# Backcountry/Sidecountry Pruning: OK or Not?



## thetrailboss (Jun 16, 2015)

The Backcountry Ski Resources has gone into a tangent in which folks are talking about their pruning efforts in the sidecountry.  We've talked a little about this off and on in the past, but I am wondering if folks think that these efforts are OK, especially on someone else's private land or Forest Service land.  

My initial thoughts a few years back was that if done in modest amounts and done correctly there was no issue.  But these *idiots from 2007* as well as some other damage I have seen in the sidecountry have made me rethink this position.  

I enjoy treeskiing as much as the next guy, especially when someone has done some work to clear out the crap, but the environmental impacts seem to outweigh any benefit.  That and the fact that some of these "operations" are not sanctioned.  I know that folks say, "it is just me and I know what I am doing", but that all adds up.  

So I personally don't favor it.  If you can't hack it as it is, don't ski it.


----------



## bigbog (Jun 16, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> ......So I personally don't favor it.  If you can't hack it as it is, don't ski it.



+1
Just my $.01 = I think nature's options are what make BC the skiing challenge that it is....THE big draw for me.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 16, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> .  If you can't hack it as it is, don't ski it.



So basically you are in favor of mountain managed glades only in the east.  

There's hardly such a thing as "natural" glades in the East.  Even the vast majority of off map tree skiing areas in the hardwood forests of Northern VT have had some work done.  

I personally don't have an issue with folks thinning out side country areas.  The "gash" on Big Jay is the rarest of exceptions from what I see.  And they were punished accordingly.  Most off map glading is pretty subtle and really has little to no negative environmental impact.  There's probably 1000X greater acreage of vacant strip malls in New England causing far greater issues than skier pruned forest.  Environmentally it is would rate a .2 on a scale of 100......if that.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 16, 2015)

Most of Cannon glades are locally grown.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 16, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Most of Cannon glades are locally grown.



Right.  The stuff on the map was once off the map and mountain management had very little to do with it other than take advantage of a marketing opportunity.  

The same is true at many eastern ski areas.  Nice labor savings for the mountains.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 16, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Right.  The stuff on the map was once off the map and mountain management had very little to do with it other than take advantage of a marketing opportunity.
> 
> The same is true at many eastern ski areas.  Nice labor savings for the mountains.


  I hope the others stay off the map but they probably won't.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 16, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> So basically you are in favor of mountain managed glades only in the east.
> 
> There's hardly such a thing as "natural" glades in the East.  Even the vast majority of off map tree skiing areas in the hardwood forests of Northern VT have had some work done.



Yes.  And west.  Good point that some glades were made by others and adopted by resorts.  But many, such as Jay, Burke, and Sugarbush did develop their own.


----------



## JimG. (Jun 16, 2015)

I really don't care and voted neutral. Happy to ski natural glades or glades cleared by others. 

I guess a good rule of thumb is it's OK to prune as long as you don't use a chainsaw.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 16, 2015)

I never have prunes in the backcountry.  Prefer to be near comfortable plumbing if I'm going the prune route.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 16, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Yes.  And west.  Good point that some glades were made by others and adopted by resorts.  But many, such as Jay, Burke, and Sugarbush did develop their own.



Plenty of  "off map" skier developed glades at those areas as well and  I doubt that everything on map was fully resort developed.


----------



## HowieT2 (Jun 16, 2015)

I'd never be so bold as to prune my own run, but I have done some maintenance on existing glades.  don't see anything wrong with cleaning up some blowdown and small branches.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> I never have prunes in the backcountry.  Prefer to be near comfortable plumbing if I'm going the prune route.



What do you mix with prune juice?


----------



## dlague (Jun 16, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> The Backcountry Ski Resources has gone into a tangent in which folks are talking about their pruning efforts in the sidecountry.  We've talked a little about this off and on in the past, but I am wondering if folks think that these efforts are OK, especially on someone else's private land or Forest Service land.
> 
> My initial thoughts a few years back was that if done in modest amounts and done correctly there was no issue.  But these *idiots from 2007* as well as some other damage I have seen in the sidecountry have made me rethink this position.
> 
> ...



I think it is not big deal.  Behind my house, they were doing selective cutting of older pines over acres and acres of farm land and they destroyed the place.  A single person cutting/pruning a path is not even noticeable and personally I do not care.  The guys that did it on Big Jay got greedy!


----------



## skiur (Jun 16, 2015)

I see absolutely nothing wrong with clearing out tree runs as long as you have the permission of the land owner.  Whether that be a private land owner or government land, without permission you are breaking the law.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 16, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> The Backcountry Ski Resources has gone into a tangent in which folks are talking about their pruning efforts in the sidecountry.  We've talked a little about this off and on in the past, but I am wondering if folks think that these efforts are OK, especially on someone else's private land or Forest Service land.
> 
> My initial thoughts a few years back was that if done in modest amounts and done correctly there was no issue.  But these *idiots from 2007* as well as some other damage I have seen in the sidecountry have made me rethink this position.
> 
> ...



I think the point you are missing is that you are saying "pruning" but you are describing "cutting".  Pruning involves removal of small dead branches, undergrowth, etc.  It's pretty hard to find the environmental damage in pruning. In fact, if we didn't have such effective fire control programs most of these wouldn't even need to be pruned. The cutting you are describing (whole trees and other large items) results in erosion, slope instability, etc. and has an obvious impact. 

Ever hiked in the woods?  Ever come across a branch hanging in the trail?  Did you avoid moving/breaking/pruning it?


----------



## crank (Jun 16, 2015)

I think a lot of the side country stuff at Jay was logged at one time.


----------



## SkiingInABlueDream (Jun 16, 2015)

"Is pruning in the backcountry or sidecountry a good thing?"

