Rate Yourself As a Skier/Rider Conservationist

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Makes me think of a landing strip :lol:

I didn't know you were a pilot???? Or Bikini waxer??? doh

 

[twinplanx]

I'd rate myself a 4. Trees are where it's at for me in this stage of my skiing. I'd rather see more selective pruning than any sort of clear cutting.

 

[ski220]

A - 10. (That's a negative) What ski areas need to do is PLANT more trees and create more glades. Like replant the Dipper area at Kmart. How awesum would upper Ovation be studded with widely spaces trees?

 

[drjeff]

Ski area wise I'm about a 6. I guess you could say that I'm for responsible sustainable cutting - selective cutting to facilitate light reaching the forest floor is fine with me(especially if it happens to be in sweetly pitched piece of terrain ), but at the same time on a loose level you can argue that the clear cutting of some terrain for trail development does allow access to forest land for a great deal more folks than just about anything else.

Around my house, I'm definately a 10, given that a few years ago during a big, windy thunderstorm, I had a roughly 75 foot Oak get taken out by a wind gust and deposited through my roof and into my guest room

 

[danny p]

3....I like skiing the trees the way they are, I don't need them thinned out and most places already have plenty of trails. As some have said, I would be more inclined to go along with cutting trees if it was only to slightly thin out a thick tree run or to create a natural trail with character. But most places don't cut those kind of trails anymore.

 

[tjf67]

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.

HMMM. it is the east. The trees are not skiable in most instances without cutting.

8

 

[eatskisleep]

We already have enough trails... but when it comes to thining stashes etc in the woods, that's another story. I can't put a number on it.

 

[deadheadskier]

Well, I guess I'm in the minority. When I said, I was an 11 and a proponet of lift and trail expansion, what I had in mind, probably will never happen. I'm thinking classic, Castlerockesque lift serviced terrain, not wide open boulevards. I very much agree with others in their feeling that more pruning could be done. I'm an 11 there to. I'd love to see border to border terrain maintenance in the East. When the snow is good, point em' any direction you wish like out west. As for lifts and trails, if another Goat, Rumble, Robin's Run, Starr, Bubblecuffer, Winter's Way et al. popped up on a map with a lift to it, I'd be freakin' psyched.

 

[Vinny]

I'd put myself at a 3-4. I like groomers, albeit narrow ones. I've found myself wishing for better lifts, better conditions, and of course better weather, but usually not "more trails". If I skied trees, I certainly would agree with those that are looking for some thinning to provide more areas to tree ski.

I don't like the super wide open areas that prevail. On many trails, planting more trees would be my vote.

 

[atkinson]

Presenting this as an either/or poll is really misleading.

Mad River maintains more and more glades each year, but also plants/ encourages new trees in regeneration areas. Think crop rotation for skiers.

Cutting striped maple is not considered degrading to the forest, because it grows so fast and chokes out other more valued species like beech and sugar maple. Freeing up stands of these trees can improve forest health and improve skiing opportunities at the same time.

Open areas like ski trails also create diverse habitat. Have you ever walked on a ski trail in summer? Our local trails are covered in berries, grasses, wildflowers and ferns, and teeming with birds, deer, bear, fox, and lots of other fauna.

I'm not necessarily advocating huge new trails, but this issue is not skier/rider vs. the environment and framing it as such does us all a disservice.

John

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Presenting this as an either/or poll is really misleading.

1. It wasn't a poll
2. It was rate yourself 1-10, so hows that either or?
3. Post whatever you want, but you know, try to keep it real

 

[atkinson]

Sorry for using the word "poll."

The rating system presents a choice along a spectrum of either being for more trees cut or being a "conservationist." The problem with this is that you can be both, so it's not a legit spectrum. I'm a 1 and a 10.

Framing the debate along these lines creates divisions that don't need to exist. Currently in VT, we've got a huge rift between the GMC and the backcountry skiing community because of thinking like this.

I'm not trying to beat you up for this informal survey, but we should be aware of how this plays in the larger culture.

John

p.s. I thought this was "keeping it real."

 

[ckofer]

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.

Yeah, pretty much what he said. I see the opportunities that have been created at Ragged by some thinning of the trees. The only downside to this approach for expansion is its dependence on natural snow. Once it does get snow, it tends to stay nicer for a while. One of the challenges that you can see clearly at Ragged is that eventually a steepish ravine trail will end up in a brook and that would mean culverts & bridges to make it a sustainable area in which to ski.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Sorry for using the word "poll."

The rating system presents a choice along a spectrum of either being for more trees cut or being a "conservationist." The problem with this is that you can be both, so it's not a legit spectrum. I'm a 1 and a 10.

Framing the debate along these lines creates divisions that don't need to exist. Currently in VT, we've got a huge rift between the GMC and the backcountry skiing community because of thinking like this.

I'm not trying to beat you up for this informal survey, but we should be aware of how this plays in the larger culture.

John

p.s. I thought this was "keeping it real."

You thinkin too much John. It's like saying rate this young woman on a scale of 1-10. It's not axin if you like women or not. BTW, I give her a solid 9.

 

[riverc0il]

Atkinson is on point with his comments. The spirit of those comments are why I clarified my "rating" noting that it was not for conservationist reasons, which essentially means that cutting trees to increase skiable acreage and being a conservationist are not mutually exclusive. I can appreciate not mowing down every tree while also being for selective and appropriate pruning in select areas that are sustainable and are going to enhance the forest.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Atkinson is on point with his comments. The spirit of those comments are why I clarified my "rating" noting that it was not for conservationist reasons, which essentially means that cutting trees to increase skiable acreage and being a conservationist are not mutually exclusive. I can appreciate not mowing down every tree while also being for selective and appropriate pruning in select areas that are sustainable and are going to enhance the forest.

Like saying you're for the Iraq war, but at the same time against it.
You're for Abortion, but also against it.
You’re against capital punishment, but it has it’s place.

It’s all word games to me.

In my question a person on the extreme left would never want to see another tree cut down for any reason, on the extreme right that person is for cutting down anything to create new skiable terrain. I think most of us fall somewhere in the middle.

So I see the point you and John are trying to make, but I don't. :wink:

 

[deadheadskier]

You thinkin too much John. It's like saying rate this young woman on a scale of 1-10. It's not axin if you like women or not. BTW, I give her a solid 9.

as with everything in this thread, with her, it's 11 :lol:

 

[riverc0il]

Like saying you're for the Iraq war, but at the same time against it.
You're for Abortion, but also against it.
You’re against capital punishment, but it has it’s place.

It’s all word games to me.

Wow, someone other than me is playing semantics. This is great!!! :-D

And, now I know how it feels within a debate ;-):roll:

Sounds like a very black and white world the way you paint the discussion. That is not the world as I see it.

 

[deadheadskier]

One of my favorite Grateful Dead songs also happens to be 'The Eleven'

 

[deadheadskier]

11 :grin: