thesnowway.com

A Response to the Vermont Life Magazine Article on Trail Cutting

The Big Jay trail cutting incident continues to create discussion about so called “illegal backcountry trail cutting.” Vermont Life Winter 2009 edition presents an article that fails to fully flesh out the issue and generally focuses on only one side of the “problem” and “solution”. So lets delve into this subject in detail using the Vermont Life article as a launching pad for a more in depth discussion.

• Vermont Life Magazine, Winter 2009: A Thousand Cuts (Article)

Is Cutting a “Backcountry” Problem?

First, I would like to address this common concept of blaming “backcountry skiers” for illegal cutting and thinning. I propose that the majority of illegal cutting occurs at established ski areas within or adjacent to ski area boundaries. While there are those that cut and thin lines that are strictly accessible by earning turns, most thinned areas are lift service accessible or at least slackcountry accessible from a lift with a short hike. This is not strictly a “backcountry” problem and I would suggest that the problem is actually significantly bigger at and around ski areas. The Vermont Life article (or at least those quoted within it) confuses ski area gladed terrain with backcountry terrain (or at least is written in such a way that suggests confusion).

Second, all skiers and riders currently recreating in illegally thinned out tree lines are culpable and have provided defacto approval and endorsement of the activity. This likely even includes many if not most of the persons quoted in the Vermont Life article that suggest “skiing without a saw”. Perhaps prior to the Big Jay cut, there could be no guilty mind despite the guilty act because cutting and thinning of lines seemed very acceptable and the way things are done. But since the Big Jay cut, any one that skis a line that has been thinned illegally is providing their tacit endorsement of the activity. This likely includes many skiers and riders who have decried cutting and thinning the loudest.

Perhaps many do so without even knowing that the line was thinned illegally. However, I think it is a safe assumption that unless a ski area actively promotes boundary to boundary (or perhaps even beyond the boundary) tree skiing, most tree skiing not on a trail map is likely the result of illegal or unauthorized cutting. Essentially, most tree skiing off the map is likely maintained without the approval of the adjacent ski area.

(more…)

After more than a year and a half since Paul Poulin and Alan Ritter were arrested for clear cutting a trail on Big Jay, the two men have accepted a plea bargain just before the case went to a jury trial. According to the Caledonian Record, the judge sentenced both men to 18 to 36 months each of probation and 60 days each on community work service.

• Caledonian Record: Defendants Accept Plea Deals

The Caledonian Record is reporting that plea deals have been scraped for the two men accused of clear cutting the trail on Big Jay. Days after firing his attorney, Paul Poulin appeared in court to represent himself and argue a motion to dismiss the case. However, the judge ordered Poulin to complete a psyciatric evaluation to verify Poulin was mentally sound enough to stand trial. Alan Ritter has skipped the plea bargain process opting to fight the charges out right.

• Deal Off In Big Jay Clear-Cut Cases in the Caledonia Record

The Newport Daily Express has reported on pre-trial happenings concerning the accused Big Jay cutters. In a surprising turn of events, Paul Poulin fired lawyer David Sleigh during a closed door hearing recess. According to the article, Poulin was specifically concerned about Sleigh’s inability to answer what happened to a motion to dismiss the charges.

The article details issues concerning how valuation of the forestry damage is being measured.  While estimates for replacing the cut trees at nearly $48,000 seems unreasonably high, the damage is almost without a doubt measured above the $1,000 felony charge level. A plea could be dependent upon how the damaged is valuated.

Pre-trial hearings continue later this week and the prospect of a jury trial is not out of the question with a jury potentially determining the issue of damage valuation.

•  Accused illegal Jay trail cutter fires attorney, insists he has deal with the state

The following release from the VT Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation has recently circulated the internet via forums. While no official press release has been made on the ANR web site nor the VT Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation web site, the release looks official. A public meeting will be held at Jay Peak Resort on August 6th at 7 P.M. in the Tram Lodge for concerned persons to provide input on the issue, resolution, and continued work to restore the Big Jay cut.

