Crystal Mtn Environment Report Card: F

In the 2004/2005 Ski Area Environmental Scorecard Crystal Mountain was given a grade of . . . F!<br><br> www.skiareacitizens.com/cgi-bin/report.cgi?region=orwa&area=2

It is listed among the 10 least environmentally friendly ski resorts in the West. <br><br> Other resorts in PNW :<br>Baker got a B<br>Mission Ridge a C<br>Snoqualmie a D<br>White Pass a D<br>Mt Hood Meadows a D<br>Timberline an A<br>Bachelor an A<br>Ashland a D

What a pile of elk turds!<br><br>I went hiking up Crystal Mt. this summer. It looked like it was in pretty good shape! <br>I walked through grassy meadows and picked wild strawberries.  <br>I saw streams and snowmelt ponds.<br><br>I just picked one section to comment on:<br><br>4b Protecting or Preserving Mature, Late Successional or Old Growth Trees. (Trees and stands with some of the following attributes are included in this criterion: large or old tress for species and site, variation in tree sizes and spacing, standing and down dead trees, decadence, multiple canopy layers) None: 9 points, Up to .25 acres: 6 points, .25+-1 acre: 3 points, 1+-1.9 acres: 1 point, 2 or more acres: <br><br>0 points 9 = 0 <br><br>Proposal will remove 28.1 acres of mature forest.<br><br><br>First of all, there are lots of trees at Crystal, and of course trees are removed to create ski runs, duh!  Take a look... does the place look wasted?  <br><br>By the way, I did see lots of elk turds in the meadows and I am sure there are lots of other critters making a living there.   <br><br>Many folks would never have a chance to appreciate the beauty of the mountains except that they go skiing.<br><br>Finally, the EIS that they reference is one of the most intense studies that I have ever seen.  There is no environmental recklessness here.<br><br><br>Some More Summer Pictures:   www.lawrencetrotter.com/Crystal%20Pics/

Are elk turds indicative of environmentally sound policy on the part of Boyne USA?<br><br>I think it is appropriate to applaud this effort to hold businesses accountable for their impact on the public land from which they profit. Their criteria seem fair and I don't discern an obvious bias against Crystal Mt.<br>

I guess I kind of go by what I see. And I don't see any problem at Crystal Mountain. They are very careful about erosion control, hay bales and netting all over. <br><br>The rating indicates that there is a problem with trees. Well, I insist that there are plenty of trees as the photos support. So, in my mind there is something wrong with this psuedo-science.<br><br>I respect the fact that everyone can have their own opinions, I want to counter what I see as bad analysis.<br><br>And I am not anti-environment. I believe that nobody should have a house on a lake or a river and that there should be quarter mile green zones around all water ways. I am more concerned that sewage is flowing into Puget Sound and that I wouldn't want to eat any local fish. I am more worried that pcb's are collecting in marine mammels.<br><br>Like I said Crystal is ok with me - I wish it were ten times larger. Just my humble opinion.

Hey Ruxpercnd, Do you have a version of that photo less wide you could post instead? It's causing my broswer to scroll horizentally (and my screen resoultion is 1280x1024!). This may prevent some users from going to the trouble to horiz scroll to read everyone's comments. You could also just make a link to the image if you didn't want to change it (replace the img with url).

The rating indicates that there is a problem with trees.  Well, I insist that there are plenty of trees as the photos support.  So, in my mind there is something wrong with this psuedo-science.<br>

<br><br>What, specifically, is incorrect in the link? It looks like they lost most of their points because of their proposed expansion. A lot of the criteria had to do with "ski area is not expanding". So by those criteria, they did poorly.<br><br>What criteria should they be judged on?<br><br>

<br>Like I said Crystal is ok with me - I wish it were ten times larger.  Just my humble opinion.

<br><br>Sounds like you might have a bit of a bias then <br><br>