Dave wrote:

> But I fail to see how being sensitive to the environment and running a
> profitable ski area are necessarily antithetical.  And I don't see why
> expenses associated with protecting the environment at a ski area
> should be any less legitimate than those for lifts or insurance.

Precisely and perfectly stated.  Running ski areas and being a
good environmental steward of the land are NOT mutually
contradictory concepts.  Ski areas do in fact spend buckets full of
money making sure that they're doing the right thing.  In effect, ski
trails -- properly built ones, anyway -- duplicate the ecosystems of
naturally occurring mountain meadows -- primary difference being
in how they handle water runoff (mountain meadows are not
engineered for this purpose, other than by nature; ski trails are).

Fact is that the people who run ski areas do so because first and
foremost they like living in the mountains (contrary to what you
mighta heard, it AIN'T for the money).  Ain't saying that everyone
feels this way, but I can state with assurance that most of us are
predisposed to keeping it clean and healthy.  There are towns
without ski areas all over northern New England with vastly worse
environmental situations than you'll find in towns with 'em....

Skip King
American Skiing Company

Disclaimer:  the above, while well reasoned, is a
personal point of view, and as such is not necessarily
shared by the individual the facsimile of whose
signature appears at the lower right hand corner of my
paycheck (or anyone else around here).

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

To unsubscribe, visit