Mittersill Expansion Map

[riverc0il]

Regarding AR's suggestion that I am against this just because I want the place to myself is laughable. Mittersill is serviced by a double chair. I want it to myself? That and anyone else buying a ticket and riding the lift...

I care because I love the character of the area. I am against it because I have an emotional attachment to the area from my first run there... it was a run that really changed the direction of my skiing. Perhaps that is selfish but not quite so... I want other people to be able to experience that as well. I want other skiers and riders to discover an area left natural and wild and left to go over grown... without clear trail edge distinctions, no snow making and grooming... and not just parts of a trail pod but the whole thing.

The big issue here is that a unique area is going to loose its uniqueness and character so that we can have more of the same: very wide, open, groomed cruising terrain. And it is a slippery slope: first Baron's, Skyline, and the main Slope... how much longer until Liftline and the trail between Liftline and Skyline follow? Essentially, aside from glades, Mittersill has five top to bottom routes and two of them will be gone, pretty much half of the mountain's trails if you remove the north slope (which, really, who skis that slope any ways and the new T-bar position doesn't change that).

I've actually stated that I think due to the lift, that snow making and grooming on the main routes is needed. But what isn't needed is doubling the size of Barron's, destroying glades, merging multiple trails into one mega slope, and doubling the amount of skiable acres just by widening two areas into massively wide super trails. That don't fly.

Meanwhile, Bretton installs a T-bar to service a glade area. Huh?

 

[riverc0il]

Re: widening of Baron's

Regrettably the FIS and NCAA now require that trails be much wider and straighter than in the past. The NCAA for instance made Middlebury and Dartmouth (under huge protest) regrade their race trails which were circa 1960's if not earlier because of at least one serious accident involving a Midd racer a few years back that left her paralyzed. So if the slope is going to be certified/homologated, it needs to be a certain width.

Interesting. I skied Dartmouth for the first time last year and the character (or rather lack thereof) of their race trail was in stark contrast to the rest of the mountain. Really too bad, that must have been a great trail if it was narrower with a few bends...

 

[Smellytele]

I don't think we should decide what to do currently based on what the area was once like. I don't buy that line of thinking, appealing to history. The area closed and the trails grew in and the mountain developed a well known identify. When the mountain closed, it changed not through willful action but through in action and not having a plan. That is a different story than willfully changing it back and changing its current identity. It is the difference between unwillful neglect and natural change vs. willful and active change despite current identify. An appeal to history is not a good argument for moving forward with this plan (there may be good arguments, but I am opposed to them as well ).

To play devil's advocate (and use way less words to play it) - The place did not totally grow back naturally because people were still trimming things to their selfish liking.