[robrox]

One of the points brought home by the turnout to the Oct 17, Big Jay Restoration Fund benefit showing of PW07 is that there most definitely is a backcountry community in the Northeast. I realize that it could be as futile as herding cats, but such a community could have an organized or confederated role to play in backcountry access issues.

Neither NET nor NATO appears to have such a mission as charter. On the other hand it is clear that both organizations do care and have participated when asked in awareness campaigns. As stewardship concerns are part of a purely practical backcountry committment it may be time to poll the organizations for their interest in participation in an alliance regarding winter sports access issues.

Research shows there are some western oriented alliances doing that work. If they can, we can. Your thoughts and ideas?
_________________
2009-2010 = 7 - BC/3-P; 6 - BC/T; 9 - IB/T; 3 - IB XC .....that's a wrap!

[nebcskier]

Robox,

I was really disappointed I couldn't make it last night. I'm glad it was such a success. I guess I'll have to keep plugging away and meeting you folks one at a time out on trails this winter. Seems I always plan to make the gathers, then miss them due to other priorities.

I'll do whatever I can to assist.

Great thread!

Thanks

[teleVTpow]

I'd love to join- no giving up stashes though

[Grant]

robrox - Can you clarify what 'access issues' were discussed last night? I'm not sure I see access as a problem in NE.

It seems that in VT the GMNF gives plenty of access, as do the Catamount Trail and VAST trail systems and the state parks. I have experienced the CT's lack of active support, even when considering additional access (i.e. parking) near their trail, but often it's related to working with the USFS (ugggh). In NH the AMC does a nice job of promoting BC skiing in the WMNF and state land. I can't speak for ME but it seems that while there is a lot of private land, closed access in the winter is not the issue.

Thanks.
_________________
I don't trust to nothing, but I know it comes out right.

[chadh]

A formal group name would be fine, especially to help with recognition in the community,

the real issue is stewardship of the public lands and each person making the decision to act as such, like a member of the restoration group said education is the key to prevention, what happened on big jay was atrocious, especially when you consider the efforts put in to preserve the basin and habitat, I know after listening to other view points (outside of skiers/riders) the issue is much bigger than just whether to ski or not to ski it

what are examples of such groups out west?

[Dirk]

I guess I'm with Grant - bc access isn't much of an issue around here. What little designated federal wilderness we have doesn't prohibit skiing. There was a time in the late 90's when the POST (People Opposed to some damn thing or other - I forget now who they were mad at) movement in VT co-opted some landowners into allowing VAST trail access to snowmobiles only, no skiers, but that was sporadic and seems to have faded out.

Plenty of stewardship organizations already exist - AMC, GMC, Catamount Trail Assoc. All have active bc skiers in their memberships. Wouldn't it be better to work with the existing organizations to educate bc skiers on forest management and sensitive natural areas?

Which isn't to say we can't all get together for beers.

[NoOneInParticular]

I'm with Grant and Dirk; I don't see that big a problem. I think an organization would be great for those with that bent.

Second, I don't think the Jay cut is the crime people make it out to be. Vermont was clear cut over a hundred years ago. The cut is surrounded by vegetation that will over time move in and stabalize it.

What is the difference between the Jay cut and the Teardrop trail on Mansfield? One difference is the equipment of skiers and the lines we can ski versus 70 years ago when the Teardrop was cut. I understand that the steeper line of the Jay cut may promote eriosion. I think that is debatable because erosion to me seems to be a feedback cycle between foot traffic and surface water flow. I don't see people hiking the cut in the spring, summer, and fall.

[Carbo]

I think using any 'telemark' organization would unnecessarily limit the user base right off the bat. Anyway, telemarkers are poor cheap bast’ds, and AT’ers are rich folk driving BMW’s with money to burn….so let’s get them in the club.

In my mind the GMC and AMC are doing a pretty good job of giving steep-BC skiers access to good skiing already, even if they don't know they're doing it (note difference from "regular BC" skiing, like the CTA, though I think they could have a role to play too). I don’t think any new organization is needed. If a significant portion of the GMC/AMC membership were active/vocal/donating steep-skiers I think these groups could even do a tad more, but even acknowledging our presence would be huge. I know that the GMC considers skiing on Big Jay an intended use of the property and one of the reasons they chose to spend a lot of money to protect it was to make sure that everyone could keep skiing there, forever. They know we ski on several parcels of land, but I’d bet they’d be surprised by some of the other places we ski. They might not even know that some of that land has value to a certain user group.

The organizations, the political contacts, the fundraisers, are all there already. I don’t think there’s a need to reinvent this wheel. We, steep-BC skiers, just need to step up and let it be known that we are a community, we can be tapped for $ when needed, we can be organized, and.......maybe.......we can even be taught to be light on the loppers/saws. In talking with some GMC leaders recently I was twice told that there is no such thing as a “bc skiing community”. I think 130 people showing up in Boston last night and 5 of 10 volunteers at the Big Jay workday being bc-skiers (and t-tipsters) shows that this isn’t so.

While driving home from Big Jay last Sunday I was thinking about the last time I was in a user group that was on the brink of losing access to an awesome piece of land, and how much harder it was then. How many of you are familiar with NEMBA and a place affectionately called “Vietnam”? Development, erosion issues, and illegal trail building were seriously threatening mountain bikers’ access to land in the Boston area. When one of the area’s best parcels was threatened with development and closure local bikers rallied around NEMBA and raised a TON of money (with help from a nationwide groundswell) and became the first non-profit mtb club to ever buy their own land for riding.
For NE steep-BC skiers to do the same thing we don’t really have to work too hard. We just need to rally around the organizations that have been protecting our access to land for decades….and convince them that we’re good members, assets to their organization, and our goals aren’t any different from theirs: free access to undeveloped mountains.

Thoughts?

[Carbo]

[NoOneInParticular]

[Pallen661]

A couple of thoughts:

Access hasn't been a problem in the NE for a long time but stewardship of the areas we access might be. In the long term, lack of stewardship will lead either to lack of access and or the destruction of the reason you wanted access in the first place.

It seems pretty clear that the organizations that promote stewardship of the backcountry have multiple communities of interest, and that backcountry skiers have not been particularly organized either within or independent of these organizations.

So one question is do we need/want a "political / educational" organization of bcskiers to represent us and to work in conjuction with the existing stewardship groups?

Phil
_________________
wish I was there!

[chadh]

no one -

just curious, what credentials do you hold to determine the erosion problem on big jay isn't an issue,

I agree the forest will recover if given the chance, but that is slim to none


would you mind to much if a couple guys come over to cut some trails on your land, maybe take out 600 or so trees

[Carbo]

[NoOneInParticular]

[NoOneInParticular]