# Environmental Damage at Cannon Mountain Ski Area



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

While this was first reported during HB2 State Senate hearings this spring, photos are now being published online of environmental damage related to the Mittersill expansion project.

Above the lift:









Lift access:









"Under pressure from state elected officials, Cannon Mountain Ski Area has begun to attempt to fix some of the issues. It remains to be seen if the damage already incurred can be corrected and at what cost to the state."


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 5, 2011)

that looks like typical erosion that happens when a construction project finishes in the winter and no one comes back to stabilize the site in the spring.  Is it damage to the site?  yes, is it unfixable environmental damage? NO.  Unless there is some sort of high quality stream at the bottom that has collected tons and tons of silt.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 5, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> that looks like typical erosion that happens when a construction project finishes in the winter and no one comes back to stabilize the site in the spring. Is it damage to the site? yes, is it unfixable environmental damage? NO. Unless there is some sort of high quality stream at the bottom that has collected tons and tons of silt.


 
+ 1.  We're not talking about the next Deepwater Horizon or anything here.  Just looks like some site erosion that will be easily fixed.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 5, 2011)

It should be repaired, I'm certainly not questioning that. And it should be repaiared immediately.  I'm suprised that the state run environmental agency didn't see this in the spring, when they would've had to have their final inspection for the permit's.  then again, that would be a state agency calling out a state agency...

Calling it "environmental damage" is probably a little bit of a stretch, IMO.


----------



## Trekchick (Jul 5, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> It should be repaired, I'm certainly not questioning that. And it should be repaiared immediately.  I'm suprised that the state run environmental agency didn't see this in the spring, when they would've had to have their final inspection for the permit's.  then again, that would be a state agency calling out a state agency...
> 
> *Calling it "environmental damage" is probably a little bit of a stretch, IMO*.


X2

Having been in the construction business for 25 years, I can say that sites often look like that before the "finished project" is complete.  
Its hard to believe that Cannon's intent was to leave it like that.

Makes me wonder if they ticked someone off, someone who has enough clout to go after them.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

Didn't a private company install the lift?  Shouldn't they be responsible for environmental repairs?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Didn't a private company install the lift? Shouldn't they be responsible for environmental repairs?


 
I bet you that the contractor is on the hook, but the permit was in the ski area's name, so the ski area probably is responsible to the state.


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

There are more pictures to be posted which, in my opinion, are worse.

The photos posted thus far, aside from the stream sedimentation upper mountain moss damage, show stuff that can probably be fixed.

I don't believe the damage is from the lift contractor.  The lift line was mostly hayed and is growing grass.  Virtually every indication is that Doppelmayr-CTEC did a good job.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 5, 2011)

so was it Cannon maintenance that was driving heavy equipment up the trail and access road as the linked site says? 

Since the areas in question are either ski slopes or access roads, erosion repair should be fairly easy to accomplish.  They need to get some temporary rye grass seeded on then ASAP to stop any additional erosion, then in the fall get some top soil moved around and seeded with a permanent seed mixture and stabilized with erosion control blanket.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jul 5, 2011)

Trekchick said:


> X2
> 
> Having been in the construction business for 25 years, I can say that sites often look like that before the "finished project" is complete.
> Its hard to believe that Cannon's intent was to leave it like that.
> ...



Probably somebody posting in this thread.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 5, 2011)

Those are pics of the widened Taft trial above the lift. Correct?  If so, that work of widening was done the year before the lift install.


----------



## millerm277 (Jul 5, 2011)

As a note to everyone, threecy/rocket21 is quoting himself, and linking to his own website. 

Not that he's necessarily always wrong/right, just this isn't some outside site with definite credibility, and he has a pretty clear bias against state operation of the mountain. (As his website shows).


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

millerm277 said:


> As a note to everyone, threecy/rocket21 is quoting himself, and linking to his own website.
> 
> Not that he's necessarily always wrong/right, just this isn't some outside site with definite credibility.



I am not the only person involved with this project.  I'm the only person posting on ski forums about it, though.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

Is that your website threecy?


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Is that your website threecy?



I'm doing the 1990s vintage HTML, yes.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

Is there a reason why this needs a separate thread from the Cannon Lease thread?


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Is there a reason why this needs a separate thread from the Cannon Lease thread?



I created a separate thread because it's not a financial-lease type thing.  Also, that thread is way too long and frankly too difficult to keep track of at this point.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 5, 2011)

Threecy, while I have not always agreed with your view points, I have always respected and appreciated the way you present things (as far as can be done via internet posts).  However my question in regards to this is what am I exactly suppose to be appalled at when looking at these pictures?  What makes this a Cannon thing?  We had some very good snow this year, and we followed that up with some really bad rains.  I am guessing other resorts within the NE have had similar issues.  Shouldn't this type of small erosion be expected?  My other point of intrest is the fact that you clearly have it out for Cannon (in regards to leasing), so would leasing the ski area have prevented this erosion?  Shouldn't you instead be opposed to any ski facility being located at Cannon?  Finally, on my way up to Stowe/Smugglers notch this weekend we passed through several Gaps and saw tons of washouts along the sides of the road that made the pictures that you have provided (so far) look like childs play.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> I created a separate thread because it's not a financial-lease type thing.  Also, that thread is way too long and frankly too difficult to keep track of at this point.



This thread is not an attack on State run Cannon Mountain with it's link to a Pro-lease website?

really?


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> What makes this a Cannon thing?  We had some very good snow this year, and we followed that up with some really bad rains.  I am guessing other resorts within the NE have had similar issues.  Shouldn't this type of small erosion be expected?



The damage was present early this spring and has continued to increase.  I have walked access roads at Sugarbush, Waterville, etc. this spring and summer - not such issues.  One of the big problems on the Cannon access road is that machines were driven through water bar berms without repairing them.


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

More photos published, more to come.

http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/environmental.php

How do you get rid of an old lift structure?  Push it into the woods and backfill over it!


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> More photos published, more to come.
> 
> http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/environmental.php
> 
> How do you get rid of an old lift structure?  Push it into the woods and backfill over it!



Chunks of wood and metal being pushed off to the side into a hole doesn't really seem like a huge issue to me. While unsightly when there is no snow covering it, is that hazardous waste? Removing that material from the top of the mountain would have meant more trips up and down the access road leading to even more erosion, and expenses.

I love it when people come into an active worksite (or a recently completed one) and expect it to look like this 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			





. 

Granted there are definitely some erosion concerns there and they should be fixed.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> I am not the only person involved with this project. I'm the only person posting on ski forums about it, though.


 
What "project?"  



threecy said:


> The damage was present early this spring and has continued to increase. I have walked access roads at Sugarbush, Waterville, etc. this spring and summer - not such issues. One of the big problems on the Cannon access road is that machines were driven through water bar berms without repairing them.


 
And imagine the damage had they not used a helicopter to install the lift towers, but instead used ground equipment!  :lol:


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> More photos published, more to come.
> 
> http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/environmental.php
> 
> How do you get rid of an old lift structure? Push it into the woods and backfill over it!


 
FWIW I have seen many areas including Sugarbush, Burke, Killington, etc. that do the same thing on private and public land.  I'm still not convinced that this is anything to be really concerned about.  Now if there was a drum of toxic waste leaking out then yes, I would be concerned, but this looks like nit-picking to me.


----------



## Trekchick (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> More photos published, more to come.
> 
> http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/environmental.php
> 
> How do you get rid of an old lift structure?  Push it into the woods and backfill over it!





from_the_NEK said:


> Chunks of wood and metal being pushed off to the side into a hole doesn't really seem like a huge issue to me. While unsightly when there is no snow covering it, is that hazardous waste? Removing that material from the top of the mountain would have meant more trips up and down the access road leading to even more erosion, and expenses.
> 
> I love it when people come into an active worksite (or a recently completed one) and expect it to look like this
> 
> ...





thetrailboss said:


> FWIW I have seen many areas including Sugarbush, Burke, Killington, etc. that do the same thing on private and public land.  I'm still not convinced that this is anything to be really concerned about.  Now if there was a drum of toxic waste leaking out then yes, I would be concerned, but this looks like nit-picking to me.


X3
Besides, that type of "dumping" (if you want to call it that) is often used to help with erosion control.

Sorry threecy, but you've lost a lot of credibility with me.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 5, 2011)

While I am not a fan of dump and cover, it is a widely used practice.  This particular instance is an example of not finishing out the cover.  Again, wasn't the state over seeing this?  If I am the client and I give the ok to buldoze a building, I am going to expect that it is completely covered so that it doesn't look like the above picture.  Since it's an old lift shack, it's just some wood and metal, Won't even be recognizable in a year or two.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> More photos published, more to come.
> 
> http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/environmental.php
> 
> How do you get rid of an old lift structure?  Push it into the woods and backfill over it!



While the picture does look ugly, un-natural, etc, I don't see the big deal.  Afterall, isn't a ski resort itself un-natural and ugly to many?  Also they are building a CVS in the town where I live and have been hauling the wood, concrete and dirt from the previous structure to the local ski hill to back fill for a larger parking lot.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 5, 2011)

.................here we go on are way to another 75 post thread involving Cannon.  Killington is so 2007.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

:lol:


----------



## bvibert (Jul 5, 2011)

I wish threecy's new website wasn't blocked by our firewall, so I could see what all the fuss is about... :-?


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jul 5, 2011)

*Threecy's agenda has now become ridiculous*

Have you spent any time at other resorts to inspect for this kind activity?I bet you probably have not since you don't have it out for them.If you have I'm sure you have turned the other cheek and never posted it.I'll guarantee every ski area has debris from old lits and infrastructure off to the side of trails.

Didn't see you post anything negative about Sunday River when thay had that huge washout at the Barker base area a few years back.You have lost all objectivity in your one sided all out operation against Cannon.

I'm afraid what might be next is a group spawned from this hate that starts to burn lift shacks.


----------



## djspookman (Jul 5, 2011)

if you want to talk environmental damage, don't drive a car....   

Concrete and wood pushed over a bank are hardly damage.  I'm also willing to bet Cannon will shore those waterbars up soon too, That's quite a project to undertake sometimes.


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

SIKSKIER said:


> Have you spent any time at other resorts to inspect for this kind activity?I bet you probably have not since you don't have it out for them.If you have I'm sure you have turned the other cheek and never posted it.I'll guarantee every ski area has debris from old lits and infrastructure off to the side of trails.


I'll be glad to take your bet.  In the past month or so I have been on Sugarbush, Gunstock, Dartmouth, and Waterville's access roads.  Gunstock removed the Gunshy Double this spring with just about zero environmental impact.  Waterville reinforces its elevated gravel access road steeps with TRG.  Sugarbush South tends to use culverts in place of waterbars in questionable drainage areas.

Most ski areas have boneyards.  High elevation trash heaps from 2010, on the other hand, are not common, especially with taxpayer funded projects.



djspookman said:


> Concrete and wood pushed over a bank are hardly damage.


There is also metal and plastic in the trash heap.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 5, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I wish threecy's new website wasn't blocked by our firewall, so I could see what all the fuss is about... :-?


 
B you must not be cool enough to see his page!  :lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> High elevation trash heaps from 2010, on the other hand, are not common, especially with taxpayer funded projects.
> .



but this thread isn't about anti-state running of Cannon???


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> but this thread isn't about anti-state running of Cannon???



Perhaps you can provide me with a list of words that I'm not allowed to use in this thread.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 5, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW I have seen many areas including Sugarbush, Burke, Killington, etc. that do the same thing on private and public land.  I'm still not convinced that this is anything to be really concerned about.  Now if there was a drum of toxic waste leaking out then yes, I would be concerned, but this looks like nit-picking to me.



Not in recent memory at KMart.   Anything they do gets looked at through the Act 250 microscope.   They also have to pull a stormwater permit any time they put a shovel in the ground.

For example, they're demolishing the K Peak lodge this summer.   They're required to haul EVERYTHING off the mountain.   They're required to repair the water bars on weekends from the midweek truck traffic.

