 |
 |
|
 |
 |
|
|
|
10 Recent Topics: Jeremy on WAMC/NPR
by jgreco,
Sep 02, 2010 - 7:14 PM GMT -
0 RepliesIt's been 1 HOT summer
by manhattanskier,
Sep 02, 2010 - 6:56 PM GMT -
2 RepliesBig News For Sugarloaf
by millerm277,
Sep 02, 2010 - 6:47 PM GMT -
23 RepliesAscutney
by iskiatomic,
Sep 02, 2010 - 6:35 PM GMT -
1 RepliesMountain creeks new website
by NJSkiBabe,
Sep 02, 2010 - 5:10 PM GMT -
34 Repliesclassic143
by midatlanticlost,
Sep 02, 2010 - 12:40 PM GMT -
4 RepliesTrivia for a Sunday
by lotsoskiing,
Sep 02, 2010 - 10:42 AM GMT -
27 RepliesMultiple Ski Areas on the Same Mountain
by laurel hill crazie,
Sep 01, 2010 - 8:20 PM GMT -
35 RepliesJAY PEAK LAND SWAP
by skiingfanatic68,
Sep 01, 2010 - 7:44 PM GMT -
1 Repliessomething to look forward to
by davew,
Sep 01, 2010 - 5:58 PM GMT -
0 Replies |
||
|
|
|
|
|
 92 guests 1 members
Welcome Anonymous Members logged in: NE1 |
||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Home
Anonymous posts are not allowed in this forum
Pictures - Big Jay Illegal Cut
|
Forums : NELSAP Discussion : NELSAP Discussion
Moderated by: Chris, nelsap, Betsy, the_hop |
Anonymous posts are not allowed in this forum
Pictures - Big Jay Illegal Cut
| Page: 1 2 |
| Author | Post |
BetsyProfile | Galleries Rank: 
Member Since: Posts: 1872 Location:  |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 4:51 PM GMT Yowzers! What a bunch of idiots! Photo Slideshow of Big Jay Illegal Cut - Free Press |
|
millerm277 Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 850 Location: |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 5:00 PM GMT Wow, although not quite as bad as I'd expected it to look. |
|
tom durgin Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 832 Location: |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 5:03 PM GMT This is completely antithetical to the spirit of backcountry skiing!!! What a pair of losers - I hope their punishment includes reforestation  |
|
mapnut Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 3993 Location: |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 5:31 PM GMT Well, certainly not 60 feet wide. But trees grow very slowly at that altitude. |
|
slatham Profile | Galleries Rank: 
Member Since: Posts: 57 Location: |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 5:32 PM GMT Yeah, how about making them carry 10' saplings up from the valley to replant. This wasn't innocent "thinning" - they cut a F#@* trail! Gives the whole ski industry and backcountry advocates a bad name and reputation. |
|
djspookman Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 869 Location:  |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 5:36 PM GMT I see it this way, if you want a trail, ski the ski areas, if you want woods, ski woods... don't make trails where great woods are!!! as an avid "pruner" myself, I NEVER take large trees, only select schwack and some small branches, the large trees add significant character to the woods trail in the places they already are at. Careful planning should go into any woods run, and all natural features should be used to their fullest for a great run! dave __________ Skiing is life...... |
|
smelick Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 1054 Location:  |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 6:26 PM GMT I am adamantly against this type of activity, however is it necessary to constantly mention the thrush when it involves anything above 3000 ft? Don't get me wrong, I have a very strong appreciation for our wildlife - endangered or not, however this act was done to an area of land; to the TREES and VEGITATION. Is that not enough to conjure up sympathy from the public? Or must a small furry creature always be mentioned to get people moved. I mean really, why don't people mention the eastern mountain lion? The thrush isn't even on the VT endangered list! Sorry, I'm in a cynical Friday mood. -Scott |
|
powdersc Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 107 Location: |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 6:39 PM GMT Im just amazed they were able to cut that much down without being caught?? and Backcountry?? there is nothing backcountry about it!! It's a ski trail now! |
|
tom durgin Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 832 Location: |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 6:41 PM GMT Quote: Sorry, I'm in a cynical Friday mood. -Scott We all know that feeling! Don't worry about the catamounts, though - there aren't any. Not only does this outrage affect the land, for those of us who live in Vermont it affects our land - the cutting took place in a State Forest. Personally, I thing these guys should be sentenced to skiing green circles in badly-fitted rental boots for the upcoming season. We could monitor them with GPS ankle bracelets . . . |
|
jb66 Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 1303 Location:  |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 7:30 PM GMT ...and see if they have bird feeders in their yards. If so, they are in REAL trouble. What a couple of dummies. Does this count as a failed expansion plan for Jay in the other thread?  |
|
tom durgin Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 832 Location: |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 7:36 PM GMT Quote: ...and see if they have bird feeders in their yards. If so, they are in REAL trouble. What a couple of dummies. Does this count as a failed expansion plan for Jay in the other thread? Only if they put seed in the feeders.  |
