backcountry users beware!!

[scharny]

The one detail that people failed to mention here is that GMC and VTFPR are still allowing Big Jay to be open to skier & rider access from Route 242. It's just the saddle trail from Jay Peak that is closed. That saddle trail was cut illegally by Jay Peak nearly 10 years ago, and it's documented that Jay Peak took responsibility for that and paid a fine.

If people want to hike/skin/snowshoe up Big Jay from the bottom, it is agreeably more work, but the rewards are now far greater - closure of the saddle trail access will basically make it a true backcountry skiing and riding destination, rather than "slack-country". Users will have to truly earn their turns, and climb every foot of vertical that they want to ski/ride down. Consequentially, this will reduce the amount of use, and so after all that work you'll be rewarded with some really sweet skiing and riding - I doubt there will be any moguls to deal with - just fluff and lots of it.

Regarding organizing a group to represent the interests of backcountry users, there is a guy who posts regularly on Telemarktips who has been trying to do just that. Here's the thread.

In addition, here is a LOT more discussion and debate regarding the Big Jay issue that might be worth checking out.

http://telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=40346

http://telemarktalk.com/phpBB/viewtopic.php?t=36293

 

[deadheadskier]

Nonetheless, the covert act of "developing" tree lines will exist on the east coast until snow ceases to fall on the east coast.

amen

what the two fellas did at Jay was over the top and yes they should be fined, but a little hand pruning lines I certainly have no issue with and used to do sparingly myself when I lived in Stowe.


I disagree with disallowing access along the ridge to Big Jay. It's the equivalent of not allowing people to hike the chin on Mt Mansfield from the Gondola. I suppose that's next

 

[riverc0il]

mergs, thanks for your thoughts. I have not had a chance to type up my detailed thoughts on the issue. But in summary, I really think it is in BC'ers hands to provide alternative solutions that are acceptable to all parties, or at least can provide some leverage to the point that certain proposed solutions make so much sense they can not be dismissed out of hand.

The case that was stated was VERY simple: the only issue here is what do we do to keep people from skiing the cut. Period. We get our access back when we come up with a solution to that problem. It is not fair and not done with much respect, but the state and GMC basically said "you created the problem, we came up with a temporary solution. you don't like it? give us something better." So right or wrong, ball is in our court now and it may take some personal sacrifice (monetary or time) to create a better solution. I have some ideas I am working on. Neither monetary nor time donations will help without organization though. Currently working on a media category on my web page for info, going back and finding as much documentation about this as possible to build a kind of achieve on the issue. It is a start, also helps ground my mind in the issue, the players, and the history.

One great question from that meeting addressed how long it will take for the cut to heal. Fifty years? So when does the access open back up? No answer. One season? Two seasons? Obviously most Big Jay skiers will be either dead or no longer in condition to ski Big Jay by the time to cut heals even in optimal conditions.

 

[riverc0il]

One has to wonder if this isn't a heavy-handed approach however. Just how much erosion and damage do they expect to occur during the winter season when snow and ice have frozen all the ground cover in place? I'm all for responsible use of natural resources but this really seems like a punitive punishment aimed at the community as a whole when they should be squarely focused on the two idiots that used the chainsaws in the first place.

The erosion issue was contested at the meeting by a forester or forestry grad of some sorts. He pointed out that if there is six feet of snow, there is not likely to be any harmful effects to the cut being skied at six feet. He was not trying to justify any one skiing it, but rather pointing out if idiots disregarded signage once it was six feet, it would not really hurt. So he proposed keeping Big Jay access closed until six feet. The three parties didn't have much of a rebuttal to that point which the guy kept hammering on. Ecology expert noted that significant erosion was already under way and controls had been implemented. But I think the point raised was valid and scientific evidence should be supplied to verify damage would occur with six feet base or more.

Punishment was already addressed. The three parties stated this issue was not about punishment but rather protecting the cut to allow for regrowth. I mostly believe that point and any doubts I have can safely be put aside as that is not the issue at hand. Since they are on record saying this is strictly about the cut and not punishment, a solution to the issue that would allow access can not be ignored for punishment reasons since they are on the books stating this is not a punishment and they want access.

 

[riverc0il]

Bottom line, even if there turns out to be not alot of erosion/damage, what the State really wants to prevent is more clear-cuts like this popping up all up and down the Green Mountain National Forest, and if they go hardline with this one, word will get out to the vast majority of the chainsaw happy crowd. My hunch is that 98% of the back country pruning that has gone on over the years will, off the record be okay, since it's essentially invisible unless you're in that glorius powder filled line. But if it looks like someone with gas powered, 4 wheel drive equipment did it, the book will be thrown at them

Not according to what was said at the meeting. These guys specifically said paraphrased that "no more cutting of any kind will be tolerated in the state. Period." Also, it was noted that massive cuts have been made before (not quite as large) such as Smuggs and people generally got off without much punishment. Essentially, this issue completely changes things from the state's perspective that previously pretty much looked the other way.

 

[deadheadskier]

I fail to see how limiting access to hike up only from 242 is going to keep people out of the cut. It certainly will limit the amount of skiers on Big Jay, no question, but there will always be an a-hole out there that will go for it and not care.

Eliminating access from Jay proper does not prevent people from skiing the cut, it just lessons the amount of probable violaters. Is there a good answer? I don't think so. Will restricting access to hike in only help the cut grow back quicker? Maybe, but it's doubtful.

 

[deadheadskier]

Not according to what was said at the meeting. These guys specifically said paraphrased that "no more cutting of any kind will be tolerated in the state. Period." Also, it was noted that massive cuts have been made before (not quite as large) such as Smuggs and people generally got off without much punishment. Essentially, this issue completely changes things from the state's perspective that previously pretty much looked the other way.