Here is the Act 250 info for the project:
http://www.anr.state.vt.us/site/cfm/act250/detail.cfm?ID=25881



> 3.*All*building*material*removed*from*the*existing*Killington*Base*Lodge*should*be*trucked*off*of*state*forest*land*and*properly*disposed*of*according*to*Vermont*regulations.
> *
> 4.*Killington*should*maintain*erosion*control*structures*on*the*work*roads*used*for*transportation*of*materials*(both*on*and*off*the*mountain)*at*all*times.*Water*bars*will*be*repaired,*if*damaged,*to*prevent*erosion*during*weekends*or*periods*of*prolonged*wet*weather.*



They've been replacing snowmaking pipe over the last 5 years.   All the old pipe has to get hauled off the hill.


----------



## Nick (Jul 5, 2011)

Trekchick said:


> X2
> 
> Having been in the construction business for 25 years, I can say that sites often look like that before the "finished project" is complete.
> Its hard to believe that Cannon's intent was to leave it like that.
> ...



Yeah, prior to my present job I was a construction PM and it just looks like some runoff. Completely fixable. 

Hell, my street looks like that since the road hasn't been completed yet.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 5, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> B you must not be cool enough to see his page!  :lol:



Clearly the corporation I work for agrees...


----------



## Trekchick (Jul 5, 2011)

bvibert said:


> I wish threecy's new website wasn't blocked by our firewall, so I could see what all the fuss is about... :-?


Perhaps that's the day's way of saying,......nothing to see here, move along.


----------



## djspookman (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> There is also metal and plastic in the trash heap.


ugh.  That is no good!.  I couldn't see that in the pics.


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

djspookman said:


> ugh.  That is no good!.  I couldn't see that in the pics.



You can see some of it in this photo if you look closely, but the past three times I've been up there, the lighting wasn't good enough to capture it with my camera without crawling into it (and I don't feel like getting Tetanus shot).


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> While this was first reported during HB2 State Senate hearings this spring, photos are now being published online of environmental damage related to the Mittersill expansion project.



That website is AWESOME!!  I especially like the Cannon Mountain History section.  Most histories of Cannon dwell on silly trivia like CCC workers hand cutting some of the earliest ski trails in America.  Or designers like the Duke. Or Olympic Gold Medalist Bode Miller's days on the Mountain.  But this sites only includes IMPORTANT Cannon History such as when Sunapee was privately leased.

Propaganda and credibility don't mix.


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> But this sites only includes IMPORTANT Cannon History such as when Sunapee was privately leased.



Considering that was the source of the original capital improvement bond...


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> You can see some of it in this photo if you look closely, but the past three times I've been up there, the lighting wasn't good enough to capture it with my camera without crawling into it (and I don't feel like getting Tetanus shot).



I guess normally this wouldn't bother me as stated before, but the more I think about it, I do find it odd that this was allowed within a state park of all things and done/monitored by the state.  I am surprised anybody thought this was a good idea, but I guess if it is not breaking the law people will do the most cost effective/easiest thing.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> Considering that was the source of the original capital improvement bond...



...it's important to include as part of our political propaganda project.


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 5, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> I guess normally this wouldn't bother me as stated before, but the more I think about it, I do find it odd that this was allowed within a state park of all things and done/monitored by the state.  I am surprised anybody thought this was a good idea, but I guess if it is not breaking the law people will do the most cost effective/easiest thing.



This is obvious.. The only reason people disagree is because threecy posted it and the board staff encourages trolling him.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 5, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> This is obvious.. The only reason people disagree is because threecy posted it and the board staff encourages trolling him.



He does have an axe to grind against the state for some reason.  It sounds like he feels he was wronged by the state and this is his way to get back at the state. 

I do feel that they should have not covered the debris though. It would not be good to fall on the stuff in loose snow.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 5, 2011)

Holy ax to grind. 

That page you linked to (i.e. "published") is your own creation, right threecy?

I think I am officially 100%  in favor of everything that threecy is against and against everything that threecy is for. This is just unreal. I don't even have any specific reason at this point. I was even somewhat neutral on the leasing issue before threecy solidified my view point that Cannon should not be leased. F-N-A. There is something to fear with a lease after all... and that is that folks with threecy's preferences and beliefs will be the ones writing the lease. Gah!


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 5, 2011)

FWIW, the WMNF never saw any reason to clean up Mittersill when they owned the land. Are we really complaining about this? Mittersill was in disrepair and had essentially already been "dump and filled" naturally by nature in many areas. 

GAH.

FACT: Threecy is primarily concerned about so called "environmental damage" only because he has an ax to grind and is grasping at straws for anything that could be potentially harmful to Cannon's image as a publicly run operation. His current tactic is posting pictures and screaming that the sky is falling without context. This is sensationalism. Worse, before being called out on it, he was quoting his own web site as a published source without full disclosure.

Freaking enough. I have always respected threecy in the past, tried to encourage other posters to at least consider his perspective and argue with good form rather than emotional rhetoric. I have ever reconsidered my own view points based on threecy's arguments. 

But at this point, I cannot help but feel that threecy has discredited himself and his arguments as completely and solely politically biased by an extreme agenda and without credibility. I will be taking any further evidence against Cannon with extreme grain of salt. I will have to assume that any data put forth has been manipulated to further an agenda rather than what I thought was a search for accuracy and what is right.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

It's the ax grinding that bothers me the most as well.

Designing and maintaining an anti-Cannon website, facebook page, flooding multiple public internet forums with every single negative (sometimes highly borderline) thing he can find about Cannon, all over $$$ that amounts to five one hundredths of one percent of the state budget????

That much time and devotion to not have tax payers allocate five one hundredths of one percent of the state budget for Cannon improvement projects next year.  The potential profit for the state under a lease agreement would equal one one hundredth of one percent.

one one hundredth of one percent of the state budget

this is about politics, not money


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 5, 2011)

It all goes back to Ossipee. He got burned by the state, now hes taken Cannon as his personal revenge.


----------



## Trekchick (Jul 5, 2011)

I thought there was something in the T's and C's about, Not joining the message board to promote your personal or political agenda?


----------



## threecy (Jul 5, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> It all goes back to Ossipee. He got burned by the state, now hes taken Cannon as his personal revenge.



What happened in Ossipee and how did I get "burned" by the state?  A friend of mine could perhaps claim that happened to him in the Ossipee Mountains saga a few years ago, but not me.  What's more troubling is why you seem to want to take personal revenge on me, considering I don't even know who you are or what your issue is with me.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 5, 2011)

Lets see, you published maps for unauthorized trails cut by you and cronies, then put them up on your website. The list goes on. That "friend" is you. You also linked to a propaganda website as if it was legit, but it really was just you as well. 

Thats my issue. You got burned, now want to screw over Cannon. Its the type of tactics a middle school bully takes.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> I am not the only person involved with this project.  I'm the only person posting on ski forums about it, though.



That's probably because it has nothing to do with skiing.  It's strictly a political project and post.



riverc0il said:


> FWIW, the WMNF never saw any reason to clean up Mittersill when they owned the land. Are we really complaining about this? Mittersill was in disrepair and had essentially already been "dump and filled" naturally by nature in many areas.
> 
> GAH.
> 
> ...



The nail has been officially hit on the head.  Well put Riv.  Blatant, biased propaganda destroys credibility in ways that nothing else can.


----------



## MadPadraic (Jul 5, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Freaking enough. I have always respected threecy in the past, tried to encourage other posters to at least consider his perspective and argue with good form rather than emotional rhetoric. I have ever reconsidered my own view points based on threecy's arguments.
> 
> But at this point, I cannot help but feel that threecy has discredited himself and his arguments as completely and solely politically biased by an extreme agenda and without credibility. I will be taking any further evidence against Cannon with extreme grain of salt. I will have to assume that any data put forth has been manipulated to further an agenda rather than what I thought was a search for accuracy and what is right.



Threecry, you've managed to lose one of your most level headed defenders (he's also a taxpayer btw, which seems to make him more important than residents who pay less taxes---right threecry)?

I suggest that for your next thread, you show pictures of Cannon's new bar, and tell us that Cannon is the main driving force behind taxpayer alcoholism.  You could also point out that people spending money at cannon encourages tax collection of tax payer money, and that Cannon has been seen using using water to make snow (the horrors).  Quick question, is it taxpayer water if it is already in the ground and taxpayers didn't have to buy it?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 5, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> That's probably because it has nothing to do with skiing.  It's strictly a political project and post.



It sure seems that way to me.

Let's put this whole thing further in perspective.  As I mentioned, leasing Cannon would generate revenue equaling less than .01% revenue to the State's Budget.  The State Budget for next year is 5.1B.  Threecy rolls out the 500K Sunapee revenue guarantee.   You can do the math.

Now, assuming the NH Legislature works 40 hours a week, 52 weeks a year (they don't); based upon the value to the taxpayer, they should spend no more than 12.5 MINUTES of their time discussing this issue in a given year.  Not even half a lunch break.

That's how small this issue really is.  .01% of the State Budget, 12.5 minutes a year of State Legislature's time.

This thread, the other Cannon thread, the website, the facebook page, is all one huge political stunt.  

I don't know what your motivation is threecy, but it's not what's right for the State Budget and taxpayer. It sure as hell has nothing to do with what's best for the Cannon skier. I won't go far to say that it's ax grinding over the Ossipee saga.  I don't know enough about your personal involvement in that to say that's what's got your gears turning so hard on this subject.

What I do see is an all out cyber onslaught on Cannon by you with zero regard for the feelings and opinions of those who recreate there.  

Honestly?  What gives?  You aren't fooling anyone.  Even the name of your website "Taxpayers for Cannon" is a joke. Should be "Taxpayers against Cannon" no?


----------



## Northernflight (Jul 5, 2011)

The only thing that could remotely be called environmental damage would be that scrap pile which isn't as big of a deal as its being made out to be. I still had some respect for you but after this thread I agree with what everyone else is saying. 

What are your motivations being pro-lease? Im not trying to attack you im just interested to know because it does seem like there is something more there than you thinking it would benefit the state and improve Cannon for its skiers. Is it a political philosophy? Do you have something against Cannons Management?


----------



## Glenn (Jul 6, 2011)

Looks like some errosion to me. A little topsoil, hydroseeding and you're good to go. Maybe some water bars if you want to be extra sure.


----------



## threecy (Jul 6, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Lets see, you published maps for unauthorized trails cut by you and cronies, then put them up on your website. The list goes on. That "friend" is you.



The alleged unauthorized trails were cut before I even set foot in the Ossipees.  With the exception of some individuals posting internet forums who clearly have no clue what they're talking about, I was never accused of any wrong doing in the Ossipees.

I am not the Trail Bandit.  I host his map free of charge.  With the exception of the field on the Larcom Trail, every hiking trail on that map is open to the public.  Your libel is disgusting.  I also find it quite troubling that the administration on this site allows for it to continue.


----------



## threecy (Jul 6, 2011)

Glenn said:


> Looks like some errosion to me. A little topsoil, hydroseeding and you're good to go. Maybe some water bars if you want to be extra sure.



The last batch of photos for now to be posted are online.  This is a non-access road section of the Sky Line trail.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 6, 2011)

back to the topic at hand...

The above picture is still easily repaired and should be.  State Run or not, this should be stabilized.  It would not take much effore to repair.  

Obviously this picture is older, as I am sure there is no snow on Cannon in July.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> The last batch of photos for now to be posted are online.  This is a non-access road section of the Sky Line trail.



I guess they should have used the heli to bring the trucks up and mad it a $4M double chair.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 6, 2011)

From your own site after the widening of the Taft trail in 2009.






Looks about the same to me.


----------



## OldsnowboarderME (Jul 6, 2011)

I support his "whole" agenda .. my endorsement is probably like gasoline on a fire.


----------



## threecy (Jul 6, 2011)

threecy said:


> The last batch of photos for now to be posted are online.  This is a non-access road section of the Sky Line trail.





jimmywilson69 said:


> back to the topic at hand...
> 
> The above picture is still easily repaired and should be.  State Run or not, this should be stabilized.  It would not take much effore to repair.
> 
> Obviously this picture is older, as I am sure there is no snow on Cannon in July.



The above photo is from June.  That is not snow.  That is ledge.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 6, 2011)

While it is eroded to the rock, it does appear Rock is VERY shallow.  It's still easily fixed.  

