bobbutts
New member
I imagine that this could make terrain expansion and lift building even more difficult.
Endangered status considered for Bicknell's thrush
Endangered status considered for Bicknell's thrush
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!
I think people realized the enviros were spewing bullshit when they started protesting wind and solar developments.
If it wasn't the Bicknell's thrush, it would be the yellow-spotted arboreal slug.
I used to be a big supporter of environmental and animal protection, but I'm done with this nonsense.
These environmental groups used to be run by people that genuinely cared about wildlife and nature, but now many (if not most) of them have been overrun with dare I say, overzealous "extremist" ideologues and become almost like a cult-religion. Almost ANY land use for ANY purpose is now "evil", and they'll tirelessly work to stall or kill any project, usually using a scapegoat species for their efforts. This saddens me.
In this case, it is not feesable to move the birds because of the population size and their habitats. I mean they nest at 3,000 ft.....that's a very limited area to start with.
The mountains that are 3,000+ feet now were 3,000+ feet 10 years ago, 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago, so their range was always smallish. Not to mention cut ski trails represent an infinitesimally, ridiculously, small percentage area-wise of said 3000+ foot range.
The Bicknell's thrush, a rare songbird that breeds atop mountains in the Adirondacks and northern New England and winters in the Caribbean, is being considered for endangered species status.
Winters in the Caribbean?I wish I had it so bad.
The Bicknell's habitat is also shrinking in the Dominican Republic, where it winters. The Caribbean country has only about 40 percent of its forest cover left because so much has been burned down and converted to pasture.
Sounds more like the problem is in the DR and not here.How much development has taken place in the northeast above 3000 ft?I'll bet its not even close to 1%.
... Not to mention cut ski trails represent an infinitesimally, ridiculously, small percentage area-wise of said 3000+ foot range. ...
It's really not THAT limited from a geological historic perspective.
In other words, we're not talking about draining a natural lake or building a dam.
The mountains that are 3,000+ feet now were 3,000+ feet 10 years ago, 100 years ago, and 1000 years ago, so their range was always smallish. Not to mention cut ski trails represent an infinitesimally, ridiculously, small percentage area-wise of said 3000+ foot range. Again, I'm all for protecting wildlife, but this is nothing more than a (very) shallow attempt at environmental extremists being environmental extremists and exerting "FULL STOP" on anything that remotely involves human activity.
I also find it rather ironic that in the article the OP cited, the picture of the guy observing the habitat of the "rare Bicknell's Thrush" is doing so "on the summit of Whiteface Mountain at Lake Placid". Hmmm.... You wanna know why? Because humans built a friggin' road to Whiteface, and more importantly, an easy way to get his azz up the mountain above 3,000+ feet (aka "a ski lift").
Area isn't the only consideration for environmental impact. Some animals will not cross a man made disruption of the environment. I read once that some turtles will not cross a road, even to breed, so all the roads cut the turtle populations into separate islands and they could no longer exchange genetic diversity to keep the species healthy. Probably not the case for a bird species, but I would guess mountain habitats are more sensitive to environmental change and stress than the larger lowland areas. I think it's generally under appreciated how finely tuned many species are to their environment and that even small changes can have a big impact.
The Bicknell's prefer to live on the edge of exposed ridgelines, wind swept areas, and on the edge of human created openings (i.e. ski trails).
I think that some legislation needs to be passed that says if some environmental protester looses a court hearing where they're trying to block development, especially of some type of "green power" generation project, that the project then HAS to be built in THEIR backyard!! That of course makes the big assumption that some of the enviro protesters actually have a backyard!
Ok then what am I missing here?They are not here in the winter so skiers certainly are not disrupting them.And you just posted that they like to live on the edge of ski trails.Huh?Whats the problem?Sounds like cutting trails is actually good for the thrush.
The Bicknell's habitat is also shrinking in the Dominican Republic, where it winters. The Caribbean country has only about 40 percent of its forest cover left because so much has been burned down and converted to pasture.
Sounds more like the problem is in the DR and not here.How much development has taken place in the northeast above 3000 ft?I'll bet its not even close to 1%.
Ugh, they've proposed putting in a solar development in the field across the street from me. I am not happy.
Precisely.
I think it should be beyond obvious that the massive deforestation of the DR and Haiti are clearly harming this species far more than the cutting of ski trails which probably represent .00001% of its' available potential habitat in NY, VT, NH, ME and Quebec.
Seriously, can we all mathematically appreciate how SMALL of an area these ski trails, the portions of which are above 3000+ feet, represent? It's SO ridiculously small, that my ".00001%" in the above, is probably grossly too large, despite how miniscule a number it is.
Again, I'm all for helping the Bickell's Thrush (and other species), but I'm also all for common sense, and all against environmental extremism.
Precisely.
I think it should be beyond obvious that the massive deforestation of the DR and Haiti are clearly harming this species far more than the cutting of ski trails which probably represent .00001% of its' available potential habitat in NY, VT, NH, ME and Quebec.
Seriously, can we all mathematically appreciate how SMALL of an area these ski trails, the portions of which are above 3000+ feet, represent? It's SO ridiculously small, that my ".00001%" in the above, is probably grossly too large, despite how miniscule a number it is.
Again, I'm all for helping the Bickell's Thrush (and other species), but I'm also all for common sense, and all against environmental extremism.
Nor should any NJ taxpayer. Solar fields are BOOMING all over America (NJ is a prime culprit) due to government subsidies to build them. A cost/benefit analysis shows what an absolute inefficient waster of money this is (read: Scam). Quite simply put, the technology, as of 2012 is not very good. Twenty years from now, books will be written about what a scandal this is and all the government connections the folks getting these monies have. People should be irate, but most "people" have no idea what's going on.