My answer is, it depends on for whom or what might it be "good".
I think it's good for skiers who want to ski back- or sidecountry. More space = skiers spread out more = better chance of finding a fresh line.
That said I think it's bad for the health of the forest. Jay Peak for example is thinned pretty much boundary to boundary. Would you describe any acre there as forest?  More pruning yields less forest. Eventually there's none left. That's bad for the forest.

So... <shrug>.  
I do appreciate the issue and the efforts of people who try to balance sustainability with "development", be it someone pruning their own stash or a resort expanding its boundary.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> I think the point you are missing is that you are saying "pruning" but you are describing "cutting".  Pruning involves removal of small dead branches, undergrowth, etc.  It's pretty hard to find the environmental damage in pruning. In fact, if we didn't have such effective fire control programs most of these wouldn't even need to be pruned. The cutting you are describing (whole trees and other large items) results in erosion, slope instability, etc. and has an obvious impact.
> 
> Ever hiked in the woods?  Ever come across a branch hanging in the trail?  Did you avoid moving/breaking/pruning it?



I'm talking about both cutting and trimming.  So you don't cut small scrub?  You only limb trees?


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 16, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> I'm talking about both cutting and trimming.  So you don't cut small scrub?  You only limb trees?



Exactly what I said: small dead branches, undergrowth, etc.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Exactly what I said: small dead branches, undergrowth, etc.



So it sounds like you are cutting.  Call it what you want, you are clearing out new growth.  I don't think that is a good thing if not done properly.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 16, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> I don't think that is a good thing if not done properly.



Is there anything on this planet that can't be said about?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Is there anything on this planet that can't be said about?



Exactly

I think the issue of skiers cutting a few lines here and there is so minor compared to the bigger environmental concerns out there.  In New Hampshire you might have 1000 acres of gladed terrain total (resort managed or skier managed) out of how many hundreds of thousands of acres of State and National forests?  It really is a fraction of a percent. Maine the percentage would be incredibly tiny.  Vermont, the issue is a bit more obvious because the ski areas take up far more acreage over a smaller percentage of land.  There's likely far more cutting in Vermont simply because of how much busier those ski areas are, so people feel the need to develop "stashes" a bit more.   

Plenty of MTB trails being cut too.  Almost all of Oakland town forest in Exeter, NH is unsanctioned rider cut.

Both are illegal yes, but as long as you're not creating a situation that could cause massive erosion (Big Jay) or extensive habitat loss, I'm really not going to care all that much about it.   It's expanding outdoor recreation opportunities.  Our collective American waistline needs more of it, not less.


----------



## dlague (Jun 16, 2015)

We are making a mountain out of a mole hill.  A little clearing has little to no impact!  If you can not see it from the road who cares!  My kids knocked down trees, built tree stands, dug trenches and built small bridges in the woods behind our house so they could have airsoft/paitball wars!  It has not been used over the past three years now that they are older and it is all grown over and in 5 years time no one will ever know!  Nature recycles itself - give it a break!


----------



## Puck it (Jun 16, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> Is there anything on this planet that can't be said about?


Beers at the Zoomer Bar!

Wait, that is overindulgence but on the good side.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 16, 2015)

Are these being trimmed too hard?


----------



## skiNEwhere (Jun 16, 2015)

In Vermont, illegally cutting down trees is more serious a crime than, say, armed robbery.


----------



## Cannonball (Jun 16, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Are these being trimmed too hard?



Depends on who you ask



thetrailboss said:


> If you can't hack it as it is, don't.....


----------



## dlague (Jun 16, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Are these being trimmed too hard?



Nope not trimmed enough!


----------



## steamboat1 (Jun 17, 2015)

Some ski areas plant trees (MRG).


----------



## JDMRoma (Jun 17, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Are these being trimmed too hard?



Great commercial !! Damn near died when I saw it !


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jun 17, 2015)

As far a Cannon goes,almost all glades on Mittersill were cut without permission.For years it was "dont ask dont tell" for management.Then we had a few years of sanctioned cutting where we were brought  up the mt in the tram.When the Mittersill land swap was about happen this activity was openly discouraged as to not thow a monkey wrench in the process.One year I remember a friend telling he was cutting on the Tuckerbrook trail.We drove up to find him dropping trees for a new detour spur.I was very shocked at the balls of this.Anyway,if anybody knows this trail well the new spur was named "for locals only".Cannon had a petty liberal policy for many decades as many of us formed cutting partys that could easily be seen and heard.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> Anyway,if anybody knows this trail well the new spur was named "for locals only".


  I skied this for the first time a couple of years ago.


----------



## Savemeasammy (Jun 17, 2015)

Cannonball said:


> In fact, if we didn't have such effective fire control programs most of these wouldn't even need to be pruned.



Agreed.  

I'm fine with removing scrub, low branches, and even saplings that are growing in an area where other well-established trees already exist.  In the grand scheme of things, this kind of thinning is pretty small-potatoes.  


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2015)

Big Dipper Glades is an example of mismanagement on trial cutting and glade cuttings.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 17, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Big Dipper Glades is an example of mismanagement on trial cutting and glade cuttings.



Oz at Sunday River as well.

It seems to me that often times the resorts do far more damage and a worse job when they cut a "glade" to put on the map, then when locals thin out some trees.

Never mind the actual comparison of environmental damage for a fully cut and developed trail vs locally maintained trees.   What's worse; Profile or Bunny Direct??  I think the answer is pretty obvious.


----------



## witch hobble (Jun 17, 2015)

Don't ask, don't tell.  Regressive policy.  But probably a good one for those stash hoarders amongst us.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jun 17, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Big Dipper Glades is an example of mismanagement on trial cutting and glade cuttings.


Big Dipper Glades were fine, It's Double Dipper that created the problem.