As a Civil Engineer, who is a certified proffesional in erosion and sediment control (CPESC), this is unaccetpable site "house keeping".  In PA the local conservation district or DEP would be all over the property owner if pictures like this were preseneted, State Agency or not.


----------



## Angus (Jul 6, 2011)

I can't quite figure out why all the hostility but a couple of comments...

1) IMO - consideration of leasing the ski area to a private operator is completely valid discussion

and

2) Whether a state or federal entity is managing, their charter includes stewardship of the land, these pictures do not paint a flattering picture of the the ski area/park management.

I would wonder if given the Fall schedule for construction whether time ran out for erosion control measures and debris was pushed to the side to be reclaimed this summer? I hope....


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 6, 2011)

There is a silver lining to this whole saga.  

Threecy has described many times about the police-state at Cannon against hikers.  Hoards of his friends and well respected members of the hiking community are constantly turned away.  So I'm very happy to see that he was able to take a few trips up Cannon for his photography project without feeling the boot of Cannon on his throat.


----------



## ceo (Jul 6, 2011)

And threecy has now done us the kindness of showing us exactly what happens when you start allowing hordes of hikers up there.


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 6, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> While it is eroded to the rock, it does appear Rock is VERY shallow.  It's still easily fixed.
> 
> As a Civil Engineer, who is a certified proffesional in erosion and sediment control (CPESC), this is unaccetpable site "house keeping".  In PA the local conservation district or DEP would be all over the property owner if pictures like this were preseneted, State Agency or not.



The forum disagrees, this so called 'environmental' damage is totally acceptable.  Most likely you are some kind of political hack with an axe to grind in Concord and Ossipee.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 6, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> The forum disagrees, this so called 'environmental' damage is totally acceptable.  Most likely you are some kind of political hack with an axe to grind in Concord and Ossipee.



I have no idea what "The forum" thinks, but I can say that I personally have a problem with environmental damage the way it's described.  Unfortunately, the way it's presented is so biased it lacks credibility.  I'm going to have to hear it from a credible source or see it for myself to believe that this is the whole story.

It's sad too.  I hate when agenda-driven politics usurps a valid point.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 6, 2011)

Angus said:


> I can't quite figure out why all the hostility but a couple of comments...
> 
> 1) IMO - consideration of leasing the ski area to a private operator is completely valid discussion
> 
> ...



My take-away is that a private ski operator on leased state land would have had the crap fined out of them.   I think the problem here is poor oversight and accountability.   A private operator wouldn't have risked the fines.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 7, 2011)

Geoff said:


> My take-away is that a private ski operator on leased state land would have had the crap fined out of them.   I think the problem here is poor oversight and accountability.   A private operator wouldn't have risked the fines.



Where is the precedence for the fines when it comes to ski areas?  

There are privately run active ski areas with unused rusting into the ground infrastructure.  Your Killington Devil's Fiddle lift would be an example.  Are they less guilty because the metal poles are upright attached to a foundation instead of thrown off the side of a trail like what these pictures show at Mittersill?  There are also plenty of active ski areas that have had major erosion and runoff issues due to mismanaged soil  on their land (sometimes leased lands from National Forests) that don't get fined.  Did Sunday River get fined when Barker completely washed out two years ago? 

There are NELSAP areas on privately held land such as Mount Whitter in NH and Maple Valley in Vermont where the infrastructure has been allowed to rot into the landscape.  I'm guessing the owners of the land don't manage for erosion in the slightest.

You also have State Parks on former ski areas with tons of infrastructure that is still in place rotting into the ground.  Mount Agamenticus near me in Maine comes to mind.  

I'm not saying that Cannon doesn't need to do a better job and clean up Mittersill, but to suggest that a private operator would have the crap fined out of them is wrong.  Let's be real here.  There's a lot of garbage going on at private ski areas and on public lands where NOTHING is being done about it.  Standing on top of the mountain and saying Cannon is true evil is akin to pointing the entire blame of the steroid era in baseball on Roger Clemens.  What was his nickname again and what number did he wear?

pardon, I have some ironing to do.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 7, 2011)

I hope you are better at ironing than environmental law.   Even a trivial Google search pops up a number of environmental fines for Vermont ski resorts.



> Mount Snow hit with fine for waste violations
> by Christian Avard Deerfield Valley News
> 16 months ago | 1539 views | 4  | 19  |  | MONTPELIER- Mount Snow was slapped with a stiff penalty from the state after hazardous waste violations were discovered during routine inspections.
> 
> ...



http://www.dvalnews.com/pages/full_...it+with+fine+for+waste+violations &id=6665403



> Vt. ski resort faces environmental fines
> 
> 
> Local News More>>Fatal arson case returns to court ThursdayFair Haven water, sewer taxes on the riseStorms create havoc across the regionEssex Jct church hall destroyed by fireLightning blamed for Westford fireWild weather topples trees, polesCrash closes Burlington beltlineAlleged drunk driver denies dragging police officerDrunk driving suspected in head-on crashNew details in N.H. double-murder caseStratton, Vermont - January 5, 2011
> ...



http://www.wcax.com/story/13789360/vt-ski-resort-faces-environmental-fines?redirected=true


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 7, 2011)

Not sure mismanaged hazardous waste containers and releasing raw sewage are a fair comparison to rusting lift infrastructure on the sides of a ski trail.  

I gave four examples of ski facilities that have the exact same thing going on at them that Cannon has going on.  One of them being a state park (Mount A).   You can't hold Cannon to the fire unless you hold all who are guilty of the same thing to the fire.

Maybe I'll go take pictures of all the garbage at the Big A, produce a website and start an internet campaign going after Augusta and how they are mismanaging the conservation lands and park.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 7, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> The forum disagrees, this so called 'environmental' damage is totally acceptable.  Most likely you are some kind of political hack with an axe to grind in Concord and Ossipee.



Is this directed at me, because it doesn't make sense... especially since I live in PA. I could care less about other State's government.  I'm just posting about erosion issues.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 7, 2011)

jimmywilson69 said:


> Is this directed at me, because it doesn't make sense... especially since I live in PA. I could care less about other State's government. I'm just posting about erosion issues.


 
I was confused by that statement too.


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 7, 2011)

The point is nobody seems to be here arguing the point, it's about discrediting threecy and refuting everything he posts.   Nobody even responded to your post and I doubt most even read it.  Probably the only worthwhile and professional opinion in the whole thread.  

If people feel there is no problem I think they should argue you and not threecy


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 7, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> The point is nobody seems to be here arguing the point, it's about discrediting threecy and refuting everything he posts.   Nobody even responded to your post and I doubt most even read it.  Probably the only worthwhile and professional opinion in the whole thread.
> 
> If people feel there is no problem I think they should argue you and not threecy



I get it now.

regardless of who owns Cannon or any other ski area with erosion.  It's easily and relatively cost effective to fix and control erosion.


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 7, 2011)

Angus said:


> I can't quite figure out why all the hostility but a couple of comments...
> 
> 1) IMO - consideration of leasing the ski area to a private operator is completely valid discussion
> 
> ...



I agree. Both valid points and not sure what the hostility toward Threecy is all about.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 7, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> I agree. Both valid points and not sure what the hostility toward Threecy is all about.


 

Look at the website, he created.  It is total propganda for his axe grinding.  I agree with him on the cleanup.  It should be done, but his method of doing it is completely whacked.


----------



## steve22 (Jul 7, 2011)

Threecy is pointing out the blatant hypocrisy on the part of Cannon management in regards to how they protect the fragile environment on their peaks. I hiked up Kinsman Ridge Tr w/ my boys a couple of weeks ago and near the Tram house you are literally corralled either into the house or up a path to the observation tower by ropes and signs. I think it's necessary for all the traffic that piles off of the Tram all summer but across the saddle there's a far different story to tell as his photos reveal.

I don't that there'as any argument at all regarding the discarded lift shack. My 11 year old Boy Scout can tell you all about Leave No Trace, Pack it out, etc. Just because we've all seen stuff in the woods from the 60's, 70's etc at other ski areas doesn't make the situation at Mittersill OK.

Disregard the thread if it's all a waste of your time or if you don't like the poster.


----------



## Riverskier (Jul 7, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Look at the website, he created.  It is total propganda for his axe grinding.  I agree with him on the cleanup.  It should be done, but his method of doing it is completely whacked.



I don't know Threecy so I have no idea whether he has an axe to grind with anyone. However, I did look at his website. He clearly doesn't like Cannon being managed by the state of NH for financial reasons, environmental reasons, access issues, and perhaps for other reasons as well. I am not saying that he is right, or that there is necessarily is a right or wrong in every respect, and I am certainly not saying anyone on here should agree with him, but his arguments are certainly valid. I still don't understand the hostility.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 7, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> I don't know Threecy so I have no idea whether he has an axe to grind with anyone. However, I did look at his website. He clearly doesn't like Cannon being managed by the state of NH for financial reasons, environmental reasons, access issues, and perhaps for other reasons as well. I am not saying that he is right, or that there is necessarily is a right or wrong in every respect, and I am certainly not saying anyone on here should agree with him, but his arguments are certainly valid. I still don't understand the hostility.



Many on this forum have a deeply personal issue with the poster. It is amazing that it has gone on this far with the personal attacks levied directly at him. 

Be very careful of not supporting the group think attack mentality.


----------



## ctenidae (Jul 7, 2011)

I thought we liked Cannon because of it's low-budget state-runnedness. I'm fairly certain a for-profit company with a lease would run it very differently from a break-even-if-you-can state agency. And in that difference I think teh state would be losing something.

Should they clean up any environmental impacts? Sure- no matter how minor, they should be held to at least the same standard as the private sector, and should work to provide a better example. 

Should they have clean financials? Sure, at least as clean as any other government agency. Not really looking to them to set an example of proper accountancy, though.

Not sure what other problems exist or are percieved. Do they really prevent people from hiking in the state park? Or are they trying to keep people out of an active construction site?  

/disclaimer: I haven't read any of the other threads about Cannon, and don't know threecy from an environmentally ravaged dump and cover hole in the gorund.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2011)

threecy said:


> The last batch of photos for now to be posted are online.  This is a non-access road section of the Sky Line trail.


If you have ever skied the Skyline trail... you would know that this is just about par for the course. There is a VEEEEERY thin layer of soil of total rock and in many places there is not soil at all. Skyline really sucks when the snow is thin. Driving a truck up might not have helped but the trail was already just wrong any ways. 

Non-access road? How else to you get to the top of the ski area in a vehicle? Certainly not liftline and Barron's is steeper. Skyline is the best route.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 7, 2011)

Just for the record, I think Cannon should go back and clean up this stuff.

BUT... the presentation being made here is without context. I am not saying "who cares" but rather that I don't trust threecy as a source and I think his posting without context is for the point of an agenda making a few easily cleaned up minor issues seem like the end of the world.

Personally, I would much rather talk about getting Kinsman Glade and the Kinsman hiking trail cleaned up. That drainage is an absolute mess and much more of a concern than the above pictures at Mittersill.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 7, 2011)

Riverskier said:


> I agree. Both valid points and not sure what the hostility toward Threecy is all about.


 
Try having a discussion with him about points that you disagree with him on and you will see why folks don't like his style.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 8, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Many on this forum have a deeply personal issue with the poster.
> 
> .



False.  I have no issues with threecy the person.  I've never met him.  



riverc0il said:


> BUT... the presentation being made here is without context. I am not saying "who cares" but rather that I don't trust threecy as a source and I think his posting without context is for the point of an agenda making a few easily cleaned up minor issues seem like the end of the world.



this is what it's about.

Environmentally:

The erosion pictures threecy has pointed out wouldn't get a glance from the head of the EPA.  That's not to say they shouldn't be corrected, but it's emptying your bacon grease down the drain type stuff.  

Monetarily: 

Leasing Cannon represents one 100th of 1 percent of the revenue for the State Budget. 500K. It's not even a crumb on the plate.  

