 |
 |
On Wed, 20 Jan 2010 07:58:17 -0500, Tag <[log in to unmask]> wrote: >Actually the exact opposite is true. For years conservationists have >realized that the way you protect wilderness is to expose people to it. Let >them know what's out there and what the experience is like even if they >can't experience it themselves. > >Don't try and disguise pure selfishness with some kind of BS altruistic >motivation. Not to mention that the wildness TEO seeks to protect is something that he has personally mutilated for his own purposes. There is nothing wild about it. Also, presuming that said mutilation is a good thing on some level (for skiers anyway), consider this. The law of supply and demand has led to the creation of your stash. You had a demand for powder, and created more supply. With more skiers coming into the backcountry, that will only happen again, somewhere else. So the argument that it is different back east has little merit. Yeah, we have miles of skiable terrain here, but fewer and fewer access points (taken away due to lack of use, mother nature, or in the name of wilderness). In VT, you have many access points, if less skiable terrain, but with manpower that can change. Your supply can meet the demand, whereas ours will stay more or less constant as more and more cars stream up Snoqualmie Pass. Jerm - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont. To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html