Destructive forest cutting?

[king tut]

I have read a lot about the Big Jay forest cut and I had one basic question. What's the big diff between two yahoos cutting a ski trail on a mountain and a large corporation cutting a trail on a mountain? I know that they do not own the land in question and that it is on "hiking" land, but ecologically speaking, is there any major difference between them cutting an un-official ski trail and a large ski conglomerate bulldozing a boulevard of trees to cut an extremely wide trail? Is the land more sensitive if they do this versus if ski planners knock down a million trees to cut a new corporate ski trail?

I do not agree with them cutting this trail, but I am just trying to understand the outrage and the ecological impact. Everything that I have seen seems to indicate that this area is doomed and irreparably damaged versus the trails that were previously cut on Jay on the ski side. What are the views on this? I know that a lot of the ski areas in New England were originally started when some one took a saw or chainsaw and cut a swath of trees to ski down later. And these trails later became ski areas that most people love. Is this more about protecting a segment of officially designated nature or is this really a more destructive approach to trail cutting?

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Assuming the "yahoo" trail was cut in such a way as to minimize erosion, at least to the same extent as an "official" I tend to agree with you that there's not a whole lot of difference in terms of impact to the mountain.

Some of the outrage is PR/image related in that the backcountry crowd doesn't want to be painted with the same brush as these two yahoos.

And yes, in the total scheme of things - let's not forget that Jay blew off the top of the mountain to put in the tram station & restaurant, and later cut an 'illegal' trail themselves. That isn't germain to your question, but it not like this piece of real estate hasn't seen it share of dyamite and destruction already.

 

[cushetunk]

Is this more about protecting a segment of officially designated nature or is this really a more destructive approach to trail cutting?

Well this being the internet I can add my two cents without needing to have any particular knowledge of this situation.

It seems the answer to this is, yes.

It is about the GMC asserting their easement. If they don't uphold their responsibility to protect this land in perpetuity, then their role as an easement holder is in question. This will affect not only the GMC but any organization that holds a conservation easement. The entire thing is like a big house of cards because it is all done through contracts that could theoretically be broken.

It is also an environmental problem mostly I think because of the potential for erosion. I would hope (though I don't know) that most ski areas take steps to prevent erosion like creating broad-based dips and making sure that the area is vegetated with something once the trees are gone. But who knows? The problem with ecological impact is that it is pretty tough to generalize. Each place is slightly different than another.

 

[forestgnome]

To expand on KR's post, professional cutting is less destuctive than some other methods. Can't say about the Jay hack, but I doubt it was professional.

The outrage, IMO, is the arrogance of these people by drastically effecting that landscape which they do not own, and many enjoy and admire. It's like stealing.

Also, "they ain't makin' anymore". There's only so much unaltered land left so many people are upset with a taking like this.

Yeah, the mountain already has stuff on it, but the slope is still forested, and now it has a big gash on it.

happy trails

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Forestnome -

Not that this changes anything, but I believe that Jay Peak is on land owned by the people of Vermont - The Jay State Forest. IRRC, the state leased the land to a lumber company (Weyherhaeuser?) who developed the resort, and then later sold it the same company that owns the Mont Saint-Sauveur ski area in Quebec.

As I said - not that it changes anything, but I think the illegal trail was cut on state land, which is probably why the VT Dept of Forest & Parks has jurisdiction.

 

[David Metsky]

As I said - not that it changes anything, but I think the illegal trail was cut on state land, which is probably why the VT Dept of Forest & Parks has jurisdiction.

The cut is on Big Jay, which is connected to Jay via the ridgetop.

The land in question was purchased by the Green Mountain Club to preserve the area from development. It was then donated to the state to be added to the Jay State Forest in 1993, but the GMC retained a conservation easement, and they are in charge of controlling access, any improvements, or following up on incursions.

In this case, the trail was extremely poorly laid out, dropping straight down a section without any erosion controls through sensitive ecological terrain. The area may very well avalanche this winter since it the aspect and angle are not particularly safe. As terrain like this becomes rarer, it becomes more valuable in its untouched state. While there is traffic over there every winter, there really hasn't been any major cutting until now.