Mittersill deforestation!

RemskiRemski
edited July 2015 in Operations/Management Posts: 1,162
I don't know about you but the deforestation going on at Mittersilll looks to be way over done. I wish that they had just brushed the trails and glades and left it at that. So much for a Mad River Glen type of experience.
So if you want to see the devastation check out NewEnglandskiindustry.com This is crazy!!!
«1345

Comments

  • NewEnglandSkier13NewEnglandSkier13
    Posts: 5,479
    DANGER! HEATED DEBATE AHEAD!!! :D

    I agree 100% that what they are doing is wrong and they should leave it like they said they would!
    - Sam
  • SnowmasterSnowmaster
    Posts: 268
    That is an enormous shame. At the very least, a 20 foot wide strip of forest left down the middle would be somewhat better. For the schools, it seems a shame they didn't resurrect/replace the long T-bar for the race facility. 
  • slathamslatham
    Posts: 896
    On the trail map it doesn't look so bad. But the reality is just ugly. I am surprise - shocked - that a state run ski resort would scar the mountainside in such a heinous way.
  • ChuckstahChuckstah
    Posts: 1,417
    Snowmaster said:

    That is an enormous shame. At the very least, a 20 foot wide strip of forest left down the middle would be somewhat better. For the schools, it seems a shame they didn't resurrect/replace the long T-bar for the race facility. 

    From everything I hear they are indeed replacing the t-bar.
  • SnowmasterSnowmaster
    Posts: 268
    Yes, but the existing narrow line would have been great, and restored lift access down to the very bottom by the resort buildings. They're going to put one up more or less parallel to the chairlift.
  • ChuckstahChuckstah
    Posts: 1,417
    Yes, so true. It will never be the same. Liked it best as sidecountry, as did most I am sure.
  • ChuckstahChuckstah
    Posts: 1,417
    An old shot along the t-bar lineimage
  • becca_mbecca_m
    Posts: 146
    Why does it need to be that wide?
  • riverc0ilriverc0il
    Posts: 742
    Snowmaster said:

    Yes, but the existing narrow line would have been great, and restored lift access down to the very bottom by the resort buildings. They're going to put one up more or less parallel to the chairlift.

    I am pretty sure that the wide "race arena" slope also included cutting down the t-bar line into the glade that was skier's left of the t-bar line. i.e. it doesn't exist any more, if I remember the plan correctly.
    -Steve
    thesnowway.com
  • DrJeffDrJeff
    Posts: 1,329
    The result that your seeing likely has way more to do with the standards set forth by the FIS to meet the homologation (certification) standards for approval as a top level race hill.  Minimum width, lengths, vertical drops, pitches, safety features, snow surface qualities, etc, etc, etc need to be met for the race hill to be certified to host specific race types (i.e. a race hill needs to be certified to hold a slalom, a giant slalom a super G and a downhill and if it's not certified for that specific event, a top level race can't be held on it)
  • newpylongnewpylong
    edited July 2015 Posts: 2,493
    Taft is too short for a Super G and Downhill. It didn't need to be that wide for a FIS slalom or GS either. Most likely the goal was to be able to do multiple training courses side by side.

    I dont love it but plenty of untouched at Mitter still there.
  • riverc0ilriverc0il
    Posts: 742
    DrJeff said:

    The result that your seeing likely has way more to do with the standards set forth by the FIS to meet the homologation (certification) standards for approval as a top level race hill.  Minimum width, lengths, vertical drops, pitches, safety features, snow surface qualities, etc, etc, etc need to be met for the race hill to be certified to host specific race types (i.e. a race hill needs to be certified to hold a slalom, a giant slalom a super G and a downhill and if it's not certified for that specific event, a top level race can't be held on it)

    Nah. It is an uber wide clear cut the likes of which aren't generally seen in New England. Wider than the recently extreme widening of Baron's run which will be their GS race trail. It has nothing to do with FIS certification standards. I can only imagine that they want to have multiple training courses setup side by side.
    -Steve
    thesnowway.com
  • obienickobienick
    edited July 2015 Posts: 1,435
    Baron's is for Super G.  The clearcut is for SL and GS.

    And the clearcut has to be that wide for FIS cirtification to run two *races* simultaneously, which is what they want to be able to do.
  • rickbolgerrickbolger
    Posts: 2,962
    I imagine that when Rocket, Zoomer et al were cut on Cannon it had a similar impact on those who saw the change.  Really hacked up the notch at that time, far worse than this.
  • ski_itski_it
    Posts: 4,667

    Ditto "I agree 100% that what they are doing is wrong and they should leave it like they said they would!"

