BASE GONDOLA UPDATE

Granite Chief Wilderness Area

Members of the Squaw Valley | Alpine Meadows Team:

Good morning-  I trust you are all well.

As it related to our recent announcement of initiating the planning process associated with the Alpine Meadows| Squaw Valley base to base gondola, Tom Mooers at Sierra Watch recently issued a press statement specifically alleging that our contemplated plans included going through the Granite Chief Wilderness Area, as designated by the California Wilderness Act of 1984.  Tom’s assertions and in the press, aspersions, are materially and factually incorrect.  Had Tom called or done any level of thorough diligence, we could have saved him the public embarrassment associated with his organization’s completely invalid claims.

As we all seek to work with facts and not hyperbole or the propagation of headline seeking myths, I’ve attached a detailed white paper on this matter.  I hope you will please take a moment to review this document.  It’s an important if not critical summary of the facts and truths around Mr. Caldwell’s land ownership as it relates to this proposal and provides for an objective, chronological overview of what’s relevant on this topic (inclusive of citations).

Personally, it may be relevant for you to know that my grandfather Conrad (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conrad_L._Wirth) actually participated in the drafting of the original enabling federal legislation, The Wilderness Act of 1963; moreover, I was a wilderness ranger in the San Pedro Parks Wilderness Area in the Santa Fe National Forest.  It’s with that background, coupled with a deep sense of conviction and obligation that I let you know that I would never, never contemplate pushing these contemplated plans through a wilderness area. I don’t take Tom Mooers’ inability to do research as an affront, however the aspersions he’s casted in a few instances are not just embarrassing for him/his organization, more importantly, they are embarrassing to those of us who have been and remain true environmentalists as expressed through our work and actions.  Our position has been affirmed by the United States Forest Service and once contacted by  the USFS, the LA Times even redacted a map and certain elements of Mr. Mooers’ inaccurate claims.

Again, please take a moment to review this document and let’s get recalibrated on the process and what’s important…but most importantly, what are facts and truth.

On behalf of a very grateful executive team, thank you for making the very most and best of the 2014-2015 season.  You are all truly world class and it remains an honor to work with you.  I look forward to seeing you on the trails around the Sierras, on the lake and around Alpine Meadows and Squaw Valley this summer; or on the mountain when we get into what I am certain will be a great 2015-2016 season.
Warm regards,

Andy

Unfortunately, there was no valid link to the “white paper” provided. The provided link lead to a random page on the SquAlpine website. Several employees reported their frustrations with the error this week. We can only assume that the “white paper” was what we presented last week.

It’s certainly not an attractive side of Mr. Wirth that we are seeing in the email, but it is one that we have seen many times before. We sent a copy of the email, that we received from numerous employees, to Mr. Mooers for his comment. It turns out that Mooer’s comments were professional and on point, especially for a guy that had just been trashed by the SVSH CEO. Here’s what he said:

Mark –

I understand you’ve seen the email that Andy Wirth of KSL/Squaw broadcast to his employees earlier this week.

It’s about their proposed gondola through Granite Chief Wilderness − but mostly it’s a personal attack on me, calling me out by name five times and accusing me of being “materially and factually incorrect” to the point of “public embarrassment”.

At its best, it’s a diversionary tactic designed to draw attention from what’s really going on in Squaw Valley: development proposals unlike anything we’ve seen in Tahoe Sierra. Nevertheless, I figure I should address and put to rest a couple issues raised in the email so we can, hopefully, turn away from the mudslinging and back to issues that really matter.

The email claims that Sierra Watch, due to an “inability to do research” was mistaken in pointing out that the proposed Squaw to Alpine gondola would go through land that is part of the Granite Chief Wilderness Area. The email is mistaken; we did our research.

When we learned of the proposed gondola route on April 13, we were surprised to see that the route cut right into land designated as wilderness.

