While debate develops in the backcountry skiing and riding community regarding long term solutions to tree skiing and organization, Big Jay access from Jay Peak is restricted indefinitely. The backcountry skiing and riding community has yet to seriously address the problem other than a local petition and the Big Jay Access Restriction meeting question and answer session . The State of Vermont, the Green Mountain Club, and Jay Peak Resort all agreed to utilize the easiest and quickest short term solution to address the problem of people sliding down the scar and exacerbating the damage. However, there are several alternatives to the closure that could be implemented to address reducing sliding on the scar to near zero.

My suggested alternative solutions should be placed in context of the current situation as dictated to the backcountry skiing and riding community by the decision makers. The fundamental issue is protecting the scar to best allow successful regeneration with the least amount of damage to the environment and the erosion control measures. All solutions should be proposed and thoroughly evaluated with this goal in mind. No single effort will ultimately prove successful including, ironically, a complete restriction of access from Jay Peak Resort.

The community that attended the Big Jay meeting on December 15th was offered no opportunity for partnership, engagement, or participation in the process. The director of Jay Peak Ski Patrol noted that the decision makers were essentially “treating the community like babies.” Without a positive outlet for contribution to making the situation better through collaboration, it seems likely that many members of the community will reject the access restriction this season (proposed without an expected expiration date, essentially an indefinite restriction).

The likely result of the current situations is that the scar might likely be skied just to spite the powers that be. And while that may bode poorly for the long term community, the decision makers should not see individual short comings on values, principles, and morals as anything more than individuals without positive alternatives and partnerships deciding they have nothing to loose. A bad situation has been created by dictation rather than partnership, trust, and collaboration.

The decision makers should not see this situation through the lens of negative punishment but rather positive reinforcement by allowing community members to take the reigns of the protection effort and partner with those that exude the most interest in the backcountry community. If the ultimate goal is to protect the scar and eliminate potential sliding as much as possible, simply closing Big Jay access from Jay Peak is not a good long term solution no more than martial law is a viable long term method of controlling a population. Once better viable solutions have been proposed and tested then the alternatives should be implemented as soon as possible. Here are some possible alternative solutions to the Big Jay closure that taken in combination will likely produce better results than an unenforceable de facto closure.