    I can imagine that wide open field will be wind scoured & they will have a hard time holding the snow on it like they do up on Profile..  

    Ok, my memory ain't so good, but when they first proposed reopening that side of the mountain wasn't there some noise, with the Forest Service & Audubon being involved, about leaving the area essentially wild to protect the native animal populations like the Bicknell’s Thrush & Lynx? And that they would be actively discouraging skiers from cutting or widening trails, surveying the populations and avoiding construction during breeding season (which is now) or am I imaging all that?  I guess it is conservation be damned if you are trying to save an ailing resort.

    ISNE-I Skied New England | NESAP-the New England Ski Area Project | SOSA-Saving Our Ski Areas - Location SW of Boston MA
  • bobbuttsbobbutts
    Posts: 145
    Might as well do something with it and make it useful for somebody.  It was cool to have an abandoned lift serviced area that ran a few weeks a year, but it didn't make much sense for business.  Even that small amount of traffic turned it into a gladed mogul field at best 99% of the time.  Hanging around on online sites it may seem like this is the most popular terrain, but it's empty for the most part.  The last time I visited with good conditions at Mittersill was loading every chair on Peabody and Zoomer and ~10 empty chairs between each loaded one on Mittersill.  
  • NewEnglandSkier13NewEnglandSkier13
    Posts: 5,479
    ski_it said:

    Ditto "I agree 100% that what they are doing is wrong and they should leave it like they said they would!"

    I can imagine that wide open field will be wind scoured & they will have a hard time holding the snow on it like they do up on Profile..  

    Ok, my memory ain't so good, but when they first proposed reopening that side of the mountain wasn't there some noise, with the Forest Service & Audubon being involved, about leaving the area essentially wild to protect the native animal populations like the Bicknell’s Thrush & Lynx? And that they would be actively discouraging skiers from cutting or widening trails, surveying the populations and avoiding construction during breeding season (which is now) or am I imaging all that?  I guess it is conservation be damned if you are trying to save an ailing resort.

    I believe that the area containing the Lynx and thrush habitats was higher on Mittersill.

    http://newenglandskihistory.com/maps/viewmap.php?id=6716
    - Sam
  • ski_itski_it
    Posts: 4,667

    So it was right on their trail map. Thanks Sam, good to see I have some memory left.

    " NO T.Y.O.T. (No Trimming Your Own Trees) Trees and/or brush cutting is strictly prohibited on Cannon and Mitersill. Please leave trail maintenance to the professionals at Cannon."

    "Mittersill Terrain Area is home to several federally listed sensitive species, including the Bicknell's Thrush, peregrine falcon and possibly the Canada lynx. Please be respectful of their habitat." 

    They might need to change that to past tense. This could easily be on The Daily Show. So they expect the Lynx to jump up to the 2500' elevation? 

    ISNE-I Skied New England | NESAP-the New England Ski Area Project | SOSA-Saving Our Ski Areas - Location SW of Boston MA
  • NewEnglandSkier13NewEnglandSkier13
    Posts: 5,479
    Apparently they do expect that the lynx stays near the summit! Good luck telling them that!
    - Sam
  • riverc0ilriverc0il
    Posts: 742
    ski_it said:

    " NO T.Y.O.T. (No Trimming Your Own Trees) Trees and/or brush cutting is strictly prohibited on Cannon and Mitersill. Please leave trail maintenance to the professionals at Cannon."

    THAT is RICH considering all the trails they added to Cannon's trail map recently were local cuts, not cut by the "professionals" at Cannon (I was not involved with any of those, for the record). Almost all of Cannon's glades were added after they were cut by skiers and riders. And Mittersill as well features trees maintained and opened by skiers and riders. Cannon wouldn't have almost any gladed terrain if not for those that "trimmed their own". 

    I suspect many glades will grow back in significantly in a few years because goodness knows why anyone would even want to help maintain any trees within Cannon's boundary lines at this point. And goodness knows Cannon doesn't actually hire any "professionals" to maintain their tree lines. Good luck to them, in that regard!

    Regarding the Thrush, that issue was at a higher elevation... think around the Taft Race Course coming down from the saddle. Regarding the width and wind... Mittersill is pretty sheltered from the wind. But it also doesn't get as much snow as Cannon proper either. Lower slopes of Mittersill are protected. So it does not warrant comparison to Profile which is the windiest part of the damn mountain with winds blasting right down the trail. Further, wind won't matter anyways... they are just going to blast it with snow and pack it down for racing... firmer and harder the better as far as the race team is concerned. 

    Regarding Rocker and Zoomer... I don't think those trails are nearly as wide as the new race arena. I wasn't around then so I can't comment on how people felt. But I think that was a different age... 

