"Has Secret Trail Cutting Gone Too Far?" Vermont Life Winter 2009 Article

[thetrailboss]

An interesting article in the latest Vermont Life, written by Tom Slayton.

Read and feel free to comment.

 

[riverc0il]

My Thoughts.

 

[wa-loaf]

Might want to warn folks that links to a pdf.

 

[deadheadskier]

worth monitoring, but the sky isn't falling.

The Green Mountain National Forest encompasses more than 400,000 acres. Total Vermont Ski area acreage as of 1999? 5175. Certainly more today, but even if it was double, you're talking 2.5% of the GMNF and not all VT ski areas lie withing GMNF boundaries.

Now I know the subject is on Back Country skiing. In comparison to the total developed terrain, how much acreage is actually being illegally cut? Certainly not enough to cause 'even age stands' as Mr. Russ Ford argues. Or at least not enough to warrant concern given how vast the GMNF is, never mind the millions of acres of privately held and state lands.

And if Mr. Ford was such an ecologist, why the heck is he growing beef in Vermont? Carbon foot print be damned, I'm of the opinion that ZERO beef should be raised in New England. Not enough land, not the right growing conditions. That's another argument that I'll happily debate with folks, but I'm just bringing it up to point out that most Environmentalists, Ecologists, etc. are highly convicted in a belief structure only when it's convenient to them.

*steps off soap box*

 

[Harvey]

My Thoughts.

A lot to think about there. Definitely worth the read.

I never thought twice about tree skiing until the Big Jay Cut. It's definitely hard to face the fact that something that I live for, is harmful.

Riv makes the point that naturally occuring tree skiing exists in very limited quantities in the east. And he's right if you are talking about tree skiing on today's alpine, AT or telegear. At today's speeds.

I skied for years on much less aggressive gear....softer boots....longer skis and at slower speeds. Mostly in the Siamese Ponds Wilderness in the Central Adks. Much of the time we'd ski places that hadn't seen another skier for years. We'd take the long way around witch hobble or pines or whatever. If something was wide open we'd remember it, but we never cut anything.

Don't get me wrong...I love skiing at the fastest speed I can safely handle through the trees. It's an adrenaline rush. If you've skied Tahawas or Twister glades at Gore...those are glades that someone at my level can fly through....they are low angle and they have definitely been thinned. Not just clipped.

Another point Steve makes...and this definitely describes Gore....stuff basically moves from "off the map" to "on the map." At least in that case the ski area boundary is a limit. Somehow...within the boundary...I'm ok with it. Not sure why exactly. Maybe because it's a playground for humans, not a wilderness.

Ultimately I never really understood until Big Jay...that as I went from leather to plastic....and to more sidecut, and shorter skis... that I was now part of the problem.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

I say cut their balls off and hang for public view. Excuses like it's a small percentage or there isn't enough powder are pathetic in my view. There are plenty of lines out there without having to cut or thin on public lands. The mission of the National Forest system is for multi-use like recreation, logging and hunting. A healthy forest depends on everyone who uses them to play by the rules.

 

[Geoff]

The whole state of Vermont was clear cut. It grows back.

 

[Glenn]

The whole state of Vermont was clear cut. It grows back.

x2. We have a book on the history of our town up there. The place looked like prairie land 100 or so years ago. . In fact, most of New England did. Granted, it takes longer for a tree to grow back than it does to cut down...but it will eventually grow.

 

[JD]

cutting above 32-3500 is a bad idea, and working areas around resorts seems redundant to me at this point, they are so heavily impacted....but in hardwood forrest, away from lifts, I say cut away, just don't do so ignorantly....
http://www.treeskier.com/forestry/guidelines_cutting.html

 

[deadheadskier]

I say cut their balls off and hang for public view. Excuses like it's a small percentage or there isn't enough powder are pathetic in my view. There are plenty of lines out there without having to cut or thin on public lands. The mission of the National Forest system is for multi-use like recreation, logging and hunting. A healthy forest depends on everyone who uses them to play by the rules.

I won't argue against the legalities, but I will say that I think the article is one side leaning and sensationalist in regards to the 'severity' of the problem.

While no PHD here, I do have a Bachelors of Science from the School of Natural Resources at UVM. I'd argue that the vast majority of cutting actually HELPS the forest. This isn't opinion, this is what I learned taking no fewer than 10 ecosytem management classes at UVM. Pruning lower branches help the overall health of trees by directing its energy to the areas of the tree that receive light...the top of the canopy. It also helps next generation new tree growth by allowing whatever light that gets through the upper canopy to hit the forest floor and encourage new growth.

