Rental cars for western travel - Page 11

AlpineZone

Page 11 of 15 FirstFirst ... 910111213 ... LastLast
Results 101 to 110 of 145
  1. #101
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    The issue is environmentalists have no tolerance for development and bird harmony. They basically want every acre in New England between 3000-3500k elevation off limits to development because of that one bird.

    In NH there are probably close to 200 peaks with elevation above 3k feet. There's ski area development on 5 of them. Any time these areas have proposed expansion at elevation, the environmentalists march their beloved Bicknells thrush into the conversation.
    THIS!



    A far bigger issue than what a handful of ski areas in New England do is the deforestation in places way south where the birds spend a significant portion of their time.

    Let's be realistic...the bird's population is not being impacted by a few trails or lift lines being cut in New England. Like DHS said, that represents a tiny fraction of their nesting territory.

    Environmentalists do themselves and their causes a major disservice when they take things to the extreme...

  2. #102
    You wanna know why I hate that damn bird personally? This is why. There is not a single developed glade above roughly 2800 feet elevation at Wildcat. There is an abundance of side country options and a few in bound creek beds that are great, but not a single on map developed glade above the red line in this picture. There are tons of mountain managed glades below the red line. I've been told multiple times over the years that the USFS won't let Wildcat cut any glades above the red line because of that bird. The three blue circled areas probably amount to around 200 acres of land. You're telling me that bird is going to "suffer" severe habitation loss if you cut glades in those areas? You don't have to glade it all, but how about 50 acres? That would make a huge difference for the ski experience on the mountain and vastly spread people out off the trails. The added elevation means more snow and snow preservation too, so those glades would be skiable for much longer during the season.

    On the whole of the Wildcat Range extending out to Carter Dome and Moriah there's probably easily 10,000 acres of terrain above 3K elevation. But us skiers can't get 50 acres of glades. Glades! Not trails with snowmaking, but thinned out forest. It's bullshit. F that bird.

    I should also mention that what is available via side country is all unsanctioned cuts done by locals 20+ years ago. Or so I'm told. I know of nothing new since I started skiing there in 06. People have tried to cut new stashes, but get this; the USFS has actually caught people with motion detecting cameras in the woods trimming and prosecuted them. People likely wouldn't attempt to do their own work up high if the mountain was allowed to manage some glades up there.

    Wildcat.jpg

  3. #103
    When I was younger, the human condition used to be a truly amazing thing, it was worthy of study, and an expenditure of time thinking about what it is that separates us from the animals & what characterizes a human existence.

    But now I just mostly realize people prattle away desperately trying to make other people think they're "good people" by espousing "correct" thoughts online. It's overtly genuine douchebaggery, yet the people guilty of this dont ever seem to be capable of recognizing it.
    President - Bicknell's Thrush Extermination Solutions (BTES), LLC



  4. #104
    Quote Originally Posted by cdskier View Post
    A far bigger issue than what a handful of ski areas in New England do is the deforestation in places way south where the birds spend a significant portion of their time.
    Wait.....what? What's that? That seems like it might be a REALLY important point.

    So, I realize few people here have ACTUALLY taken the time to really read about the science regarding this bird. Why would they.

    But if you do, the amazing thing is the scientists claim the DANGER to the bird is NOT when it's in Vermont or New Hampshire, but the danger to the bird is when they WINTER in the Caribbean.

    Let me repeat that in case some readers are a bit slow......... the danger to the species is when they WINTER in the CARIBBEAN. The bird is not even present in the winter in the areas where we ski. This is actually pointed out in the government's prose where they reject the "Endangered" and "Threatened" designations for this species. Once again I say, this bird is being used as a "tool" by the eco-extremists to attempt to block any & all development. Even if "development" means 3 or 4 ski trails on a 483 acre mountain.
    President - Bicknell's Thrush Extermination Solutions (BTES), LLC



  5. #105
    Quote Originally Posted by BenedictGomez View Post
    Wait.....what? What's that? That seems like it might be a REALLY important point.

    But if you do, the amazing thing is the scientists claim the DANGER to the bird is NOT when it's in Vermont or New Hampshire, but the danger to the bird is when they WINTER in the Caribbean.
    So using that logic we should just trash all mountainside forests above 3,000 feet--because the bird is actually more in danger when it's in a different country?

    Once again all this energy and hate against a bird could be put into creating a law that allows a balance of both protected bird habitat and ski area expansion. You can have both. It's not development vs. birds.

    I hike. I ski. I rock climb. All these activities benefit from and put a drain on our natural systems. Good land-use regulation allows for all these activities to take place in their designated areas. So yes, maybe 5 out of the 48 4,000 ft mountains in NH have ski areas on them. Great! Don't build any more new areas. However that doesn't mean you can't expand the ski areas you already have.

    Good land-use laws allows for all of this. That's why we have a government--to structure beneficial development while also preserving resources. It's why New Hampshire has a state-owned ski area (Cannon) within a beautiful natural forest. You can have both.

    The promotion of eradicating a species is misplaced. Remember when New Hampshire's slogan was "Scenic New Hampshire" and not the aggressive anti-government campaign of "Live Free or Die"? The solution here is not removing these animals but developing with them in mind.

  6. #106
    BG was exaggerating. And if we are talking 4k foot NH peaks only 3 out of the 48 have ski development. The bird threshold is 3k feet, which as I've mentioned there are 5 out of almost 200 3k elevation peaks with ski terrain. The actual number is 173 that I just looked up. That bird has plenty of real estate. A place like Wildcat shouldn't get hassled putting in a few glades, but here we are.

    Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

  7. #107
    Is the irony not lost on anyone that what we have here is…

    We have a bunch of NYC/NJ folks lecturing New England folks that they should erode their environment and what makes New England special, in order to go more pro-development - to make it look more like NJ?

    We aint gots no stinking birds (or trees) in NJ - we love our over developed urban NJ ‘forest’ mudflats! You NE folks should copy us!

    Now THAT abc is IRONY! And hutzpah.

  8. #108
    What a dumb thing to say

    I've lived in NH for 11 years, VT for 13, ME for 3. So, well over half my life in the three primary New England ski states.

    I don't feel my opinion on development at NH ski areas is any more important than those from New Jersey.

    Where's home for you Teleskier?



    Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

  9. #109
    Quote Originally Posted by deadheadskier View Post
    I don't feel my opinion on development at NH ski areas is any more important than those from New Jersey.
    I really don't get the hate for people from NJ by some people on this board. The attitude from some people that they're somehow better than people from NJ is just ridiculous. I've never met any locals in VT that expressed opinions like that.

    Never mind the fact that I probably spend more money outside NJ than in it between what I spend in VT and upstate NY in the Finger Lakes region. I own property and pay taxes in VT. I support the local economy up there. But somehow my opinion is irrelevant because I'm from NJ? Meanwhile one of the people making some of these comments is in Boston according to his profile. I don't see how that is substantially different from NJ.

  10. #110
    Boston?

    Oh, they're much better than NYC and JC! Boston is only the Fourth most densely populated city in the US! They're big on preserving open space!

    Teleskier = self'd


    Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 12:26 PM.