Chainsaw Course - Edith's Gap
Moderator: CHGPA BOD
Re: Chainsaw Course - Edith's Gap
I think we should focus on one site; preferably Woodstock. I sense from Rich's last post that the forest service is getting multiple inputs from the hang gliding community and has diminished their enthusiasm to support us. I believe we need one voice to communicate our needs and priorities with them or we just may jeopardize any future actions at either site. Read Rich's post where he communicated with them last, it appears they are backing away from what we wanted to do this winter.
Bun
Re: Chainsaw Course - Edith's Gap
I would like to share an alternative viewpoint and advocate that the club continue its efforts with USFS to improve Woodstock and reopen Edith's gap. I do not see evidence of USFS reluctance to do both. From the club standpoint, I note that it very successfully expended significant human and financial resources to improve the High Rock launch for HG. Bravo on that success and on garnering the grant which helped offset some of the related costs! Now we have apparently taken an incremental approach to improving the Woodstock launch by focusing on improvements to the HG ramp, as opposed to slot width (which can always be suggested in the future). The HG ramp improvements sound like a great idea and will surely benefit the club's members. The discussions to get that going appear to be well developed and heading down a path to some level of eventual success. I note that those improvements will primarily benefit the club, with less obvious benefits to USFS.
The benefits to USFS of our work to reopen Edith's Gap launch are much more direct: work on eradicating a pernicious invasive species that is a priority for USFS. Invasive species often first get a foothold in clearings, owing to more sunlight and less competition from other plants. This is surely why the disused Edith's Gap launch has a bunch of it.
USFS not only has had talks with Dan T about that effort, it knows we are interested and attending their chainsaw class specifically in order to work on Edith's Gap. Of course, we will then have qualified 'sawyers' who can also do USFS-supervised work at Woodstock, if permission to widen the slot ever does come; so those classes have short-term and long-term benefits to the club and USFS. I am sure Dan T can make USFS understand that, as a club, we have little incentive to do any work whatsoever at the Edith's Gap launch unless the result is a safe and usuable launch for both our HG and PG members. I feel sure that Dan and others can help define the planned scope of work at Edith's Gap to result in a safe launch for all club members, while remaining in the comfort zone of USFS. In the Edith's Gap effort, it is very clear our interests align with those of USFS and dropping that effort may well make the club seem (to USFS) as if we are less interested in helping them on their own priorities.
The two projects are very different, with different interests and dynamics from the club point of view, as well as the from USFS point of view. At Woodstock, they are helping us; At Edith's Gap, we are helping them, while helping ourselves. That seems to me to be the type of partnership we want to have with USFS and both projects would be great to trumpet as success stories in the larger battle to be fought for increased rights on US Park Service land.
That is why I advocate that work continue to develop both projects, to the joint benefit of the club and USFS, unless and until they tell us that we can't do both.
The benefits to USFS of our work to reopen Edith's Gap launch are much more direct: work on eradicating a pernicious invasive species that is a priority for USFS. Invasive species often first get a foothold in clearings, owing to more sunlight and less competition from other plants. This is surely why the disused Edith's Gap launch has a bunch of it.
USFS not only has had talks with Dan T about that effort, it knows we are interested and attending their chainsaw class specifically in order to work on Edith's Gap. Of course, we will then have qualified 'sawyers' who can also do USFS-supervised work at Woodstock, if permission to widen the slot ever does come; so those classes have short-term and long-term benefits to the club and USFS. I am sure Dan T can make USFS understand that, as a club, we have little incentive to do any work whatsoever at the Edith's Gap launch unless the result is a safe and usuable launch for both our HG and PG members. I feel sure that Dan and others can help define the planned scope of work at Edith's Gap to result in a safe launch for all club members, while remaining in the comfort zone of USFS. In the Edith's Gap effort, it is very clear our interests align with those of USFS and dropping that effort may well make the club seem (to USFS) as if we are less interested in helping them on their own priorities.
The two projects are very different, with different interests and dynamics from the club point of view, as well as the from USFS point of view. At Woodstock, they are helping us; At Edith's Gap, we are helping them, while helping ourselves. That seems to me to be the type of partnership we want to have with USFS and both projects would be great to trumpet as success stories in the larger battle to be fought for increased rights on US Park Service land.
That is why I advocate that work continue to develop both projects, to the joint benefit of the club and USFS, unless and until they tell us that we can't do both.
