GLADING BEST PRACTICES: Big Trees, Should they Stay or Should they Go?

​I spend some time working with a volunteer group of skiers who among other things manage a ski touring and hiking focused rec site in town.


Two of our gladed runs which are in the neighborhood of 30- 40 degrees pitch are getting some attention from the local fire crew this month and we are having a debate amongst ourselves over what to do with the larger trees on the run.

the arguments for keeping standing are:

Once down they are difficult to move into a position that doesn't take a one in fifty year snowpack to cover up.

during the spring they stabilize the temperature reducing the effects of freeze thaw cycles and solar effects affect which extends the season somewhat.




The arguments for taking them down:

snow interception: If snow is on the tree branches it is not on the ground.


Snow shedding: Chunks of hardened snow shedding from the tree branches during periods of warming.

The Exceptional circumstance:

There is a possibility the wind transport is bypassing the snow interception argument from the take them down camp on the runs in question.




I went into this argument knowing where I stood and now I find myself questioning my entire worldview. So I ask you ski community should they stay or should they go?

As uncle Franklin used to say, "The only good tree is the one in the wood stove keepn me warm!".

WTF is this question anyway?

Glade = Trees
Trail = no trees

If you really want a trail or wide open skiing go to a fucking resort or hike above tree line. If you need to cut almost everything down in order to ski a line... You suck... go take a lesson.

I have a better question. Why hasn't this JONG posted pictures of his girlfriend's tits?

Take this bullshit thread over to epicski.

this has to be a troll
has ANYONE ever heard of large trees taken out for glading?! WTF

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by east or bust

this has to be a troll

---

Likely

Quote:

---

has ANYONE ever heard of large trees taken out for glading?! WTF

---

These guys were...
Big Jay Illegal Cutting

Must be Smidders. Wall to wall trees and weak skiers that are used to the "gladed" resort tree skiing.

¿Me frío o lo soplo?
Si me voy, va a haber peligro
Si me quedo, es doblo
Pero que tienes que decir
¿Me frío o lo soplo?

The first and foremost decision in any thinning of a forest is the wind firmness of the remaining stand. Everything else is secondary. If they are not wind firm, or the level of thinning will increase the stand's susceptibility to blowdown, then they can't stay standing from a safety perspective. Prevailing winds, extreme weather cycles, wind tunnelling from adjacent cuts, and stand pathology all need to be considered before the luvyduvy considerations for snow interception/retention, stem spacing, and sub-canopy thermal desires.

I havent found tree bombs to affect the snow much but if conditions are to the point that they do all the snow is gona suck anyhow and one should just take up coloring or knitting

If you take out every tree thats more trees to cut more fuel to carry and burn in the saw, more work where you ain't pushing the run thru SO sometimes you can save a lot of work by just following natural leads and leaving the really big ones, I think Angle Parking did that on "Angle parking" even tho we might have ribboned something different

trees are gona fall down on the edges and need to be removed anyhow whether you cut a ski area type run or leave some in the middle

IME you may cut a run and think you spaced the trees enough but come back with a little speed on skis and it feels tight so take out more trees than you think you should

yeah that pict looks like 9a and 9 which both have a lot of trees still standing on the run with good spacing and I like to ski those runs > the fully cut runs

Here in the East, I carry a 6' extension pole and a 13" fixed-blade saw that threads onto the pole. Trimming higher solves some of that crowding problem. Higher elevation forests call for longer poles.

Laying down all the standing-dead is good, but healthy roots hold soil better and healthy trees help with powder trapping and retention. If your trees aren't doing all three, why put the trail/glade there in the first place?

My motto: Build where the snow is.

As a rabid "Tree Rat" and my first reaction was that this must be a Troll or a Trump scholar! But just in case it is a serious question......

Blow down could be a valid consideration, but that kind of decision should be made by people with serious qualifications.

Don't you think that if people who are skiing 30 to 40 degree slope can't avoid the trees, they shouldn't be on steep terrain!!! Cutting down the trees isn't going to help much at all. Trees are what make glade skiing great... not stumps.

Those runs look fine. How's the skiing between them?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by robrox

Here in the East, I carry a 6' extension pole and a 13" fixed-blade saw that threads onto the pole. ..

