backcountry users beware!!

[scharny]

The one detail that people failed to mention here is that GMC and VTFPR are still allowing Big Jay to be open to skier & rider access from Route 242. It's just the saddle trail from Jay Peak that is closed. That saddle trail was cut illegally by Jay Peak nearly 10 years ago, and it's documented that Jay Peak took responsibility for that and paid a fine.

If people want to hike/skin/snowshoe up Big Jay from the bottom, it is agreeably more work, but the rewards are now far greater - closure of the saddle trail access will basically make it a true backcountry skiing and riding destination, rather than "slack-country". Users will have to truly earn their turns, and climb every foot of vertical that they want to ski/ride down. Consequentially, this will reduce the amount of use, and so after all that work you'll be rewarded with some really sweet skiing and riding - I doubt there will be any moguls to deal with - just fluff and lots of it.

Regarding organizing a group to represent the interests of backcountry users, there is a guy who posts regularly on Telemarktips who has been trying to do just that. Here's the thread.

In addition, here is a LOT more discussion and debate regarding the Big Jay issue that might be worth checking out.

http://telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=40346

http://telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=36293

[deadheadskier]

Originally Posted by AHM

Nonetheless, the covert act of "developing" tree lines will exist on the east coast until snow ceases to fall on the east coast.

amen

what the two fellas did at Jay was over the top and yes they should be fined, but a little hand pruning lines I certainly have no issue with and used to do sparingly myself when I lived in Stowe.


I disagree with disallowing access along the ridge to Big Jay. It's the equivalent of not allowing people to hike the chin on Mt Mansfield from the Gondola. I suppose that's next

[riverc0il]

mergs, thanks for your thoughts. I have not had a chance to type up my detailed thoughts on the issue. But in summary, I really think it is in BC'ers hands to provide alternative solutions that are acceptable to all parties, or at least can provide some leverage to the point that certain proposed solutions make so much sense they can not be dismissed out of hand.

The case that was stated was VERY simple: the only issue here is what do we do to keep people from skiing the cut. Period. We get our access back when we come up with a solution to that problem. It is not fair and not done with much respect, but the state and GMC basically said "you created the problem, we came up with a temporary solution. you don't like it? give us something better." So right or wrong, ball is in our court now and it may take some personal sacrifice (monetary or time) to create a better solution. I have some ideas I am working on. Neither monetary nor time donations will help without organization though. Currently working on a media category on my web page for info, going back and finding as much documentation about this as possible to build a kind of achieve on the issue. It is a start, also helps ground my mind in the issue, the players, and the history.

One great question from that meeting addressed how long it will take for the cut to heal. Fifty years? So when does the access open back up? No answer. One season? Two seasons? Obviously most Big Jay skiers will be either dead or no longer in condition to ski Big Jay by the time to cut heals even in optimal conditions.

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by Shroud

One has to wonder if this isn't a heavy-handed approach however. Just how much erosion and damage do they expect to occur during the winter season when snow and ice have frozen all the ground cover in place? I'm all for responsible use of natural resources but this really seems like a punitive punishment aimed at the community as a whole when they should be squarely focused on the two idiots that used the chainsaws in the first place.

The erosion issue was contested at the meeting by a forester or forestry grad of some sorts. He pointed out that if there is six feet of snow, there is not likely to be any harmful effects to the cut being skied at six feet. He was not trying to justify any one skiing it, but rather pointing out if idiots disregarded signage once it was six feet, it would not really hurt. So he proposed keeping Big Jay access closed until six feet. The three parties didn't have much of a rebuttal to that point which the guy kept hammering on. Ecology expert noted that significant erosion was already under way and controls had been implemented. But I think the point raised was valid and scientific evidence should be supplied to verify damage would occur with six feet base or more.

Punishment was already addressed. The three parties stated this issue was not about punishment but rather protecting the cut to allow for regrowth. I mostly believe that point and any doubts I have can safely be put aside as that is not the issue at hand. Since they are on record saying this is strictly about the cut and not punishment, a solution to the issue that would allow access can not be ignored for punishment reasons since they are on the books stating this is not a punishment and they want access.

