New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Eco-Groups: Friend or Foe?

post #1 of 26
Thread Starter 
You'd expect most Eco-groups to embrace our skiers' love of Mother Nature. Skiers, like the tree huggers, celebrate natural beauty, cavorting among the pine cones and Bombadier Snow Cats.

Yet, these well-meaning Eco-souls seem to take exception to our need for a few ski lifts, warming huts, and parking lots.

Often as not, skiers and Eco-groups seem to be on opposing sides of the fence.

Are these folks a reflection of our "higher-selves", or are they fringe fanatics, in need of observation via The Patriot Act?
post #2 of 26
Oh........ this could get interesting! :
post #3 of 26
Many of them suck, some of them don't.

I don't like the rampant expansion of many ski areas, but not because I think it's stressing the lynx population. I don't like it because I think it's ridiculous. Like the Patriot Act.
post #4 of 26
Quote:
Often as not, skiers and Eco-groups seem to be on opposing sides of the fence.
I didn't notice that at last week's Sustainable Living Fair in Fort Collins. I saw skier groups and the biggest tree hugger groups co-existing in harmony. I talked to Ellis Smith from Thrillhead Creations and he's trying to educate and promote skiing and environmental stewardship. He also puts out great ski footage. Thanks for the copy of Shralptown! Can't wait for the new one Ellis. I also saw a hydrogen powered Hummer and the requiste recycled ski furniture. I drooled over a homebrew biodiesel setup from a company in Texas.

I did get a person to agree that genetically engineering microbes was not evil when this created microbes that could turn biomass into biofuels. He didn't realize that microbes didn't naturally convert 5 carbon sugars into ethanol. The genetically engineered crop thing was still evil though.

New Belgium Brewery was one of the main sponsors of the fair. Since the brewery was next to the fair, I forced myself to step into the tasting room.
post #5 of 26
My vote – Eco groups can be both.

The difficulty with environmental questions often comes down to what is “right.” Will another lift or expansion of a lodge cause harm? It has often seemed to me that some eco groups take a black and white, moralistic and one sided view of things e.g., "don’t build the lift to “save the bear”" when the environment question is more grey. On the other side, some eco groups realize that they have similar goals as skier or mtb groups and can work together to quell rampant growth that ruins things for everyone (except the developers pocket books). “They paved paradise…”
post #6 of 26
Whoa! Cool topic. Thanks for introducing it.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
Yet, these well-meaning Eco-souls seem to take exception to our need for a few ski lifts, warming huts, and parking lots.
I wish you had linked to a few news stories which demonstrated your point better, but my initial reaction is, good for them! They should take exception. Screw a new parking lot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jer View Post
I don't like the rampant expansion of many ski areas, but not because I think it's stressing the lynx population.
Lynx are awesome animals -- they've already been destroyed in Colorado (now they're being reintroduced) -- so it's not like some kind of exaggerated risk. They are worthy of our concern, and certainly worth more than some dumb new warming hut.

Skiing isn't the only outdoor sport sometimes thrown into conflict with environmental preservationists, but skiers -- given their generally higher educations, income, etc -- really should be leading the way in creating workable partnerships with enviro groups.

Conservation isn't enough.
post #7 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain_Strato View Post
You'd expect most Eco-groups to embrace our skiers' love of Mother Nature. Skiers, like the tree huggers, celebrate natural beauty, cavorting among the pine cones and Bombadier Snow Cats.

Yet, these well-meaning Eco-souls seem to take exception to our need for a few ski lifts, warming huts, and parking lots.

Often as not, skiers and Eco-groups seem to be on opposing sides of the fence.

Are these folks a reflection of our "higher-selves", or are they fringe fanatics, in need of observation via The Patriot Act?
Do you really think its anywhere close to being that simple, or are you just pretending to be completely naive and simpleminded?
post #8 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by MAGGOT View Post
Do you really think its anywhere close to being that simple, or are you just pretending to be completely naive and simpleminded?
I think you are feeding the troll.
post #9 of 26
Thread Starter 
Could you add a dash of lime with a sprig of cilantro?
post #10 of 26
Friend.
post #11 of 26
Mostly friend.

I can't stand to be around those who have turned environmentalism into their personal religion but I am certainly in the same camp when it comes to preservation, for the most part.
post #12 of 26
I think the problem is more with real estate expansion really, than ski lift expansion, although I can see the lynx issue depending on if they are really boxed into a certain geography due to past poor decisons on Interstate highways, etc. Maybe what needs to happen is that if the ski area wants to expand into certain territory, they invest in finding other territory for the species and how to get them to it.

I just finished Downhill Slide, so I'm still impacted by it.
post #13 of 26
Depends for me. I think they have their place making sure we arent polluting the crap out of our lands. I recycle, fuel efficient car, and do my part to reduce my green house gases (hold the beans, please). BUT

When when it comes to skiing, forget it. I'm all about survival of the fitest baby! If the lynx, marmot, snow flea, whatever cant adapt and live around the chair lift, lodge, snowgun, etc they can go extinct.