• Financial contribution from the backcountry skiing and riding community to assist with restoration efforts, regeneration work and supplies, monitoring, staffing, signs, fencing, education, and any other monetary needs regarding protecting the scar from skier traffic. Putting our money where our mouth is indicates the commitment and dedication that words alone often fail to convey. Backcountry skiers already have provided financial assistance in the amount of $1,500 through a benefit showing of PW07 in October. Additional fund raiser and awareness events will provide skier and rider education in addition to financial support and good will towards the Green Mountain Club’s stewardship, regeneration, and protection efforts.
• Official Big Jay closure periods similar to the Green Mountain Club’s Mud Season solution that requests hikers avoid trails during Mud Season. The trail closure request reduces impact and erosion during a sensitive time period. A similar closure of Big Jay during sensitive periods such as early and late season before a significant base has consolidated can help protect the scar from being skied without removing season long access and frustrating sliders. Skiers and riders are much more likely to observe a temporary restriction for environmental benefit rather than a season long indefinite closure. The Green Mountain Club admits that the Mud Season closure of hiking trails does not eliminate all people from accessing the trails but most people comply with the request. The same could be possible for Big Jay when combined with other efforts including education.
• Developing the previous solution further is specifying at what snow depth skiing Big Jay is safe for minimum impact based on snowpack. Studies should be conducted to verify what base depth of snowpack would reduce impact on the scar to essentially no risk. A gentleman with a forestry background at the Big Jay meeting suggested six feet was ample snow depth for no impact during winter recreation and cited the numerous people that recreate in the Alpine Zone of Mount Washington including Tuckerman Ravine and the Alpine Garden with no observable impact. Restricting access to Big Jay for all skiers and riders (turn earners and Jay Peak access alike) until and after this minimum snowpack is achieved is more than reasonable.
• Education is a must to alert skiers and riders about the scar, environmental damage, and why avoiding the scar is important (including threats of reduced access if the scar is not avoided). Jay Peak Resort should spearhead this educational effort due to their position of influence and especially due to previous encouragement of its customers to access Big Jay. Though the backcountry community must also engage in the education process by supporting and championing restoration and regeneration efforts and highlight the importance of self policing and avoiding the scar to everyone accessing Big Jay. There are ample untracked natural lines available on Big Jay that speak to the spirit and adventure of tree skiing in the backcountry without accessing the abomination known as the scar. Signs should be posted along the ridge trail from Jay Peak and at the entrances to the scar. Signs should include historical, environmental, and community information as well as potential fines and penalties for rule breakers, entire community punishment in the form of restricted access included. Signs and other educational pursuits can be partially or fully funded and posted by the backcountry community.
• Self policing in the form of voluntary patrols of backcountry skiers is perhaps the most challenging of these possible alternative solutions. Clearly, no other party, including the State of Vermont, Green Mountain Club, nor Jay Peak Ski Patrol are interested in policing the scar. Under this self policing solution, Big Jay access from Jay Peak via the saddle would only be offered during times when backcountry community members are available to self police the scar by positioning a few key skiers and riders near access points. This solution is labor intensive and would involve a huge amount of backcountry community contribution and sacrifice of time and effort. This would need to be a coordinated effort involving one or two days per year from each community member. This solution would probably be limited to weekends only due to the limited number of mid-week skiers and man power.
• Erection and maintenance of bamboo and rope fencing along the access points to the scar. This fencing would be similar to the type employed by Mad River Glen to fence off restoration efforts. Skiers at Mad River Glen have been very receptive to the idea and restoration efforts have resulted in great successes such as Lower Glade. The backcountry community would need to maintain the fencing and redeploy fencing following major storms. Fencing would be removed at the end of the season. This would be a non-invasive solution. As proved by Mad River Glen and other areas, bamboo and rope does not pose additional safety risk to skiers as liability was a concern of the State of Vermont and Green Mountain Club. In keeping with the Green Mountain Club easement, this would be a non-permanent fencing that is removed when snow pack recedes and access is curtailed at season’s end. Adjustment of the easement to allow for roping should be considered. Alternatively, “taping” the area and posting signs similar to Jay Peak Resort’s boundaries along the perimeter of Timbuktu and Beaver Pond Glades should also be considered.
• Regulation should be enacted making the sliding of the scar a criminal offense. This goes against the nature of the Green Mountain Club easement. However, in keeping with the preservation spirit of the Green Mountain Club, I think an amendment to the easement involving a fixed time period during which recreational access to the scar is punishable as a criminal offense will deter nearly all possible violations.
• Studies should be conducted to determine the exact nature of possible impact. Neither the State of Vermont nor the Green Mountain Club could cite specific statistics describing the amount of skiers and riders that access Big Jay. The backcountry community reaction to the cutting on Big Jay has been a strong showing of support and solidarity denouncing the crime and promising to avoid the scar completely. A full report on the potential number of skiers and riders likely to slide down the scar given previous suggested counter measures including but not limited to restricted seasonal access, signs, education, self policing, out reach, fencing, roping, penalties, etc. should be completed immediately. How such a study could be conducted with access effectively curtailed for the indefinite and foreseeable future is certainly a major obstacle researchers would need to address to initiate and complete such a study.

None of these potential solutions taken individually will eliminate skiers and riders from accessing the scar. Some of which taken alone may likely increase sliding in the protected area. However, a combination of efforts involving a full community effort assisting the decision makers would almost certainly reduce sliding to a bare minimum and most definitely would reduce sliding of the scar more than the current policy that has created animosity and could perhaps lead to defiance.

The scar currently is a backcountry bulls eye due to notoriety. The restriction has essentially dared less scrupulous members of the backcountry community to find alternative ways of accessing the scar. It is possible that the access restriction could lead to more damage than if another combination of efforts are pursued involving the community in cooperation and shared vision rather than declaration and finger wagging.

The only possible long term and sustainable approach to both goals of environmental protection and recreational access involves cooperation between the community and the decision makers. For the backcountry community, this likely means organization in the long term. However, the decision makers will need to bring an open mind and cooperative spirit to any such partnership or else the current friction caused by the access restriction will fester, grow, and cause damage to the backcountry, community, and relationship with the decision makers, let alone the environment that we all seek to nurture and project from excessive usage. Backcountry community members need to come to the table prepared to make sacrifices and partnerships rather than taking a standoffish position that complete access is the only solution.