----------



## Puck it (Jun 17, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Big Dipper Glades were fine, It's Double Dipper that created the problem.


Agreed


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 17, 2015)

Savemeasammy said:


> Agreed.
> I'm fine with removing scrub, low branches, and even saplings that are growing in an area where other well-established trees already exist.  In the grand scheme of things, this kind of thinning is pretty small-potatoes.


This has been the standard I follow. Selective cut saplings, with nothing cut bigger than 2" in diameter. Many times I will leave nice straight sapling and cull the bent or crooked ones. Branch trimming and clearing/flattening of deadfall. 
What some of you don't realize is that most saplings in a mature canopied forest typically do not "grow up" into new canopy trees. They simply do not receive enough sunlight to do so. They linger in the understory and grow incredibly slowly and eventually die of old age. They will never produce a quality tree. Most quality regeneration occurs where a hole has developed in the canopy that lets in sunlight. New growth saplings will quickly overtake any existing "old" saplings where this occurs.

This is why you see a lot of logging operations moving to patch cutting. This is where they clear cut small patches and leave mature forest in between to serve as seed sources and cover for wildlife. The regeneration rates are FAR higher using this technique over selectively cutting a few trees out of a forest. Of course this is a technique that is used in forests that are owned and operated for commercial logging purposes but I think you get my point. Full on resort glade cutting is more like the "Selective" cutting technique. At some point the mature canopy trees start dying. At that point the resorts should simply cut them and start regeneration zones (e.g. roped off areas you see around MRG).

Getting permission would be tricky in most cases. Most spots I've worked on you can barely tell that I've been there.


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Jun 17, 2015)

The NIMBYism these days is sometimes just intolerable. I understand how it would be improper to thin forests on someone else's land, because it's their private land and they have access to it, but the amount of "damage" we might be doing by removing thorn bushes and fallen logs and < 2 inch saplings to create a path through the forest is really inconsequential. Our society permits people to become offended about the most minor things. Who is actually harmed when we (with permission or on our own land) do some minor trimming (not clear cutting) to clear out otherwise unskiable routes?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2015)

BeefyBoy50 said:


> The NIMBYism these days is sometimes just intolerable. I understand how it would be improper to thin forests on someone else's land, because it's their private land and they have access to it, but the amount of "damage" we might be doing by removing thorn bushes and fallen logs and < 2 inch saplings to create a path through the forest is really inconsequential. Our society permits people to become offended about the most minor things. Who is actually harmed when we (with permission or on our own land) do some minor trimming (not clear cutting) to clear out otherwise unskiable routes?



So you would not be upset if someone came onto your private land and did some "trimming"?  And it's not really a NIMBY concern.  The cutting, as a whole, is causing some damage.  Here's one article that considers that issue:  http://www.thesnowway.com/ski/VermontLifeWinter09TrailCutting.pdf

I'm just curious as to people's thoughts on a hot summer day.


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Jun 17, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> So you would not be upset if someone came onto your private land and did some "trimming"?  And it's not really a NIMBY concern.  The cutting, as a whole, is causing some damage.  Here's one article that considers that issue:  http://www.thesnowway.com/ski/VermontLifeWinter09TrailCutting.pdf
> 
> I'm just curious as to people's thoughts on a hot summer day.



My point wasn't clear the way I worded it. I certainly think that someone with the intention of thinning should get permission, it would be wrong to trespass and work on someone else's property. What I mean by NIMBYism is that there is, in my opinion, far too much opposition to even small projects these days. For instance, ski areas have to publish incredibly lengthy documents for permission to build nearly anything, and these documents have to go through numerous thorough checkpoints before work can even commence. As another example, if we expressed support for something even as insignificant as a new hiking trail in some of our wild regions of the northeast, we would have to wait ages before actual advances were made on the project. For this reason, we will never get a new ski area and have to wait decades for minor expansions. I wish society could be slightly less restrictive about projects such as these that happen in our wild places. The main reason people decide on cutting or thinning without permission or against the law is because they know this type of mindset is the reason they will not be allowed to do any kind of project of this sort.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 17, 2015)

BeefyBoy50 said:


> The main reason people decide on cutting or thinning without permission or against the law is because they know this type of mindset is the reason they will not be allowed to do any kind of project of this sort.



Agreed. 

The examples in the article Trailboss linked to are at the extreme end of the "pruning" spectrum. Big Jay has been hacked to bits. There aren't just a few thinned lines out there. Practically the entire side of the mountain that has been thinned. That is not good or sustainable. The examples of widespread thinning off of the Catamount trail and adjacent to other ski areas are also on the extreme end.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2015)

BeefyBoy50 said:


> My point wasn't clear the way I worded it. I certainly think that someone with the intention of thinning should get permission, it would be wrong to trespass and work on someone else's property. What I mean by NIMBYism is that there is, in my opinion, far too much opposition to even small projects these days. For instance, ski areas have to publish incredibly lengthy documents for permission to build nearly anything, and these documents have to go through numerous thorough checkpoints before work can even commence. As another example, if we expressed support for something even as insignificant as a new hiking trail in some of our wild regions of the northeast, we would have to wait ages before actual advances were made on the project. For this reason, we will never get a new ski area and have to wait decades for minor expansions. I wish society could be slightly less restrictive about projects such as these that happen in our wild places. The main reason people decide on cutting or thinning without permission or against the law is because they know this type of mindset is the reason they will not be allowed to do any kind of project of this sort.



I agree with that sentiment.  Unfortunately we have a very reactionary regulatory regime.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2015)

from_the_NEK said:


> Agreed.
> 
> The examples in the article Trailboss linked to are at the extreme end of the "pruning" spectrum. Big Jay has been hacked to bits. There aren't just a few thinned lines out there. Practically the entire side of the mountain that has been thinned. That is not good or sustainable. The examples of widespread thinning off of the Catamount trail and adjacent to other ski areas are also on the extreme end.