So here we are discussing 500K and you know what's going on at the same time?  NH is debating lowering the cigarette tax by 10 cents resulting in an annual loss of 7M dollars in revenue.  So, it would take 14 YEARS leasing Cannon to equal one year of cigarette tax reduction.   Think about that.  That's just cigarette tax.  What about all of the other taxes and expenses that are a major problem for the state's budget?   

leasing off and potentially destroying one of the people of New Hampshire's great public assets for the benefit of 500K per year.  About 38 cents a resident.  

The Ax is grinding, the sparks are in the air and I'm going to say something when I see those sparks......because they smell like a rotten political agenda with zero concern for what's right for the state's resources both land an financial.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Monetarily:
> 
> Leasing Cannon represents one 100th of 1 percent of the revenue for the State Budget. 500K. It's not even a crumb on the plate.



Not accurate.

A private operator would pay workmans comp, unemployment insurance, and state income tax.    The ski area employees wouldn't get state health & retirement benefits.

More like a "morsel" than a "crumb".


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 8, 2011)

> Originally Posted by *Black Phantom*
> Many on this forum have a deeply personal issue with the poster.





deadheadskier said:


> False.  I have no issues with threecy the person.  I've never met him.



Since when are many condensed to one?


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 8, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Since when are many condensed to one?



Good question!  I guess only when the opinions of individual posters suddenly become condensed into the opinions of "the forum"



bobbutts said:


> The forum disagrees, this so called 'environmental' damage is totally acceptable.  Most likely you are some kind of political hack with an axe to grind in Concord and Ossipee.


----------



## Glenn (Jul 8, 2011)

t-minus 6 posts before someone starts talking about 1st Amendment Rights....


----------



## Geoff (Jul 8, 2011)

Glenn said:


> t-minus 6 posts before someone starts talking about 1st Amendment Rights....



What would GSS have to say about this?


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 8, 2011)

Geoff said:


> Not accurate.
> 
> A private operator would pay workmans comp, unemployment insurance, and state income tax.    The ski area employees wouldn't get state health & retirement benefits.
> 
> More like a "morsel" than a "crumb".



State income tax?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 8, 2011)

I believe Geoff is referring to Business income tax, which is 8.5% in NH.  Cannon doesn't pay that tax now, but if leased, the profits would be taxed.


----------



## jack97 (Jul 8, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> I believe Geoff is referring to Business income tax, which is 8.5% in NH.  Cannon doesn't pay that tax now, but if leased, the profits would be taxed.



Hmm, in NH can a private business offset the profits by incurring more debt or depreciation of assets... so net effect is zero state tax paid?


----------



## Geoff (Jul 9, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Hmm, in NH can a private business offset the profits by incurring more debt or depreciation of assets... so net effect is zero state tax paid?



Tough to depreciate anything when you are leasing it.

The goal of any business is to make a profit.   If you load yourself up with debt, you just become another Les Otten with the inevitible catastrophe.


----------



## jack97 (Jul 9, 2011)

Geoff said:


> Tough to depreciate anything when you are leasing it.
> 
> The goal of any business is to make a profit.   If you load yourself up with debt, you just become another Les Otten with the inevitible catastrophe.



Last four companies I was employed, we leased the pc, intranet and any type of support equipment. Another place they lease the motor vehicles. 

Yes, the goal is make a profit but some of the laws are such that tax payment can be significantly reduced. Case in point, during the last NFL lockout, owners were saying their franchise were break even, the players union force them to open the books, then they realized how much money (or profits) the owners and their family were pocketing from their job titles.... the books did show minimum profits because the payroll  was so high. Any business that is privately held will do the same to some extent, alter the payroll to minimize the tax payments.


----------



## catskills (Jul 10, 2011)

OMG -  this is not a major cluster ___k .  Everyone calm down.  I don't know of any ski area that is dumb enough to just leave a trail like that. 

I have spent a few summers building many ski trails.  Hey stuff happens.   This is not a major problem.  

In August during the dry season. We would get a new ski trail in perfect condition finding as much top soil as possible and burying rock and stumps. We would put two tractor trailer loads of hay on the entire trail.  A few days later a T-Storm would drop 4 inches of rain in 24 hours and we would have to do it all over again.  It happens.  Steep trails are not easy to grade.  They can require a 25 ton dozer with a winch pulling a smaller dozer up the trail.  

On the environment plus side ski trails are extremely good for wild life.  Birds and mammals enjoy the large food selection that grows on the edge of ski trails.  The edge of ski trails have a food source that is much more abundant than woods with a high tree canopy.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 10, 2011)

catskills said:


> OMG -  this is not a major cluster ___k .  Everyone calm down.  I don't know of any ski area that is dumb enough to just leave a trail like that.
> 
> I have spent a few summers building many ski trails.  Hey stuff happens.   This is not a major problem.
> 
> ...



Who would have thought that wildlife enjoyed eating rotting building materials?


----------



## jack97 (Jul 10, 2011)

catskills said:


> OMG -  this is not a major cluster ___k .  Everyone calm down.  I don't know of any ski area that is dumb enough to just leave a trail like that.
> 
> I have spent a few summers building many ski trails.  Hey stuff happens.   This is not a major problem.
> 
> In August during the dry season. We would get a new ski trail in perfect condition finding as much top soil as possible and burying rock and stumps. We would put two tractor trailer loads of hay on the entire trail.  A few days later a T-Storm would drop 4 inches of rain in 24 hours and we would have to do it all over again.  It happens.  Steep trails are not easy to grade.  They can require a 25 ton dozer with a winch pulling a smaller dozer up the trail.



Yep..... that's why some have grown hostile to the op and these threads explode in this manner. Although he has some good points it gets drowned out by topics like this where it gets blown out of proportion. He making a mountain out of a molehill..... i don't think there's a pun in this.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 10, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Yep..... that's why some have grown *hostile* to the op and these threads explode in this manner. Although he has some good points



Stop the Brutal Trashing of the White Mountain National Forest.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 10, 2011)

jack97 said:


> Last four companies I was employed, we leased the pc, intranet and any type of support equipment. Another place they lease the motor vehicles.
> 
> Yes, the goal is make a profit but some of the laws are such that tax payment can be significantly reduced. Case in point, during the last NFL lockout, owners were saying their franchise were break even, the players union force them to open the books, then they realized how much money (or profits) the owners and their family were pocketing from their job titles.... the books did show minimum profits because the payroll  was so high. Any business that is privately held will do the same to some extent, alter the payroll to minimize the tax payments.



You're trying to compare a multi-billion dollar enterprise like NFL football to a relatively small business like operating a New England ski area?    The big guys like Killington, Okemo, and Sunday River are only $40 to $50 million dollar businesses.   I'll bet Cannon doesn't do $20 million.   The accounting is pretty straightforward. If you are leasing the place, you can depreciate the capital equipment you actually own like grooming equipment.   There aren't a heck of a lot of places to hide income from Uncle Sam.   If you show a profit, you'll be paying your New Hampshire state income tax.   

That said, New Hampshire has a great business tax climate.   It ranks #7 in the country.   Everybody else in the Northeast is in the bottom 20.   A New Hampshire ski area isn't paying that much in income tax, workmans comp, and unemployment insurance compared to other places.   Still, that's money the state would be receiving that it doesn't get now when Canon is state-run and probably doesn't break even if you look at the true costs.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 10, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Stop the Brutal Trashing of the White Mountain National Forest.


 
Technically, Cannon and Mittersill now are in the FNSP under NH control, not the WMNF.  The state completed a landswap with WMNF to get the Mittersill parcel.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 10, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Technically, Cannon and Mittersill now are in the FNSP under NH control, not the WMNF.  The state completed a landswap with WMNF to get the Mittersill parcel.



and....when Mittersill wasn't controlled by Cannon / FNSP and under WMNF jurisdiction, lift towers, shacks, etc, were allowed to just sit there and rot.   I'm guessing the WMNF folks did very little to mitigate erosion as well......


----------



## threecy (Jul 11, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> and....when Mittersill wasn't controlled by Cannon / FNSP and under WMNF jurisdiction, lift towers, shacks, etc, were allowed to just sit there and rot.   I'm guessing the WMNF folks did very little to mitigate erosion as well......



What erosion?  Those trails were carefully built and maintained to old fashioned ski area standards.  The fragile moss carpet that covered a significant portion of the ripped up trails is ideal for natural skiing with minimal snowpack.  It'll be a long time before (if) that ever comes back in those places.

The WMNF boundary is very close to the Sky Line erosion.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> What erosion? Those trails were carefully built and maintained to old fashioned ski area standards. The fragile moss carpet that covered a significant portion of the ripped up trails is ideal for natural skiing with minimal snowpack. It'll be a long time before (if) that ever comes back in those places.
> 
> The WMNF boundary is very close to the Sky Line erosion.


 
Weren't you the one who was up in arms because they used a chopper for the lift install and not surface roads?  That would have caused much more damage.


----------



## threecy (Jul 11, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Weren't you the one who was up in arms because they used a chopper for the lift install and not surface roads?  That would have caused much more damage.



I didn't know you had lift installation experience.

The parts of the Mittersill project that were properly rehabbed had minimal erosion and were growing grass, only a few months out.

The Spillway replacement at Sugarloaf, which is in a more difficult setting (further north, sustained steeps, higher elevation), is still being considered via crane rather than helicopter.  The prep and concrete work as been done via the ground so far.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> I didn't know you had lift installation experience.
> 
> The parts of the Mittersill project that were properly rehabbed had minimal erosion and were growing grass, only a few months out.
> 
> The Spillway replacement at Sugarloaf, which is in a more difficult setting (further north, sustained steeps, higher elevation), is still being considered via crane rather than helicopter. The prep and concrete work as been done via the ground so far.


 
My point is that you were upset last year that they did not build roads for crane because of cost. Now you are pointing out places where the install crew caused erosion from using the trails.   Building roads would have caused much more drastic damage than what you have shown here.  Seems like the argument goes both ways.


----------



## threecy (Jul 11, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> Now you are pointing out places where the install crew caused erosion from using the trails.



I absolutely am not.  By every indication I've seen, Doppelmayr CTEC did good work.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> I absolutely am not. By every indication I've seen, Doppelmayr CTEC did good work.


 
So who did it, they did not.  They were the only ones installing the lift.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> So who did it, they did not.  They were the only ones installing the lift.



You are not a very good detective. :razz:


----------



## Puck it (Jul 11, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> You are not a very good detective. :razz:


 
Not very good at 
	

	
	
		
		

		
			






Who did it then if not CTEC?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jul 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Who did it then if not CTEC?



Cannon Mtn when they disassmbled the old lift and from the equipment used to widen the ski trails back to their "original footprint"?


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Not very good at



You need to at least get the right car to get good at this stuff.:wink:


----------



## Puck it (Jul 11, 2011)

from_the_NEK said:


> Cannon Mtn when they disassmbled the old lift and from the equipment used to widen the ski trails back to their "original footprint"?


 
I think CTEC was responsible for the lift removal too.  Threecy will probably chime in on that.


----------



## threecy (Jul 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> I think CTEC was responsible for the lift removal too.  Threecy will probably chime in on that.



I don't believe Cannon has blamed Doppelmayr CTEC for any of the damage.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> I don't believe Cannon has blamed Doppelmayr CTEC for any of the damage.



Was Ctec responsible for the removal?


----------



## Johnskiismore (Jul 11, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Personally, I would much rather talk about getting Kinsman Glade and the Kinsman hiking trail cleaned up. That drainage is an absolute mess and much more of a concern than the above pictures at Mittersill.



Agree, the Kinsman Trail needs some immediate erosion control!  Couldn't believe how much worse parts were from last summer


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 11, 2011)

threecy said:


> What erosion?  Those trails were carefully built and maintained to old fashioned ski area standards.  The fragile moss carpet that covered a significant portion of the ripped up trails is ideal for natural skiing with minimal snowpack.  It'll be a long time before (if) that ever comes back in those places.


Have you ever actually skied the Skyline trail? "Ideal"??? Skyline trail is one of the worst trails at Mittersill when coverage is thin. Second only perhaps to the steep section of the Liftline trail (the old cut, the new cut is even worse). As I noted above, your picture shows some damage but largely it shows how wrong Skyline already was in its natural state. It was a sheet of bedrock even before it was used as an access road. They had to use it for an access road trail, what other option did they have? The previous comment about the hypocrisy of being anti air lift and now complaining about environmental damage on a trail used for access is telling. What ever Cannon does, it is wrong in your opinion, no mater what, you'll find a fault.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 11, 2011)

I'm trying to keep an open, objective mind about this issue. I definitely have a problem with mismanaged land-use and environmental damage.  But based on Threecy's track record I question his agenda and the "whole truth" aspect of this.  So in all fairness I have been trying to find some other reports on this issue.  Maybe something from an objective news source.  Threecy started reporting it here on July 5th, says the impacts dated back to last year (at least), and says the issue was raised in the senate hearings this spring.  I have to assume he's spreading the word to the media and not just to ski forums.  Where are the news stories?  This is not a sarcastic comment but a real question.  I just want to read up on the issue but I can't find anything about it.  Does anyone have some real, objective info on this?


----------



## Puck it (Jul 11, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> I'm trying to keep an open, objective mind about this issue. I definitely have a problem with mismanaged land-use and environmental damage.  But based on Threecy's track record I question his agenda and the "whole truth" aspect of this.  So in all fairness I have been trying to find some other reports on this issue.  Maybe something from an objective news source.  Threecy started reporting it here on July 5th, says the impacts dated back to last year (at least), and says the issue was raised in the senate hearings this spring.  I have to assume he's spreading the word to the media and not just to ski forums.  Where are the news stories?  This is not a sarcastic comment but a real question.  I just want to read up on the issue but I can't find anything about it.  Does anyone have some real, objective info on this?



Check the pics that I posted above.  The Taft trail looked the same when they widened it and in the new pic.


----------



## threecy (Jul 11, 2011)

Puck it said:


> From your own site after the widening of the Taft trail in 2009.
> 
> 
> 
> ...





Puck it said:


> Check the pics that I posted above.  The Taft trail looked the same when they widened it and in the new pic.



Your date is incorrect - in fact, it doesn't even match the filename that you hot linked.  Photo 1, which you incorrectly referred to as "2009" is named "richardtafttrail-2010-0912b.jpg."  That trail did not look like that in fall 2009.

Rather, you are comparing a September 2010 photo with a May 2011 photo.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> Your date is incorrect - in fact, it doesn't even match the filename that you hot linked.  Photo 1, which you incorrectly referred to as "2009" is named "richardtafttrail-2010-0912b.jpg."  That trail did not look like that in fall 2009.
> 
> Rather, you are comparing a September 2010 photo with a May 2011 photo.



That pic is from your own website and it was just after the trail was widened as per the date you had listed it as 2009.


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2011)

Puck it said:


> That pic is from your own website and it was just after the trail was widened as per the date you had listed it as 2009.



No, it is not listed as 2009. If you looked at where you took the photo link, it's under "*2010*" and the file name is "*richardtafttrail-2010-0912b.jpg*" and the web site says "Some trail widening took place in 2009 *and some blasting and regrading in 2010*."


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 12, 2011)

Threecy, can you direct me to some info on this issue that isn't generated by you.  Thanks, just want to learn more about it and how it's being handled.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> No, it is not listed as 2009. If you looked at where you took the photo link, it's under "*2010*" and the file name is "*richardtafttrail-2010-0912b.jpg*" and the web site says "Some trail widening took place in 2009 *and some blasting and regrading in 2010*."


Lftgly already debunked the blasting issue.


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Lftgly already debunked the blasting issue.



Debunked?  There were people who claimed reports of the saddle work (as well as future grooming across it) to be a lie, however reality was that the saddle was worked on (large pieces of rock were broken apart and moved) and was groomed, starting on February 11, 2011.






I suspect the rock work in the saddle was done with the same equipment they used to blast apart the old chairlift footings:


----------



## threecy (Jul 12, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Threecy, can you direct me to some info on this issue that isn't generated by you.  Thanks, just want to learn more about it and how it's being handled.



I'm not sure if/where the replay can be downloaded at this point (it had been streaming online), but there were a few State Senators who discussed their findings during HB2 hearings this spring.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> No, it is not listed as 2009. If you looked at where you took the photo link, it's under "*2010*" and the file name is "*richardtafttrail-2010-0912b.jpg*" and the web site says "Some trail widening took place in 2009 *and some blasting and regrading in 2010*."


 

You are right the 2009 pics were snowy.  I grabbed the 2010 pic.  My bad.  The Cannon website had some pics from the widening I will see if I can find them.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 12, 2011)

threecy said:


> I'm not sure if/where the replay can be downloaded at this point (it had been streaming online), but there were a few State Senators who discussed their findings during HB2 hearings this spring.



OK.  I look for that too.  I was actually interested in objective news reporting not politicians yammering.  But I'll take whatever there is.

Edit:  Also, what was NH DEP's response to your complaint?


----------



## Puck it (Jul 12, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> OK. I look for that too. I was actually interested in objective news reporting not politicians yammering. But I'll take whatever there is.
> 
> Edit: Also, what was NH DEP's response to your complaint?


 
What about the trail widening?  Why wasn't there a complainnt then?


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 13, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> I'm trying to keep an open, objective mind about this issue. I definitely have a problem with mismanaged land-use and environmental damage.  But based on Threecy's track record I question his agenda and the "whole truth" aspect of this.  So in all fairness I have been trying to find some other reports on this issue.  Maybe something from an objective news source.  Threecy started reporting it here on July 5th, says the impacts dated back to last year (at least), and says the issue was raised in the senate hearings this spring.  I have to assume he's spreading the word to the media and not just to ski forums.  Where are the news stories?  This is not a sarcastic comment but a real question.  I just want to read up on the issue but I can't find anything about it.  Does anyone have some real, objective info on this?



OK I've asked about this a few times.  And nobody (including Threecy) knows of any objective reporting of this issue, or any media coverage of the issue at all.   The only place this has been reported is Threecy's website and apparently it was brought up in senate budget discussions. 

Since I'm sure Threecy is doing everything possible to alert as many people as possible about the issue, I assume the media and NH DEP are at least aware of the claims.  Since there has been no coverage and no enforcement, I assume there is more (or actually less) to the story than Threecy is reporting and it is, in fact, a non-issue.


----------



## bobbutts (Jul 13, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> OK I've asked about this a few times.  And nobody (including Threecy) knows of any objective reporting of this issue, or any media coverage of the issue at all.   The only place this has been reported is Threecy's website and apparently it was brought up in senate budget discussions.
> 
> Since I'm sure Threecy is doing everything possible to alert as many people as possible about the issue, I assume the media and NH DEP are at least aware of the claims.  Since there has been no coverage and no enforcement, I assume there is more (or actually less) to the story than Threecy is reporting and it is, in fact, a non-issue.


You have way too much faith in the media and govt agencies.  They ignore important issues constantly and waste thousands of hours on coverage on nothing.  Absurd argument.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 13, 2011)

Puck it said:


> What about the trail widening? Why wasn't there a complainnt then?


 

Asking this again?  Whay weren't you consider when they were widening the trail in 2009?  There was a lot damage done then.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Asking this again?  Whay weren't you consider when they were widening the trail in 2009?  There was a lot damage done then.



I didn't observe significant erosion, brook sedimentation, or recent manmade material disposal at that time.

Noted, though, that you believe there was a lot of damage done during the trail widening.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 13, 2011)

bobbutts said:


> You have way too much faith in the media and govt agencies.  They ignore important issues constantly and waste thousands of hours on coverage on nothing.  Absurd argument.



NH DEP ignores complaints about environmental violations.  NH finance department covers up accounting practices for state facilities.  NH state employees block access to public lands.  Sounds like you've got yourself a nice conspiracy theory going there.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> NH DEP ignores complaints about environmental violations.  NH finance department covers up accounting practices for state facilities.  NH state employees block access to public lands.  Sounds like you've got yourself a nice conspiracy theory going there.



Photos have been posted of the environmental damage.

DRED financial documents have been posted showing accounting practices in that division.

Photos of signs have been posted showing prohibition of access to the ski trails.

Facts, not conspiracy theories.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> Photos have been posted of the environmental damage.
> 
> DRED financial documents have been posted showing accounting practices in that division.
> 
> Photos of signs have been posted showing prohibition of access to the ski trails.



all by you threecy and by no one else.

Cannonball said, "So in all fairness I have been trying to find some other reports on this issue. Maybe something from an objective news source"   

There is nothing else out there.  All there is is a one man editorial style internet smear campaign being brought forth by you.  That gives you ZERO credibility.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> Photos have been posted of the environmental damage.
> 
> DRED financial documents have been posted showing accounting practices in that division.
> 
> ...



Thanks Threecy.  I've seen all of that on your site.  I'm not questioning the things you have posted.  I'm interested in the whole story.  I'm not positive if I'm getting it from your site or not so I'm just asking for some other sources.  I'm looking for them myself but if you (or anyone) happens to have them I'd be interested in seeing it.  That's all. 

For example:  You are obviously very concerned about the environmental condition there.  You've gone through the trouble to hike up there (despite the signage) and take pictures to document t.  Given your obvious concern, have you filed a complaint with NH DEP?  If so, what was their response?  If not, why? This isn't some kind of trap or argument.  I'm just curious and it seems relevant.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 13, 2011)

why not contact the media about said issues?  Or least NHDEP, first.

As stated before, there is erosion and it is probably fairly easy and cost effective to fix.  

If there is sedimentation in a stream, I would imagine that would grab someone at DEP's attention.


----------



## skiberg (Jul 13, 2011)

Thank god the owners of Cannon had enough foresight to spend the extra money and use helicopters to install the new lift at Mittersill. I can only imagine what would have happened if they used ground machinery. Thanks for pointing this damage out. I can only hope that in the future we use the same strict environmenal regulations when clearing areas on Mittersill as the CCC did in the 30's when they cleared the Taft trail with dynamite.


----------



## threecy (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> all by you threecy and by no one else.
> 
> Cannonball said, "So in all fairness I have been trying to find some other reports on this issue. Maybe something from an objective news source"
> 
> There is nothing else out there.  All there is is a one man editorial style internet smear campaign being brought forth by you.  That gives you ZERO credibility.



I did not create the DRED source documents.  I posted the documents supplied by DRED.  If you don't agree with the charts created, you can go to the source information that has been provided to everyone free of charge.  Or, you can spend a month navigating bureaucracy and pay the per page fee to see the same documents.

It really pains me to have "deadheadskier" accuse me of having "ZERO credibility."


----------



## Puck it (Jul 13, 2011)

Would have CTEC used the road up Skyline to get it's crew and supplies up there?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> I did not create the DRED source documents.  I posted the documents supplied by DRED.  If you don't agree with the charts created, you can go to the source information that has been provided to everyone free of charge.  Or, you can spend a month navigating bureaucracy and pay the per page fee to see the same documents.
> 
> It really pains me to have "deadheadskier" accuse me of having "ZERO credibility."



you must have been really good at dodge ball in grade school

Again, Cannonball was asking for a source, other than the ones you've pointed out.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> you must have been really good at dodge ball in grade school
> 
> Again, Cannonball was asking for a source, other than the ones you've pointed out.



Why is it not possible to do your own homework? Maybe it's time to "eat your peas"


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Why is it not possible to do your own homework? Maybe it's time to "eat your peas"



why is not possible for threecy to state, sorry Cannonball, I'm not aware of information from other objective news sources out there on the environmental damage.  The only thing I am aware of is the pictures I have taken?

instead he just goes in circles and points back to his pictures and his website

I think you could enjoy some peas as well little man, perhaps some carrots to.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 13, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> why is not possible for threecy to state, sorry Cannonball, I'm not aware of information from other objective news sources out there on the environmental damage.  The only thing I am aware of is the pictures I have taken?
> 
> instead he just goes in circles and points back to his pictures and his website
> 
> I think you could enjoy some peas as well little man, perhaps some carrots to.



Are you that simple little fella?:smile:  Does every "story" start have to be on WMUR? Or is TMZ more your speed? Not familiar with an environmental edition as of yet. Maybe one is in the works???

He has not gone "in circles". What you call circles, I would call keeping on track. 
Do you actually read your replies? I think you need and editor.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 13, 2011)

over the edge more like it :lol:


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 13, 2011)

is this argument going on in 2 threads now?


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 13, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Why is it not possible to do your own homework?



I know this wasn't directed at me.  But I am doing my own homework.  I have been using search terms in Google, news outlets, etc.  I'm searching things like "Cannon" + "environment" "damage" "enforcement" "erosion" "debris" "sedimentation" "fines" etc.  In doing these searches I find zero relevant news stories.  I find two websites; 1) Threecy's site, and 2) this thread on AlpineZone.

I'll keep looking.  In the meantime I offered Threecy the opportunity to provide some himself since he's obviously pretty deep into this.  Thought he might have something worth sharing.  So far the only thing he mentioned was some video from the senate budget hearings.  He wasn't sure if the link still existed and I haven't been able to find it.

If is real environmental damage as described by Threecy we should all be unhappy about it.  So I'm interested in confirming if it is or it isn't.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 13, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> Are you that simple little fella?:smile:  Does every "story" start have to be on WMUR? Or is TMZ more your speed? Not familiar with an environmental edition as of yet. Maybe one is in the works???
> 
> He has not gone "in circles". What you call circles, I would call keeping on track.
> Do you actually read your replies? I think you need and editor.



So some guy with a political agenda put it on his own agenda based webpage, that absolutely means its true! Jesus, your like the retarded antithesis of myself. Ill give you some credit, Threecy is definitely keeping his personal agenda on track, its just everyone else knows its complete horseshit. 

Im pretty sure I could go for a walk in Grand Teton national park and within 5 minutes be able to find a close up photo of something in the environment being damaged, and trust me, the green initiative is much stronger here than anything happening in NH. Point is, taking an extreme closeup shot of a rut in the dirt from a truck, does not mean the world is coming to an end. If that was left alone for a year or two you would never even know it happened. Relax. 

The photos Ive seen are not that dramatic and do little to actually "harm" the environment. Concrete in a pile, while not the prettiest thing to look at, is not going to lead to every stream on the mountain being ruined. Should it be there, maybe not, but that argument has no end until nothing is ever built again, anywhere. You taking a shit has an environmental impact in some form. Again, relax. 

In fact, just being alive Threecy is causing much more environmental damage than a pile of concrete. That camera he took the photo with? Petroleum products. Unless he walked to Cannon completely, those greenhouse gases, environmental impact. At least hes just typing and not dumping any more CO2 in the air from his big mouth. These arguments are retarded.


----------



## Black Phantom (Jul 13, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> So some guy with a political agenda put it on his own agenda based webpage, that absolutely means its true! Jesus, your like the retarded antithesis of myself. Ill give you some credit, Threecy is definitely keeping his personal agenda on track, its just everyone else knows its complete horseshit.
> 
> Im pretty sure I could go for a walk in Grand Teton national park and within 5 minutes be able to find a close up photo of something in the environment being damaged, and trust me, the green initiative is much stronger here than anything happening in NH. Point is, taking an extreme closeup shot of a rut in the dirt from a truck, does not mean the world is coming to an end. If that was left alone for a year or two you would never even know it happened. Relax.
> 
> ...



I think we can all see your true colors with this post. Classy.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 13, 2011)

threecy said:


> It really pains me to have "deadheadskier" accuse me of having "ZERO credibility."


You are citing a web site you created as a news source against which you have provided no other unbiased sources that have reviewed your information and concur there are issues. If you were just citing opinion, that is one thing. But you are putting your own web site out as a news source. That does show a lack of credibility, IMO.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 13, 2011)

Black Phantom said:


> I think we can all see your true colors with this post. Classy.



Cindy Lauper looks pretty hot in that pic. I take it as a compliment.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 13, 2011)

:-o:lol::-o:lol::-o:lol::-o:lol::-o:lol::-o:lol::-o:lol::-o:lol:


----------



## threecy (Jul 14, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Would have CTEC used the road up Skyline to get it's crew and supplies up there?



The photos of the bare ledge on Skyline were not part of the access road - somebody decided to cut off the access road and go direct to the top of the chair.  I have no reason to believe this was Doppelmayr CTEC.


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 14, 2011)

threecy said:


> The photos of the bare ledge on Skyline were not part of the access road - somebody decided to cut off the access road and go direct to the top of the chair.  I have no reason to believe this was Doppelmayr CTEC.


Just for clarification purposes.... if Skyline was not used for the access road... then what trail was?


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 14, 2011)

Threecy I was just checking out your site.  You mention that "Under pressure from state elected officials, Cannon Mountain Ski Area has begun to attempt to fix some of the issues."  Do you have any updates on how the fixes are coming?

Do you have any info on why this was handled by "state elected officials" instead of NH DES?  That wouldn't be the usual pathway for an environmental damage complaint.  

Thanks


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

riverc0il said:


> Just for clarification purposes.... if Skyline was not used for the access road... then what trail was?



A small part (below the ledge exposing erosion) was used as the access road.  It goes up Ridge Run (I believe the name was) to Skyline, then cuts back toward the lift at the next crossover, just above that hairpin turn.


----------



## jaytrem (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> The photos of the bare ledge on Skyline were not part of the access road - somebody decided to cut off the access road and go direct to the top of the chair.  I have no reason to believe this was Doppelmayr CTEC.



I wonder if the damage could have been caused by Jeep/4WD folks.  I've known some people who've poached ski areas.  Could have been CTEC, could have been mountain employees.  I guess until somebody admits it we won't really know.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2011)

jaytrem said:


> I wonder if the damage could have been caused by Jeep/4WD folks.  I've known some people who've poached ski areas.  Could have been CTEC, could have been mountain employees.  I guess until somebody admits it we won't really know.



prolly John Lynch going for a joy ride in a state owned oil leaking Skidder

prolly

:lol:


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> A small part (below the ledge exposing erosion) was used as the access road. It goes up Ridge Run (I believe the name was) to Skyline, then cuts back toward the lift at the next crossover, just above that hairpin turn.


 
Are you talking the area where the F is labelled on the map? So, what was the exact path used for the road from the base? Trace it on the map if you would please.


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Are you talking the area where the F is labelled on the map? So, what was the exact path used for the road from the base?



That map is not to scale, so it would be pretty tough to trace it out.  The access road heads up trail "F" on that map - that portion of it is in okay shape.  Below the top of the newer T-Bar, on the opposite side of the double chair lift line, was fairly eroded gravel.  Above the hairpin turn (since the area below "F" has not been actively reclaimed, but does open up once you get a little below it), the access road quickly switchbacks to the lift line, the dawdles around from there to the top terminal, with some traffic dropping back onto Skyline further up.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> That map is not to scale, so it would be pretty tough to trace it out. The access road heads up trail "F" on that map - that portion of it is in okay shape. Below the top of the newer T-Bar, on the opposite side of the double chair lift line, was fairly eroded gravel. Above the hairpin turn (since the area below "F" has not been actively reclaimed, but does open up once you get a little below it), the access road quickly switchbacks to the lift line, the dawdles around from there to the top terminal, with some traffic dropping back onto Skyline further up.


 

So draw it in on this aerial view then.


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> So draw it in on this aerial view then.



No, but thank you though...the text description should be adequate.  I'm allowed to use the "deadheadskier" precedent for providing data, especially since I have zero credibility.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> No, but thank you though...the text description should be adequate. I'm allowed to use the "deadheadskier" precedent for providing data, especially since I have zero credibility.


 
Wow. Why be an arse about it? This is what I get from your text.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> No, but thank you though...the text description should be adequate.  I'm allowed to use the "deadheadskier" precedent for providing data, especially since I have zero credibility.



and that precedent is.......

If I don't know the data, I say I don't know.  Try it some time


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Wow. Why be an arse about it?



Let's see, you've accused me of environmental crimes and have taken your odd obsession with me onto other forums online.  Why should I jump to fulfill your every demand?



deadheadskier said:


> If I don't know the data, I say I don't know.  Try it some time



Yet you still stood by your claim and attempted to quantify it with make believe data.  So again, you've stood by your unsubstantiated claim, which is not the same as saying "I don't know."


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> Let's see, you've accused me of environmental crimes and have taken your odd obsession with me onto other forums online. Why should I jump to fulfill your every demand?


 
What odd obsession is that? I happen to think you have an axe to grind with the state. I have never accused you of anything, just tried to substantiate the rumors flying around. Again you avoid the question!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> Yet you still stood by your claim and attempted to quantify it with make believe data.  So again, you've stood by your unsubstantiated claim, which is not the same as saying "I don't know."



ok buddy

I told you twice I couldn't provide you data.  It was only after being pestered by you a third time that I gave an educated guess based off the only data I had, annual skier visits.  I even said it was an approximation.


Never once did I say I claimed to know exactly how much money the State makes from tolls by Cannon skiers.  My point was valid.  The State makes money off of tolls from skiers travelling to Cannon.  It is a 100% true claim, that you can't argue against.   

So where exactly is the problem here?  That's a question for anyone, not just Threecy.


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

I gotta say I'm very disappointed with the response to a (in my view) legitimate complaint.

The first few posts focused on the photos that were posted and slowly turned into a full attack on threecy. Why? All anyone on this thread has done is complain about threecy's "ax to grind" and "political agenda". :flame:

If I had seen this kind of damage in a State Park that doesn't allow hiking in the ski trails to avoid trail damage I'd wonder if this wasn't the reason - They don't want people to see what they do. 

I don't give a rat's patootee what threecy's political agenda is. What I want to know is what does Cannon management say? Did they cause it? If so what will they do to fix it?

I'm just really tired of the sniping here. :uzi: Focus people! I'd like to know what really going on.


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Wow. Why be an arse about it?





Puck it said:


> What odd obsession is that?



I don't believe I've so much as met you in person, yet you seem content on accusing me of environmental destruction - to the point of which you start a thread bashing me another web site (of which I'm not a member).

Here's a quote from a thread you started about me elsewhere with foul language deleted, just to illustrate to others your 'odd obsession' with me.



			
				Thread titled 'Threecy on AZ' said:
			
		

> Anybody see what that [deleted] started on AZ now about Cannon? That guy is a real [deleted] bag


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

Abubob said:


> I gotta say I'm very disappointed with the response to a (in my view) legitimate complaint.
> 
> The first few posts focused on the photos that were posted and slowly turned into a full attack on threecy. Why? All anyone on this thread has done is complain about threecy's "ax to grind" and "political agenda". :flame:
> 
> ...


 

The problem is he only desseminates his propaganda without any other media or etc backing it up. And never fully divulges all of the information.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Jul 15, 2011)

Abubob said:


> I'm just really tired of the sniping here. :uzi: Focus people! I'd like to know what really going on.



yeah, take the Threecy bashing back to the original Cannon thread.  

Seriously though, has anyone contacted Cannon about this, NHDEP??? Anyone, Bueler, Threecy, ANYONE???


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> I don't believe I've so much as met you in person, yet you seem content on accusing me of environmental destruction - to the point of which you start a thread bashing me another web site (of which I'm not a member).
> 
> Here's a quote from a thread you started about me elsewhere with foul language deleted, just to illustrate to others your 'odd obsession' with me.


 
What is so odd about it calling out your bullcrap!!!!!!


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> The problem is he only desseminates his propaganda without any other media or etc backing it up. And never fully divulges all of the information.



I thought the photos were pretty compelling. Plus - he didn't grab from another source. I have no doubts that they're his own photos. What else would you want - a video of John DeVivo bulldozing rubble onto the woods?


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

Abubob said:


> I thought the photos were pretty compelling. Plus - he didn't grab from another source. I have no doubts that they're his own photos. What else would you want - a video of John DeVivo bulldozing rubble onto the woods?


 
And they are, but he calls out Cannon as the source and not the contractor of the lift.  He has stated that the contractor did things right with the lift.  However the lift contractor was responsilbe for both the install and deinstallation of the old lift(if I am not mistaken).  So why would Cannon need any heavy equipment at the top.  He never answers questions posed of him.  If does not know then say so.  This is why a few of us are irritated with his info and documentation.  It can not be backed up by any other source.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 15, 2011)

Abubob said:


> I gotta say I'm very disappointed with the response to a (in my view) legitimate complaint.
> 
> The first few posts focused on the photos that were posted and slowly turned into a full attack on threecy. Why? All anyone on this thread has done is complain about threecy's "ax to grind" and "political agenda". :flame:
> 
> ...




I'm with you.  I sure hope you get an answer to your questions.  

Here are the questions I've asked in this thread that Threecy hasn't responded to...




Cannonball said:


> Does anyone have some real, objective info on this?





Cannonball said:


> Also, what was NH DEP's response to your complaint?





Cannonball said:


> Thanks Threecy.  I've seen all of that on your site.  I'm not questioning the things you have posted.  I'm interested in the whole story.  I'm not positive if I'm getting it from your site or not so I'm just asking for some other sources.  I'm looking for them myself but if you (or anyone) happens to have them I'd be interested in seeing it.  That's all.
> 
> For example:  You are obviously very concerned about the environmental condition there.  You've gone through the trouble to hike up there (despite the signage) and take pictures to document t.  Given your obvious concern, have you filed a complaint with NH DEP?  If so, what was their response?  If not, why? This isn't some kind of trap or argument.  I'm just curious and it seems relevant.





Cannonball said:


> If is real environmental damage as described by Threecy we should all be unhappy about it.  So I'm interested in confirming if it is or it isn't.





Cannonball said:


> Threecy I was just checking out your site.  You mention that "Under pressure from state elected officials, Cannon Mountain Ski Area has begun to attempt to fix some of the issues."  Do you have any updates on how the fixes are coming?
> 
> Do you have any info on why this was handled by "state elected officials" instead of NH DES?  That wouldn't be the usual pathway for an environmental damage complaint.
> 
> Thanks


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> And they are, but he calls out Cannon as the source and not the contractor of the lift.  He has stated that the contractor did things right with the lift.  However the lift contractor was responsilbe for both the install and deinstallation of the old lift(if I am not mistaken).  So why would Cannon need any heavy equipment at the top.  He never answers questions posed of him.  If does not know then say so.  This is why a few of us are irritated with his info and documentation.  It can not be backed up by any other source.



Gee I don't know - why do they need this kind of equipment? 




Mittrsll8-19-09__033 by I am Cannon, on Flickr




Mittrsll8-19-09__041 by I am Cannon, on Flickr


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2011)

Thanks for the photo Abubob.  That at least answers the question as to what kind of equipment probably caused or at least contributed to the erosion problem.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

Abubob said:


> Gee I don't know - why do they need this kind of equipment?
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
This pic is from summer '09 when they were widening the trail.  He did not complain then, why now.  There was a lot damage up there on the Taft trial from the widening.


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Thanks for the photo Abubob. That at least answers the question as to what kind of equipment probably caused or at least contributed to the erosion problem.


 

DHS that was Summer 09.  He states the damge was done last fall.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2011)

perhaps they had the same machines up there to do more work?  That's a question.  I don't know if it's true or not.


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> I'm with you.  I sure hope you get an answer to your questions.
> 
> Here are the questions I've asked in this thread that Threecy hasn't responded to...



Could be he was too busy defending himself.

You're right, though. Those are the kind of questions that should be answered.

What about it, threecy? Can you ignore the sniping and answer Cannonball's questions?


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> This pic is from summer '09 when they were widening the trail.  He did not complain then, why now.  There was a lot damage up there on the Taft trial from the widening.



Actually that equipment is pretty benign to be sure. If you look on Cannon flickr stream that's my comment which they ignored. But I wonder what other equipment would they use without photographing it. We've seen the aftermath.


----------



## threecy (Jul 15, 2011)

Abubob said:


> You're right, though. Those are the kind of questions that should be answered.
> 
> What about it, threecy? Can you ignore the sniping and answer Cannonball's questions?



I don't have anything to post about that at this time.


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Thanks for the photo Abubob.  That at least answers the question as to what kind of equipment probably caused or at least contributed to the erosion problem.



Actually I'm not sure this equipment caused the erosion. At the time I thought it was excessive but after seeing threecy's photo it seems Cannon (or someone - ala Big Jay cut 2007) was using something a little more, shall we say, abrasive.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 15, 2011)

alright, there we go.  If you don't have the answer, just say so and folks will stop asking the questions.  We are making progress.


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> I don't have anything to post about that at this time.



Can you agree Cannonball's questions merit some answers? How can we get those answered? Can you offer some suggestions?


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> alright, there we go. If you don't have the answer, just say so and folks will stop asking the questions. We are making progress.


 

+1


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> alright, there we go.  If you don't have the answer, just say so and folks will stop asking the questions.  We are making progress.



I guess the real questions are: Who caused the damage? and What is being done about it?

I find it difficult to believe that someone from Cannon management isn't seeing this. It would be nice if there were some official response instead of all this.

Is there anyone from Cannon reading this!? Hello! Is there someone else up there we can talk to!? :dunce:


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 15, 2011)

Abubob said:


> I guess the real questions are: Who caused the damage? and What is being done about it?
> 
> I find it difficult to believe that someone from Cannon management isn't seeing this. It would be nice if there were some official response instead of all this.
> 
> Is there anyone from Cannon reading this!? Hello! Is there someone else up there we can talk to!? :dunce:



You don't have many posts, so I can't blame you, but I wouldn't hold your breath for anyone associated from Cannon to stick their two cents in either this thread or the other Cannon thread.


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> You don't have many posts, so I can't blame you, but I wouldn't hold your breath for anyone associated from Cannon to stick their two cents in either this thread or the other Cannon thread.



Believe me I don't. They're all probably under some gag order at the expense of their jobs. I think Cannon employees were banned from ever skiing Mittersill.

I just think if anyone should be taunted about this it should be someone like John DeVivo.

I also think ski area's should monitor forums like AZ and SJ. If they don't they're just hiding they're heads in the sand. Like saying "La la la - I'm not listening". It would be typical. :-?


----------



## Edd (Jul 15, 2011)

Abubob said:


> I also think ski area's should monitor forums like AZ and SJ. If they don't they're just hiding they're heads in the sand.



They do.  I don't recall off the top of my head a Cannon rep posting here but I'd be shocked if management there was unaware of this thread.


----------



## AdironRider (Jul 15, 2011)

I think mountain managers also realize that internet forums arent exactly their primary clientel. No smart manager is going to use us as a general symposium of their client base 

Were a bit more fanatical than most skiers. Our opinions tend to be extreme towards one end or the other.


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

threecy said:


> I don't have anything to post about that at this time.



Really?


----------



## Puck it (Jul 15, 2011)

Abubob said:


> Believe me I don't. They're all probably under some gag order at the expense of their jobs. I think Cannon employees were banned from ever skiing Mittersill.
> 
> I just think if anyone should be taunted about this it should be someone like John DeVivo.
> 
> I also think ski area's should monitor forums like AZ and SJ. If they don't they're just hiding they're heads in the sand. Like saying "La la la - I'm not listening". It would be typical. :-?




Not true. Cannon emplyees skied it a lot before the official transfer. They just did not wear there Cannon employee jackets.


----------



## Abubob (Jul 15, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Not true. Cannon emplyees skied it a lot before the official transfer. They just did not wear there Cannon employee jackets.



Oh, I'm not saying they didn't - just saying officially they were't "supposed" to. But then again no one was. :razz:


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 16, 2011)

Abubob said:


> Really?



This should not come as a surprise.  If you've been following the threecy M.O. on all things Cannon related, it's ready, fire, aim - facts be damned.  You want to know why there was such a reaction to pics that are seemingly of concern?

1) He used his own, agenda-driven website as the "source" for this breaking news w/o disclosing the connection - 100% shady and credibility destroying

2) Whenever he is asked a question where the answer may not conform to his agenda, he ignores it, preferring instead to focus on the disparate factoids that may conform to same.  This is just the latest example.

3) He makes completely unsubstantiated claims, such as that Cannon mgmt is solely responsible for the damage rather than the CTEC contractor, and then tries to weasel out of said claim when challenged.  "I have no reason to believe [CTEC] was responsible".

Really?  He has no reason to believe they weren't responsible either.

4) He made a huge stink (his initial foray on AZ into his anti-Cannon crusade) about the fact that Cannon installed a new double chair as the Mittersill lift.  He stated categorically that it was a waste fo money that no private operator would ever done.  Yet, when challenged with numerous examples of ski areas installing new fixed grip lifts in recent years in favor of used ones, he refuses to acknowledge the relevance of same to Cannon.

5) He made this stink w/o disclosing that he apparently has ties to a used lift broker - bit of a conflict of interest there.


This is the problem with ideologues like threecy.  They may even have a good point sometimes (such as the damage at Cannon) but it is wrapped so tightly in an agenda-driven narrative that you have to discount the source almost entirely.

Oh yeah, he doesn't know shit about the Red Sox either.


----------



## threecy (Jul 17, 2011)

Tin Woodsman said:


> 1) He used his own, agenda-driven website as the "source" for this breaking news w/o disclosing the connection - 100% shady and credibility destroying


Without disclosing the connection?  Let's see, the photos were literally linked to the site...





Tin Woodsman said:


> 3) He makes completely unsubstantiated claims, such as that Cannon mgmt is solely responsible for the damage rather than the CTEC contractor, and then tries to weasel out of said claim when challenged.  "I have no reason to believe [CTEC] was responsible".
> 
> Really?  He has no reason to believe they weren't responsible either.



Do you know anything about Doppelmayr-CTEC?  Have you ever seen them cause such damage with an install?  I believe they were responsible for stablizing the lift line - perhaps the only area over there that was generally done well (and is currently growing grass).



Tin Woodsman said:


> 5) He made this stink w/o disclosing that he apparently has ties to a used lift broker - bit of a conflict of interest there.


I have ties to a lot of people in the industry.  Perhaps I have a conflict of interest in disclosing the recurring losses at the Cannon ski school because I have ties to ski instructors and directors, past and present?


----------



## riverc0il (Jul 17, 2011)

threecy said:


> Without disclosing the connection?  Let's see, the photos were literally linked to the site...


A site that no one knew was yours until posters called you out on it. It was not public knowledge until after you used it as a source. That is not full disclosure and a credibility problem.



threecy said:


> Do you know anything about Doppelmayr-CTEC?  Have you ever seen them cause such damage with an install?


So your reasoning on this issue is that because you nor anyone on this forum has ever witness something that it never happens? By that reasoning, I have never SEEN Cannon employees cause damage during a lift installation either. Which is not to say it couldn't happen just because I have never seen it happen or it might not have happened before. But the same applies to both Cannon and Dopp/CTEC.


----------



## Cannonball (Jul 17, 2011)

Abubob said:


> Those are the kind of questions that should be answered.
> 
> What about it, threecy? Can you ignore the sniping and answer Cannonball's questions?





threecy said:


> I don't have anything to post about that at this time.



Then I don't have any reason to believe you or consider this a real problem at this time.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 18, 2011)

Tin Woodsman said:


> T
> 
> 1) He used his own, agenda-driven website as the "source" for this breaking news w/o disclosing the connection - 100% shady and credibility destroying
> 
> .



perhaps more news of this damage will show up on Franconia's 'community' webpage

http://www.gofranconia.com/


----------



## Puck it (Aug 3, 2011)

Sounds like the damage has been fixed per some info on Snowjournal.  Anyone know for sure.  It sounds like they waitied to let things dry out to not do anymore damage.  If the info is correct.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Aug 4, 2011)

That's good.  It sounds like they do know what they are doing over there...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 4, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Sounds like the damage has been fixed per some info on Snowjournal.  Anyone know for sure.  It sounds like they waitied to let things dry out to not do anymore damage.  If the info is correct.



I eagerly await updates on this portion of the story from the threecy media empire.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 4, 2011)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I eagerly await updates on this portion of the story from the threecy media empire.


 
It is good news for Cannon.  So I doubt that he will post about it.


----------



## threecy (Aug 5, 2011)

The last update I posted was from early July:  "Cannon Mountain Ski Area has begun to attempt to fix some of the issues. It remains to be seen if the damage already incurred can be corrected and at what cost to the state."

