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

[billski]

I remember my dad and all the neighbors amassing giant leaf piles and burning them in the street. Different objective though: convenience.

 

[Glenn]

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.

I've heard that a few times as well. I often think restrictions and whatnot that are placed on land often do more harm than good. I'm not suggesting we start torching the forests...but maybe Smokey doesn't know what he's talking about. Although..to bears even talk? I'm still trying to figure out that riddle about what they do in the woods...anyways...

 

[Tin Woodsman]

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.

That's an interesting POV in light of how your employer felt the need to further thin out many runs that were already created by locals. Is what SB did this summer OK b/c it was "sanctioned", even though they removed even MORE trees than before? Please try to show a wee bit of consistency.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

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

And 0% of which is on GMNF land.

 

[AdironRider]

I think that article was incredibly one sided. They provide no actual data, but rather a couple opinions of people who are clearly against it. How bout a little insight from locals who cut, ski, and in general are the ones who value this terrain more than anyone. How about a little data that shows the harmful effects of said thinning. Nothing, just a college kid who is currently studying the topic. Awesome. I made plenty of theories in college that dont hold water in the real world. Im sold.

I think Riv hit the nail on the head with his commentary. This is primarily an issue in and around ski resorts, areas that have clear cut hundreds of acres and thinned out hundreds more. These arent problem areas but a 20 foot wide ski run is? Completely hypocritical.

 

[thetrailboss]

That's an interesting POV in light of how your employer felt the need to further thin out many runs that were already created by locals. Is what SB did this summer OK b/c it was "sanctioned", even though they removed even MORE trees than before? Please try to show a wee bit of consistency.

I don't think that is fair criticism considering that SRO was not the one who decided to cut those glades. I'm sure he is flattered that you think he has such power. :wink:

 

[AdironRider]

I can tell SRO spent a lot of time in the Jackson area just by the way he voiced his opinion. So much of that holier than thou attitude when it comes to wilderness use round these parts. It hurts the whole discussion.

Im pretty sure that unless SRO never has skied the glades at the Bush, hes being completely hypocritical if hes calling for the castration of anyone who thins a glade.

 

[thetrailboss]

I can tell SRO spent a lot of time in the Jackson area just by the way he voiced his opinion. So much of that holier than thou attitude when it comes to wilderness use round these parts. It hurts the whole discussion.

Im pretty sure that unless SRO never has skied the glades at the Bush, hes being completely hypocritical if hes calling for the castration of anyone who thins a glade.

I'm not sure that was what he said. I think he said that those who cut without permits/permission should be hung. SB played by the rules...the fact that some folks don't like the underlying concept of having the glades were they were is not the point.

 

[riverc0il]

I think that article was incredibly one sided. They provide no actual data, but rather a couple opinions of people who are clearly against it. How bout a little insight from locals who cut, ski, and in general are the ones who value this terrain more than anyone. How about a little data that shows the harmful effects of said thinning. Nothing, just a college kid who is currently studying the topic.

In the article's defense, it actually interviewed a lot of the "players" in the debate. And the article did cite Jay Appleton of MRG Work Day fame (but he did not really play his hand as far as which side of the debate he is on). It is definitely one sided in the sense that cutter's point of view was not represented and the article provided a conclusion that pretty much is in the Rose camp, considering they ended with his quotes. Maybe they could not find anyone of status to speak to the issue on the record in favor of trimming? Doubtful though given the conclusion of the article.

 

[riverc0il]

I'm not sure that was what he said. I think he said that those who cut without permits/permission should be hung. SB played by the rules...the fact that some folks don't like the underlying concept of having the glades were they were is not the point.

AR's argument is also one that I used in my article that it would be hypocritical to ski glades that are not cut and officially maintained by a ski area (or a property holder that has given permission) and then come down against trimming. Anyone that has skied, and especially continues to ski now that this is a known issue, illegally thinned glades is culpable. Which is to see, the vast majority of tree skiers that ski anything not on the map.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

I don't think that is fair criticism considering that SRO was not the one who decided to cut those glades. I'm sure he is flattered that you think he has such power. :wink:

I know he doesn't have that sort of power, but to come out so strongly against the practice, when you surely ski them yourself and your employer is actively adding to the "problem" wreaks of inconcistency to me.

FWIW, I couldn't agree more with Riv and AR on this. The author clearly started from a viewpoint of "This is a problem - let me write a story about it" rather than "Is this a problem? Let's write a story about the debate." It is clear that the biggest problem areas are in and around the boundaries of operating ski areas. Big Jay, various spots at MRG and SB, Angel Food at Stowe - all exhibit some signs of overcutting. The one place that is truly backcountry where I've seen some lines open up wider than normal is Cotton Brook, and even that is essentially the Bolton slackcountry.

