Rate Yourself As a Skier/Rider Conservationist

[Geoff]

You guys do know that there's no old growth forest in New England. The entire region was logged and any tree you see wasn't there 200 years ago.

You can cut whatever you want. It will grow back.

Like most of us, I prefer narrow trails where you can't see the bottom from the top. Unfortunately, you can't have high uphill capacity, snowmaking, and narrow trails at the same time. I'll ski on McSludge on the super-wide McSkiing trails when I have to but I always gravitate to narrow, ungroomed, natural snow, and gladed areas. I prefer glade skiing to woods skiing so you can cut some trees down and I won't complain.

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I would rate myself a 4..I feel like enough trees have been cut down although I really like high speed lifts for getting mad steezy vert...Next season I'm verbally harrassing anybody I ride the lift with who throws garbage/cigarette butt/empty beer can from the chairlift..it's just wrong..

[dmc]

I'm for putting tree BACK onto slopes...

[wa-loaf]

Originally Posted by Geoff

You guys do know that there's no old growth forest in New England. The entire region was logged and any tree you see wasn't there 200 years ago.

You can cut whatever you want. It will grow back.

Well most of New England, Wachusett has some old growth stands that prevent them from expanding and makes off piste skiing forbidden.

[dmc]

Originally Posted by Geoff

You guys do know that there's no old growth forest in New England. The entire region was logged and any tree you see wasn't there 200 years ago.

Where I live in Hunter it was originally Hemlock forests.. they were all clearcut in the 1800s for tanning...
Pretty sad...
Famous painting from that era called "Hunter at Twilight" show a completely clear cut Hunter Mountain...
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Hudson_River/3.r.htm

[wa-loaf]

Originally Posted by dmc

Where I live in Hunter it was originally Hemlock forests.. they were all clearcut in the 1800s for tanning...
Pretty sad...
Famous painting from that era called "Hunter at Twilight" show a completely clear cut Hunter Mountain...
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Hudson_River/3.r.htm

Maybe it's too small to see enough detail, but that almost looks like a photo. Cool.

[4aprice]

I'm for responsible developement. Developement that can be meshed in with the enviroment and mininmize impact. It can be done. As has been pointed out much of the northeast was clear cut at one time and it came back. I think some people go over board supporting their cause.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

[andyzee]

Originally Posted by dmc

Where I live in Hunter it was originally Hemlock forests.. they were all clearcut in the 1800s for tanning...
Pretty sad...
Famous painting from that era called "Hunter at Twilight" show a completely clear cut Hunter Mountain...
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Hudson_River/3.r.htm

Makes me think of a landing strip

[kingslug]

Cut them down as needed. So I would say.......I'm a 7. You can start at Belleayre.

[riverc0il]

Originally Posted by dmc

I'm for putting tree BACK onto slopes...

Word.

I would put myself at a 4-5. I do not really see the need for more trails at most mountains. Ideally a lack of downhill capacity would limit a ski area's desire to increase the uphill capacity. Some places it makes sense to add a few more trails and expand a little more but I really don't see the point when all most areas would do with additional terrain is cut wide boulevards. There is more than enough of that at most ski areas in New England. Glade thinning can substantially increase a ski area's downhill capacity and skiable acres without bull dozing wide swaths and creating boulevards. Most ski areas seem to have pursued this option as their ability to expand horizontally has been eliminated or reduced by large hurdles. Loon seemed reasonable as did Jackson Gore at Okemo and while I am completely against the Cannon expansion it is certainly not for conservationist reasons. Burke expansion is needed once they have a HSQ and an East Bowl Chair. Etc. But for fully built out areas, I think there reaches an "enough is enough" point. My 4-5 on a 10 scale is not so much from a conservationist stand point but rather reasonable development without creating ugly and unsighting swaths and clear cutting and boulevards. More from an aesthetic perspective.