It has been just over three years since two men were arrested for the Big Jay cut. TheSnowWay.com documented news coverage and provided commentary on this issue from the time of the cut up until the Vermont Life article regarding illegal cutting was published last year. The Vermont Life article generated some discussion. But since then, the issue has quietly faded from prominence.
There was talk about skiers and riders organizing for political involvement. Perhaps such an organization could take a page from the regional mountain biking organizations that sought to protect and create riding trails. But as many had predicted, powder hounds and backcountry skiers and riders do not have mentalities geared towards organization. They would rather protect their secrets and stashes than make them public and open to scrutiny, invasion of the masses, or perhaps even forced closure. Despite a few scattered forum postings proposing various ideas, no leaders stepped forward.
So, life goes on. And, so does illegal cutting. As I asked last year in my rebuttal to the Vermont Life article, I will ask again: Is there a problem? It is widely agreed upon by nearly everyone that the Big Jay cut went too far and is not what thinning out tree runs is all about. Was this issue really about illegal thinning? Or was it about two idiots who cut a full blown ski trail rather than thinning out some pucker brush? I say the real story and issue was the latter.
It’s now birdwatching season. And even if you are sitting on the sidelines, if you ski illegally cut woods come winter and praise the locals who cut them, you are culpable too and have taken a moral position (even if unspoken) that illegal cutting is acceptable. If you do not think illegal cutting is acceptable, you would not be being intellectually honest with others nor yourself if you skied those illegally cut lines despite your opinion that illegal cutting is wrong.
5 thoughts on “The Big Jay Cut Revisited”
Each time you and others raise this … I can’t come to a logically sound conclusion. Anytime something is essential to a specific group and their way of life, that group will find a way to justify it. Tree skiing is incredibly important to me, but I can’t come up with a logical construction that makes it consistent with my other beliefs.
One key here is the word “illegal.” Almost every aspect of man’s existence degrades the environment. But some activities are legal and some aren’t. In the Adirondack’s things that have more impact than tree skiiing could include home building, snowmobiling, the legal operations of ski resorts, mining, roadbuilding or logging. But they are legal.
Here’s another issue … if a resort cuts tree runs in-bounds, I’m assuming that’s legal. But what if a resort put’s illegally cut (inbounds) tree shots on the map?
I agree with one point – regardless of whether I do the cutting or not, I’m culpable, if I use the tree shots created. I don’t have any answers. I do appreciate all TSW’s coverage of the topic.
I think I heard that a deal was reached by the perps on the Jay Cut. What exactly happened?
Regarding what happened, both guys took a plea bargain before the case went to trial:
http://www.thesnowway.com/2009/04/25/plea-bargains-taken-in-the-big-jay-case
Regarding legality, it is important to remember that legality just means what the government says is right and wrong, not what is “ultimately” right and wrong (of which my opinion is that there is no absolute moral authority). The law comes down very squarely in favor of property owners almost all the time. In this case, any time you walk on property not owned by yourself (which entails trespassing if the land is not public) and start cutting trees, you are clearly doing something illegal.
Is it wrong, though? And with that lead in, let’s keep in mind that just because the government says something is illegal does not make it wrong (hello marijuana!). And let’s also keep in mind that laws change through time due to advocacy from the population (hello slavery, women’s rights, etc.). So my compass on preferences towards what is “right and wrong” is not guided by the government but rather careful consideration of the issues and how it effects others.
Let’s take selective cutting of smaller trees. This can actually help enhance forests. Clearing out the dead crap and cutting back invasive crowding plants that restrict tree growth can actually help keep forests healthy if done right. And let’s look at the Pemi Wilderness which was clear cut in the railroad days. It all grew back eventually. Using loppers to take out a few 1″ or less diameter sticks does not harm forests if done carefully. Even if it did harm forests, they grow back within a lifetime. Look at NELSAP. Tree huggers would say cutting down any tree is “wrong” but goodness knows how many lost ski areas are still skiable due to trees growing back very quickly after operations cease.
So I say scrap the environmental “wrongess” of the issue and look at the resorts or national forests or state forests in which this cutting is happening. How are these organizations harmed by selective cutting? It increases the local ski area or region’s reputation for good skiing which brings more people to the area enhancing local revenues and state coffers through taxes. People feel so good about their home mountain that they look to improve terrain options, then they are surely a pass holder, likely part of a crew, and likely to bring friends. I don’t see how it hurts ski areas or government’s that own the land. Ski resorts unofficially condone this cutting by taking “secret stashes” and putting them on the map. It has happened all over the place. Look at Cannon’s recent additions. Those were all local cuts in which Cannon didn’t have to lift a finger, no labor what so ever. How about Smuggs who put “Poacher’s Woods” on the map. Give me a break, this does not hurt resorts! You’re Welcome!!!
I will 100% agree with your point that people with vested interest justify their positions. Often times on morally shaky grounds. Perhaps this is the case with my position. Ultimately, one problem that I can not resolve is that how can it be okay to turn a blind eye to this type of trespassing and so called destruction of property but it is not okay in other instances. That to me is a legal question though and does not factor into my equation. Then again, I come at this from the perspective of a nihilist. But I do measure my preferences for how I want to conduct myself (what others might consider personal ethics) and I have squared up my personal preferences with this issue quite coherently for my own preferential system of behavior.
I doubt you are alone in not being able to come up with a view on the issue consistent with your existing beliefs. Part of my post was an ethical challenge. It is very difficult to be consistent and we all have inconsistencies. But that you are trying to figure out a reconciliation is admirable and I suspect you are likely devoting more consideration to the topic than most people.
“…let’s keep in mind that just because the government says something is illegal does not make it wrong…”
Riv… we’re both saying the same thing. I was being pretty indirect, I’ll admit. Legality and morality aren’t necessarily correlated. They can overlap, but that’s a different thing IMO. (There’s some symbolic logic, or maybe a venn diagram in there somewhere …)
Your examples are excellent … slavery etc … prove that because laws are man-made – they are subjective, and can’t be considered guidelines for right and wrong.
The tough issues always face this kind of a “line-drawing” scenario. “This seems ok at this level, but if you take that line of reasoning out farther, you end up in a place that reasonable people agree is over the line.
FYI – One ski area I know of, actually gives a pass to a noted legendary glade maintenance man. And it ain’t all maintenance.
Thanks for the credit. I do have to admit, I think about these things more in September than I do after a major dump it February.
For me it’s all a matter of degrees. I don’t have a problem with some measure of selective cutting, legal or not. Do I drive faster than 65 MPH on the I-93…yes. Is it illegal….you betcha. Do I feel “bad” for doing it….no. Do I drive 90 MPH on I-93….nope. But not because it’s illegal. I don’t drive that fast because a feeling inside me says it’s too fast. I don’t feel comfortable doing it. There are studies that show that people drive at a speed that they feel is safe, regardless of the posted limit. ……unless they have a bunch of points on their license. To me, the overzealous tree trimmers of Big Jay just need a slap up side the head. Their internal moral compass was sitting too close to the microwave. Small trees will grow back fast. Don’t mess up the habitat. I’m sure Mr. Bicknell’s Thrush won’t miss a couple saplings. Truth is, even the major damage done by the large cutting will be erased very quickly. Until then the moose will browse on the new aspen, red maple and other browse that will take over the cut. If you get caught trimming, plan to pay the piper. If your willing to risk it, go ahead. If I get a ticket for doing 75 on I-93, I’ll pay it. That’s how the game works.
Great thoughts Gregg, I concur 100%.