Decry hypocrisy or seize opportunity---do the right thing

[notorious]

Yesterday I attended the annual meeting of the Catamount Trail Association, held at the Big Picture. My object in attending was to watch an amazing documentary film entitled "Skiing in the Shadow of Gengis Khan" done by a South Lincoln VT resident about the roots of skiing in the Altai mountain region at the intersection of China, Mongolia, Russia and Khazakstan. The premise of the film, quite convincing actually, was that skiing originated in this region thousands of years B.C..
However the business meeting also caught my attention. The CTA confirms what we already know, i.e. that backcountry skiing is the fastest,maybe only, growing segment of the ski "industry". Aside from the expected insults about Alpine skiers from the CTA leadership, I learned that the CTA trail maintenance involves significant power equipment use. In fact, they gave seminars on usage of the equipment to the membership. Furthermore, one of the organization's prime sponsors is a power equipment company that uses CTA trail maintenance as a method of testing new equipment. The annual award to the outstanding volunteer is dubbed the "Golden Lopper Award". This is done with full knowledge and support of federal and state regulators.
It is interesting to me that the CTA and the Green Mountain Club can engineer walkways, bridges, and stairways in the woods and along the ridges without criticism, but that Alpine skiers are called immoral (VT Life---current issue) for manual trimming.
Clearly there is a need for all lovers of sliding and hiking in the woods to communicate more to dispel erroneous stereotyping of each other and to share knowledge about appropriate and respectful usage of our common resources . I believe that the ski resorts should be members and sponsors of these organizations, and that permanent dialogues between user groups should be created for the purpose of dealing with the regulators and property owners.

[Strat]

I think there's a starkly different mentality that goes with Nordic trail creation than with Alpine. While it's true that the Catamount Trail does traverse some very high terrain, its main function is horizontal in nature, not vertical, and with that comes a different mentality than, say, the one that chops a swath out of Big Jay. Also, because the CTA has the final say and is in charge of all authorized trail cutting, there isn't any sort of secrecy or illicitness to the clearing operations as there is with manual trimming on the part of Alpine skiers. The same is true for the GMC, which obviously goes back quite a big longer than either Alpine skiing or the CTA in Vermont. Just my $0.02.

[scharny]

It's also about getting formal permission from the landowner (State, Federal, or private) before the cutting/maintenance is done.

The Jay incident that you are referring to did not involve that.

CTA and GMC both have Cooperative Agreements or Memorandums of Understanding in place with the agency partners before they cut a single twig.

Sugarbush also goes through this process when they are maintaining or improving ski trails on State or USFS land. In order for them to improve the wooded areas that they have recently been working on, there was a lengthy series of public hearings, partner meetings and plan reviews that had to be dealt with before they were allowed to do anything. Now all of that effort is paying off.

[ski_resort_observer]

Let's not confuse the Catamount Trail with the Long Trail, two very diferent pathways and governed by very diferent groups and agencies.

The Green Mountain Club maintains the Long Trail in cooperation with the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and private landowners.

The Catamount Trail Association (CTA) has the mission of building, maintaining and protecting the Catamount Trail as a public resource, and furthering cross-country skiing in the state. It is not along for the most part on the high ridges of the Greens like the Long Trail is. Thanks to the cooperation of the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, the U.S. Forest Service, the 36 Vermont town governments the Trail passes through, as well as the nearly 200 private landowners whose property the Trail crosses, the Catamount Trail is now 100% complete.

I was involved with the CTA in the mid 90's when they were developing a very cool Inn To Inn program for nordic skiers involving 5 inns along the trail.

One thing they both have in common is that not a tree is disturbed without communication between either a private property owner or public land like the GMNF or a Vermont state forest.

[notorious]

While it is true that the CT and LT are both supervised by sanctioned groups, it is nonetheless true that both are significant alterations of the natural terrain, and both create through heavy usage, environmental impacts that, arguably, are more significant than the impacts caused by backcountry skiers. Defending these groups while ignoring their impacts is what I call, with all due respect, hypocrisy. It is amazing to me that simply by forming a non-profit user group, you can get regulators to ease off. If you were to peruse the discussion of the VT Life article taking place on the UVM ski-Vt site, you would learn that the photographer for that article feels that the author overstates the case against backcountry skiers. I do believe that we sliders should have our own user group for dealing with regulators, just as GMC and CTA have. I also think we should be involved with those groups as cooperating, interested users of public lands. The only way to avoid unnecessary regulation or banishment is through organized involvement in the discussion, and through responsible usage. As they said in Ethan Allen's day "We need to hang together or we will all hang separately".

[gone.skiing]

If you were to peruse the discussion of the VT Life article taking place on the UVM ski-Vt site,

link?

