Rate Yourself As a Skier/Rider Conservationist

[highpeaksdrifter]

On a scale of 1 to 10

1=I never want another tree to be cut down anywhere at a ski area no matter what.

10=Cut down any trees you want, all I care about is more terrain to ski.

I rate myself a 7. I want the mountains to stay beautiful, but ski areas are not pristine anymore so I don’t see the big problem with making more trails on a mountain where trails already exist. Keep the pristine mountains that way, but let ski areas expand within their boundaries.

I especially believe in selective cutting to open up more tree skiing. You still have the forest, but now it's skiable.

 

[Greg]

At first, I thought the thread was simply titled just "Rate Yourself As a Skier/Rider". That would have resulted in some interesting replies... :lol:

7 too, I guess. The problem is I don't envision many ski areas cutting any new trails with much character. I define "character" as a trail which follows interesting undulating terrain and is relatively narrow and "turny". The majority of skiers like the wide groomed bowling alley type trails nowadays. Although, some of that new terrain at Whiteface looks nice. You have any good pics of that, HPD?

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Here's a bunch I took of a hike up the intermediate one last fall. It's long with lots of twists and turns.

http://forums.skiadk.com/modules.ph...ame=gallery&file=index&include=view_album.php

I know I have at least one picture of the expert trail, but I can't find it in the SKIADK gallery. That one is going to be a blast.

 

[deadheadskier]

I'm an 11 :lol:

 

[cbcbd]

No need to open more terrain for you to ski, you just have to be open to look the skiable terrain and it's not always on the trails. It's the East... you gotta get used to tree skiing after a while of trail skiing. Even the bumpers can enjoy some tree bumps. The people that can't see out of the trails just stay there and are happy. The ones that aren't happy ski the trees and are happy that the trees are there.


Put me down as a 2/3 because I don't think you need any more trails in our Eastern ski areas.

 

[deadheadskier]

Seriously, with the millions of acres razed for strip malls, subdivisions, golf courses you name it, each year, the amount of scrutiny ski areas face to add even a few glades to their terrain borders on absurd.

I'm not suggesting any new ski areas, but the ones that exist should get more green lights to improve the product. The amount of land dedicated to downhill ski operations is relatively tiny.

You can start by approving Wildcat's master plan drawn up by Austin.

 

[deadheadskier]

No need to open more terrain for you to ski, you just have to be open to look the skiable terrain and it's not always on the trails. It's the East... you gotta get used to tree skiing after a while of trail skiing. Even the bumpers can enjoy some tree bumps. The people that can't see out of the trails just stay there and are happy. The ones that aren't happy ski the trees and are happy that the trees are there.


Put me down as a 2/3 because I don't think you need any more trails in our Eastern ski areas.

trust me, I ski plenty of slack country and LOVE it. Doesn't mean I don't yearn for more lift serviced terrain.

 

[wa-loaf]

6-7 sounds good. I don't think we need anymore wide open clear-cut trails with all features blasted off of the mtn. I'm all for new trails that follow the natural flow of the hill and more glades. Both require a lot less tree cutting than the methods that were used in the late 80's and 90's.

 

[cbcbd]

trust me, I ski plenty of slack country and LOVE it. Doesn't mean I don't yearn for more lift serviced terrain.

I can understand that some of the folks with home mountains probably get very attached and like any normal person likes to Monday quarterback their mountain's terrain. Understandable.
But it's not just slackcountry... there are some mountains with extremely accessible off bounds stuff that can be accessed by lift... no need to take your skis off and strap on the skins.

I guess I just want to understand what is the motivation to build more trails... and what kind of trails for each person?

To me I guess it just depends on what kind of trail you are planning on cutting. If you're making a Rumble then I'll probably say a 10. If you're making a super highway trail then I'll say 1.

I guess it's really a case by case basis.

 

[wa-loaf]

No need to open more terrain for you to ski, you just have to be open to look the skiable terrain and it's not always on the trails.

Most of that terrain exist only because folks are trimming a taking care of those off trail stashes. There's no real natural tree skiing in the east, the undergrowth and low tree branches are too dense. And only a few places where you can get some open terrain.

 

[Geoff]

You guys do know that there's no old growth forest in New England. The entire region was logged and any tree you see wasn't there 200 years ago.

You can cut whatever you want. It will grow back.

Like most of us, I prefer narrow trails where you can't see the bottom from the top. Unfortunately, you can't have high uphill capacity, snowmaking, and narrow trails at the same time. I'll ski on McSludge on the super-wide McSkiing trails when I have to but I always gravitate to narrow, ungroomed, natural snow, and gladed areas. I prefer glade skiing to woods skiing so you can cut some trees down and I won't complain.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I would rate myself a 4..I feel like enough trees have been cut down although I really like high speed lifts for getting mad steezy vert...Next season I'm verbally harrassing anybody I ride the lift with who throws garbage/cigarette butt/empty beer can from the chairlift..it's just wrong..

 

[dmc]

I'm for putting tree BACK onto slopes...

 

[wa-loaf]

You guys do know that there's no old growth forest in New England. The entire region was logged and any tree you see wasn't there 200 years ago.

You can cut whatever you want. It will grow back.

Well most of New England, Wachusett has some old growth stands that prevent them from expanding and makes off piste skiing forbidden.

 

[dmc]

You guys do know that there's no old growth forest in New England. The entire region was logged and any tree you see wasn't there 200 years ago.

Where I live in Hunter it was originally Hemlock forests.. they were all clearcut in the 1800s for tanning...
Pretty sad...
Famous painting from that era called "Hunter at Twilight" show a completely clear cut Hunter Mountain...
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Hudson_River/3.r.htm

 

[wa-loaf]

Where I live in Hunter it was originally Hemlock forests.. they were all clearcut in the 1800s for tanning...
Pretty sad...
Famous painting from that era called "Hunter at Twilight" show a completely clear cut Hunter Mountain...
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Hudson_River/3.r.htm

Maybe it's too small to see enough detail, but that almost looks like a photo. Cool.

 

[4aprice]

I'm for responsible developement. Developement that can be meshed in with the enviroment and mininmize impact. It can be done. As has been pointed out much of the northeast was clear cut at one time and it came back. I think some people go over board supporting their cause.

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ

 

[andyzee]

Where I live in Hunter it was originally Hemlock forests.. they were all clearcut in the 1800s for tanning...
Pretty sad...
Famous painting from that era called "Hunter at Twilight" show a completely clear cut Hunter Mountain...
http://www.metmuseum.org/special/Hudson_River/3.r.htm

Makes me think of a landing strip :lol:

 

[kingslug]

Cut them down as needed. So I would say.......I'm a 7. You can start at Belleayre.

 

[riverc0il]

I'm for putting tree BACK onto slopes...

Word.

I would put myself at a 4-5. I do not really see the need for more trails at most mountains. Ideally a lack of downhill capacity would limit a ski area's desire to increase the uphill capacity. Some places it makes sense to add a few more trails and expand a little more but I really don't see the point when all most areas would do with additional terrain is cut wide boulevards. There is more than enough of that at most ski areas in New England. Glade thinning can substantially increase a ski area's downhill capacity and skiable acres without bull dozing wide swaths and creating boulevards. Most ski areas seem to have pursued this option as their ability to expand horizontally has been eliminated or reduced by large hurdles. Loon seemed reasonable as did Jackson Gore at Okemo and while I am completely against the Cannon expansion it is certainly not for conservationist reasons. Burke expansion is needed once they have a HSQ and an East Bowl Chair. Etc. But for fully built out areas, I think there reaches an "enough is enough" point. My 4-5 on a 10 scale is not so much from a conservationist stand point but rather reasonable development without creating ugly and unsighting swaths and clear cutting and boulevards. More from an aesthetic perspective.