Re: [at-l] Environmental Assessment for Saddleback Mountain

["Coosa" <coosa@alltel.net>]

>Perhaps a less cynical answer is that great minds studied the problem and
>came to similar conclusions, e.g. NPS, ATC, MATC. The question posed was
not
>how to get the most protection - that is a no-brainer, but how to find a
>solution that is acceptable/tolerable to many people including the mandate
>for protection of the AT.


BUT -- BUT -- I think there are statistics somewhere that show that skiing
is a business that LOSES money no matter how much is poured into it.
Whereas Hiking and Hike Related Activities (which includes things like
Antique hunting, B&B's, craft fairs, photography, etc.) bring MORE money
into an entire area than skiing does to one sector of the population.
Skiing is after all a totally weather related activity -- if we have a
couple 'warm' winters or 'too late to ski' snows, the money invested in the
ski resort is lost and they're begging the USGov to bail them out!

Oh sure, there will be some jobs for people who build (and destroy,
depending on your viewpoint) the ski resort (or the forest) in the SHORT
run, but what about the LONG run?  Why does the forest and wilderness In The
East, have to lose?  Where's Bill Clinton when the East Coast needs him?
He was out there saving Escalante, why can't he save Saddleback?  HUH?  Huh?
huh??

If they go to Alternative 2 and in 2 or 5 or 7 years the US Gov't has to
bail out this Ski Resort - will they UNDO the damage to the forest they've
done and close it down?  Or will they dump more money in a losing
proposition?   I know the answer, so yes, this is a trick question!

Coosa


* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================