---

are you talking about pruning the lower branches of deciduous trees ? out here in smidders we are just into the coastal range so the trees we see are unskiable Engelmann spruce which are very tight brushy conifers (best pruned with a sthil) and there are no deciduous trees

400 kms east where Moose pit lives is the interiour plateau with mostly beetle-killed pine down low but up high there are 500 yr old balsam stands with great spacing for skiing no pruning needed and i don't remember too many deciduous

http://www.piquenewsmagazine.com/whi...nt?oid=2453749

I'm pretty sure the pict posted by the OP is run 9a and 9 at the Hankin Evelyn ski area and if it is this^^ is a pict Vince Shuley took at the top of 9a showing the spacing that I like to ski, I think this was cut by the Telkwa Rangers (wildfire crew) I don't find the trees too tight altho I did end up spooning a tree when my Rad1 heel piece blew up

http://offpistemag.com/wp-content/up...kin_evelyn.pdf

a priceless articale by Dave Wag^^ as noted in the artical its all on the up n up, Hankin Evelyn was suposed to be make work project for unemployed forestry workers (actualy anybody who showed up) who got paid by the guvermint to cut ski runs and in another project to build bike trails

A lot of trees get cut in the side country at the ski hill, nobody seems to mind and nobody gets in trouble but its like a foreign country here eh?

Keep them for a million billion reasons. Also make sure you don't take out the full next generation of growth. If just you're itching to cut shit, go wider and not more towards a clear cut. A responsible "glade" is one that maintains a healthy growth cycle, and the stewards generally are simply helping to cultivate the desired types of trees and locations they're regrowing in.

Take those trees out and you're going to be wearing that hillside as a hat in a few years. Once they're gone there's no putting them back!!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

are you talking about pruning the lower branches of deciduous trees ? out here in smidders we are just into the coastal range so the trees we see are unskiable Engelmann spruce which are very tight brushy conifers (best pruned with a sthil) and there are no deciduous trees

400 kms east where Moose pit lives is the interiour plateau with mostly beetle-killed pine down low but up high there are 500 yr old balsam stands with great spacing for skiing no pruning needed and i don't remember too many deciduous ....

---

Spruce and fir are common where I work; they tend to come and go in stands of a common age. They tend to be tightly packed in their youth. Older stands, especially peaked out stands do have a variety of ages. Thinning glades in the young stands seems beneficial...provided the spacing is still quite a lot closer than in resort glades. Care has to taken in the peak Fir and Spuce stands. Taking unhealthy live trees and the standing dead is fairly common, but we do need to provide for the replacements to grow up so that when the peak forest succumbs to the inevitable die off, there are younger trees left standing.

In NE we get some hardwood glades, some of them need no trimming for winter use, but Whipworld in the understory is quite usual. Thinning to leave representatives at varying ages is best, but de-whipping is typical.

Agreed...glading for expert descents permits closer growth and the resulting wind support in Fir and Spruce stands. Ice storms have their effect...we have to leave that out of planning, but we do have to deal with the growth patterns after massive ice storms have ripped the tops off the canopy. Hobble grows fast!

I use the pole saw to prune the line/sight blockers on any of the species we have in the terrain. Where the understory is well managed, if a branch is so thin the saw cannot cut it, it is not in the way.

I think Matt's idea of doing most of the work in the understory is spot on. Wider zones make for more first tracks :) Providing protection for desirable and healthy trees is a good thing. Leaving a cluster of junk to protect some good trees is smart and effective.

Bearing in mind the growth cycles, etc., when the depth of snow and terrain angle cooperate to make descents a joy, the glade is in the right place.

PS: During the prep season, watch out for walking up the same way especially straight up steep pitches. You'll have to put in waterbars because the compacted soils can't be sponges but do become streams.

Reasons to take down the trees with larger canopies:
-run 9a is waaay better than run 9, both in terms of snow quality and skiability.

Reasons to leave trees with big snow catching canopies:
-?????

Wind transport miiiight negate the snow catching canopies but thats generally going to happen up top where the wind howls over the ridge and the only trees up there are tiny subalpine anyway.

xxx-er and gwat offer the soundest advice IMO. A couple things i'd like to add however;

If you compare 9 and 9a it is very evident that the cutting philosophy on 9 (skiers left) was to take out everything and leave the big ones. On 9a they took out the big ones and left everything else. 9a is a way better ski due to the fact that it is far more open, simple as that. Here's a couple other things to consider;

- The bottom of both those runs is at 1000m. That's way too low. The concerns you have with regards to cutting big trees and leaving big slash that doesn't get covered up is largely rooted in this fact. I'd go as far as saying that any cutting under 1200 is a waste of time. Think of it this way, the bottom of the chair at HBM is at 1150 and the coverage (at that elevation) is always on the weak side even though there is no massive balsam slash lying everywhere like there is at Evelyn. In other words, if you are at all able to do so, direct the unit crew to only work on the top half of those runs.