John Hopkinson
John at Hopkinson .org
John at Hopkinson .org
Re: Chainsaw Course - Edith's Gap
The chainsaw class is in 2013 which won't help us with Edith's Gap this year. I concur we should do both in their right time as the USFS dictates. I was worried that we were coming at them from multiple sources and that they were feeling pressured by the multiple inputs and that this was why it has now been almost a month without any commitment from them when in the original discussion they said they'd get back to us in two weeks (that was a mouthful). We do need to have a unified approach and hopefully one spokesperson for the group to represent us if we expect to get any results.
Bun
Re: Chainsaw Course - Edith's Gap
Actually the chain saw class is just under a month away. I was confused by Mike's earlier post as well. But I made a phone call to him and got the clarification that he subsequently posted in his 4 Feb entry here.
I am pleased to see the well reasoned and civil discourse expressing differences of opinion on here. Larry and Gary have both bought up valid reasons why we should not lose sight of the fact that Woodstock is one of our premier sites, and if faced with having to choose between one or the other, we should favor obtaining the USFS's assistance at Woodstock rather than Edith's Gap. However I don't agree that it is necessarily an "either/or" situation.
Here is what I know:
Like many other Federal Agencies, the USFS is suffering from cuts to the budgets and staff. They see volunteer organizations as a means to assist them in accomplishing tasks that they no longer have the resources to accomplish on their own. They see us as a potential means of providing much of the raw labor necessary to accomplish the eradication of the Ailanthus in the open space (i.e. the slot) at Edith's gap. In this sense our interests are aligned.
However there are certain portions of the task that they must either closely supervise or accomplish on their own. They must supervise the cutting and chemical treatment of the Ailanthus in order to assure that we are contributing to its eradication rather than simply pruning it and hastening its spread. In addition they must physically remove the Ailanthus from its site to it's ultimate disposal location. They want to do this in their own enclosed trucks in order to assure that the vegetation isn't being spread along the roadway in route to its disposal location. Both of these activities will require a significant investment in labor on their part.
They will have to weigh these demands on their own resources when setting their own "project" priorities. The eradication of invasive species is a high priority topic with them. My guess is that if we can assure them that we will follow through on our promise to provide the labor necessary to perform our piece of the job and to subsequently maintain the slot, this activity will bubble up to near the top of the priority list.
From our perspective this project has the advantage of being labor intensive but requiring very little cash from our club coffers. However it has some disadvantages. The original width of the slot is too narrow to enable us to consistently safely launch hang gliders much less paragliders. Several months ago Mark Cavinaugh and I taped off a generously suitable width for both HG and PG. It requires downing some mature native trees. While there may be some room for negotiating a width boundary somewhat less than what we had proposed we will still have to down some mature trees as well as accept a somewhat lower safety factor from a less than ideal slot width. In my opinion if we cannot get approval to significantly widen the slot it is a non-starter for this club.
I think this site has the potential to yield some incredible flights. It sets up like a razor blade for miles and miles. It is close to home and will make a great alternative to Bill's Hill. However unless we become adept at launching into lee side thermals on no-wind days it will only see use on those relatively rare SE days even with the best of slot conditions.
I'll post a comparison to Woodstock in a follow on message.
Dan T
I am pleased to see the well reasoned and civil discourse expressing differences of opinion on here. Larry and Gary have both bought up valid reasons why we should not lose sight of the fact that Woodstock is one of our premier sites, and if faced with having to choose between one or the other, we should favor obtaining the USFS's assistance at Woodstock rather than Edith's Gap. However I don't agree that it is necessarily an "either/or" situation.
Here is what I know:
Like many other Federal Agencies, the USFS is suffering from cuts to the budgets and staff. They see volunteer organizations as a means to assist them in accomplishing tasks that they no longer have the resources to accomplish on their own. They see us as a potential means of providing much of the raw labor necessary to accomplish the eradication of the Ailanthus in the open space (i.e. the slot) at Edith's gap. In this sense our interests are aligned.
However there are certain portions of the task that they must either closely supervise or accomplish on their own. They must supervise the cutting and chemical treatment of the Ailanthus in order to assure that we are contributing to its eradication rather than simply pruning it and hastening its spread. In addition they must physically remove the Ailanthus from its site to it's ultimate disposal location. They want to do this in their own enclosed trucks in order to assure that the vegetation isn't being spread along the roadway in route to its disposal location. Both of these activities will require a significant investment in labor on their part.
They will have to weigh these demands on their own resources when setting their own "project" priorities. The eradication of invasive species is a high priority topic with them. My guess is that if we can assure them that we will follow through on our promise to provide the labor necessary to perform our piece of the job and to subsequently maintain the slot, this activity will bubble up to near the top of the priority list.