My understanding is that the problem is not one big hacking project, but that the sum of the various smaller jobs is leading to the widespread destruction.


----------



## BeefyBoy50 (Jun 17, 2015)

Unfortunately I haven't been up to Jay Peak (will hope to change that in the coming season though) so I haven't seen the effects firsthand when people get too trigger happy with their chainsaws and other clear cutting tools. From what I'm hearing it sounds like it is worse than I imagined.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2015)

Here's the point I made earlier...as stated in that VT Life Article:



> The environmental damage is
> usually not caused by skiing itself
> — when snow melts in the
> spring, the skiers’ tracks go with
> ...


----------



## Jully (Jun 17, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Here's the point I made earlier...as stated in that VT Life Article:



I agree with you there. Long term if every season individuals manipulate and destroy the new growth and saplings by 'improving' their backcountry glade or stash, the long term effect is that nature can't reproduce itself. The point was made earlier that most 2" diameter saplings don't ever grow into canopy, and that is very true, but some of them do and its a very necessary process to maintaining the forest that we all like to ski in. If you have a degree in forest ecology, or have watched forests grow and replenish for decades, then you can probably prune without much damage, and maybe some of the people defending their pruning here are capable of that, but I can guarantee that most of the people doing unauthorized trimming cannot make those calls and don't even care to try. 

So, if every spring and summer we stop the forests on our mountainsides from reproducing in order to open up our stash a bit more, then eventually things will start to die and the forest will become too thin and less enjoyable. It won't be next year, it won't be in the next decade, but in two or three decades I worry that Cannon and Sugarbush might look a little different.

Maybe I'm nuts, but I think, and this article thinks that its something to at least consider


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 17, 2015)

Jully said:


> I agree with you there. Long term if every season individuals manipulate and destroy the new growth and saplings by 'improving' their backcountry glade or stash, the long term effect is that nature can't reproduce itself. The point was made earlier that most 2" diameter saplings don't ever grow into canopy, and that is very true, but some of them do and its a very necessary process to maintaining the forest that we all like to ski in. If you have a degree in forest ecology, or have watched forests grow and replenish for decades, then you can probably prune without much damage, and maybe some of the people defending their pruning here are capable of that, but I can guarantee that most of the people doing unauthorized trimming cannot make those calls and don't even care to try.
> 
> So, if every spring and summer we stop the forests on our mountainsides from reproducing in order to open up our stash a bit more, then eventually things will start to die and the forest will become too thin and less enjoyable. It won't be next year, it won't be in the next decade, but in two or three decades I worry that Cannon and Sugarbush might look a little different.
> 
> Maybe I'm nuts, but I think, and this article thinks that its something to at least consider



You mentioned Sugarbush.  About 20 years ago or so they had a significant landslide in Paradise.  I believe that I heard that part of the reason for the landslide was the clearing of that area for the glade.  I might be wrong.


----------



## Jully (Jun 17, 2015)

I personally like what Sugarloaf is doing with Burnt Mountain trimming right now. They have a small group of experienced ski patrol and I think a few other local types going through and thoughtfully cutting the glades. In talking to some of the people behind the project, the guys are not only thinking about the skiing, but they are also thinking ecologically and are trying to cut glades that will last for years to come. They are going to handle the management in a way that works for both the skiers trying to use the terrain and the forest trying to grow around the backcountry skiing.

Not all tree skiing and backcountry pruning is ecologically destructive and its certainly nothing compared to a strip mall or a parking lot. However, you wouldn't see a mall on the side of a mountain, and there's something about the feel of a mountain's forest when skiing through it that I love. I want to try and protect it as much as I can while still being able to use it


----------



## Jully (Jun 17, 2015)

I personally like what Sugarloaf is doing with Burnt Mountain trimming right now. They have a small group of experienced ski patrol and I think a few other local types going through and thoughtfully cutting the glades. In talking to some of the people behind the project, the guys are not only thinking about the skiing, but they are also thinking ecologically and are trying to cut glades that will last for years to come. They are going to handle the management in a way that works for both the skiers trying to use the terrain and the forest trying to grow around the backcountry skiing.

Not all tree skiing and backcountry pruning is ecologically destructive and its certainly nothing compared to a strip mall or a parking lot. However, you wouldn't see a mall on the side of a mountain, and there's something about the feel of a mountain's forest when skiing through it that I love. I want to try and protect it as much as I can while still being able to use it


----------



## Jully (Jun 17, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> You mentioned Sugarbush.  About 20 years ago or so they had a significant landslide in Paradise.  I believe that I heard that part of the reason for the landslide was the clearing of that area for the glade.  I might be wrong.



I heard that might have been part of the cause for that as well.


----------



## dlague (Jun 17, 2015)

Jully said:


> I agree with you there. Long term if every season individuals manipulate and destroy the new growth and saplings by 'improving' their backcountry glade or stash, the long term effect is that nature can't reproduce itself. The point was made earlier that most 2" diameter saplings don't ever grow into canopy, and that is very true, but some of them do and its a very necessary process to maintaining the forest that we all like to ski in. If you have a degree in forest ecology, or have watched forests grow and replenish for decades, then you can probably prune without much damage, and maybe some of the people defending their pruning here are capable of that, but I can guarantee that most of the people doing unauthorized trimming cannot make those calls and don't even care to try.
> 
> So, if every spring and summer we stop the forests on our mountainsides from reproducing in order to open up our stash a bit more, then eventually things will start to die and the forest will become too thin and less enjoyable. It won't be next year, it won't be in the next decade, but in two or three decades I worry that Cannon and Sugarbush might look a little different.
> 
> Maybe I'm nuts, but I think, and this article thinks that its something to at least consider



Those 2 inch round very young trees can take you out easier than those big ones.  They bend at the top but not at the bottom.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 17, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> My understanding is that the problem is not one big hacking project, but that the sum of the various smaller jobs is leading to the widespread destruction.