In order to clarify the boundary, we visited the United States Forest Service (USFS), looked at their maps, and consulted with their Lands Manager.  We also reviewed the boundaries at wilderness.net, the public-private partnership charged with maintaining data on our national wilderness areas.  Maybe most important, the mapping experts we engaged to compare the gondola route with the wilderness boundary based their work on USFS datasets, available at:

http://data.fs.usda.gov/geodata/edw/datasets.php?dsetCategory=boundaries

The map, overlaying the proposed gondola onto USFS data, is clear:

Map Proposed Gondola Through Granite Chief Wilderness

In other words, we didn’t make any of this up.  The wilderness boundary was enacted by Congress and signed into law by President Reagan.  It’s clearly defined and maintained by the USFS.  The gondola route runs right through it.

Wirth’s email also claims that he “…would never, never contemplate pushing these contemplated plans through a wilderness area.”

This brings us to point #2:  KSL’s own memo agrees that the gondola is proposed for wilderness.

The memo Wirth cites clearly states:

The portion of the Caldwell parcel over which the interconnect will operate is within the mapped boundary of the Granite Chief Wilderness Area, established under the Wilderness Act of 1964 (the original enabling legislation passed by Congress) and the California Wilderness Act of 1984, which designated certain lands within the state of California as federally designated Wilderness Areas.” (Emphasis added.)

Basically, that’s a lawyerly way of saying what, I think, Wirth is claiming is a incorrect: the gondola route is proposed to go through designated wilderness.

My guess is that the confusion stems from the fact the land in question is still privately owned and, therefore, does not fall under USFS jurisdiction and the strictest federal wilderness protections; we never said otherwise.

The issue we’re raising is not one of jurisdiction, it’s an issue of values.  We value wilderness, and we think that a federal designation of wilderness, as a statement of national commitment to a specific landscape, matters.

Note that I have tried repeatedly to reach out to Andy directly − but to no avail.

Please feel free to contact me directly about this or, looking ahead, the impending Draft Environmental Impact Review for the proposed Village development. We expect that document sometime in May; it should raise discussions about Squaw above personal attacks and focus our attention on what really matters: the future of our Squaw Valley and our Tahoe Sierra.

TM

We applaud Mr. Mooers and Sierra Watch for sticking to the facts and being clear about their concerns. We have always agreed with their assessment that the Caldwell property does indeed contain a portion of land that is designated as a part of the Granite Chief Wilderness. While the restrictions that would normally apply to wilderness lands do not apply on privately held property, it becomes a question of environmental values and ethics.

Wirth stands behind his grandfather Conrad Wirth’s participation in the drafting of the 1964 Wilderness Act, and his time served as a wilderness ranger himself as evidence of his environmental values. A cursory bit of research done via the internet seems to indicate that Conrad Wirth did indeed have a large role in the development of Mission 66 for the National Park Service. The goal of Mission 66 was to provide for construction and development within the national park system to modernize them and make them more easily accessible to the masses. According to several articles, it seems as if the Wilderness Act of 1964 may have been written to protect the parks from the over-development proposed by Wirth’s Mission 66.

Greeted at first with enthusiasm, Mission 66 was also criticized. Opponents complained that it emphasized construction as a one-dimensional solution to the complex social and environmental problems park managers were facing, and that it abandoned the Rustic style of park architecture and landscape design. The program soon led the NPS into bitter controversy as the postwar environmental movement began to take shape and exert its strength. Mission 66 hastened the advent of environmentalism by creating concern that the NPS was overdeveloping parks while failing to take other steps to preserve wilderness. Wirth stepped down as NPS director at the beginning of 1964, two years before his program was to have been completed. The creation of the Bureau of Outdoor Recreation in 1962 and the passage of the Wilderness Act of 1964 signaled the advent of what Secretary of the Interior Stewart L. Udall described as New Conservation.

Source:http://tclf.org/pioneer/conrad-wirth/biography-conrad-wirth

It’s possible that Andy may not truthfully know his grandfather’s exact role at the National Park Service. I know my grandfather worked for the American Beverage Corporation in the 1950’s, but whether he invented Dr. Brown’s soda or acted as a clerk depends on which relative is telling me the story.

The material question is whether or not Andy Wirth is truly concerned about protecting the unique qualities of the North Tahoe area. Whether or not he served as a wilderness ranger in a former lifetime is immaterial. His environmental record since his arrival at Squaw Valley Ski Holdings in 2010 speaks more clearly. During that time he has proposed:

• An expansion of the Village at Squaw Valley that would more than double the size of the village and continue construction for up to 25 years. It would be the single largest development the Sierra has seen in history.