From our perspective this project has the advantage of being labor intensive but requiring very little cash from our club coffers. However it has some disadvantages. The original width of the slot is too narrow to enable us to consistently safely launch hang gliders much less paragliders. Several months ago Mark Cavinaugh and I taped off a generously suitable width for both HG and PG. It requires downing some mature native trees. While there may be some room for negotiating a width boundary somewhat less than what we had proposed we will still have to down some mature trees as well as accept a somewhat lower safety factor from a less than ideal slot width. In my opinion if we cannot get approval to significantly widen the slot it is a non-starter for this club.
I think this site has the potential to yield some incredible flights. It sets up like a razor blade for miles and miles. It is close to home and will make a great alternative to Bill's Hill. However unless we become adept at launching into lee side thermals on no-wind days it will only see use on those relatively rare SE days even with the best of slot conditions.
I'll post a comparison to Woodstock in a follow on message.
Dan T
Re: Chainsaw Course - Edith's Gap
Unlike Edith's Gap, any significant improvement to the Woodstock launch is going to require a substantial investment in club funds as well as labor. Also unlike Edith's Gap, improving the Woodstock launch does not require any USFS involvement other than reviewing and approving our plans. While the review effort is not necessarily trivial, it might be well within their local administrative discretion and accomplishable without a great deal of effort on their part. This is the reason that I contend that we don't necessarily have to choose between one project and the other in order to accommodate USFS constraints. However we might have to choose in order to accommodate our own.
The USFS is an arm of the Department of Agriculture. Their business includes 'harvesting' timber as well as numerous other forest related activities. Their slogan is "land of many uses," which include extracting and replenishing resources such as timber and water, encouraging recreation, and many others. Contrast this with the National Parks Service's charter which is fundamentally to protect and preserve unique natural places. It is these differences in the fundamental missions of the two organizations that make the USFS more amenable to permitting us to construct and maintain suitable launch sites.
I think it would be an error to assume that we know what is in the USFS's heads regarding our two initiatives. In my opinion we are better off telling them what we propose to do and leave it to them to tell us what they can and cannot support.
Dan T
The USFS is an arm of the Department of Agriculture. Their business includes 'harvesting' timber as well as numerous other forest related activities. Their slogan is "land of many uses," which include extracting and replenishing resources such as timber and water, encouraging recreation, and many others. Contrast this with the National Parks Service's charter which is fundamentally to protect and preserve unique natural places. It is these differences in the fundamental missions of the two organizations that make the USFS more amenable to permitting us to construct and maintain suitable launch sites.
I think it would be an error to assume that we know what is in the USFS's heads regarding our two initiatives. In my opinion we are better off telling them what we propose to do and leave it to them to tell us what they can and cannot support.
Dan T
Re: Chainsaw Course - Edith's Gap
Correction:
In an earlier post I noted that "Gary" had written a "well reasoned" response to an earlier post by Larry B. Gary D. wrote me and thanked me for giving him credit for a post that he didn't write. He noted that John H. was the actual author.
My apologies to John and thanks to Gary for pointing out my error.
Dan T
In an earlier post I noted that "Gary" had written a "well reasoned" response to an earlier post by Larry B. Gary D. wrote me and thanked me for giving him credit for a post that he didn't write. He noted that John H. was the actual author.
My apologies to John and thanks to Gary for pointing out my error.
Dan T
Re: Chainsaw Course - Edith's Gap
My concern is that as you point out there are limited resources and individuals from the Forest Service to accomplish the tasks at hand. Even if the Forest Service is willing to do both projects it will be sometime before both projects will be completed. Woodstock in my opinion needs immediate attention. Delaying it will only result in further issues which may end in the Forest Service being forced to make a decision that will damage our ability to fly at Woodstock. Edith's Gap is a worthy project but in my mind its secondary to the need to correct and improve a site that is heavily used by the pilot population in our area. Even though Edith's Gap needs limited resources it will still need to be supervised by a very small team of Forest Service personnel that have a very busy schedule and limited time to devote to HG/PG launches. I hope I'm wrong and we will be able to get both projects done quickly but if you look at how long its taken to get a decision back from the Forest Service on our Woodstock Launch proposal (now entering its 6th week) I think its unlikely the Forest Service will schedule both projects before this summer. With that being said I wish we would put all our efforts behind completing Woodstock as quickly as we can so that we can secure one of our best flying sites and then move on to Edith's Gap..Rich Hiegel