as a liberal myself...August 12 2008 at 9:14 PM
|brandon (no login)|
from IP address 220.127.116.11
Response to Re: Naturally
there has to be reasonable discussion about **** like this.
Warning! ranting ahead:
as a liberal, pro a woman's decision to choose, pro protecting the arctic, pro gay marriage urbanite that lives in downtown Seattle, it is interesting to me that no matter what a ski area proposes (in this case, a very small expansion considering what other ski areas nearby of the same size are asking for) there will always be these groups of people who - against the interest of the (ski/snowboard)community at large, asking for something from a very heavily regulated agency such as the Forest Service - want to squash any interest against their own. This case being a modest proposal to essentially keep up with the Jones's. Praise Stevens as well for taking arguably a financial gamble in moving to start their expansion with a mountain biking operation. And, if The Sierra Club really wants to look at the bigger picture - the damage being done to non mountain bike specific trails both now in the future caused by mountain bikers on random forest service trails - this should be the reason that they write the forest service a love letter about the Stevens expansion.
I have been arguably well read about the White Pass expansion. I believe in making sure studies to protect marginalized groups (In White Pass's proposal - native Americans) are done, but wow - its to the point that WP are land locked and everyone in that market area will continue to suffer with the expansions going on... Do those groups consider the carbon impact that will be made when WP skiers/snowboarders start driving to all the neighbouring new facilities at 49 north, Mission Ridge, Crystal, Snoqualmie. I really like WP but my opinion does not matter as much living downtown. And, I dont ever expect to see new trails cut. I remain hopeful though.
I hold hope that if Crystal was able to get most of what they wanted, and possibly Snoqualmie as well, that Stevens will too. none of the area Stevens are expanding into is wildlife land, and its on the second largest east west corridor anyway. and Stevens is really addressing the number one biggest issue with their plan and that is the overcrowding. Is the Sierra Club considering what overcrowding does to the creek beds and underbrush off the groomed runs? probably not. not to mention how many times the people im riding with either pee or take a dump in the trees because they dont want to deal with going into the lodges.
As a supporter of the Kyoto protocol, im pretty shocked. All of us need to be writing to the Forest Service in support of the Stevens Plan.
is there any objection by The Sierra Club to The Summit's plans?