This proposal is much the same as the backcountry community suggested at the last public meeting at Big Jay. It is unfortunate that the powers that be created a hostile situation rather than taking immediate action on suggestions from backcountry skiers and riders that attended the December meeting and offered win-win proposals such as the one detailed below. Hopefully all parties and persons involved can reconcile and agree that this is the best solution for everyone involved and for the restoration effort.

(more…)

John Atkinson has posted a response to editorials written by Ben Rose (Green Mountain Club) and Adam Howard (Backcountry Magazine) regarding the cut on Big Jay. The article, posted on VTsports.com, is a revamped call to action for backcountry skiers to organize and for outdoors organizations such as the Green Mountain Club to support such organizational efforts. Atkinson articulates the crux of the backcountry cutting issue succinctly in his article:

The difference between breaking branches and cutting trees with chainsaws is only a matter of degree. If we don’t have permission, we shouldn’t do it. But this highlights the issue/problem that there are only a few small, mainly private, places where this type of work is currently planned and permitted.

On one hand, backcountry cutters are aware they are violating laws by taking the matter into their own hand. This is clearly an illegal and ethically unsound activity. However, backcountry skiing has not been fostered, developed, or supported by outdoors clubs, state governments, or regional skiing organizations. The number of officially maintained backcountry trails dwindled following the development of lift serviced skiing and no official backcountry glade program has ever been instituted in any New England state aside from a couple privately and co-operatively owned ski areas. Perhaps backcountry skiers should not be taking to the woods with loppers and hand saws to trim lines (despite many doing so in environmentally sound and sustainable ways, unlike the Big Jay cut). However, high demand and short supply has forced many hands into action. A coming together of backcountry skiers and local clubs, organizations, and governmental agency to redirect illegal efforts into sanctioned backcountry skiing runs would be a welcome solution.

• The Enemy

Green Mountain Club member and Backcountry Magazine editor Adam Howard has responded to Ben Rose’s recent article in VTsports.com about the Big Jay cut. Adam presents many of the common themes and arguments that are representative of the backcountry perspective.

Howard suggests that Rose is missing a key opportunity to lead rather than posture on the issue. Specifically, the article suggests that the Green Mountain Club could utilize the Big Jay issue to attract backcountry skiers to the GMC, increase club membership, educate the backcountry skiing community, and utilize the good will to mobilize efforts to promote legal and sanctioned backcountry cutting activities. This sounds like a win-win-win solution rather than a cease and desist ultimatum.

• A Cut by Any Other Name

Ben Rose, Executive Director of the Green Mountain Club, has recently addressed skiers and riders in regards to backcountry access. In the VTsports.com article, Ben Rose continues hostile attacks and posturing rather than inviting a dialog. Having an actual conversation might force Ben Rose to concede that the problem is not just illegal cutting but a lack of official access and maintenance for backcountry tree skiers.

Rose’s defiance of logic is most acutely displayed when he writes that “If you can’t hack it, don’t hack it” as if to suggest Vermont has an abundance of naturally occurring glades that don’t need pruning. The fact of the matter is that nearly all tree skiing in New England is maintained with very few locations sporting respectable spacing. Speaking on a personal note, I love tight lines and thwacking through brush to earn a few yards of powder turns. I can hack a lot of things but it is hard to hack tree skiing in New England, even in Northern Vermont, without a little assistance. To suggest that the few naturally occurring glade lines in Vermont are enough to satisfy the masses of tree skiers–that yes, can indeed “hack it”–is naive.

The article approaches its conclusion with a statement that “Sorry, but we need to have a serious conversation.” Why the apology to begin a statement of truth? The insinuation seems to be that the backcountry skiing community does not want nor is ready for such a conversation. We DO need to have a serious conversation.