I don't condone the cutting down of whole trees, especially in large scale fashion like what happened on Big Jay. You want to look at those guys' balls in the town square SRO, by all means. :lol: But, for 90% of the cutting I see, simply the pruning of branches in hard wood stands, if anything the forest service owe these 'criminals' a thank you. Their work is contributing to the multi-generational health of the forest and......they're not on the tax payers dime.

 

[thetrailboss]

I won't argue against the legalities, but I will say that I think the article is one side leaning and sensationalist in regards to the 'severity' of the problem.

While no PHD here, I do have a Bachelors of Science from the School of Natural Resources at UVM. I'd argue that the vast majority of cutting actually HELPS the forest. This isn't opinion, this is what I learned taking no fewer than 10 ecosytem management classes at UVM. Pruning lower branches help the overall health of trees by directing its energy to the areas of the tree that receive light...the top of the canopy. It also helps next generation new tree growth by allowing whatever light that gets through the upper canopy to hit the forest floor and encourage new growth.

I don't condone the cutting down of whole trees, especially in large scale fashion like what happened on Big Jay. You want to look at those guys' balls in the town square SRO, by all means. :lol: But, for 90% of the cutting I see, simply the pruning of branches in hard wood stands, if anything the forest service owe these 'criminals' a thank you. Their work is contributing to the multi-generational health of the forest and......they're not on the tax payers dime.

I'm not so sure if it is sensationalist. There are many places at SB where the unofficial trail pruners have really raised hell. Take a look at the woods in between Paradise and Ripcord. Also, there was a landslide somewhere over there. It looks like hell.

The problem with slack country along side the trail is that trees get nailed with icing from snowmaking as it is. Through in some folks hacking the branches and it just makes the trails wider and wider. Example: Upper FIS at Ellen. On my last hike you could see a blatant clear cut to the north of the trail that someone made for a ski run.

And, as Slayton alluded to, the biggest irony is that the folks who make these cuts call themselves 'environmentalists' and probably would have no qualms telling others where to build their houses or what cars to drive. :roll:

 

[Highway Star]

The Green Mountain National Forest encompasses more than 400,000 acres. Total Vermont Ski area acreage as of 1999? 5175. Certainly more today, but even if it was double, you're talking 2.5% of the GMNF and not all VT ski areas lie withing GMNF boundaries.

Not really, the Killington/Pico terrain region easily exceeds 5,000 acres, roughly 90% of which is skiable.

 

[thetrailboss]

Not really, the Killington/Pico terrain region easily exceeds 5,000 acres, roughly 90% of which is skiable.

OK, here we go again like last season with SB's claim of 3,000 acres of skiing terrain. I think that DHS is referring to developed skiing terrain as opposed to slackcountry and backcountry that folks "ski" in near the resort.

I would assume that the 5k acre figure is just trail acres. Maybe not.

 

[Highway Star]

OK, here we go again like last season with SB's claim of 3,000 acres of skiing terrain. I think that DHS is referring to developed skiing terrain as opposed to slackcountry and backcountry that folks "ski" in near the resort.

I would assume that the 5k acre figure is just trail acres. Maybe not.

Of course, but thre relevant figure here is the amount of acreage that is reasonably serviced by a lift, or "sidecountry". At Killington/Pico, that's a swath 7+ miles long by 5-6 miles wide, if you count both sides of the ridge and adjacent mountains.

 

[deadheadskier]

If you want to use the SB calculator HWS, go for it. I was speaking specifically about advertised developed terrain. Even if you factored in all of the slack country, I don't see that number approaching even 10% of GMNF lands and as mentioned not all of the lift accessed terrain in VT lies in GMNF.

 

[riverc0il]

The problem with slack country along side the trail is that trees get nailed with icing from snowmaking as it is. Through in some folks hacking the branches and it just makes the trails wider and wider. Example: Upper FIS at Ellen. On my last hike you could see a blatant clear cut to the north of the trail that someone made for a ski run.

