Cannonball
New member
Is there anything on this planet that can't be said about?
-
Welcome to AlpineZone, the largest online community of skiers and snowboarders in the Northeast!
You may have to REGISTER before you can post. Registering is FREE, gets rid of the majority of advertisements, and lets you participate in giveaways and other AlpineZone events!
Backcountry/Sidecountry Pruning: OK or Not?
- Thread starter thetrailboss
- Start date
Is there anything on this planet that can't be said about?
Exactly
I think the issue of skiers cutting a few lines here and there is so minor compared to the bigger environmental concerns out there. In New Hampshire you might have 1000 acres of gladed terrain total (resort managed or skier managed) out of how many hundreds of thousands of acres of State and National forests? It really is a fraction of a percent. Maine the percentage would be incredibly tiny. Vermont, the issue is a bit more obvious because the ski areas take up far more acreage over a smaller percentage of land. There's likely far more cutting in Vermont simply because of how much busier those ski areas are, so people feel the need to develop "stashes" a bit more.
Plenty of MTB trails being cut too. Almost all of Oakland town forest in Exeter, NH is unsanctioned rider cut.
Both are illegal yes, but as long as you're not creating a situation that could cause massive erosion (Big Jay) or extensive habitat loss, I'm really not going to care all that much about it. It's expanding outdoor recreation opportunities. Our collective American waistline needs more of it, not less.
dlague
Active member
We are making a mountain out of a mole hill. A little clearing has little to no impact! If you can not see it from the road who cares! My kids knocked down trees, built tree stands, dug trenches and built small bridges in the woods behind our house so they could have airsoft/paitball wars! It has not been used over the past three years now that they are older and it is all grown over and in 5 years time no one will ever know! Nature recycles itself - give it a break!
Puck it
Well-known member
Puck it
Well-known member
Are these being trimmed too hard?
skiNEwhere
Active member
In Vermont, illegally cutting down trees is more serious a crime than, say, armed robbery.
Cannonball
New member
dlague
Active member
Nope not trimmed enough!
steamboat1
New member
Some ski areas plant trees (MRG).
Great commercial !! Damn near died when I saw it !
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone
SIKSKIER
New member
As far a Cannon goes,almost all glades on Mittersill were cut without permission.For years it was "dont ask dont tell" for management.Then we had a few years of sanctioned cutting where we were brought up the mt in the tram.When the Mittersill land swap was about happen this activity was openly discouraged as to not thow a monkey wrench in the process.One year I remember a friend telling he was cutting on the Tuckerbrook trail.We drove up to find him dropping trees for a new detour spur.I was very shocked at the balls of this.Anyway,if anybody knows this trail well the new spur was named "for locals only".Cannon had a petty liberal policy for many decades as many of us formed cutting partys that could easily be seen and heard.
Puck it
Well-known member
I skied this for the first time a couple of years ago.
Savemeasammy
New member
Agreed.
I'm fine with removing scrub, low branches, and even saplings that are growing in an area where other well-established trees already exist. In the grand scheme of things, this kind of thinning is pretty small-potatoes.
Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app
Puck it
Well-known member
Big Dipper Glades is an example of mismanagement on trial cutting and glade cuttings.
Oz at Sunday River as well.
It seems to me that often times the resorts do far more damage and a worse job when they cut a "glade" to put on the map, then when locals thin out some trees.
Never mind the actual comparison of environmental damage for a fully cut and developed trail vs locally maintained trees. What's worse; Profile or Bunny Direct?? I think the answer is pretty obvious.
witch hobble
Member
- Joined
- Sep 29, 2009
- Messages
- 774
- Points
- 18
Don't ask, don't tell. Regressive policy. But probably a good one for those stash hoarders amongst us.
steamboat1
New member
Big Dipper Glades were fine, It's Double Dipper that created the problem.
Puck it
Well-known member
Agreed
from_the_NEK
Active member
This has been the standard I follow. Selective cut saplings, with nothing cut bigger than 2" in diameter. Many times I will leave nice straight sapling and cull the bent or crooked ones. Branch trimming and clearing/flattening of deadfall.
What some of you don't realize is that most saplings in a mature canopied forest typically do not "grow up" into new canopy trees. They simply do not receive enough sunlight to do so. They linger in the understory and grow incredibly slowly and eventually die of old age. They will never produce a quality tree. Most quality regeneration occurs where a hole has developed in the canopy that lets in sunlight. New growth saplings will quickly overtake any existing "old" saplings where this occurs.
This is why you see a lot of logging operations moving to patch cutting. This is where they clear cut small patches and leave mature forest in between to serve as seed sources and cover for wildlife. The regeneration rates are FAR higher using this technique over selectively cutting a few trees out of a forest. Of course this is a technique that is used in forests that are owned and operated for commercial logging purposes but I think you get my point. Full on resort glade cutting is more like the "Selective" cutting technique. At some point the mature canopy trees start dying. At that point the resorts should simply cut them and start regeneration zones (e.g. roped off areas you see around MRG).
Getting permission would be tricky in most cases. Most spots I've worked on you can barely tell that I've been there.
BeefyBoy50
New member
The NIMBYism these days is sometimes just intolerable. I understand how it would be improper to thin forests on someone else's land, because it's their private land and they have access to it, but the amount of "damage" we might be doing by removing thorn bushes and fallen logs and < 2 inch saplings to create a path through the forest is really inconsequential. Our society permits people to become offended about the most minor things. Who is actually harmed when we (with permission or on our own land) do some minor trimming (not clear cutting) to clear out otherwise unskiable routes?
Similar threads