|
rstuthill Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 1631 Location: |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 9:59 PM GMT Hehehe. Very amusing. Actually, I don't see the moral outrage that some of you do even though it was State land. For example, the Teardrop on Mt. Mansfield looks like it has largely grown in these days. Its width is a fraction of its former self. I can just imagine the outcry if someone, including the state, were to propose brushing it out high wide and handsome again. Note too that Jay Peak itself sits squarely astride the same habitat. Guess that I am just not ready to send them away for life. A $2,500 fine and a couple years probation would be my put. |
|
djspookman Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 869 Location: |
Posted: Aug 10, 2007 - 10:22 PM GMT Quote: Hehehe. Very amusing. Actually, I don't see the moral outrage that some of you do even though it was State land. For example, the Teardrop on Mt. Mansfield looks like it has largely grown in these days. Its width is a fraction of its former self. I can just imagine the outcry if someone, including the state, were to propose brushing it out high wide and handsome again. Note too that Jay Peak itself sits squarely astride the same habitat. Guess that I am just not ready to send them away for life. A $2,500 fine and a couple years probation would be my put. Well I know for a fact that the Teardrop was and is constantly brushed out by the State Forest service, as I was good friends with the ranger for the area about 15 years ago. He and a crew of his workers brushed it out, just as they do every 10-15 years to keep the trail there. As for the width thing, yes, it is narrower than before, but its still sweet and has some GREAT side woods shots to be found! but this is all not the topic at hand.. dave __________ Skiing is life...... |
|
maplevalleymaster Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 1129 Location:  |
Posted: Aug 11, 2007 - 1:32 AM GMT This is horrible. I am amazed that they got that far cutting that much! |
|
telemark Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 153 Location: |
Posted: Aug 11, 2007 - 5:05 PM GMT The worst thing is that it wasn't needed. There were plenty of great lines up there already, this is just a bludgeon. Plus, it's going to lead to some bad erosion and probably some new avy danger. There's a plan to help with re-vegetation by a bunch of folks on Telemark Tips; hopefully we'll hear from the state agencies in time to have a worktrip up there this fall. |
|
riverc0il Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 2858 Location:  |
Posted: Aug 11, 2007 - 6:09 PM GMT Please keep us posted if a re-veg group is allowed, I would love to take part. __________ TheSnowWay.com |
|
tedede Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 420 Location: |
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 - 9:32 AM GMT I'm just curious, are most of you outraged because A) public property was destroyed, or B) trees were cut down? I'm most interested in the opinion of those that strongly/exclusively favor either A or B, vs both A and B. |
|
djspookman Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 869 Location: |
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 - 11:46 AM GMT Quote: I'm just curious, are most of you outraged because A) public property was destroyed, or B) trees were cut down? I'm most interested in the opinion of those that strongly/exclusively favor either A or B, vs both A and B. I'm upset because it was not an approved cut. dave __________ Skiing is life...... |
|
catamount82 Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 552 Location:  |
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 - 12:53 PM GMT Quote: I'm just curious, are most of you outraged because A) public property was destroyed, or B) trees were cut down? I'm most interested in the opinion of those that strongly/exclusively favor either A or B, vs both A and B. I'm upset at what a brazen act it was.  __________ "Always drink upstream...from the herd" |
|
riverc0il Profile | Galleries Rank:
Member Since: Posts: 2858 Location: |
Posted: Aug 12, 2007 - 12:59 PM GMT Quote: I'm just curious, are most of you outraged because A) public property was destroyed, or B) trees were cut down? I'm most interested in the opinion of those that strongly/exclusively favor either A or B, vs both A and B. tedede, there are several reasons for the outrage any most skiers that I know that have shared their opinion are not tree huggers nor do they believe that public lands should not be skied. First of all, Big Jay does not need cutting. The lines are already quite open and natural and this cut destroys good tree skiing terrain, it does not enhance or improve the value of skiing Big Jay. Secondly, if these guys wanted to ski wide open trails, Jay Peak already offers a lot of them and the Teardrop off Mansfield is of similar quality to what they did if they wanted a CCC styled trail. Third, this reflects very poorly on the backcountry scene in general and specifically for those that do things right by only "clearing out the crap" versus cutting down fully grown trees. Finally, that cut is probably going to lead to environmental problems and will increase the risk of avalanche danger which is normally low due to the amount of anchors. __________ TheSnowWay.com |
Page:
1
2