• Proposed the construction of a mountain roller coaster near Red Dog.

• Proposed the construction of a 90,000 square foot indoor aquatic center, located just 8 miles from Lake Tahoe, which is one of the best aquatic centers in the world.

• Proposed the construction of buildings in the new village as high as 1o8 feet, blocking views of the mountains and natural lighting within the village.

• Proposed and supported a return of the winter Olympics to the Reno-Tahoe area, which would result in huge amounts of new development for short term profit.

The question remains, can we trust Andy Wirth, Squaw Valley Ski Holdings and KSL Capital with the future of Lake Tahoe and surrounding communities? While it may be nice to dream about the possibility of stepping onto a gondola to go between the two resorts, or to dream about the possible rise in property values it could bring – it’s time that we step back and make sure we are protecting what we love. Whether we are locals, weekend warriors or infrequent visitors to the area, Lake Tahoe and it’s surrounding grandeur is only there because of the generations of people that have stood up to protect and preserve it.

For further reading on the subject, an excellent guest editorial appeared in yesterday’s Sierra Sun, penned by none other than Sierra Watch’s Tom Mooers.

48 thoughts on “The Gondola Squawble Continues”

  1. I don’t see how a $20 Million+ gondola, that isn’t opening up any new terrain, is going to be a good investment.

    Are more tourists really going to flock to Squawpine do to the base 2 base connectivity? I think not!

  2. If getting paid athletes and non-profits to endorse him wasn’t enough, Andy now feels the need to use his family’s lineage to help with his credibility.

    1. John,
      Andy has been using Grand Dad’s legacy in public as a rhetorical argument to support his position that he must care for the environment and community because Grand Dad did since he got the job working for KSL.

      Grand Dad was a leader so I must be. Hmm usually the folks that use this rhetoric are merely trying to convince themselves they are something they aspire too, perhaps or in their own mind but in the final analysis are not.

  3. Could it be that they want to be able to use the the Alpine base lodge year-round for events? That was a big part of the Whistler Peak to Peak gondola, where now they can use both the Whistler Mountain Roundhouse Lodge and the Blackcomb Mountain Rendezvous Lodge for corporate events all year.

  4. Andy Wirth continues to substantiate his role of “bagman” for KSL and SVSH. I maintain, again, my assertion that KSL with JMA as a supporting line of credit intends to steal the water from Alpine’s drainage and use it to further their grotesque concept of sustainability and progress in Squaw Valley. Time to run his Janus faced ass out of town.

  5. Re: “Unfortunately, there was no valid link to the “white paper” provided. ”

    The white paper was attached to the email sent to employees. It was not a link.

    1. My email from squaw included no attachments just a link to a page about how to get to squaw. I replied to squaw and got no email back with a white paper or an explanation. Would you be willing to post it for us to see their proof?

    2. It wasn’t attached to the email I saw. So, unless SVSH HR sent out multiple versions of that email, you’re wrong.

      1. I second the Clarification above. I also got the attachment. It was the exact same PDF that was attached to previous UA story.

  6. Thank you for posting that photo of the grand opening of the world’s first and only ski in-ski out Starbucks.

    Many will forget, but that was one of KSL’s brilliant ideas that have since been followed up by the 4 pound GNAR Burger, world’s first ski Google Glass App, eliminating Alpine’s 50 year history and now a base to base gondola.

    Stop the madness!

  7. As usual, Andy Wirth proves what a pretentious ego driven @$$/ he really is.
    Tom Mooers and Sierra Watch should be supported and encouraged to the fullest extent.
    #FreeAlpine #ScrewKSL

  8. Mark, Thanks for the amount of time and effort you put into this latest post, and for all you’ve done in the past. The amount and nature of Mr. Wirth’s response reveals, just in case anyone was uncertain about this, just how important he and KSL/SVSH/Squaw Valley Real Estate or whatever it’s called feel about the importance of the gondola link up. I’d opine that the main facet of that is how important it is to raising the augmented value of the holding for the shareholders in the private equity deal when KSL eventually sells this holding, either after its value has been significantly raised due to its getting the entitlements/permits for the development, or after it’s embarked, broken ground on doing all or some portion of the actual long term development. Do not forget that capital equity deals are usually short term…and this one is arguably already behind schedule, and due to a variety of factors it’s uncertain when commencement of turning earth will actually begin. Anyway, the main point is that the gondola connection is seen as very very important, and not just due to the obvious convenience of those who hop aboard, to significantly raising the value of the investment. Hence also the authoritatively reported rumors of around a $50 million cost payment to Troy, even if the eventual deal ends up not as an outright sale but as a lease for a currently undisclosed sum not to mention terms.