[Lostone]

I think the use of lifts to get uphill makes the traffic much heavier, and therefore the damage done by "backcountry" skiers much greater than that done in areas that require the participants to get uphill under their own power.

If you are talking about true backcountry, which does not involve any lift-assist, I would agree the work done by the CTA and GMC could be as bad, were it not to be their getting the cooperation of the landowners.

But if your backcountry experience starts with a lift, it is not the same thing.

[notorious]

If you were to peruse the discussion of the VT Life article taking place on the UVM ski-Vt site,

link?

www.uvm.edu/skivt-l

[notorious]

But if your backcountry experience starts with a lift, it is not the same thing.

Right! And if you use an automobile to get to the CTA trailhead, it's not the same thing either. Yes?no?

[Lostone]

If you use a car to get to the trailhead, then go downhill from there, you still need to get back up the hill under your own power. Far less traffic than a lift bringing groups of 3-10 as many times as they can make it in a 7 hour day.

Not the same thing, at all.

[HowieT2]

In my mind it's similar to the banishment of mountain biking from NY metro area trails while permitting hiking and horseback riding. It has little to do with actual effects on the trails but due to the fact that the hikers and horse owners are generally older, wealthier and more established.

[atkinson]

With all due respect SRO ... You wrote:
"Let's not confuse the Catamount Trail with the Long Trail, two very diferent pathways and governed by very diferent groups and agencies."

Not true. There is major crossover between the organizations and the agencies that they work with, not to mention that the current ED of GMC helped start the CTA.

"The Green Mountain Club maintains the Long Trail in cooperation with the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, U.S. Forest Service, National Park Service, Appalachian Trail Conservancy, and private landowners.

The Catamount Trail Association (CTA) has the mission of building, maintaining and protecting the Catamount Trail as a public resource, and furthering cross-country skiing in the state. It is not along for the most part on the high ridges of the Greens like the Long Trail is. Thanks to the cooperation of the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation, the U.S. Forest Service, the 36 Vermont town governments the Trail passes through, as well as the nearly 200 private landowners whose property the Trail crosses, the Catamount Trail is now 100% complete."

GMC and CTA sure sounds similar, except for the fact the LT sticks to the high ridges. However, the CT does get up there in places like Lincoln Gap and Bolton to Trapps, both decidely backcountry alpine routes with solid elevation changes, steeper pitches, remote access and thoroughly ungroomed snow. The Lincoln Gap section actually runs near, but not under, a slide-prone area.

Also, the CTA promotes backcountry and cross-country skiing, plus sections of the LT network are featured in backcountry ski guides for VT. Believe it or not, a lot (a majority?) of alpine ski tours in Vermont start with the Long Trail or its feeder routes. The start of one of the most popular off-piste routes in the Green Mountains was actually cut by Jay Peak Resort to the top of Big Jay, off the Long Trail. Without permission. One of their recent marketing slogans was, "If you can't hack it, don't hack it."

"One thing they both have in common is that not a tree is disturbed without communication between either a private property owner or public land like the GMNF or a Vermont state forest."

Mostly true. Both organizations have done an excellent job of getting permission for building, maintenance, and improvement of their trails. But I've been told by people deeply involved in GMC and CTA that, "A little cutting on the sides isn't bad." Granted, this was before the Big Jay incident, but this cultural phenomenon is not new, alien or sponsored only by a few edge-dwelling extremists. For this to move forward, we all need to be honest, forthright and fair. Otherwise, we continue to allow double standards to rule the situation. What did you say to hang in the village square?

Attempting to contain this energy by opening up runs purely with-in ski area boundaries isn't going to make it go away. To advocate for no work anywhere ignores the realities of the vast amount of VT thicket bushwhacking and the successes of places like MRG.

As for permission, I totally believe in it. However, we should also remember that runs like the Bruce and Teardrop Trails are still with us, only because of the unauthorized work of people without pay or official plan. These routes have since been re-legitimized with history on their side, but imagine trying to create the LT in today's regulatory climate. Daunting. But if that's what we need to do for backcountry skiing in VT, let's get to it.

I speak only for myself here. Your opinion or agenda may vary.

John

p.s. As for how you get to start of the adventure, it matters little. Very few of us walk out the door with our skis on and never ride a lift or sit in a car. I am trying to learn that being righteous makes it harder to be right.

[Lostone]

In fact, I do walk out my door with my skis on my shoulder. :lol:

But that is mostly a matter of luck, and has nothing to do with my point.

My point is that if you are climbing for every run, you will do less runs and therefore less damage, than if you are taking a lift to the top of your run. In fact, there will be far less people doing those runs, and therefore, far less damage.