    ...and Rocket is a damn fine trail. So is Paulie's, one of my favorites for trail skiing. I am a narrow/winding trail lover but the Front Five are absolute gold. From a ski enthusiast perspective, it is hard to not give the Front Five a pass on their width, that trail pod is a gem. But.... they are trails... whereas the race arena is going to be a slope, one of the widest in New England. It ain't got anything from an aesthetics point of view, strictly function over form.
    -Steve
    thesnowway.com
  • rickbolgerrickbolger
    edited July 2015 Posts: 2,962
    Hey I like those trails a lot!  Just saying, it ain't that much different.  You're worried about aesthetics, but the ship sailed a long time ago.  

    A big slash of a ski slope is a big slash of a ski slope, whether it's one wide slope or five less wide slopes that add up to even wider.     Personally I think the massive  tram building on the summit that I can see from 10+ miles away and the slash up the side of the mountain with cables and monstrous towers and aluminum sided bunker at the tram base and umpteen parking lots (including the oh-so lovely RV lot)  is more aesthetically offensive than a wide grassy slope.

    This Soviet-inspired structure  ain't about to win any beauty contests...

    image

    (photo credit:  a friend's website)  
    ;)

    As skiers -- aside from BC purists -- I think we have to give virtually all of this stuff a "pass"  Nothing excites me more than driving up to a mountain with snow covered slopes, guns blazing, lifts moving, etc.  So, I give them a pass on all of this hideous claptrap.
  • ski_itski_it
    Posts: 4,667

    Very good points riverc0il & Rick. I am a narrow/winding trail lover too as well as a Front Five lover too. Just seems a little disingenuous of them, don't you think. I'm not concerned about the looks, and the uber slash in the middle I can get over, since we can't use it anyway, but widening the others will really ruin the uniqueness of the area. Do we have to homogenize every run?  

     

    ISNE-I Skied New England | NESAP-the New England Ski Area Project | SOSA-Saving Our Ski Areas - Location SW of Boston MA
  • newpylongnewpylong
    Posts: 2,493
    Just the two they want to race on lol.
  • rickbolgerrickbolger
    Posts: 2,962
    homogenize.  good one   ;))
  • ski_itski_it
    edited July 2015 Posts: 4,667
    newpylong said:

    Just the two they want to race on lol.


    The way Killington counts trails it would 9 or ten. I'll call it 5 for the sake of argument.

    http://www.nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Mittersill-Improvement-Map_Existing-Conditions-Plan.pdf

    http://www.nhstateparks.org/whats-happening/improving-state-parks/mittersill-improvement-project.aspx

    ISNE-I Skied New England | NESAP-the New England Ski Area Project | SOSA-Saving Our Ski Areas - Location SW of Boston MA
  • Spunkyskier01Spunkyskier01
    Posts: 33
    Good luck to who ever will have to make snow on that trail
  • ADKskierADKskier
    Posts: 975
    If your going to pitch a fit about a small chunk of forest on a ski slope, perhaps re-engage your efforts to the massive amounts of deforestation in western states and south America. You have in lucky in New Hampshire my friends. What difference could have been made regardless. Everyone wants their opinion heard or their feelings delt with. Honestly it happened with or without your consent.
    ~Rich~
  • riverc0ilriverc0il
    Posts: 742
    ADKskier... your opinion that you wanted to be heard about our wanting our opinion to be heard has been heard. You just provided an argument against the entire raison d'etre of the forum while participating in it.

    We are talking about localized impact at a skier area, not about the impact of massive scale deforestation that could have national and global implications. The word "deforestation" here is hyperbole, not an exact description that suggests ambivalence to actual deforestation. 
    -Steve
    thesnowway.com
  • RemskiRemski
    Posts: 1,162
    Thank you RivercOil that is exactly what I was implying.
  • newpylongnewpylong
    Posts: 2,493
    Spunkyskier01 said:

    Good luck to who ever will have to make snow on that trail

    Spunkyskier01 said:


    Spunkyskier01 said:

    If there are lines on each side it will be no different than any other trail. Winds are that bad.

    ski_it said:

    newpylong said:

    Just the two they want to race on lol.


    The way Killington counts trails it would 9 or ten. I'll call it 5 for the sake of argument.

    http://www.nhstateparks.org/uploads/pdf/Mittersill-Improvement-Map_Existing-Conditions-Plan.pdf

    http://www.nhstateparks.org/whats-happening/improving-state-parks/mittersill-improvement-project.aspx

    Still just the 2 being homogolated, Barons and Taft. The others are access trails, won't be wider than they need to be to make snow on.

Sign In or Register to comment.