Print

Print


This thread reflects a basic lack of reading comprehension and closed minds.

Alex, Patrick, and Matt K. presented non-antagonistic, selfless, thoughtful
points that have nothing to do with due-paying, secrecy, or selfishness.

And Brian, there is a good community of skiers in Vermont. It's called
SkiVT-L.

Brian, Nathan, et al., you don't understand, you really don't. Alas, your
selfish attitudes have an impact on others.

caveat lector

On Wed, Jan 20, 2010 at 2:57 PM, Brian Waters <[log in to unmask]>wrote:

> Let me start by addressing some selected points that have been brought up:
>
> 1. The whole idea of "paying your dues," in reference to the schwack, the
> huff, etc: The use of language here - the term "payment" - seems to suggest
> that, by by paying one's dues, one has earned a right, or an entitlement, to
> enjoy a certain wild place. But no such "payment" has been made; the schwack
> (or lack thereof) affects only the schwacker himself. In fact, to place some
> ethic of deservingness upon a wild place which, by itself, has no such
> ethic, is to lay claim to the place. Mother nature has no notion of
> deservingness, and to say that one person does not deserve to enjoy a place
> as much as another is incredibly selfish.
>
> 2. There are legitimate, practical, and non-theoretical arguments against
> the open dissemination of information about backcountry skiing, in regards
> to the quality of skiing itself. Many are concerned that the unbridled
> distribution of information will lead to a diminished skiing experience for
> those already in the know. Fundamentally, they're right. But it's an open
> question as to how much of an effect these internet posts really have. Some
> feel the effect is drastic, others feel that it's negligible; and the real
> answer is somewhere in between. So it's in the interest of those in the know
> to do what they can do slow the distribution of skiing information, and I
> understand that. I even partake myself. However, I see this as selfish: by
> preserving the quality of our own skiing, we're hiding a world of fun from
> many others.
>
> 3. There's also an environmental concern here, although I'm not much
> worried myself. As I see it, non-trimming backcountry skiing traffic has a
> pretty low, largely acceptable, and hopefully sustainable level of impact,
> although I'm no expert. Even at popular places like the Teardrop and Big Jay
> (pre-swath), the problem is minimal. As I see it, slightly increased traffic
> in currently quiet areas is unlikely to have a large effect.
>
> And now for the rant:
>
> I understand, guys, I really do. For us, the ones that know, our snow is
> better off when it's hidden from those that don't know. But it's that
> attitude of selfishness, and the unwillingness to share, that greatly
> disappoints me, and it's one of the reasons that we don't have a good
> community of backcountry skiers in this state. Climbers share, and they have
> a thriving community here in Vermont. It's even got a heirarchy of
> experienced climbers who share their skills and their favorite places with
> less experienced folk. We're ages from that here in the skiing world.
> Personally, I have no BC ski community - I grab my skis and go, and if I'm
> lucky, one of my close friends will come along for the ride. This list is
> the closest thing I've got, and I haven't skied with any of you, ever.
>
> Don't expect people to follow some community ethic when they're not part of
> any greater community. Maybe a little more openness is what we need to forge
> one. That's where I stand.
>
> - BW
>
> - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SkiVt-L is
> brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>
> To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
>

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html