I have not been on that side of Cannon in recent weeks so I have no new photos.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (Aug 5, 2011)

I think we covered that it would be fairly inexpensive to repair the erosion that has been detailed.  

It's no like they had to move thousands of cubic yards of dirt to make it happen.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2011)

For someone so zealous about leasing Cannon to generate revenue equivalent to 1/100th of 1 percent of the state budget, I don't think threecy cares if it costs the State only a dollar.

This is about political idelogy Jimmy, not money and environmental damage as threecy is trying to convince people with his multiple websites attacking State management of New Hampshire's premier park.


----------



## threecy (Aug 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> This is about political idelogy Jimmy, not money and environmental damage as threecy is trying to convince people with his multiple websites attacking State management of New Hampshire's premier park.



Political ideology?  I don't think government should be spending millions of dollars to run a major alpine ski area in a state that already has plenty of major alpine ski areas.

Multiple web sites?

The state is the entity banning people from accessing the 264 acres of ski trails without skis due to "environmental concerns" - yet this was allowed to happen.  Certainly a lot more of an impact on the environment then people on foot.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> Political ideology? I don't think government should be spending millions of dollars to run a major alpine ski area in a state that already has plenty of major alpine ski areas.


 
But that is a perspective that is rooted in an ideological view.  



> The state is the entity banning people from accessing the 264 acres of ski trails without skis due to "environmental concerns" - yet this was allowed to happen. Certainly a lot more of an impact on the environment then people on foot.


 
Sounds like that ban worked well to keep you out a few weeks ago when you went to inspect Mittersill.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> Political ideology? I don't think government should be spending millions of dollars to run a major alpine ski area in a state that already has plenty of major alpine ski areas.
> 
> Multiple web sites?
> 
> The state is the entity banning people from accessing the 264 acres of ski trails without skis due to "environmental concerns" - yet this was allowed to happen. Certainly a lot more of an impact on the environment then people on foot.


 

Is your Mom making meatloaf, today?


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> Political ideology?  I don't think government should be spending millions of dollars to run a major alpine ski area in a state that already has plenty of major alpine ski areas.
> 
> Multiple web sites?
> .



Yes, political ideology.  You just confirmed it.

Yes multiple websites

taxpayersforcannon

gofranconia

the facebook page

never mind at least two forums that I am aware of you campaigning on


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Aug 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> Political ideology?  I don't think government should be spending millions of dollars to run a major alpine ski area in a state that already has plenty of major alpine ski areas.
> 
> Multiple web sites?
> 
> The state is the entity banning people from accessing the 264 acres of ski trails without skis due to "environmental concerns" - yet this was allowed to happen.  Certainly a lot more of an impact on the environment then people on foot.



Question, does Cannon have marked on map hiking trails?  If they do, why is it important for one to hike up the ski trails?


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Aug 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> Political ideology?  I don't think government should be spending millions of dollars to run a major alpine ski area in a state that already has plenty of major alpine ski areas.
> 
> Multiple web sites?
> 
> The state is the entity banning people from accessing the 264 acres of ski trails without skis due to "environmental concerns" - yet this was allowed to happen.  Certainly a lot more of an impact on the environment then people on foot.



Your environmental concerns are not without merit, but I think you are going a little bit over the top just to push your distaste for Cannon being state run.  The damage while not acceptable wasn't all that bad, especially considering they are fixing the problem (according to others) and I doubt they are fixing the issue due to your vigilance.  Stick to your larger point, that you don't want Cannon on the government books.  When you start attacking Cannon over other issues it seems like spilled milk.  You really lose a lot of credibility.


----------



## threecy (Aug 5, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> threecy is trying to convince people with his multiple websites attacking State management of New Hampshire's premier park.





deadheadskier said:


> Yes multiple websites
> 
> taxpayersforcannon
> 
> ...



I have no involvement with gofranconia.  The Facebook page is for TaxpayersforCannon.com.  I don't own the two ski forums I post in.




UVSHTSTRM said:


> Your environmental concerns are not without merit, but I think you are going a little bit over the top just to push your distaste for Cannon being state run.  The damage while not acceptable wasn't all that bad, especially considering they are fixing the problem (according to others) and I doubt they are fixing the issue due to your vigilance.  Stick to your larger point, that you don't want Cannon on the government books.  When you start attacking Cannon over other issues it seems like spilled milk.  You really lose a lot of credibility.


The environmental concerns (with photos taken by a lawmaker) were brought up in the NH State Senate this spring.  I posted photos I'd taken on the site this summer, due in part to inquiries as to guesses about what was being discussed in the Senate, and the contrast between the prohibition of allowing non-skiing activity on government land for "environmental reasons" and what was occurring from non-foot traffic.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> I have no involvement with gofranconia.  The Facebook page is for TaxpayersforCannon.com.  I don't own the two ski forums I post in.
> .



http://gofranconia.com/cannoncase.html

you have no affiliation or involvement with that?  I find that extremely difficult to believe that you haven't at least been in discussion with the owner of that website and at least provided them data.

I didn't say you owned two ski forums.  I said you're campaigning on two ski forums.


......all for 1/100th of 1 percent of the State's Budget


----------



## threecy (Aug 5, 2011)

threecy said:


> I have no involvement with gofranconia.





deadheadskier said:


> http://gofranconia.com/cannoncase.html
> 
> you have no affiliation or involvement with that?  I find that extremely difficult to believe that you haven't at least been in discussion with the owner of that website and at least provided them data.



I don't even know how owns/runs gofranconia.com, nevermind have any affiliation or involvement with the site.  Maybe I should contact them.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 5, 2011)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Question, does Cannon have marked on map hiking trails?  If they do, why is it important for one to hike up the ski trails?



Kinsman glade is the summer hiking trail I believe. Why anyone would want to hike around a ski trail is beyond me, outside of Threecy trying to prove a trivial point.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 5, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Kinsman glade is the summer hiking trail I believe. Why anyone would want to hike around a ski trail is beyond me, outside of Threecy trying to prove a trivial point.



It is.  I am no threecy but I hike ski trails. It is interesting to see what you are skiing over. Also helps in mapping out of trail possilbilities.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 5, 2011)

Mapping out a ski trail? Its not that hard to find the clearing in the woods is it? Or are you refering to mapping the "off map" stuff. I see that point.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 5, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Mapping out a ski trail? Its not that hard to find the clearing in the woods is it? Or are you refering to mapping the "off map" stuff. I see that point.


 
Off map of course. Especially a place like Cannon.  The trails are a way to get to the off map stuff.  The entrances are not always obvious.


----------



## David Metsky (Aug 10, 2011)

AdironRider said:


> Kinsman glade is the summer hiking trail I believe.



The Kinsman Ridge trail has run through that area for decades.  It was greatly degraded by the creation of Kinsman Glades and now is rarely used by hikers because of this.  However it's still the best way to do a loop involving the Greenleaf Trail coming off Lafayatte so it will still get some use.


----------



## Nick (Aug 10, 2011)

Puck it said:


> It is.  I am no threecy but I hike ski trails. It is interesting to see what you are skiing over. Also helps in mapping out of trail possilbilities.



Yeah, it is interesting.... usually a lot rockier than you'd expect


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 10, 2011)

This is impressive:  



			
				Cannon Facebook said:
			
		

> Congratulations to Cannon's Bruce Sullivan (pictured left) who was honored by Governor Lynch today for 30+ years of State service. Bruce, our Lift Mechanic Supervisor, has made significant contributions over the years and is one of many that help make Cannon a very special place.


----------



## DoublePlanker (Aug 10, 2011)

David Metsky said:


> The Kinsman Ridge trail has run through that area for decades.  It was greatly degraded by the creation of Kinsman Glades and now is rarely used by hikers because of this.  However it's still the best way to do a loop involving the Greenleaf Trail coming off Lafayatte so it will still get some use.



I hiked this trail this spring.  There were a bunch of people hiking it that day.  The trail seemed like it had a lot of erosion.  IMO, it didn't look like it was greatly degraded by the ski trail.  Yes, it does switchback across it a few times.


----------



## Northernflight (Aug 10, 2011)

> I hiked this trail this spring. There were a bunch of people hiking it that day. The trail seemed like it had a lot of erosion. IMO, it didn't look like it was greatly degraded by the ski trail. Yes, it does switchback across it a few times.



Ive hiked it a few times, never before the glade was in and I like it, its a fairly interesting trail, for me the disappointment is the developed summit, still a few nice spots up there.. Usually are a couple people out on it whenever I go but it is by far the most eroded trail Ive seen.


----------



## Northernflight (Aug 10, 2011)

> I hiked this trail this spring. There were a bunch of people hiking it that day. The trail seemed like it had a lot of erosion. IMO, it didn't look like it was greatly degraded by the ski trail. Yes, it does switchback across it a few times.



Ive hiked it a few times, never before the glade was in and I like it, its a fairly interesting trail, for me the disappointment is the developed summit, still a few nice spots up there.. Usually are a couple people out on it whenever I go but it is by far the most eroded trail Ive seen.


----------



## David Metsky (Aug 11, 2011)

There was much less erosion before Kinsman Glade was cut, but that could be rectified the park trail crew spending some time up there.  In winter, however, when Kinsman Glade is open for skiing, it's dangerous to hike that trail. Snowshoers coming up through the middle of a ski run isn't a great situation.


----------



## ceo (Aug 11, 2011)

I was told by a tram operator that the plans called for Kinsman Glade to run between the Kinsman Ridge Trail and the drainage that's closer to the tram, but when the guys went out with chainsaws they cut it right down the KRT.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 11, 2011)

Not making excuses...but there was a serious blow down throughout FNSP and beyond the same year that glade was cut.  Some of the impact in Kinsman was manmade, some was nature.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 12, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Not making excuses...but there was a serious blow down throughout FNSP and beyond the same year that glade was cut.  Some of the impact in Kinsman was manmade, some was nature.



Go to taxpayersforkinsmanglade.com to view the damage.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 12, 2011)

Puck it said:


> Go to taxpayersforkinsmanglade.com to view the damage.



Hilarious!!  Part of the reason I know the damage wasn't _all_ Cannon's fault is that Threecy hasn't waged a campaign around it.


----------



## Puck it (Aug 12, 2011)

Cannonball said:


> Hilarious!! Part of the reason I know the damage wasn't _all_ Cannon's fault is that Threecy hasn't waged a campaign around it.


 

There has no been a lot of blown down in there over last few years that has not been cleaned.  They really should cut up some of it.


----------



## AdironRider (Aug 12, 2011)

Puck it said:


> There has no been a lot of blown down in there over last few years that has not been cleaned.  They really should cut up some of it.



This is a good point. My last season as a passholder 06-07, Kinsman was pretty bad with all the blowdown. I heard they got in there and cleaned it up the next season, but wouldnt suprise me if that was a yearly type thing with the weather in the notch.


----------



## Cannonball (Aug 12, 2011)

I remember my first trip through the 'official' Kinsman glade.  Involved at at least 2 sections that incorporated a 5-6'drop into a ducked landing under a 3-4' high log.  Steeplechase for sure.  It's been cleaned up a lot since.

It's funny.  I've been skiing down and passed some unhappy hikers.  I've been hiking up and passed some unhappy skiers. I've been happy in both directions.  'You can please some people sometimes......"


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 13, 2011)

thetrailboss said:


> This is impressive:



Bruce is a great guy.Almost been there as long as me!


----------



## Geoff (Oct 1, 2011)

deadheadskier said:


> Where is the precedence for the fines when it comes to ski areas?



I listed some then in post #76 of this thread.  
http://forums.alpinezone.com/showpost.php?p=638916&postcount=76

Here is the latest Jay Peak fine.   This one was federal rather than Vermont Act 250:
http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20111001/NEWS03/710019955/1004/NEWS03



> AY — Vermont’s Jay Peak resort has agreed to pay $80,000 in fines to the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for illegally filling in wetlands and streams when it was building a golf course between 2004 and 2006.
> 
> The EPA says the improper work by a construction company working at the resort affected wetlands and streams feeding the Jay Branch Brook, which flows into the Missisquoi River, a tributary of Lake Champlain.


----------