This conversation needs to be approached seriously by both sides of the issue. Hard line conservationists must realize that the reason this has become such a serious issue is because of pent up demand and no official and legal outlets for the activity. This “problem” will not go away by having a one way so called conversation. Rather, this issue needs to be addressed with both sides admitting the faults of their arguments, stop posturing, and find some compromise and middle ground. Otherwise, the calls to stop trimming tree lines will simply be ignored and the practice will continue business as usual but with perhaps a little more stealth due to the Big Jay incident.

Great lines are almost always made, not found, unlike what Mr. Rose’s article suggests. Considering the article title suggests addressing the “Future” of the Backcountry, it seems like Rose is only looking backward instead of realistically looking forward. Cease and desist ultimatums are never appropriate when trying to have a “conversation” and addressing the root cause of a problem.

• Jailhouse Chute and the Future of Backcountry

The Green Mountain Club has released a Press Release requesting that “The Scar” be avoided during the spring melt off. During this time, the cut on Big Jay will be extremely vulnerable to erosion damage. During a work day this past fall, a Green Mountain Club led work crew installed erosion control devices. The Club fears that these erosion control devices could be damaged and rendered useless if the area sees foot traffic.

The press release also refers to an initiative to engage backcountry skiers in land management discussions:

In related news, GMC recently met with a group of backcountry skiers to discuss the development of a Vermont Backcountry Skiers Code of Ethics (Leave No Trace). We discussed the need to develop or identify an organization that can coordinate backcountry skiers to engage in land management discussions relating to the use of public lands for backcountry skiing. Stay tuned for more information about this initiative.

This is a positive step forward that was absent from how the Green Mountain Club handled the Big Jay situation this past winter, especially in regards to the meeting announcing the restrictions at the Jay Peak Resort Stateside Lodge. Any discussions of backcountry skiing land management must include concessions to the backcountry skiing community about maintaining thinned out backcountry tree skiing lines and locations. The Green Mountain Club seemed hostile to this issue at the Big Jay meeting. Backcountry skiers will also be forced to agree to concessions for such a land management proposal to succeed. The backcountry skiing community awaits further details on this meeting.

• GMC Press Release: Illegal Scar on Big Jay Vulnerable to Further Damage During Spring Conditions

The decision makers and the backcountry community would do well to reconsider the access restriction as the best policy to prevent skiers and riders from accessing the illegal cut on Big Jay. Both parties could learn a lot from the opposing point of view and perhaps conclude neither extreme is appropriate. Policy does need to be in place to protect the scar but a complete restriction of access does not accomplish the desires of either group. This sets up a situation in which moral and ethical backcountry skiers respecting the restriction are effectively punished through restricted access while rule breakers are effectively rewarded with nearly perfect untracked snow conditions and exciting descents.

One of the arguments made by the decision makers is the belief that the skiing and riding community can not self police. Essentially, renegades would ski the scar if access was not restricted. My initial reaction was that, without an attempt at education and alternative solutions, this policy is a self fulfilling prophecy . Especially noteworthy is the fact that restricting access to Big Jay via the Saddle has garnered attention and media coverage that has put a big fat bulls eye on Big Jay and the scar for less ethically inclined skiers and riders. It would be ironic if the decision makers, including the GMC, JPR, and VDFPR, brought about increased risk of skiers and riders sliding down the scar by restricting access.

On December 28th, TheSnowWay.com published Alternative Solutions to Big Jay Closure which listed alternative solutions to restricting access with the ultimate goal of protecting regrowth and regeneration of the scar in mind. Here is a quote from that article:

The community that attended the Big Jay meeting on December 15th was offered no opportunity for partnership, engagement, or participation in the process. The director of Jay Peak Ski Patrol noted that the decision makers were essentially “treating the community like babies.” Without a positive outlet for contribution to making the situation better through collaboration, it seems likely that many members of the community will reject the access restriction this season (proposed without an expected expiration date, essentially an indefinite restriction).

The likely result of the current situation is that the scar might likely be skied just to spite the powers that be. And while that may bode poorly for the long term community, the decision makers should not see individual short comings on values, principles, and morals as anything more than individuals without positive alternatives and partnerships deciding they have nothing to loose. A bad situation has been created by dictation rather than partnership, trust, and collaboration.

(more…)

An online community was formed today to track Big Jay news and developments. The Ski Big Jay Google Group provides Big Jay skiers and riders a communication platform to discuss the issue, network, keep informed, and get active. The Google Group is open to the public and should see active discussion and perhaps hopefully lead to organization of the community.

• Ski Big Jay Google Group

While debate develops in the backcountry skiing and riding community regarding long term solutions to tree skiing and organization, Big Jay access from Jay Peak is restricted indefinitely. The backcountry skiing and riding community has yet to seriously address the problem other than a local petition and the Big Jay Access Restriction meeting question and answer session . The State of Vermont, the Green Mountain Club, and Jay Peak Resort all agreed to utilize the easiest and quickest short term solution to address the problem of people sliding down the scar and exacerbating the damage. However, there are several alternatives to the closure that could be implemented to address reducing sliding on the scar to near zero.

My suggested alternative solutions should be placed in context of the current situation as dictated to the backcountry skiing and riding community by the decision makers. The fundamental issue is protecting the scar to best allow successful regeneration with the least amount of damage to the environment and the erosion control measures. All solutions should be proposed and thoroughly evaluated with this goal in mind. No single effort will ultimately prove successful including, ironically, a complete restriction of access from Jay Peak Resort.

The community that attended the Big Jay meeting on December 15th was offered no opportunity for partnership, engagement, or participation in the process. The director of Jay Peak Ski Patrol noted that the decision makers were essentially “treating the community like babies.” Without a positive outlet for contribution to making the situation better through collaboration, it seems likely that many members of the community will reject the access restriction this season (proposed without an expected expiration date, essentially an indefinite restriction).

(more…)

The Northern Frontier Section of the Green Mountain Club has two pages dedicated to Big Jay news on their web site. The first page is a collection of articles from various New England media about the cutting. The second link is a collection of articles from Long Trail News, an official publication of the Green Mountain Club. President Richard Windish has somewhat harsh words stating that “We will avenge Big Jay.” Whether this should be meant to suggest punishing the two individuals responsible for the cutting or something in a more broader scope is not clarified.

• Northern Frontier Section of GMC: News about Big Jay, Vermont
• Northern Frontier Section of GMC: Long Trail News, November 2007

Vermont’s Catamont Trail Association’s latest newsletter contains an article by Peter Wadsworth, a Green Mountain Club Volunteer, about the cutting on Big Jay. The article on page 9 of the winter 2007-2008 Catamount Trail News considers the negative impact of public perception on the backcountry skiing community. This topic is of great concern to downhill backcountry and slackcountry skiers that were dismayed and appalled by the Big Jay cutting. It should come as no surprise that nordic and touring skiers also want to distance themselves from the cut on Big Jay. The article is welcoming of downhill backcountry skiers into organizations like the CTA and suggests that partnership and education are needed tools to ensure this type of destruction does not occur again.

• CTA Winter 2007-2008 Newsletter (PDF: 877.1 KB) 

Author and Sugarbush local John Atkinson weighs in on the Big Jay incident and the need for organization and legal tree line creation and maintenance in the October edition Vermont Sports Online. Atkinson specifically addresses the current unspoken code of “don’t ask, don’t tell” that specificies not using chain saws or other intrusive cutting methods and relying on discovery or being shown secret tree shots. Atkinson suggests that this current unspoken code is tacit approval of illegal operations and draws a direct relationship between such tacit approval and the Big Jay cut.

It is highly unlikely that the backcountry and slackcountry tree skiing and riding population will stop skiing illegally maintained lines to make a point of solidarity for organized and legal efforts and in objection to the Big Jay cut which most have vehemently denounced. The article suggests opting for legal and legitimate tree line maintenance options until the community can organize and follow in the paths of other recreational pursuits such as mountain biking and snowmobiling which work closely with both state and national forest services.

• Vermont Sports Online Article: Wake-up Call