-The second point i'd like to make is that both runs 9a and 9 are plagued by the fact that the cutting is not done with skiing in mind. While there were skiers involved in the original cutting (as evidenced by the massive kickers on 9) they made some critical errors. This is kinda tricky to explain but here's what i do when i cut; before i cut any tree or group of trees I look as far as I can up slope and down slope. If I can see way up the hill and way down the hill, thats a ski line and I cut. If taking out a tree or a clump of trees still leaves me unable to see way upslope and down slope, than it's of waste of time. That' just an opening in the forest and not a ski line. Might as well leave those or commit to taking out a lot of treEs in order to create a ski line. You have to think like a skier when you are cutting runs and it is very evident on 9 that they did not do this (or were unable to do so under the directive of leaving the big ones.) Next time you go to 9 stop at various places along the run and look upslope and downslope. There is a lack of skiing sense to the cutting. There are large openings that are guarded above and below by trees which completely negate their skiability. 9a suffers from the same illogical ski cutting as well, however due to the fact that they took out more and bigger trees it is not as evident. The Everglades at the ski hill suffers from the same malaise as well. There is simply very little ski sense to what is left and what is cut.

Falling trees is tough work. I've spaced, brushed and spent considerable time cutting ski runs and I can tell you that in light of the difficulty of the work, you get sucked into taking out the easy trees. That's great but it doesn't mean you are creating skiable terrain.

- Both 9a and 9 would benefit greatly from being blown out at the top. The upper part of both runs (but especially 9) is guarded by a thick row of trees that prevents the alpine wind from working it's magic and blowing in snow. While this does indeed guard it from wind crust etc. the cost in terms of loss of snow being blown in is way too great. Blow run 9 out at the top and skiability and snow coverage will improve immensely. Think of skiing the o-zone on 4cm days. 4cm's plus wind off the prairie equals a whole lot f*cking more than 4 cm. As Carpathian has stated. skiing around here is all about understanding how the wind works.

Thanks for all the work you do for skiing in our neck of the woods. Sorry for all the vitriol directed your way with regards to your query (not sure what was so offensive or 'trollish' about your question.) Also, my comments kinda diss the Telkwa Rangers and all the other folks who worked on those trails. No offence intended. The guys are badasses who contribute to our community in numerous ways.

So in summary;

-Don't bother cutting below 1200m
-Cut big ones AND small ones, but more importantly cut the right trees that create skiable lines (verify this by looking up slope and down slope before falling anything)
-Blow out the top of 9 to let the wind work it's magic.

Ok so when we scoped out " Angle parking " the run (not to confuse readers) from which you took your name we stumbled thru the bush away from 7-0, started hanging tape and made rough plans to cut a run but you didn't even own a saw at that point. I took off somewhere when I got back you had borrowed Mikes 353 and cut the whole fucking thing which has always impressed me,

Its got a great fall line but I don't think it was what we ribboned , did we do a shit job of surveying or did you follow natural leads or what?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XXX-er

Ok so when we scoped out " Angle parking " the run (not to confuse readers) from which you took your name we stumbled thru the bush away from 7-0, started hanging tape and made rough plans to cut a run but you didn't even own a saw at that point. I took off somewhere when I got back you had borrowed Mikes 353 and cut the whole fucking thing which has always impressed me,

Its got a great fall line but I don't think it was what we ribboned , did we do a shit job of surveying or did you follow natural leads or what?

---

What we ribboned was really good and those ribbons are still up. We used that pink polka dot stuff you had. Some day it would be nice to go cut what we had ribboned. Angle Parking (the run) would then fork off into 2 just as you really get into the tree line which would be really cool. Basically i was following our ribbon until i smashed into some really thick forest. It was going to be a ton of work getting through this really thick patch with some big mature timber. A natural opening led me to the skiers left and i followed that cause it was way easier.

I was up there this morning cutting. I've really opened up the zone below the everglades. (we gotta do something about those everglades by the way) I also have about 7 or so traffic signs stashed up there. I'll show you where they are and you can put them up as you wish over the course of the season. There's a couple really cool ones.

Thanks all for the good advice, strongly held opinions with weak supporting arguments and straight up ridicule. I think I might like this digital neck of the woods.

For the pictured runs the big trees (20 cm DBH and up) will be left unless they are snags or leaning ominously enough that they might become snags. We already have part of the rec site with resort style ski runs cut below tree line and a pretty good alpine above that.

Below ~1200 m I think a lot of the clearing was done by fire crews for training and not really done with skiing in mind. It was before my time. We've dug up an old government spec for clearing ski runs to guide their future falling which opens with a line that goes something to the effect of "All clearing will be done with quality of skiing in mind." To prevent similarly needless falling from happening again we now spend some time on site with crew leaders to make sure everybody's on the same page.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XCextreme

"All clearing will be done with quality of skiing in mind."

---

So the big ones should be felled

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XCextreme

Thanks all for the good advice, strongly held opinions with weak supporting arguments and straight up ridicule. I think I might like this digital neck of the woods.

For the pictured runs the big trees (20 cm DBH and up) will be left unless they are snags or leaning ominously enough that they might become snags. We already have part of the rec site with resort style ski runs cut below tree line and a pretty good alpine above that.