    Also, and as another commented, congratulations on your research re. the role player by Mr. Wirth’s grandfather. If what you allege is indeed true, is it apt to cite the old saw about the nut not falling very far from the tree?

    Lastly, I have to disagree with someone’s comment about the real motive for the connection being to gain Alpine’s water. This was an allegation hurled against Squaw’s incorporation effort which originally included Alpine, and was used by opponents of Alpine joining Squaw as a reason to not do so. Alpine’s ski area and water district are two distinct and separate entities. The only way Alpine’s water can be sold, and to anyone, is by a majority vote of its shareholders, which means primarily its residents. People really need to get off their fat, uninformed and not to mention paranoid butts and do a bit of the most basic research before making certain pronouncements. With all due respect to them, of course.

    1. Good point about the water. People with zero understanding of California water law really need to shut up about it.

    2. Thank you Rick.

      Intelligent, thoughtful and spot on. Enjoy the insightful perspective.

      And Mark you have provided a forum for open discussion that is invaluable.

      Thank you for the tenacious journalism.

      Well done.

  9. As with everything at Tahoe it’s always NIBY.Love Alpine, but will be never be sustainable on it’s own.Get on the bus before they close the mountain for good. Peak to Peak has made Whistler better.

    1. Sustainable for a local owner/operator? Sure. Sustainable for an out of state hedge fund? Nope. Connect the dots.

      1. Remember it’s all a gimmick to help deter world renown destination ski resorts from ” eating our lunch off our tray” as so eloquenty put by Mr Wirth at a past resort association meeting.

        Sure a base to base gondola between alp and squaw will definitly change that competitive edge those world class destination resorts have.

        Now you understand the metrics of Andie’s proposed super cool, way fun, just what Tahoe needs, lift.

  10. Andy, if he is certain in his legal right, would benefit from familiarizing himself with law 36: “By acknowledging a petty problem you give it existence and credibility. The more attention you pay an enemy, the stronger you make him…”

    All this email conveys is insecurity.

  11. Of sociopathic behavior Mr. Wirthe has constantly and most recently displayed in his email.

    Wifey just passed her CA bar. Perhaps he should seek better legal counsel as well.

    Integrity with a personal attack on Mr. Moores like that Mr. Wirthe? I think not, just a glaring, unabashed example of continual sociopathic capitalism.

    Mr Sylvester is correct, equity investors are seeking short term returns, KSL b team mgmt missed the profit cycle due to many factors including drought and due process of proposed development. Now they seem to be in a state of panic on their lack of return. Wirthe is on hot seat and prob has become whipping boy.

    Lashing out is manifestation of frustration and failure.

    All about Andy’s style these days no matter what princess Jules may say.

    Isnt she in hawaii now anyway?

  12. Please remember as part of Mr. Wirth;s legacy is to place heavy maintenance and storage of toxic material at the entrance to Shirley Canyon and to build town homes on the edge of Shirley Canyon in the most important aquifer recharge area. Both of these endanger our small water supply and are in areas currently designated Conservation Preserve and Forest Recreation. Re-zoning is required and they are asking for it.

    1. Seems to me these are much more important environmental issues than the gondola, and, especially since rezoning would be required, much more winnable. And without major development in Olympic Valley there will be no gondola (or any other new lifts.)

  13. From dear Wikipedia: “Narcissistic personality disorder (NPD) is a Cluster B personality disorder[1] in which a person is excessively preoccupied with personal adequacy, power, prestige and vanity, mentally unable to see the destructive damage they are causing to themselves and to others in the process. It is estimated that this condition affects one percent of the population, with rates greater for men.[2][3] First formulated in 1968, NPD was historically called megalomania, and is a form of severe egocentrism.[4]”

    The way I see it? He needs to find a Shakespeare festival somewhere to invade so he can flounce his attitude around at its finest. And leave us alone.