For those of you who arent bothered by the eco groups because you earn your turns.. beware. Once these groups have had their way with lift served areas, they're gonna be upset about you hiking/skining/climbing your way up a mountain too. Seriously, there's alot of people who belive in Zero Impact in wilderness areas.
post #14 of 26
I find Lynx to be both tasty and nutritious.
post #15 of 26
BEER ROASTED LYNX
1 lynx cut into roast
1 can of Campbell's Cream of Mushroom soup
1 cube of beef bouillon
1 clove of garlic
1 Fine Irish Stout, like Guinness

Cover and soak lynx roast in salt water for 24 hours. Drain water and then cover and soak in beer for 6 hours. Drain and place in crock pot with your cans of soup. Add a clove of garlic, and a cube of beef bouillon. If you start to slow cook lynx in the morning with your George Foreman Cooker (or it's ilk), you'll have finely cooked feline in time for supper.

If a slow cooker is not available, the lynx can be baked at 350 degrees for 2-3 hours in a conventional oven and still come out pretty good. Beer Roasted Lynx is fantastic served with mashed potatoes, collard greens, and fresh, homemade egg rolls.
post #16 of 26
Thread Starter 
Some of these Eco-types tend to be sincere, balanced souls, soldiering for a good cause.

Others, like the Eco-arsonists at Vail a few years ago, are fueled by rabid fervor. They echo religious fundamentalists, of any stripe.
post #17 of 26
Developers, on the other hand, are uniformly evil and soulless minions of devastation for dollars.
post #18 of 26
40% of eco-groupies believe developers are only partially evil.
post #19 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Witherspoon View Post
Developers, on the other hand, are uniformly evil and soulless minions of devastation for dollars.

Unless they are building the house you are living in:
post #20 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by Trotski View Post
Lynx are awesome animals -- they've already been destroyed in Colorado (now they're being reintroduced) -- so it's not like some kind of exaggerated risk. They are worthy of our concern, and certainly worth more than some dumb new warming hut.
Says who? I've known some folks who really needed a warming hut to fight off hypothermia.......I've never met anyone who actually needs a lynx. They may be cool animals but the state will go on without them.
post #21 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGASkiDawg View Post
Says who? I've known some folks who really needed a warming hut to fight off hypothermia.......I've never met anyone who actually needs a lynx. They may be cool animals but the state will go on without them.

Define "warming hut". Do you mean a tiny, unobtrusive shack or a 15,000 sq foot mid-mountain restaurant?

Years ago I was skiing in Yellowstone and got frostbite pretty bad on my fingers. It still takes 'em about two hours to warm up when I ski. Personally, I'd much rather have the lynx.

I hate many of these "eco" groups who are nothing more than bitter hikers or NIMBYs using nature as a means to get thier way, but I also hate yuppie morons who expect nature to get out of thier way so they can warm thier little toesies and buy a $12 hamburger or get an extra 15,000 feet of vert on the Lightspeed Sixer.
post #22 of 26
Thread Starter 

Each Species Has 15 Min.

According to the "Earth Policy Institute", 99.9% of all organisms that have ever existed on earth are now extinct. Several thousand species, from microorganisms to mammals, become extinct each year, and others are created.

Throughout history, 5 cataclysmic events have spurred "mass extinctions", and scientists believe we may be in the midst of a 6th (Global Warming).

Long story short; species arise and become extinct on a regular basis, and have done so since the birth of Earth.

Hence, if a species appears headed for the exit (spotted owl, lynx, - or some new cause-cerebra), while it's no cause for jubilation, it may also not be cause for teary grief.

Humans have the ability to invent tools, and presumably, we're supposed to use them (ski lifts). We're also probably not supposed to bulldoze the Earth into a WalMart parking lot.

Species collide. Regardless of how Eco-responsible we become, our lives and carbon footprint inevitably means other species will vanish.

The only way to ensure no negative impact on the tufted-eared Lynx, is to kill ourselves (something we've shown promise at).

Short of that, it becomes an issue of reasonableness.

Humans have only been here for the blink of an eye (Earth time). Our clock is also ticking.
post #23 of 26
I would say that climate change is a huge issue where the interests of skiers and Eco-groups should coincide. Development issues seem to cut both ways with the various groups often being on different sides.
post #24 of 26
With respect to the extinction issue... Nelsap.org lists 582 lost ski areas in New England. Colorado Ski history lists over 140 lost ski areas in that state which they claim has 25 operating resorts. Dcski.com lists 71 lost ski areas in the mid atlantic and tracks the operation of 34 operating resorts in NC, WV, VA, PA,and MD. Its pretty obvious that historically ski area development has not been a sustainable activity in a majority of cases. I am sort of curious what has become of these lost ski areas and what if any long term impact is felt after the area shuts it's doors.
post #25 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by tromano View Post
I am sort of curious what has become of these lost ski areas and what if any long term impact is felt after the area shuts it's doors.
Some will make it back. Stay tune for future post about 2 years from now.

post #26 of 26
Quote:
Originally Posted by UGASkiDawg View Post
Says who? I've known some folks who really needed a warming hut to fight off hypothermia.......I've never met anyone who actually needs a lynx. They may be cool animals but the state will go on without them.
And the state won't go on without the people that died of hypothermia?
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion