The Forbidden Glade at Wachusett

[The Sneak]

Is anyone else here familiar with the forbidden glade at Wa Wa? Since I usually only go at night, I never noticed it...until saturday.

All I will say is that while fairly short (if you stay to the left there's a longer and tighter line that spits you farther down), it's fun and a damn shame it's not part of their trail system.

I asked an operations guy who was hanging out at the base what the deal was and was told 'there is no glade there. There is no trail there. If we see you in there, we have to pull your ticket.'

Bummer.

 

[deadheadskier]

Not sure what you're referring to having only skied Wawa once in the past 25 years, but if I'm not mistaken, they have some old growth forest left up there that foresters would like to remain off limits.

 

[wa-loaf]

Is anyone else here familiar with the forbidden glade at Wa Wa? Since I usually only go at night, I never noticed it...until saturday.

All I will say is that while fairly short (if you stay to the left there's a longer and tighter line that spits you farther down), it's fun and a damn shame it's not part of their trail system.

I asked an operations guy who was hanging out at the base what the deal was and was told 'there is no glade there. There is no trail there. If we see you in there, we have to pull your ticket.'

Bummer.

In the mid 90's WA attempted to expand and the environmentalists got really upset. They "discovered" that the woods on WA are Old Growth forest, effectively banning any expansion and definitely preventing any glades. So they are serious about keeping folks out of the woods there and you will get your ticket pulled.

It's to bad too because the trees between 10th and Connifer above the road are nicely spaced and with a little brush clearing would ski awesome.

 

[snowmonster]

You mean all the woods at Wa are off limits? I've been ducking into them for years.

 

[The Sneak]

It's to bad too because the trees between 10th and Connifer above the road are nicely spaced and with a little brush clearing would ski awesome.

I say this out loud nearly every time I ride the lift.

The spot I speak of, however, is off those 2 summit upper blues that are not always open. Brings you from one to the other. Don't get caught!

 

[wa-loaf]

You mean all the woods at Wa are off limits? I've been ducking into them for years.

Yes, just don't get caught with a ticket. If you hike up and ski down I don't think there is much they can do unless a park ranger busts you.

 

[neil]

I always think the same thing when I'm up there. A glade run up there would be a great addition.

 

[snowmonster]

Yes, just don't get caught with a ticket. If you hike up and ski down I don't think there is much they can do unless a park ranger busts you.

I hear ya. Evading patrol has become my sub-specialty (no wonder they turned me down at tryouts). =) There was a powder day there not too long ago and I was ducking in and out of woods within Wa that will not be mentioned.

 

[deadheadskier]

too each their own, but I'll resist the temptation to ski areas off limits for ecology reasons. Skiing the old growth at Wa is pretty much the same as skiing the 'Gash' at Jay no?

sorry, inner tree hugger in me occasionally speaks up

 

[bvibert]

too each their own, but I'll resist the temptation to ski areas off limits for ecology reasons. Skiing the old growth at Wa is pretty much the same as skiing the 'Gash' at Jay no?

sorry, inner tree hugger in me occasionally speaks up

How much harm could skiing in 'old growth' forests really do?

I don't see how it's the same thing as skiing the gash at Jay...

 

[wa-loaf]

Thing is there is rarely enough snow in the woods anyway. Most of the time it's a non-issue.

 

[deadheadskier]

How much harm could skiing in 'old growth' forests really do?

I don't see how it's the same thing as skiing the gash at Jay...

honestly, I'm not an ecologist and can't answer that question. I'm sure many people wonder what harm could be done skiing the gash at Jay when there's five plus feet of snow on the ground.

What I do know is that 'old growth' stands are extremely rare in Southern New England. Wachusett appears to be tied for the largest in the state.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_old_growth_forests_in_Massachusetts

must be a good reason they don't won't people skiing in there. If it's purely a safety precaution, I'd say eff em'.

 

[Mildcat]

I bet the only reason Wa doesn't have glades is because they haven't figured out how to groom them yet. :idea: :smile:

I know I'm ignorant but I couldn't care less how old a tree is. :dunce: Do those specific trees have sentimental value? Are old trees better for the environment? I could see if they were higher elevation and would have a hard time growing back but that's not the case at Wa.

 

[snowmonster]

too each their own, but I'll resist the temptation to ski areas off limits for ecology reasons. Skiing the old growth at Wa is pretty much the same as skiing the 'Gash' at Jay no?

sorry, inner tree hugger in me occasionally speaks up

As you say, to each his own. But, as I may have said earlier, until this morning, I didn't even know that the woods at Wa were off limits. I may duck a rope to ski woods if the rope was there for my own safety. As far as I'm concerned, I'm taking my life in my hands (I know 'troller's life is also in your hands too but let's just say for the sake of argument that I'm not jumping into anything sketchy). Anyway, roped off areas for the sake of the woods, that's a different thing. You owe it to future generations. I avoid the growth areas at MRG for this reason.

 

[soulseller]

There has been plenty of snow in the woods to ski the woods since the storm NYE weekend.

Regarding the old growth forest, I was their this past weekend with the sneak and we spoke to a member of management on one of the lift rides, (perhaps a Crowley?) The expansion plan was rejected by the tree huggers back in the early 90's because at the time this was the only known old growth forest in Mass. Since then they have discovered 30+ more therefor the forest at Wa is no longer as significant as it was when it was rejected.

What could the ecological impact of thinning out anything 2-3"s in diameter or smaller out or a few sections of woods be?

 

[bvibert]

must be a good reason they don't won't people skiing in there. If it's purely a safety precaution, I'd say eff em'.

If there's a good reason then I'm all for keeping out (I respect the regen zones at MRG, and have a bit of tree hugger in me too). However I'd like to know what those reasons are. Personally I doubt there's any real significant issues.

 

[neil]

I do wonder about liability concerns with Wawa too. The place does some overly cautious - needing to get a park pass for example.

 

[hiroto]

There is a good network of runs in the wood between Ralph and Challenger (but you said "left" to go deeper so that is not what you are talking about, right?) I was really surprised that one day after a good dump, my son's ski instructor (Wawa's dev team instructor) took kids into that wood, multiple times. According to him, the wood there is not the heavily protected "old growth" wood so it is not a big deal. It is definitely not openly endorsed, but they don't bother to tape it off as they do for the old growth wood in the higher part of the mountain either.

 

[wawawawawa]

http://www.sentinelandenterprise.com/local/ci_19447087

 

[wa-loaf]

Wow, that's pretty huge. I kinda figured all trail development at WA had been halted by the old growth forest. Looking forward to some "glade" skiing next season. They'll have to blow some snow in there or it's not going to be open much ...