Letters to the Editor
-
Hot Skiing, Cold Math
Hey Don, where do I find one of the 134 ski areas that control part of the 190 million acreas you say they do? That averages out to 1.4 million acres per resort, and I thought Vail at 5289 acres was big!
-
Stupid "Environmentalists"
The cutting of ski slopes is largely beneficial to wildlife, since it produces significant 'edge-habitat' - the ecotone between forest and field. This is the most highly productive area in a forest ecosystem and is favored by wildlife during the summer months. During the winters, most herbivores head for sheltered areas deep in the forest, away from the slopes. Their predators follow them there.
Uneducated, so-called "Environmentalists" often lack an understanding of sustainable forest ecology or forward thinking silvaculture practices, but rather react to cute pictures of bunnies and lynx and act-out irrationally based on emotion rather than intellect.
Ironically, the ski slopes mimic the open areas naturally created by forest fires, which have largely been eradicated from western forests by forest managers (until the ground cover builds up and we have a massive, out of control blaze).
The idiot ELFs who burned the slopes of Vail were actually acting counter to the best interest of the forest – but who cares? It makes for great press, right? Wrong…again.
-
Yo-yo skiing
Although it was kind of fun to use a lift for a little telemarking, it was ultimately a waste of time. I'd rather be as far away from all those people as possible. So in a way I'd like to thank the yo-yo ski industry for concentrating the assholes all in one place.
-
Yo-Yo Skiing
From the sound of your letter, you're as big an asshole as those you chide - only difference is you're a solitary asshole off in the woods alone..where you should be. Anonymous cowards on the internet = losers.
-
More bad math
In comparing land use revenue from all ski resorts to those from Yellowstone, Yosemite and Grand Canyon National Parks, it seems that Dan has very selectively chosen the THREE most well-known parks in the country, and compared them to ALL of the ski resorts. Either compare all the parks to all the resorts, or the top 3 parks to the top 3 resorts. (If he's going to use bogus statistics, he might as well compare the ski resort revenue to the tax revenue from Manhattan.)
Too bad the author is trying to pull his own snow job on us.
-
Skiing: Enjoying it while I can...
It's really hard for me to criticize the ski industry for any environmental wrongs when I know how many other, incredibly worse industries are out there. Like say, mountaintop removal in West Virginia for coal mining, or slash-and-burn agriculture in the Amazon.
I've skied Blue Sky Basin at Vail, and it really does have a different feel to it than what I'm used to. Except for two or three "clear cut" trails, the rest of the mountainside is pretty much all selectively thinned forest terrain. I could tell before even being exposed to any "greenwash" type PR by Vail that this was a different kind of ski area expansion. We'll see if this was a one-time deal or if other expansions (such as Breckenridge) go back to the old model. Hopefully Blue Sky Basin is the real trendsetter it seems to be.
Until my knees crap out, I've decided to enjoy skiing while I still can. It's more likely that we'll hit peak oil and flights to Denver will cost $2,500 each way long before it stops snowing in the Rockies.
-Adam in Philly
-
Missed the boat
The article raises many good points about the environmental dangers of ski areas, but really misses the main culprit: real estate development. Over the last 25 years, as resort areas were bought up and consolidated into large corporations, the business model changed. Skiing is the loss-leader that gets the potential real estate buyers in the door.
Look at all the major resorts across the US and all the real estate development that has surrounded them. Hotels, condos, time-shares, and houses is where the ski industry has makes its money, not on the skiing itself. More often then not, new lifts are put in to accommodate a new housing development, not so much to open new terrain to skiers. As Natural1 points out, often cutting new terrain for skiing can be environmentally beneficial. At any rate, the damage is inconsequential compared to the real estate sprawl that now dwarfs resort areas.
Two years ago, Intrawest agreed to take over operations at Winter Park from the City of Denver. While the city gets out of the ski business and now gets a guaranteed payment, Intrawest's key demand is that they be allowed to develop the areas around Winter Park and Mary Jane. While the areas had a few hotels around the base, look for dramatic changes over the next 10 years.
If you want to enjoy snow sports, ski the smaller areas that make money on the skiing, not real estate and are not owned by the corporations, like Loveland, Eldora, Monarach or Ski Cooper here in Colorado. No faux "villages", no liftlines, free parking right at the base - no shuttle busses, and no $15 hamburgers. (Disclosure - I am a volunteer Ski Patroller at Loveland).
-
false premise
The extremists hoped to derail a controversial proposal to expand skiing into crucial habitat for the endangered Canada lynx
But that turned out to be a fraud. Investigators determined that someone cut hair from a lynx in captivity and then stuck it to tree trunks and bushes in the area to make it look as if this was lynx territory.
If enviromentalists are so right, why do they so often turn to lies to justify their position?
-
Frankly I'm shocked
At the silence of the Saloniks over the rich white patriarchal oil consuming war mongering oppressive to trees, woman and black people ethos that surrounds this. Why you outta turn in your Birkenstocks for such transgressions.
-
Still more bad math...
The author points out that three national parks bring in seven times as much revenue as the ski areas, however a little simple division reveals that the ski areas are producing about $126 per acre, while the parks produce about $1.90 per acre. By this logic the ski areas are a much more efficient use of public land. Oko then claims the ski areas "pocket 96% of their revenue". I don't know what business you're in, but in mine I don't pocket anything until I've paid my expenses, you know, little things like wages and utilities. The author is either twisting the language to make a point or simply stupid.
As for the ski industry being obsessed with growth, building new lifts, base lodges and housing, what industry isn't? I believe it's called capitalism, you know, the economic system we all live under? If your business isn't growing, it isn't healthy and will eventually lose market share and die. Whether this is a good thing is an entirely different discussion.
The real threat to ski resorts (and the main point of the book, Downhill Slide) is the fact that the industry is running out of skiers as the baby boomers hang up their skis and pick up their golf clubs (uh oh, let's not get started on the evils of golf courses), combined with competition for vacationers from the tropics, theme parks, even gambling towns. Young people looking for a rad sport now have hundreds to choose from (skiing was the original 'extreme' sport). This is in part driving the growth of ski areas, as they scramble to differentiate themselves from the competition (now we're back to the capitalism thing). Ski areas are also caught in a Catch-22 of sorts, whereby their customers demand high-speed lifts, which cost a fortune to run, so the ski areas have to charge $75-100 a day, which drives off new skiers.
Is the ski industry green? Hell no (and I speak as someone who has lived and worked in a major North American ski town for 19 years), but it should be compared to other rural industries like logging and mining - on a strictly utilitarian basis (environmental degradation vs. economic benefit) it comes out looking pretty good. Shoddy, biased pieces like this one aren't going to do much to further the discussion.
Oh, and the Rockies are "thousands of feet higher than the Alps"? Shame on Salon for publishing this piece of crap.