Rental cars for western travel

[deadheadskier]

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.

 

[BenedictGomez]

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.

 

[BenedictGomez]

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.

 

[gregnye]

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.

 

[deadheadskier]

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

 

[Teleskier]

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.

 

[deadheadskier]

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

 

[cdskier]

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.

 

[deadheadskier]

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

 

[BenedictGomez]

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?

If somehow you arrived at that as your logical conclusion, then you dont do "logic" well.

 

[BenedictGomez]

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!

I'm beginning to think this guy doesn't travel much.

 

[BenedictGomez]

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.

Probably 70'ish% of NJ is far more naturally beautiful than Boston & near environs, so that is different.

 

[cdskier]

Probably 70'ish% of NJ is far more naturally beautiful than Boston & near environs, so that is different.

Agreed...I was referring more to the metro NYC suburb areas of NJ since that's what Teleskier implied all of NJ is like. Although even Paterson has a pretty amazing beautiful waterfall in it!

 

[gregnye]

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.

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.
View attachment 25321

Once again it's not the bird's fault. In this situation it's the state of new Hampshire's fault. Overall wildcat now has more on-map glades than ever before! I remember going there when I was young and there were only 2 "tree areas" both of which were not named.

But back then Wildcat was different. They made snow on Upper Wildcat. They also had a terrain park. In a way wildcat has continued to become more hardcore in recent years which is what is awesome.

I also think that the state should be a little less strict when it comes to new glades over trails. A new trail can cause major damage to bird habitat. A new glade--well the birds still have trees to nest on! Particularly if it's hand-cut.

 

[gregnye]

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!

I go to NJ every year. There are beautiful parts. However there certainly is lack of respect for wildlife there.

Beach towns like Ocean City and wildwood have removed or built over their sand dunes in places to construct boardwalks. And besides destroying bird habitat, they've removed the natural flood protection system the island needs to survive and prevent flooding from hurricanes like Sandy and Irene.

 

[machski]

Once again it's not the bird's fault. In this situation it's the state of new Hampshire's fault. Overall wildcat now has more on-map glades than ever before! I remember going there when I was young and there were only 2 "tree areas" both of which were not named.

But back then Wildcat was different. They made snow on Upper Wildcat. They also had a terrain park. In a way wildcat has continued to become more hardcore in recent years which is what is awesome.

I also think that the state should be a little less strict when it comes to new glades over trails. A new trail can cause major damage to bird habitat. A new glade--well the birds still have trees to nest on! Particularly if it's hand-cut.

No, it is not the State of NH's fault. Wildcat is on WMNF land, thus they are regulated by the federal government. So the United States is at fault for blocking any high elevation glading on Wildcat. The state for all I know might want this to happen to increase draw but what the state wants in this case is irrelevant.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[machski]

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.

Totally misinformed opinion. Outsiders from NH have actually blocked development in the past as well as pushed for it. Loon's South Peak expansion was haulted and delayed for over a decade by opponents from outside of NH blocking it on account of using Loon Pond as a snowmaking reservoir and replenishing it from the Pemi. They claimed ecological damage was being done to the pond even though study after study showed Loon Pond was a dead pond. Not that the state and local residents all wanted this expansion. So it can go both ways.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[deadheadskier]

No, it is not the State of NH's fault. Wildcat is on WMNF land, thus they are regulated by the federal government. So the United States is at fault for blocking any high elevation glading on Wildcat. The state for all I know might want this to happen to increase draw but what the state wants in this case is irrelevant.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

100% true. And for Wildcat to challenge and change this reality, they'd be looking at six figure legal bills. That's something a small revenue ski area would never be willing to do.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

 

[BenedictGomez]

A new trail can cause major damage to bird habitat. A new glade--well the birds still have trees to nest on! Particularly if it's hand-cut.

No, it really cant.

With a new trial, you're talking about an infinitesimally small area even on a localized basis, let alone on a regional basis. You act as if they're clear-cutting 200 acres when a small portion of a single trail at >= 3,000 foot elevation goes in. Your belief is mathematically ridiculous.

 

[BenedictGomez]

Agreed...I was referring more to the metro NYC suburb areas of NJ since that's what Teleskier implied all of NJ is like.

Yup, hence my, "he must not travel much" comment.

Teleskier's erroneous belief is typical of westerners, southerners, midwest folk, etc, who've never been to Jersey, but generally people from the northeast know better. The relatively few northeast folk I've met who think NJ is a giant parking lot are the sort who never left the 4 county area they were born in.