    1. Exactly

      I recall someome mentioned on a diff forum …..he used “I, me, my, mine” over 80 times.

      Note: this comment was heavily edited.

  14. Nice work, Mark. This debate needs a lot more careful research and reasonable debate, and less of the ad hominem rhetoric employed by both Andy W and some of the posters on this forum. I am against the gondola because why do we need it? Yet another amusement park amenity like the water park to draw tourists and more out-of-towners, and give Squaw bragging rights. For me, a passionate advocate of Alpine’s “hike to” terrain, the biggest threat is opening up Bernie’s and Buttresses and related terrain to punters too lazy to hike. Meaning the area will be all tracked out even faster than usual. But that is self-interested, I suppose. If someone came up with a rational justification for the gondola, I’d maybe say ok, but so far, I’ve not heard one. How about they do what some European resorts have done…dig a tunnel under the mountain and run a funicular from base to base. That would protect the wilderness and keep the hike-to terrain for those of us willing to sweat for our turns. Of course, that would make the gondola look pretty cheap by comparison.

  15. I think the original article here is very well written and hits the right tone. It is both a factual rebuttal of the Wirth letter and a thoughtful investigation into the claims made in the letter.

    A large number of the comments here are, on the other hand, unhelpful, personal, and petty. If we are to fight against this successfully, then we need to maintain credibility and the moral high ground; they are ours to lose right now. Calling someone a crackhead or a lunatic serves no purpose other than to discredit the commenter and make our attempts to resist this look like nothing more than a bar conversation.

    If we are going to win, then we need to use our time more effectively. Rather than spending time sending petty insults, take some time to research the topic further. The better we know our facts as a community, the better positioned we are to be able to hold our ground in the heat of the upcoming debate about the gondola, the new village, and the Tahoe area as a whole.

    We need to understand the permitting process to know when to organize ahead of critical deadlines, we need to arrange write in campaigns to the people whose desk this will land on, we need to have arguments ready and prepared to present in written and spoken form when the moment comes. If we spend our time well and actively as a community, we can organize to defeat this.

    As an example, we should look to the battle that took place in Mineral King. This was planned for development in the early 60s by the Disney corporation, but was ultimately annexed into Sequoia National Park in the late 70s after a lengthy campaign by the Sierra Club and remains now as an incredible area of Sierra Nevada wilderness. One of the reasons the Sierra Club took action was that the extent of the project became excessive. If Disney had stuck with their original plans of building a mid-sized resort, they would have meet with little resistance. The development plans grew substantially though, and beyond what could have been sustained. This excess was what drove the strength of resistance, and ultimately the successful campaign to stop it.

    Finally, for what it is worth, I am an avid skier, and I am not intrinsically against development or improvements at Squaw and Alpine. However, I think the combination of the village and gondola are excessive and unnecessary and will ruin the outstanding ski areas of in North Lake Tahoe.

    1. UA is for the people

      If this were an official public meeting, or an organization, I’d agree with you, but it’s a forum for enthusiasts of alpine and by proxy, squaw. Maybe some opinions aren’t pretty, but they are expressions of how people feel and it’s not your job to police others and tell them how to behave, Mark is the moderator, not you. Taking the moral high-road is ideal, but it’s not how every person chooses to communicate. I disagree that expression of negative opinions somehow dilutes our agenda, they give an indicator of how strongly people feel. The impacts to the area, and to consumers and residents are big, it’s understandable that people have strong opinions, and they are entitled to their feelings. Andy himself chooses to make some personal statements and he makes them from a very public and official capacity, he opens himself up to criticism due to his own behavior. You do make some good points in your post though, thanks for those.

      1. Also interesting to note that I have needed to edit several comments on this post and there were another 5 or 6 that were complete personal attacks on Andy and not on his message. Those comments get deleted entirely.

      2. I agree that people are entitled to their opinions and that feelings are running high about this. I disagree that there is no place for commentary on those opinions, though.

        My post was perhaps worded clumsily-and I apologise if that was the case. The point that I am trying to make is that the strength of opinion and emotion about this can be an amazingly powerful force in the debate if people participate directly in this process. There is a precedent for how to stop these developments, but it requires learning about the details and being organized. This is a development that can be changed or stopped, and forums like this one, which pull together a committed group with common interests, are a great place to start that learning and organization.

        Again-my intent was not and is not to focus on the tone of the commentary-that was a mistake. My hope is that the anger, concern and passion here can be redirected in a productive way to put a stop to an unnecessary and damaging change to Alpine Meadows and Squaw Valley.

        1. UA is for the people

          Thank you for your clarification, you’re completely right about trying to focus emotions, and I think you worded it beautifully. I apologize for policing you, it’s not my job either. It would be really wonderful if we can work, together and singly, to find appropriate development actions for squaw and alpine. It’d certainly be nice for the kids of the future to do it in a way where money isn’t the only thing that is valued.

  16. Placer County, under the auspices of KSL will soon issue a dEIR for the proposed Squaw Valley development. According to KSL it was sent to Placer last Wednesday (as Mr. Hosea announced at the SVPSD meeting last Tuesday, i.e. the day before KSL provided to Placer).

    Placer will not release until Placer has the opportunity to review the newest iteration of the (once again) Revised Specific Plan (is that 4 or 5 or ?). In other words KSL is changing the plan for development at the same time as Placer releases the dEIR. According to Mr. Hosea (again at the SVPSD meeting) “…there will be no printed copies as it is a 1,000 page document, but you might be able to buy them from Placer.”

    I think that this time is critical to focus on what KSL is actually proposing rather than discussing a gondola they cannot afford.

    Whatever Mr. Wirth wants to claim lets see what KSL puts in writing

  17. Appendix F of the California Environmental Quality Act states that any development in a state historical designat site which Squaw is listed as no. 24, Pioneer ski area, in regards to a cultural or historical event, 1960 Winter Olympics,; Energy Mitigation”..a wise and efficient use of energy,,,,,reducing the use of fossil fuels with a greater reliance on renewable energy,,”

    Unless KSl buys vast solar, wind and geo-thermal energy suppiers and has that electricity brought to Squaw all their grand plans are just that.

    Traffic mitigation is also a requirement of such development and the reduction of fossil fuel consumption is also required under CEQA pertaining to construction equipment and vehicles.

    Buying carbon credits will not allow KSL to circumvent or offset requirements of
    CEQA .

    There is no way 20-25 years of heavy commercial constuction at a state designated historical site falls within these CEQA Appendix F guidelines.

    KSL didnt perform due diligence on the status of the property prior to purchasing and how development is restricted from such gross misuse of a state historical resource by our legislators including then Govenor Ronald Reagan who signed the law into effect in 1964 coincidentally the same year the Federal Wilderness Act took effect.

    Thank you to those lawmakers who has such foresight to protect the natural beauty of the place many call home and many more come to enjoy its splendor.

  18. Lots of great comments and discussion.

    Wondering what is the logic behind a parking lot to parking lot multi-million dollar lift that does not provide access to skiable terrain?

    Does ksl own a lift mfg company too? Only reason i can think of.

    1. It does provide access to skiing – you can unload at both mid-stations. Of course it doesn’t provide access to any *new* terrain.

  19. They can have lift company build it, but will ksl run it on regular basis?

    It seems it will be oriented more prone to prevailing cross winds.

    Considering that and an ongoing drought cycle that a NASA climatologist has recently said could last up to a decade, the operating costs alone would seem to be an unsound financial decision by mgmt.

    Carry on

  20. Pingback: Wirth Delivers His Latest Proclamation | UnofficialAlpine.com

  21. Pingback: SquAlpine Gondola Update Released…And Yet Another Movement Is Started | UnofficialAlpine.com

  22. Pingback: Gondola Squabbles: Squaw-Alpine Gondola Opens Dispute of What is Technically Wilderness - Gear Exchange

  23. Pingback: Andy Wirth Wants Us To Believe He Knows John Muir Better Than The Sierra Club – UnofficialAlpine.com

Leave a Reply to Andy Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.