If you want to address the "problem" such as it is, you should start with the ski areas themselves. Ask Bill Stenger why he bulldozed a nice, wide path out to Big Jay, implicitly, if not explicitly, encouraging increased traffic out there. How about we talk to Win Smith about why runs like FIS and Ripcord continue to get wider and wider each year due to the damage from snowmaking? Or ask him why allowing Paradise Woods/Bear Claw to regenerate hasn't been a priority in their forestry mgmt plan? Maybe even ask why there is no apparent effort to protect the ever-shrinking islands of trees on runs like Glade, Lower Moonshine, Lower Domino, Sleeper, and Sunrise? Not to pile on SB, b/c I know they've been working hard on an integrated forest mgmt plan with the USFS whereas most others have done nothing, but these are important questions.

 

[thetrailboss]

I know he doesn't have that sort of power, but to come out so strongly against the practice, when you surely ski them yourself and your employer is actively adding to the "problem" wreaks of inconcistency to me.

Come on Tin. No organization is completely monolithic.

I'm sure that Sugarbush, as with every organization, has employees/members who disagree with things that management does. Just because SRO's expressed personal opinion contradicts with management doesn't mean anything. To paint him as being a hypocrit because he works for a resort that you disagree with on this issue is not really fair.

And again, he is not involved in the decisionmaking for the glades or the mountain operations philosophy.

I guess if you are going to demand that he resign from SB because of his views, then shouldn't you boycott SB?

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Come on Tin. No organization is completely monolithic.

I'm sure that Sugarbush, as with every organization, has employees/members who disagree with things that management does. Just because SRO's expressed personal opinion contradicts with management doesn't mean anything. To paint him as being a hypocrit because he works for a resort that you disagree with on this issue is not really fair.

And again, he is not involved in the decisionmaking for the glades or the mountain operations philosophy.

I guess if you are going to demand that he resign from SB because of his views, then shouldn't you boycott SB?

I didn't demand he resign, I was saying his position was inconsistent, especially for a guy who has gone out of his way to defend everything SB does on this and other message boards. Regardless, I don't want to make this about SRO, as he's not here to defend himself or participate in the debate right now. The focus should be on a poor piece of journalism.

And I'm not sure why I should boycott SB. To the extent that the problem exists, I see this as primarily being a function of their own inaction. All I can do not being a local is to keep bringing the issue to light in public forums where I know the owner is reading, in the hopes that some sort of action is taken.

 

[AdironRider]

I think our point revolves more about him actually skiing the glades, opposed to your take that were talking more about his employer.

Ill concede that no company, especially one that employs as many as Sugarbush is completely aligned in its viewpoints. That being said, one could also argue that there are plenty of other resorts SRO could work for, (Stratton, Okemo, Whiteface, Mt. Snow, et all) that clearly promote a different brand of skiing in terms of the product they offer. Sure there are other reasons for one to choose a place of employment, but Im thinking SRO likes the terrain availability, notable the trees, that Sugarbush offers, most people on this board do as well. The areas I mentioned previously provide better groomers, more of a confined trail structure, etc than Sugarbush, MRG and other Northern VT resorts. He made that decision himself.

Sugarbush played within the rules sure, but Im not buying that just because some official approved the glade, that its "supposed" effects on the environment are any different if thats what you believe. I think its pretty clear I dont think glades are a detriment to the ecosystem. But if you're going to say they are like the article, your contradicting yourself. I have no doubt SRO and most of MRV clientel skies the glades already, but a ski resort clearing hundreds of acres is much worse if thats your stance, and noone bats an eyelash. This is contradictory. You take a stance against clearing a glade, you're really taking a stance any clearing for skiing in the first place. Outside of Tucks, thats pretty much everywhere on the east coast, and most places out west.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

It should also be noted that if SRO felt so strongly about this issue, he need only take his services next door to MRG where a holistic and apparently successful forestry mgmt plan has been in place for years now.

 

[riverc0il]

Let's keep it on point. I doubt hardly any one works for a company that they 100% agree with management on 100% of the issues. Inconsistency is fine to bring into discussion regarding view points but let's keep it to the discussion points and not where someone chooses to work. Actually, I would like to hear SRO confirms that he skis unmarked glades before going further down that road, any ways.

 

[thetrailboss]

Let's keep it on point. I doubt hardly any one works for a company that they 100% agree with management on 100% of the issues. Inconsistency is fine to bring into discussion regarding view points but let's keep it to the discussion points and not where someone chooses to work. Actually, I would like to hear SRO confirms that he skis unmarked glades before going further down that road, any ways.

Yes, let's keep it on point, which is the article and not any of the individuals in here.

 

[Tin Woodsman]

Regardless, I don't want to make this about SRO, as he's not here to defend himself or participate in the debate right now. The focus should be on a poor piece of journalism.

Yes, let's keep it on point, which is the article and not any of the individuals in here.

Yes - I agree completely.

 

[tarponhead]

We as a society are conflicted with pushing our home settlements farther and farther into the woods, then calling for greater and greater protection.

Wow, I think billski articulated the fulcrum of the debate.

 

[witch hobble]

"Single age stands". I'll pay more attention this winter, but I've gotta imagine most things that fit this description are established glades within ski area boundaries, and they are increasingly less likely to occur the futher you get from lifts and snowmaking.