That is correct. People apparently weren't happy with a few narrow lines over there and everyone kept going in an trimming out their "own" stashes. Eventually they all blended together and there is very little undergrowth left.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 17, 2015)

Jully said:


> I agree with you there. Long term if every season individuals manipulate and destroy the new growth and saplings by 'improving' their backcountry glade or stash, the long term effect is that nature can't reproduce itself. The point was made earlier that most 2" diameter saplings don't ever grow into canopy, and that is very true, but some of them do and its a very necessary process to maintaining the forest that we all like to ski in. If you have a degree in forest ecology, or have watched forests grow and replenish for decades, then you can probably prune without much damage, and maybe some of the people defending their pruning here are capable of that, but I can guarantee that most of the people doing unauthorized trimming cannot make those calls and don't even care to try.
> 
> So, if every spring and summer we stop the forests on our mountainsides from reproducing in order to open up our stash a bit more, then eventually things will start to die and the forest will become too thin and less enjoyable. It won't be next year, it won't be in the next decade, but in two or three decades I worry that Cannon and Sugarbush might look a little different.
> 
> Maybe I'm nuts, but I think, and this article thinks that its something to at least consider



I'm not talking about trimming out lines free of undergrowth that are 30 yards wide. I'm talking single lines that are wide enough to link turns in without getting tangled up (15-30 feet wide). And like I said. I don't cut ALL of the undergrowth. Strong straight sapling are usually spared, even if I know they will force a quicker/tighter turn in the winter. 
But you are correct. I'm not sure that many people out there trimming lines even consider what saplings they should be passing over.


----------



## Brad J (Jun 17, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Big Dipper Glades were fine, It's Double Dipper that created the problem.



No actually cutting the super wide trail where Big dipper was started the problem!!


----------



## steamboat1 (Jun 17, 2015)

Brad J said:


> No actually cutting the super wide trail where Big dipper was started the problem!!



DUH! That super wide trail you speak of is Double Dipper.


----------



## machski (Jun 18, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Oz at Sunday River as well.
> 
> It seems to me that often times the resorts do far more damage and a worse job when they cut a "glade" to put on the map, then when locals thin out some trees.
> 
> Never mind the actual comparison of environmental damage for a fully cut and developed trail vs locally maintained trees.   What's worse; Profile or Bunny Direct??  I think the answer is pretty obvious.



Current management knows this and will be making concerted efforts to correct and fix Oz starting this summer I'm told.  The latest additions (Poppy Fields lines) are the new glading style they will be using over there.  Tight, separated routes that are a blast but not wide lanes.  Not sure how they plan to fix TW/LP (since they still make snow there), but it the do not make snow on Eurkea or keep it just to skiers left, they could start replanting skiers right and rope it off.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 18, 2015)

machski said:


> Current management knows this and will be making concerted efforts to correct and fix Oz starting this summer I'm told.  The latest additions (Poppy Fields lines) are the new glading style they will be using over there.  Tight, separated routes that are a blast but not wide lanes.  Not sure how they plan to fix TW/LP (since they still make snow there), but it the do not make snow on Eurkea or keep it just to skiers left, they could start replanting skiers right and rope it off.



I'm not sure I'd call Oz a true glade....

And this has been a very good discussion.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## dlague (Jun 18, 2015)

Saddleback cleared out a section all summer long last year to add Red Devil glade.  They cleared more than an individual would!

http://www.maineskifamily.com/2014/09/saddleback-red-devil-glade-work-day.html


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 18, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> I'm not sure I'd call Oz a true glade....
> 
> And this has been a very good discussion.
> 
> ...



When Oz was cut, it was supposed to be a combination of glades and open western style "bowl" skiing.

They obviously messed up royally with the glade portion of the terrain pod.


----------



## dlague (Jun 18, 2015)

Am I missing something on the last post?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 18, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> When Oz was cut, it was supposed to be a combination of glades and open western style "bowl" skiing.
> 
> They obviously messed up royally with the glade portion of the terrain pod.



That was my understanding as well...a 'western bowl' with snowmaking :blink:  It's always been ice whenever I have skied it.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 18, 2015)

dlague said:


> Am I missing something on the last post?



They cut WAY too many trees was what I was inferring.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 18, 2015)

dlague said:


> Am I missing something on the last post?



If you were talking about my duplicate post, that was an error.  But Oz was admittedly an experiment that has not worked.


----------



## Jully (Jun 18, 2015)

This winter Oz was nice at points because of the dry powder we saw... but this winter was the only one I can think of where I truly enjoyed Oz in the way they probably initially intended


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2015)

dlague said:


> Those 2 inch round very young trees can take you out easier than those big ones.  They bend at the top but not at the bottom.


Yup,  just use your hands to protect chest.
  Sucks when the canopy is loaded with snow.


----------



## Dickc (Jun 18, 2015)

Puck it said:


> Yup,  just use your hands to protect chest.
> Sucks when the canopy is loaded with snow.



If I read this remark right, it means WEAR A CUP!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 18, 2015)

I couldn't imagine wearing a cup skiing.  Would be so uncomfortable.  I didn't like wearing one playing football or lax growing up, but I did.

No nut shots so far in 30+ years skiing.


----------



## dlague (Jun 18, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I couldn't imagine wearing a cup skiing.  Would be so uncomfortable.  I didn't like wearing one playing football or lax growing up, but I did.
> 
> No nut shots so far in 30+ years skiing.



yup that would be uncomfortable!


----------



## Puck it (Jun 18, 2015)

Dickc said:


> If I read this remark right, it means WEAR A CUP!