It was in response to this point:

it is nonetheless true that both are significant alterations of the natural terrain, and both create through heavy usage, environmental impacts that, arguably, are more significant than the impacts caused by backcountry skiers.


You can feel free to call me righteous, or anything else you wish.

[Tin Woodsman]

I think the use of lifts to get uphill makes the traffic much heavier, and therefore the damage done by "backcountry" skiers much greater than that done in areas that require the participants to get uphill under their own power.

If you are talking about true backcountry, which does not involve any lift-assist, I would agree the work done by the CTA and GMC could be as bad, were it not to be their getting the cooperation of the landowners.

But if your backcountry experience starts with a lift, it is not the same thing.
Then, by definition, wouldn't any organization with a purpose of bringing order to this world have to prominently feature the participation and leadership of the ski areas who are enabling, and in some cases encouraging, the majority of the destructive traffic?

[Lostone]

My point was that they are separate animals.

I don't say it would be acceptable, and even a good thing, if ski areas were to work with the CTA and GMC. I'm disagreeing with the premise that if they do cutting, it is as bad and even worse than if people engaging in backcountry skiing do the same.

And again, I set aside those who might want to do the traditional type of skiing, where they are actually earning their turns. I believe that would be far less destructive.

My belief is that, in general, it is not the cutting that does the most damage, but the traffic.

[Hawk]

I have watched this discussion now on 4 different sites. My opinions are as follows:
- Aside from the two idiots at Jay and a couple of other places I have seen, I do not think that mass destruction of the forest is a huge issue. The effected areas will be watched and the forest will recover in 10 years or so. But for argument sake what makes the paper and lumber industries "harvesting of renewable recourses" on federal land any less of a crime? Those activities are protected by the government and a very wealthy constituency.
- I see no reason that feel good environmental activists should point fingers at skiers and try to impose any laws and sanctions. The impact for most skiers in the woods is nonexistent.
- For the Skiers that do impact the woods, it is my experience that minor pruning of lines is eradicated by new growth in less than five years. In fact some of the old lines that I have seen pruned have grown back thicker. This whole singe growth forests thing is BS. Hell there are large areas of the North woods that were wiped out by loggers. The Fix was to plant pine trees that they could be harvested by loggers in 50 years. How’s that for a single growth forest?
- If you look at the thousands of acres of woods in NE, what is the % of that area that is actually impacted by skiers? In the big picture is skiing really an impact?
- If regulations are imposed on skiers in the back country, how on earth are they going to enforce it especially with the current economy and cut backs? That is a large area for the skier cops to cover. :lol:
I realize that people get very sensitive about the environment and rightly so. But is skiing the really a major issue? There are many other user groups that come to mind that are bigger problems. I see no reason for organized groups to fight for our rights. It is a waste of time. So I think that you strap on your skins, head out and have a good day in the back country. Ignore the rantings of the armchair environmentalist. Most of the discussions are just that, discussions. They can’t catch you anyway. :wink:

[HowieT2]

It is not only human activity that can have a deleterious effect on forest health. I live in westchester county about 30 miles north of NYC in the hudson valley and specifically in the watershed of the croton reservoir. The forested areas are obviously minuscule compared to VT, but there are significant tracts of land that have been protected from human activity for a long time. Yet despite the fact that the wooded areas are well protected from human activity (NYC DEP police are stationed and patrol by the reservoir), the wooded areas have been decimated by deer. There is virtually no vegetation below 4'. The deer eat everything, so while mature trees are safe, there is no underbrush. This is a more pervasive problem than cutting lines for backcountry skiing or hiking. No cutting necessary in these woods as everything is wide open (if we just had some snow). Just a little perspective.

[Tin Woodsman]

My point was that they are separate animals.

I don't say it would be acceptable, and even a good thing, if ski areas were to work with the CTA and GMC. I'm disagreeing with the premise that if they do cutting, it is as bad and even worse than if people engaging in backcountry skiing do the same.

But why is that? Because some govt agency has provided its imprimatur on the process at a ski area whereas they haven't for other types of trimming? I mean, I'd venture to say that the construction of a wide run like Ripcord resulted in the destruction of more trees and habitat than the entire BC skiing community in VT accounts for in a decade. Why is it OK that EpSteins and Gangsta's Grotto now have far fewer trees than they did before? Was the unsanctioned work that previously existed a bad thing. And now that it's got an official stamp, and is even less treed than before, it's a good thing? That's a pretty big contradiction, no?



And again, I set aside those who might want to do the traditional type of skiing, where they are actually earning their turns. I believe that would be far less destructive.

My belief is that, in general, it is not the cutting that does the most damage, but the traffic.
And where does the most traffic on off-piste runs occur? In and adjacent to ski area boundaries.