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by drjeff

Bottom line, even if there turns out to be not alot of erosion/damage, what the State really wants to prevent is more clear-cuts like this popping up all up and down the Green Mountain National Forest, and if they go hardline with this one, word will get out to the vast majority of the chainsaw happy crowd. My hunch is that 98% of the back country pruning that has gone on over the years will, off the record be okay, since it's essentially invisible unless you're in that glorius powder filled line. But if it looks like someone with gas powered, 4 wheel drive equipment did it, the book will be thrown at them

Not according to what was said at the meeting. These guys specifically said paraphrased that "no more cutting of any kind will be tolerated in the state. Period." Also, it was noted that massive cuts have been made before (not quite as large) such as Smuggs and people generally got off without much punishment. Essentially, this issue completely changes things from the state's perspective that previously pretty much looked the other way.

[deadheadskier]

I fail to see how limiting access to hike up only from 242 is going to keep people out of the cut. It certainly will limit the amount of skiers on Big Jay, no question, but there will always be an a-hole out there that will go for it and not care.

Eliminating access from Jay proper does not prevent people from skiing the cut, it just lessons the amount of probable violaters. Is there a good answer? I don't think so. Will restricting access to hike in only help the cut grow back quicker? Maybe, but it's doubtful.

[deadheadskier]

Originally Posted by riverc0il

Not according to what was said at the meeting. These guys specifically said paraphrased that "no more cutting of any kind will be tolerated in the state. Period." Also, it was noted that massive cuts have been made before (not quite as large) such as Smuggs and people generally got off without much punishment. Essentially, this issue completely changes things from the state's perspective that previously pretty much looked the other way.

Does the same hold true for Hunters? Plenty of hunters bushwack through the woods with no regard at all to carve out there spots.

I know of the cut at Smuggs - off of Robin's Run and I believe if you were caught skiing it, you lost your pass for the season - no warnings. Obviously, the situation at Smuggs was much easier to enforce. It's been a few years since I've been to Smuggs and I wonder how much that gash has grown in. It was almost as large in scope as the one on Big Jay.

[David Metsky]

Originally Posted by deadheadskier

Eliminating access from Jay proper does not prevent people from skiing the cut, it just lessons the amount of probable violaters.

It lessens the numbers by 90%+ IMO. The vast majority of folks aren't willing to do the skin up, and of the ones that will I suspect they are much more likely to avoid skiing the Gash.

[deadheadskier]

Originally Posted by David Metsky

It lessens the numbers by 90%+ IMO. The vast majority of folks aren't willing to do the skin up, and of the ones that will I suspect they are much more likely to avoid skiing the Gash.

That might be true. Perhaps the best approach is to have a bc association that self polices the area and make the fines steep for any offenders. Post signage at the trail head out along the ridge stating those fines and make them steep.

I would say the first five years or so are the most critical. Skiing it now would do no harm, but the next couple when there will be saplings poking up could prove to be the most damaging.

Out of curiosity, how vigilant is the access block being enforced? Is it simply a fence or are there actual Mountain or GMC representatives turning back skiers? I'm curious what things are actually like at 'ground zero'

[riverc0il]

It absolutely will reduce the number of potential people skiing the cut. David Metsky's 90% estimate is probably pretty sound. People will go around the fence and bushwhack to the trail and people will hike up and ski the cut (some may do it specifically because they are being told not to, unfortunately) but the numbers will be significantly reduced which is the ultimate goal. They did not eliminate BC access because that goes against the spirit of the easement but they could if it really became a problem. They saw this as a compromise to allow access but substantially reduce traffic on the cut to almost nothing as most people earning turns are the real BC community that cares, not slack country only skiers that prefer car spots to skins.

This is completely different than the Smuggs cut which is smaller. Smuggs cut was within ski area bounds and enforceable by patrol. Patrol has made it clear that they do not want to be cops nor do they have the resources to post "guards" at the gate. No one is enforcing the fence essentially. I think it will come down to the BC community coming up with a "self policing" plan. Don't want to get too far ahead of myself here though.