Your nuts are on your chest if u read this write.


----------



## SIKSKIER (Jun 19, 2015)

> =from_the_NEK;906581
> This is why you see a lot of logging operations moving to patch cutting. (e.g. roped off areas you see around MRG).
> .


They are called cutblocks.That pretty much has been standard practice for many a moon.Clearcutting huge tracts of forest has been long gone.This is BC but the same holds true for the PNW.


----------



## HowieT2 (Jun 19, 2015)

SIKSKIER said:


> They are called cutblocks.That pretty much has been standard practice for many a moon.Clearcutting huge tracts of forest has been long gone.This is BC but the same holds true for the PNW.



Those are illegal in the NFL


----------



## JAM614 (Jun 19, 2015)

This is great discussion.
  I would agree that over-cutting is the worst, as well as using a chainsaw on private land without consent.  The rule of thumb regarding maximum diameter size is not always appropriate.  Consideration on the species and the overall health of the tree have more importance.  Depletion of all underbrush/new growth is not desirable either.  Keep the trail widths reasonable so the forest can heal as necessary.
  The jury is still out regarding "Super Glades" with single species or similar age.   Personally I like glades that are narrower that cannot just be traversed. The snow quality holds better and there's generally less traffic since the difficulty weeds out some of the timid.
  Time will be the real test to what management practices are best.  Glade cutting practices are similar to proper woodlot management, with the added consideration to interesting line choice and snow preservation.   It takes experience to make a healthy glade and also one that is interesting to ski.


----------



## Brad J (Jun 19, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> DUH! That super wide trail you speak of is Double Dipper.



sorry never knew the name of that mess, I quite going there in the late eighties when in IMHO they butchered the place.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jun 19, 2015)

Brad J said:


> sorry never knew the name of that mess, I quite going there in the late eighties when in IMHO they butchered the place.



Agree they butchered the Canyon area with Double Dipper & the chair. Superstar trail & chair along with Skyelark & the newly cut Ovation is even a worse mess from what it was originally. I do still enjoy skiing K though. There are still some nice nooks & cranys.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jun 20, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> So basically you are in favor of mountain managed glades only in the east.
> 
> There's hardly such a thing as "natural" glades in the East.  Even the vast majority of off map tree skiing areas in the hardwood forests of Northern VT have had some work done.
> 
> I personally don't have an issue with folks thinning out side country areas.  The "gash" on Big Jay is the rarest of exceptions from what I see.  And they were punished accordingly.  Most off map glading is pretty subtle and really has little to no negative environmental impact.  There's probably 1000X greater acreage of vacant strip malls in New England causing far greater issues than skier pruned forest.  Environmentally it is would rate a .2 on a scale of 100......if that.



I've missed your rants


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jun 20, 2015)

steamboat1 said:


> Some ski areas plant trees (MRG).



Yea after they fucked things up on Creamery, Gazelle, Fall Line, and Paradise just to name a few. They aren't completely innocent.


----------



## SkiFanE (Jun 22, 2015)

Thank you to all the bushwackers out there!  At least at SR, their thickety vegetation makes un-trimmed tree skiing nearly impossible.  Deciduous forests may be perfect, with pitch and line, but all the low growing stuff, can't ski it.  Not sure what most of it is called (husband calls it 'gollem'...something he heard someone call it..?)  but it's miserable stuff.  It needs to be trimmed, and luckily folks will do it.  Then there's the evergreen forests - thick...need serious branch trimming.  And when you clear in summer, you're 4' lower than when you are in the winter...so it's almost a winter sport.  My husband always takes a fold up saw in his backpack when goes bc, both summer and winter.  Winter gives him chance to get high up stuff.  He's cut his own lines, but with something that folds up in backpack - not very thick stuff.  And the way it grows back - can't see how its any type of environmental issue.  I guy with a little saw on a 4 hour hike is not doing much damage lol.

But I recall skiing at Stowe and the nature of the woods there makes BC without trimming much easier.  Husband and I would always just pop into the woods and go..not saying there were always perfect lines, but neither did you need a machete and full face shield to get through them.  I remember we'd spend half our day just poking around (inbounds, but off-trail or 'glades'). I'm trying to even think of a place at SR you could do that - we found a great little 'glade' this winter - but damn thickets made us leave them...


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 22, 2015)

SkiFanE said:


> Thank you to all the bushwackers out there!  At least at SR, their thickety vegetation makes un-trimmed tree skiing nearly impossible.  Deciduous forests may be perfect, with pitch and line, but all the low growing stuff, can't ski it.  Not sure what most of it is called (husband calls it 'gollem'...something he heard someone call it..?)  but it's miserable stuff.  It needs to be trimmed, and luckily folks will do it.  Then there's the evergreen forests - thick...need serious branch trimming.  And when you clear in summer, you're 4' lower than when you are in the winter...so it's almost a winter sport.  My husband always takes a fold up saw in his backpack when goes bc, both summer and winter.  Winter gives him chance to get high up stuff.  He's cut his own lines, but with something that folds up in backpack - not very thick stuff.  And the way it grows back - can't see how its any type of environmental issue.  I guy with a little saw on a 4 hour hike is not doing much damage lol.
> 
> But I recall skiing at Stowe and the nature of the woods there makes BC without trimming much easier.  Husband and I would always just pop into the woods and go..not saying there were always perfect lines, but neither did you need a machete and full face shield to get through them.  I remember we'd spend half our day just poking around (inbounds, but off-trail or 'glades'). I'm trying to even think of a place at SR you could do that - we found a great little 'glade' this winter - but damn thickets made us leave them...