Two points of clarification here: slackcountry by definition can not be along side an in bounds trail. Slackcountry is a combo of slacking and backcountry but still involves some work to get to and is not within ski area boundaries. Also, trimming and thinning and hacking branches does not make trails wider and wider. No more than when a ski area puts a gladed run on the map between two trails those two trails do not become wider. If nothing is cut larger than could be done with a pair of loppers, nothing is being "clear cut" nor would it likely be noticeable. Snowmaking over time does waaaaaaaaaaay more damage to trees and widens trails, snipping at the under growth and a few branches inside the tree cover does not make trails wider. And if someone did in fact "clear cut" an area, that falls into the Big Jay cut parameters of dumb and not condoned by any one.

DHS points out something that I have learned at MRG work days and that is trimming can be beneficial to the forest. On many of those work days, hobblebush is cleaned out as a form of growth that does harm to the existing trees and hurts growth of new trees. We are also seeing a change in forest management due to the forest fires that so frequently happen out west because the forest has not been allowed to naturally renew itself so when a fire does happen, things get out of control. It is still illegal, but the environmental issue of brushing out an area with a little trimming just does not hold water from what I understand. Meanwhile, we have massive erosion on many hiking trails that are being loved to death that actually do have huge ecological implications and they continue to be over used. But the line in the sand is being drawn over a few branches being cut down? Odd.

 

[billski]

We are also seeing a change in forest management due to the forest fires that so frequently happen out west because the forest has not been allowed to naturally renew itself so when a fire does happen, things get out of control. It is still illegal, but the environmental issue of brushing out an area with a little trimming just does not hold water from what I understand. Meanwhile, we have massive erosion on many hiking trails that are being loved to death that actually do have huge ecological implications and they continue to be over used. But the line in the sand is being drawn over a few branches being cut down? Odd.

I recall a PBS documentary about 30 years ago that demonstrated forest re-growth after a fire. The conclusion that a fire was more beneficial than NOT allowing it to burn. One problem was that an excessive accumulation of underbrush and deadfall created far more hazardous setup for larger fires and a greater spread.
We as a society are conflicted with pushing our home settlements farther and farther into the woods, then calling for greater and greater protection.

I recall being in forests in the ADKs in the 1950s and 60s when the landowners burned the underbrush of the forest to facilitate growth. These fires were always well controlled, there never was such an excess of underbrush to let the fire get out of control.

It's interesting how remote European villages in forests were clustered into a very small
area, partly for security, but more important was the protection of the forest, as a valuable asset, to be harvested and replenished. My cousin's mother told me about how in the 19-teens after a woodland had been cut by hand, she spent the summer as a 10-year old planting 10,000 seedlings. This had been done for hundreds of years.

Even the state forests have contracted out for selective harvesting, having seen the importance of the task. A lot of tree huggers see this as evil, but fortunately their ignorance has been rebuffed.

 

[St. Bear]

I recall a PBS documentary about 30 years ago that demonstrated forest re-growth after a fire. The conclusion that a fire was more beneficial than NOT allowing it to burn. One problem was that an excessive accumulation of underbrush and deadfall created far more hazardous setup for larger fires and a greater spread.
We as a society are conflicted with pushing our home settlements farther and farther into the woods, then calling for greater and greater protection.

I recall being in forests in the ADKs in the 1950s and 60s when the landowners burned the underbrush of the forest to facilitate growth. These fires were always well controlled, there never was such an excess of underbrush to let the fire get out of control.

I was in Nevada a few years ago and a huge forest fire occured just over the border in AZ/UT, on the way to the north lip of the Grand Canyon. Afterwards, there were op/ed articles in the local papers stating that part of the reason forest fires have been growing more intense over the past 30-40 years is due to the heavy restrictions on the use of protected forests, which allows the undergrowth to accumulate, which feeds the fires.

 

[billski]

I was in Nevada a few years ago and a huge forest fire occured just over the border in AZ/UT, on the way to the north lip of the Grand Canyon. Afterwards, there were op/ed articles in the local papers stating that part of the reason forest fires have been growing more intense over the past 30-40 years is due to the heavy restrictions on the use of protected forests, which allows the undergrowth to accumulate, which feeds the fires.

Yeah, and makes skiing/boarding more difficult too (Said in jest, but whole-heartedly agreeing with you!)

 

[vonski]

I remember being in Germany, my mother grew up there, and asking her why the forests were so clean. In other words the under brush downed logs and such were all non-existence. She told me that the forest rangers keep them cleaned up to promote the growth and renewal of the forests. This was some 30 years ago. Never heard of any problems with forest fires over there. So maybe, there is something to it to clean out the undergrowth. It definitely does help fuel the forest fires by not cleaning it out.