Does the same hold true for Hunters? Plenty of hunters bushwack through the woods with no regard at all to carve out there spots.

I know of the cut at Smuggs - off of Robin's Run and I believe if you were caught skiing it, you lost your pass for the season - no warnings. Obviously, the situation at Smuggs was much easier to enforce. It's been a few years since I've been to Smuggs and I wonder how much that gash has grown in. It was almost as large in scope as the one on Big Jay.

 

[David Metsky]

Eliminating access from Jay proper does not prevent people from skiing the cut, it just lessons the amount of probable violaters.

It lessens the numbers by 90%+ IMO. The vast majority of folks aren't willing to do the skin up, and of the ones that will I suspect they are much more likely to avoid skiing the Gash.

 

[deadheadskier]

It lessens the numbers by 90%+ IMO. The vast majority of folks aren't willing to do the skin up, and of the ones that will I suspect they are much more likely to avoid skiing the Gash.

That might be true. Perhaps the best approach is to have a bc association that self polices the area and make the fines steep for any offenders. Post signage at the trail head out along the ridge stating those fines and make them steep.

I would say the first five years or so are the most critical. Skiing it now would do no harm, but the next couple when there will be saplings poking up could prove to be the most damaging.

Out of curiosity, how vigilant is the access block being enforced? Is it simply a fence or are there actual Mountain or GMC representatives turning back skiers? I'm curious what things are actually like at 'ground zero'

 

[riverc0il]

It absolutely will reduce the number of potential people skiing the cut. David Metsky's 90% estimate is probably pretty sound. People will go around the fence and bushwhack to the trail and people will hike up and ski the cut (some may do it specifically because they are being told not to, unfortunately) but the numbers will be significantly reduced which is the ultimate goal. They did not eliminate BC access because that goes against the spirit of the easement but they could if it really became a problem. They saw this as a compromise to allow access but substantially reduce traffic on the cut to almost nothing as most people earning turns are the real BC community that cares, not slack country only skiers that prefer car spots to skins.

This is completely different than the Smuggs cut which is smaller. Smuggs cut was within ski area bounds and enforceable by patrol. Patrol has made it clear that they do not want to be cops nor do they have the resources to post "guards" at the gate. No one is enforcing the fence essentially. I think it will come down to the BC community coming up with a "self policing" plan. Don't want to get too far ahead of myself here though.

 

[deadheadskier]

I suppose it is a compromise in a sense. The reality is that it's doubtful I make it to Jay this winter and if I went, even more doubtful that I head out to Big Jay. But....there was a time when I lived in the region and skied Big Jay a couple of times a winter. If that were today, I would never ski the cut, but I also wouldn't hike for those turns. For one, I don't have skins, but even if I did, it's just not my cup of tea. I'm not adverse to hiking for turns, but there's a limit to how much I'm willing to do. I hiked the Chin regularly at Stowe, but that's only 45 minutes up 600 vert to enjoy close to 3000 vert down. I would be unwilling to hike two plus hours up Big Jay for what? 1500 vert even though the terrain is sick.

So, I guess it's guys like me, the 'slack country' skiers if you will that are being hurt the most by the two idiots who cut the 'gash'. I personally don't view that as a compromise, though I agree with Dave that it probably eliminates 90% of the populus that might poach the gash.

Like I said, it's doubtful I ski Big Jay in the near future, but if I could, (which would only be via the ridge trail) I certainly would avoid 'the gash' and report anyone skiing it.

The fact that they still allow access from 242 is great, but to me it is kind of an elitist/exclusive mentality. I recognize the goal in mind is environmental reclamation, but if that's the case, shouldn't all back country access points via lifts be eliminated for consistency purposes? Like I said earlier, shouldn't people be prohibited from hiking the Chin, going in to the back bowls via Smuggs etc? I'm not saying they should, I'm just asking the question.

 

[riverc0il]

Stuff off the Chin at Mansfield and Back Bowls at Smuggs were mentioned at the meeting. The state wants to crack down on anything not natural and cut in those areas as well. As previously mentioned, the state knew this stuff was going on but was not really doing anything about it. Big Jay cut changed that. There really isn't anything cut over there that can compare to the cut on Big Jay but it sounds like it will be an issue going forward. Doubtful access will be restricted because there has not been massive damage done on par with the Big Jay cut plus there are natural lines to be skied up there.

 

[riverc0il]

I have a full write up of the meeting details here. Unfortunately, I forgot to bring a pen and paper, so I am sure I missed some key and important points that were addressed either during the presentation or during question and answer. I have also included PDF files of the agenda and hand outs documented some details about the cut and the area. Should have a personal response and my thoughts regarding what approach would be best by the community. Still working on back dating some articles for historical purposes but having trouble finding some, specifically the Burlington Free Press write ups if any one has them archived. Will also gather links to all current forum discussions on going about the issue and specifically about community organization. Not enough time tonight.

 

[bvibert]

Nice work Steve, thanks for the write-up and archival of articles.

 

[tcharron]

Cutting down trees has a year-round impact. That snow and ice melts and will take the soil with it if trees are not holding it in place.

Older post, but I suspect what he meant was, 'What possible harm would skiing on the cut do?' Would it erode less if not skied on?

Not advocating, but I suspect thats what the original poster meant.

 

[riverc0il]

Nice work Steve, thanks for the write-up and archival of articles.

Thanks. I have added a dedicated category on my web site for coverage of the issue. This need to get my thoughts up... hopefully by Christmas.