Vermont Life article - Has secret trail cutting gone too far?

[Peakbagr]

Article in Winter 2009-2010.

The article titled 'A Thousand Cuts' asks whether the growth in backcountry skiing and unauthorized marking and trail cutting has created a moral dilemma.
Questions posed are the impacts on the forest and what the trail cutting does to further opening the woods and canopy and its impact on everything.
This issue doesn't just apply to bandit trails cut for skiing.
A thought provoking and well written article.

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

Available online: A Thousand Cuts.

 

[Peakbagr]

Thanks, didn't have a chance to look for a link.

 

[Puma concolor]

Well, to be blunt, there is a big difference between illegal and "morally unethical." Are these activities illegal? Well, absolutely and I'm sure the practicioners will continue to be prosecuted when caught as we are talking about private land or national forest. Immoral ... tough for anyone who uses ski and hiking trails to make that call. Why are trails that are cut today any more unethical than trails that were cut 80 years ago? Short answer ... they're not.

 

[Jason Berard]

A very well written article.
It would have been nice, since they were talking about the need for backcountry skiers to band together around a set of principles that discourage cutting, to bring up the restoration project on Big Jay, and the role that bc skiers had in that.

I'm not used to Vermont Life discussing topics that are as "controversial" as this....

 

[David Metsky]

Why are trails that are cut today any more unethical than trails that were cut 80 years ago? Short answer ... they're not.

IMO, that's not really the question. Backcountry ski pruners aren't (for the most part) cutting trails. They're cutting underbrush over wide areas, resulting in some changes in the forest canopy over time. While I love the skiing that results, I'm not thrilled with the documented impact.

There's also the issue that with established trails people aren't cutting more and more terrain each year, as is the case with glade trimming. And the people who do the trimming aren't always very good at it, as evidenced by the cut on Big Jay.

 

[Puma concolor]

IMO, that's not really the question. Backcountry ski pruners aren't (for the most part) cutting trails. They're cutting underbrush over wide areas, resulting in some changes in the forest canopy over time. While I love the skiing that results, I'm not thrilled with the documented impact.

There's also the issue that with established trails people aren't cutting more and more terrain each year, as is the case with glade trimming. And the people who do the trimming aren't always very good at it, as evidenced by the cut on Big Jay.

Fair point, but I guess I have a tough time accepting off-trail skiing attached to a resort as true backcounty skiing - I tend to associate that more with slide skiing and so forth. But anyway, I'm a resort skier and my only experience with Jay/Big Jay in Vermont was hiking these two NE100 peaks several years back. At the time, I was completely surprised to find a clearly unauthorized trail between the two peaks when I was expecting a bushwhack (not the newer one from two years ago in the linked story). I surmise the older wildcat trail was cut by "off-trail" skiers but don't know for sure. Not undergrowth that was cut ... more along the trimming of branches and cutting of small tree variety.

Doesn't really change my initial point or your response ... just highlights that trail cutting has been going on at Jay and Big Jay for quite some time.

 

[TEO]

But anyway, I'm a resort skier and my only experience with Jay/Big Jay in Vermont was hiking these two NE100 peaks several years back. At the time, I was completely surprised to find a clearly unauthorized trail between the two peaks when I was expecting a bushwhack (not the newer one from two years ago in the linked story). I surmise the older wildcat trail was cut by "off-trail" skiers but don't know for sure. Not undergrowth that was cut ... more along the trimming of branches and cutting of small tree variety.

The illegal trail cut from the ski area out to Big Jay was done at the direction of Bill Stenger, owner of Jay Peak Resort, so that the ski area could run guided trips on Big Jay. For violating the exact same easement as did Poulin & Ritter--the cutter's of the infamous Jailhouse Chute--Stenger agreed to write an apology to the members of the GMS (published in the Winter '99 issue of the Long Trail News) and donate $8,000 (tax-deductible), which he did, it would seem reluctantly, over four years.

Big corporation (one that has a history of egregiously breaking environmental law)=slap on the wrist.

Dumb locals=felony conviction (no longer allowed to vote, purchase a firearm, etc.).

There couldn't possibly be a double standard here, could there?

It's my belief that Jailhouse Chute would never have been cut, had Bill Stenger not had the trail cut to Big Jay, making it much, much easier to get out there, and thus increasing the skier traffic on Big Jay.

 

[TCD]

I thought the article was interesting.

Use by others affects a resource differently, depending on the activity. Think of paddling, climbing, hiking, and BC powder skiing. In paddling, as long as you don't see the other user, and they don't leave anything behind, their prior passage through the water does not affect you at all. Many prior passages would have no effect. In climbing, routes benefit from traffic, up to a point. Previous climbers help keep holds free of lichen, and break off loose holds, often keeping the route in good shape. Diminishing returns start when there are so many users that the holds get polished. In hiking, some traffic helps, because previous hikers make the treadway more visible, toss loose branches of the trail, etc.. But the point of dimishing returns is lower; too many hikers will erode the trail. BC powder skiing has the lowest threshold by far for previous use. Some purists feel a line is ruined by even one prior track; most people will regard a line as "tracked out" after only a few skiers have used it. This is why BC skiers are motivated to create "secret" lines. But the only place to create secret lines is "off resort," which usually means Government owned and protected land.

Unfortunately for Eastern skiers, if you are looking for fresh powder and open glades, you are on the wrong side of the country. It's very hard to find that here; and if enough people trry to "create" that, it will eventually draw negative attention.

TCD

 

[Mohamed Ellozy]

Backcountry ski pruners aren't (for the most part) cutting trails. They're cutting underbrush over wide areas, resulting in some changes in the forest canopy over time.

Thanks for clarifying somethingthat was not quite clear to me from the article!

 

[DrJJFate]

In hiking, some traffic helps, because previous hikers make the treadway more visible, toss loose branches of the trail, etc.. But the point of dimishing returns is lower; too many hikers will erode the trail.

I agree, but even in the wilderness there are efforts to thwart unauthorized trail use. Owl's Head Slide immediately comes to mind.

Though I'm familiar with goings on, I like the article. In my opinion, cutting, or even manicuring underbrush removes the "backcountry" moniker. Backcountry means raw, primitive. Once you begin to groom an area, in any manner, it is no longer backcountry; it is simply glades without a lift.

If you want backcountry skiing in New England buy some land, preferably on an incline, and do what you want with it.