The problem arises when it is 20 guys with a little saw on their own 4 hour hikes. Each one of those guys cuts a little more "to improve the line". The next thing you know you have a section of forest 40 yards wide that is free of undergrowth. 
In your Stowe example, the woods there were not unlike Sunday River at one time. However, I would venture a guess that there are more guys around Stowe with their saws have been at it a lot longer than those around SR. Around Stowe and Jay, the trimming has had time to mature and the woods look "naturally" free of undergrowth. Sure, at one time, there may have been some strips of completely naturally occurring lines but those have been linked and improved over the years into what you see today.
This situation is why some level of planning/coordination of these trimmed out areas around ski resorts isn't a bad idea. The easily accessible lines around resorts make them enticing for people to go out and "improve" them and IMHO are at the highest risk of being over-cut. 
On the other hand, true back country stashes (those away from resorts and major trails like the Catamount trail) that are trimmed out have a pretty low risk of additional uncoordinated trimming.


----------



## Tin (Jun 22, 2015)

MadMadWorld said:


> Yea after they fucked things up on Creamery, Gazelle, Fall Line, and Paradise just to name a few. They aren't completely innocent.



How dare you question MRG?! You shall be placed in the stockade at the base where children shall throw snowballs and scolding hot chili at you until you repent!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 22, 2015)

Tin said:


> How dare you question MRG?! You shall be placed in the stockade at the base where children shall throw snowballs and scolding hot chili at you until you repent!



:lol:


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## SkiFanE (Jun 22, 2015)

from_the_NEK said:


> The problem arises when it is 20 guys with a little saw on their own 4 hour hikes. Each one of those guys cuts a little more "to improve the line". The next thing you know you have a section of forest 40 yards wide that is free of undergrowth.
> In your Stowe example, the woods there were not unlike Sunday River at one time. However, I would venture a guess that there are more guys around Stowe with their saws have been at it a lot longer than those around SR. Around Stowe and Jay, the trimming has had time to mature and the woods look "naturally" free of undergrowth. Sure, at one time, there may have been some strips of completely naturally occurring lines but those have been linked and improved over the years into what you see today.
> This situation is why some level of planning/coordination of these trimmed out areas around ski resorts isn't a bad idea. The easily accessible lines around resorts make them enticing for people to go out and "improve" them and IMHO are at the highest risk of being over-cut.
> On the other hand, true back country stashes (those away from resorts and major trails like the Catamount trail) that are trimmed out have a pretty low risk of additional uncoordinated trimming.


Naw...not enough people at SR that do this.  And my H looked at topo maps. found his own hiking route, found how to connect route to lift with minimal hiking out... He's cut a few trails, and he never finds tracks down them. There are no 20 groups of people in one spot.  Maybe a few in a group with a mission.  I cannot speak for what goes on on VT, just my observations, which are 20 years old.  The woods seemed naturally thinner, and maybe instead it was groups of 20 thinning..just take lots of people to do it over the mountain.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 23, 2015)

I moved to Stowe in 1995.  Lots of cutting going on already in the Goat woods and Bench areas.  The big difference in VT vs ME or NH is you encounter very little evergreen trees below 3000 feet.  So, there is more opportunity for natural glades.   That said, most that you would think are natural (like all you saw at Stowe) really aren't likely to be natural.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 25, 2015)

I thought this was interesting.  From about mile 12 to mile 15 on I89, the State of NH is cutting some sweet glades in the median and along the sides of the highway.  

This is not like the clear cutting median projects seen on northern 93 in NH or route 6 on Cape Cod.  This is clearing only the ground level brush and bottom branches of the trees up until about 8 feet of height.

Weird project


----------



## Puck it (Jun 25, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I thought this was interesting.  From about mile 12 to mile 15 on I89, the State of NH is cutting some sweet glades in the median and along the sides of the highway.
> 
> This is not like the clear cutting median projects seen on northern 93 in NH or route 6 on Cape Cod.  This is clearing only the ground level brush and bottom branches of the trees up until about 8 feet of height.
> 
> Weird project


this is just wierd.  The contractor on the rte 6 project made a mistake and has replanted trees at least.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 25, 2015)

I noticed that too when down there last month.  My aunt lives down there said it was in response to people complaining


----------



## Newpylong (Jun 25, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I thought this was interesting.  From about mile 12 to mile 15 on I89, the State of NH is cutting some sweet glades in the median and along the sides of the highway.
> 
> This is not like the clear cutting median projects seen on northern 93 in NH or route 6 on Cape Cod.  This is clearing only the ground level brush and bottom branches of the trees up until about 8 feet of height.
> 
> Weird project



I also noticed that heading home from MA the other day - seems like a lot of work lol.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 25, 2015)

Have there been a lot of collisions with deer along that stretch? Cutting out the underbrush would make them more visible and potentially more avoidable.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 25, 2015)

No clue if there's a deer run through there.  If so, it would seem that better fencing would be a less costly and more permanent solution.


----------



## dlague (Jun 25, 2015)

I never understood all the clear cutting or any cutting for that matter on highway medians or the sides.  It has been fine for years and the last couples of years we have been spend 10's of millions doing this.  I am sure money could be better spent!


----------



## Jully (Jun 25, 2015)

Holy crap Maine has been cutting about a twenty foot buffer on either side of 295 and 95. Not thinning out, just slashing EVERYTHING. Say they're trying to reduce moose collisions, but I don't think that's going to be an effective solution. It's infuriating, damaging, and a massive waste of money in my opinion


----------



## dlague (Jun 25, 2015)

Jully said:


> Holy crap Maine has been cutting about a twenty foot buffer on either side of 295 and 95. Not thinning out, just slashing EVERYTHING. Say they're trying to reduce moose collisions, but I don't think that's going to be an effective solution. It's infuriating, damaging, and a massive waste of money in my opinion



Agree!


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jun 25, 2015)

dlague said:


> Agree!