Below ~1200 m I think a lot of the clearing was done by fire crews for training and not really done with skiing in mind. It was before my time. We've dug up an old government spec for clearing ski runs to guide their future falling which opens with a line that goes something to the effect of "All clearing will be done with quality of skiing in mind." To prevent similarly needless falling from happening again we now spend some time on site with crew leaders to make sure everybody's on the same page.

---

Keeping it a glade, as opposed to a full on trail like at Hankin is a good idea. Variety is good and tree skiing rocks. If skiability is paramount to the cutting strategy however, than any DBH stipulation handcuffs you. Once again, I'll say that it's not about the size of the tree you cut, it's about which ones you chose to cut. I imagine the legalese of the situation forces you to have a DBH stipulation however. Telling a bunch of fire fighters to 'take out the right trees for skiing' might not be a very digestible directive for those many of those dudes who may or many not be skiers. No a big deal anyway, I'm sure that even with the above stated 'handcuffing' the run will be improved considerably with any cutting. What about blowing out the top of 9? Is that in the cards? That would do wonders. Thanks again for your work.

I have to agree with Angled Parking about falling the right trees (of any size) and the difficulty with communicating which are the "right trees" to fall. Around here the Orange spray paint to mark the trees to take is popular. Getting out ahead of the crew to mark them might help.

Leaving "replacements" is still a good idea and I hope you do/will have a plan for it. It had better be far-seeing as growth will be slow. At MRG we have been planting some and protecting some volunteer trees, giving many of them semi-regular "feedings". Then again, at our elevation, growth is noticable.

Good luck!

i always thought Mt. Ashland in SoOR could use a little glading. it could easily add another 100 acres (?) of skiable terrain. there are a few rideable lines through the thick stands of old growth shasta red fir but, mostly stop and go...... the trees have commercial value so the project might even pay for itself? the mountain crew drops a tree/snag here and there but i doubt a full-on glading operation would be approved: shallow, serpentine soils would require heli or balloon extraction of the logs, plus the entire mountain is within the city watershed, water quality might be degraded. folks are also concerned about flooding like the new years eve flood that raged through the plaza 20 years ago............

Short vid showing the runs in question from a skiers perspective. Go Pro clips were limited to 15 seconds each because that sh*t is boring. I chose the respective clips on the basis of their being representative of the greater runs. 9 is the looker's right run and 9a looker's left.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tuuJh2UKPr0

cut most of the shnarbs making sure no small stumps are more than 1.25-1.5m high (or a bit lower whatever your snowpack usually is by now)
open up a few hallways and features/cliffs
leave it tight at the top of most opened up areas to filter out people

Schnarb, stumps, and especially branches are an issue on 9.

Both of those options look pretty nice

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by abraham

Both of those options look pretty nice

---

Yep, they're both pretty cool. 9 could be better though and it seems worthwhile to make it better in my mind. Snow quality is just so much better on 9a. Not to mention the fact that 3 tracks and 9 is done as opposed to 9a which can support a solid 6 or 7. It's a really good dad spot. Minutes from town. I leave my house at 7 and I'm back home with the fam at 10:30 with a decent lap under my belt. The skin is a robust 2+ hours so that deters most people. Sled-heads frequent the area despite it's non motorized designation but it's pretty easy to get the early jump on those guys. I'm thinkin' Mr. Husky and his good pal Mr. Stihl might be heading up that way next summer.

you been up there already , I'm betting the snow was ok after you get above the gravel pit and first switch back?

I spooned one of them trees at the top of 9A when my Rad heel blew up

1/2 a meter of pow with a boot strapped to the ski was a rather tedious ski-out

edit: you gona hike a saw & gear in for 2hrs really?

Those trees look pretty open to me. Maybe thin some of the clusters to allow more paths through. But I'm no expert.

those runs are pretty open, personaly I just see random trees left standing I don't see that much difference between 9 and 9A , I think the Telkwa fire rangers cut 9 and 9A between fighting fires, all the other runs at the Hankin Evelyn area had every tree taken down by paid fallers

if the equipment fails in mid turn maybe you hit a tree which is why you often hear me rag on the rad1 eh?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by neufox47

Those trees look pretty open to me. Maybe thin some of the clusters to allow more paths through. But I'm no expert.

---

Thinning out the clusters or otherwise strategically removing trees is the way to go.

Bump

enough with the bumps jong

UPDATE

After some semi scientific research (read: skiing) the problem appears to be snow interception from some very wide branch extensions on the run that serves largely as an uptrack. If the snow depth allows some limbing should be all thats needed to make run 9 deep again.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by XCextreme

UPDATE

After some semi scientific research (read: skiing) the problem appears to be snow interception from some very wide branch extensions on the run that serves largely as an uptrack.

---

Duh. Its taken you five years to figure this out?
We tried to tell you earlier in this thread. Specifically post #17 along with some others.
Good luck.