I assume someone is selling the wood? Does the state get a cut of that?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 25, 2015)

Jully said:


> Holy crap Maine has been cutting about a twenty foot buffer on either side of 295 and 95. Not thinning out, just slashing EVERYTHING. Say they're trying to reduce moose collisions, but I don't think that's going to be an effective solution. It's infuriating, damaging, and a massive waste of money in my opinion



I assumed that the clearing was to create a buffer on the edges of the highway to prevent trees from falling in the roadway during storms.  

Didn't realize it was for Moose avoidance.


----------



## Jully (Jun 25, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I assumed that the clearing was to create a buffer on the edges of the highway to prevent trees from falling in the roadway during storms.
> 
> Didn't realize it was for Moose avoidance.



I've heard moose avoidance from a few different sources, though it's probably a little of both. However with over 400 moose collisions every year that's probably the driving force. 

I've never noticed any tree issues during storms. Then again I don't exactly hear of a lot of moose collisions either in this area...


----------



## dlague (Jun 25, 2015)

Some places in NH are being cleared in areas not know for moose.  Could be dear but I do not see many being hit.


----------



## Dickc (Jun 25, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> I assumed that the clearing was to create a buffer on the edges of the highway to prevent trees from falling in the roadway during storms.
> 
> Didn't realize it was for Moose avoidance.


It actually helps enhance having the sun on the road in winter when the angle is low to help melt snow and ice.  It also creates a better visibility zone for wildlife.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jun 26, 2015)

Dickc said:


> It actually helps enhance having the sun on the road in winter when the angle is low to help melt snow and ice.  It also creates a better visibility zone for wildlife.



Never thought about the sunshine on the highways. That's a great point. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## mbedle (Jun 26, 2015)

http://www.pressherald.com/2015/05/15/maine-dot-clearing-extensive-swath-along-i-295-near-freeport/


----------



## Dickc (Jun 26, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> Never thought about the sunshine on the highways. That's a great point.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



The below is directly from the Maine Turnpike website.  http://www.maineturnpike.com/project-and-planning/Current-Projects/2013-13-Clearing,-Falmouth-to-Gray.aspx



> Project Scope: This project will include the removal of trees, brush and debris from the roadside, northbound and southbound, beginning at Mile 51.8 and ending at Mile 63 of the Maine Turnpike. Vegetation will be removed to a distance of roughly 55 feet from the edge of pavement on bouth bounds.
> The goals of the project are to improve overall roadway safety by removing large trees from the clear zone, reduce shading of the roadway to aid in snow and ice removal operations, and to increase driver reaction times when confronting wildlife crossing the roadway.


----------



## bigbob (Jun 26, 2015)

The Trans Canada through Newfoundland is cleared very wide on both sides so you can spot the moose approaching the roadway. It is a 2 lane road for the most part.


----------



## Scruffy (Jun 27, 2015)

Everything in moderation is the key to a good life. Same with pruning, and prunes.


----------



## Plowboy (Jul 2, 2015)

New slide Paradise Woods


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 3, 2015)

Plowboy said:


> New slide Paradise Woods



Ugh. Not good. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jul 4, 2015)

That thing has been thinned out way too much


----------



## Tin (Jul 5, 2015)

Was bound to happen. Could believe how open it was in there last year.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 5, 2015)

What's sad about those Paradise Woods is that the forest service will soon just close it off because of the damage.  Then everyone loses.


----------



## ss20 (Jul 5, 2015)

thetrailboss said:


> What's sad about those Paradise Woods is that the forest service will soon just close it off because of the damage.  Then everyone loses.



You'd need an electric fence with barbed wire and guard towers to keep people outta there.  Locals would break out the champagne if they did "close" it.  Fresh tracks for all.


----------



## bigbog (Jul 6, 2015)

from_the_NEK said:


> I assume someone is selling the wood? Does the state get a cut of that?



Don't know but I bet their "Negotiating Fee" was as steep as they could get it...

Agree about the need to put $$$ into replanting...not only of forested-types but of additional food sources for moose & deer.  They find the mega food sources...once emptied they move on to other areas = often across highways..  Imho they need to re-plant the food source grasses/plants closer to the woods to keep animals from wandering close to the highways..


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 6, 2015)

Plowboy said:


> New slide Paradise Woods




Pretty heavy rainstorm cause it?


----------



## bigbog (Jul 6, 2015)

MadMadWorld said:


> That thing has been thinned out way too much



Happens...you get 20 people with chainsaws without a single design =  you have 20 ideas as to where to cut...


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jul 6, 2015)

Some people just don't have a clue. If you are using a chainsaw then you best know environmental ecology because most people have good intentions but can really fuck things up without realizing it.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 6, 2015)

MadMadWorld said:


> Some people just don't have a clue. If you are using a chainsaw then you best know environmental ecology because most people have good intentions but can really fuck things up without realizing it.



+1.  That's my big concern.


----------



## Plowboy (Jul 7, 2015)

deadheadskier said:


> Pretty heavy rainstorm cause it?



Yes......Was over cutting the cause....could be.  Most of the undergrowth up there is Alder type scrub. A lot of it has been cut or just plain knocked over by the masses. Without the Alder sucking up the moisture and the dead root system's acting like a sponge, could cause a slide. But...slides do happen naturally, there have been quite a few south of Lincoln Gap on the west side of the Greens.

I can tell you there are not 20 people up there with chainsaw's!!! This area has been wide open for years. Lets go back to when woods skiing was a ticket taking offence at the Bush (80's). Those were the best years for woods skiing......LOL


----------



## witch hobble (Jul 11, 2015)

Plowboy said:


> Lets go back to when woods skiing was a ticket taking offence at the Bush (80's). Those were the best years for woods skiing......LOL


You can't put the genie back in the bottle!


----------

