Sleds are the single most selfish and irresponsible addition to skiing

G

goretex

New member
Look at it from a soceo-economic standpoint. The social costs greatly outweigh the benefits. The costs lie in the danger of the activity and the severe environmental impacts while the only benefit that does not further the detriments is the enjoyment a small number of people reap. Sled-accessed skiing is a setback in the actual progression and survival of the sport.
 
That Is Just not true...my sled is Very efficient and low impact i only burned about 8 gallons of gas in 2.5 hours today eh.

On second thought sledding may be the demise of skiing cuz all anyone ever wants to do after they get into sleddin is Fuckin Giver Eh. Official member of FGE Stamped...
 
It's definitely not good for the environment and a redneck thing to do, but sleds can be a nice way to get way back in the mountains. They have their purpose, but I prefer skinning. However, I am against recreational snowmobiling because all you do is go out and burn gas and ruin the day for people who actually worked to get somewhere.
 
Dude, no. Sure its bad for the environment, but so are cars. Are cars hurting the progression for the sport? Fuck no, now shut up.
 
no way is it a redneck thing to do, what redneck do you know that goes out a drops 7+g's on a sled. i kinda agree with the ruining it for the other people tho
 
how do you get your sled down? or do you sled to the bottom of the mountain and hike it (coming from an east coaster)
 
Exactly. What is the point of only calling out skiers that use snowmobiles when there are so many other things polluting the enviroment too- cars, buses, planes, ect. Are you gonna call me out for driving my car to my ski hill or taking a plane out to park city? Snowmobiles are just another way to help get a skier to a place where they can shred the gnar.
 
By 2010 EPA emission standards will be even lower than they are now. You'll be seeing more four strokes which are already below the standards. Plus I've heard of a couple colleges which have made snowmobiles that produce 90-99percent less emisions. Also Snow mobiles are in the 1% of everything else for world polution. We have some bigger issues at hand than sleds.

Also, the whole ruining skiing. No way. There are thousands upon thousands of skiiable acres in the west alone. A couple of sleds could not possibly ruin it for those who still want to hike for their turns. Sleds are in the same category as helis and chairlifts. Its part of the sport
 
I would have to disagree. I think sleds advance skiing, as they give skiers greater oppurtunities by expanding the variety of terrain they can access and by facilitating that travel. And, as you mentioned, only a few skiers have the opportunity to reap those benefits, so how would they have such a detrimental impact on the environment? People that enjoy skiing should be environmentally aware of course, seeing that global warming could take away snow forever (unless an ice age resulted, I'm not even entering into that subject); but look at what [e]heath said. I'm guessing that since you are so environmentally friendly you walk to your mountain, and you walk when you buy new skis, or need food, etc.? And anyways, sleds clearly are not as much of a cause of worry and great "environmental impact"; first of all their emission levels are much lower and they are much more efficient. Thank you for caring for our environment, but I really don't think that the guy who invented the snowmobile was being selfish at all. And this is only my 9th grade opinion. Thanks for reading all of that... haha
 
That is totally wrong, most new snowmobiles are in fact 4 stroke ultra efficient machines. ( the whole yamaha line) Many companies have spent millions of dollars to lower the emissions of these machines by creating direct injection systems, and new advanced turbo systems( Ski-doo for the injection, Arctic Cat for the turbo). Many "sleds" now are even coneverting to E85 ethanol( Arctic Cat Firecats, and M7s). As a matter of fact most modern machines are in fact more fuel efficient and econo-friendly then any snowcats, or helicopters ( snowcats and helicopters both run on low sulfur kerosine based fuels). So before you open your big trap about anything do some research, and don't just try to sound intelligent, get some facts and be intelligent.
 
yea, this is a fucking retarded post. go away hippy. sleds are fuckin dope, super fun, and alot less harmful than big hillbilly trucks and shit.
 
Essentially any winter activity involves some resource output, short of cross-country skiing out of your back door. Sleds may be more efficient than many other vehicles, but generally 1 sled benefits 1 person. A skier may have to drive to their hill, but sledding generally requires that as well to reach a trailhead. And, to get there a large truck is probably necessary for towing and once there the activity requires an additional resource output for the single individual. While no ski area really does itself any favours by even operating, at least the number of people served is higher.

As for safety, here's numbers. Take a look at http://www.avalanche.org/accidnt1.htm for stats for avalanche accidents and fatalities... you'll notice many more sled related events. For just sleds, it may only go to '02 but here:

Graph_Snowmobile_by_Time.gif
 
sleds are sweet

who likes hiking for like 3 or 4 hours?? i no i dont

plus they are so much fun when your not using them for skiing

your stupid.
 
What else would you expect? I'm sure more people have been injured/killed skiing over the past years since it has increased in popularity and innovative skiers are taking on more challenging terrain, which mans more danger. More people are using snowmobiles, so more injuries are expected. And how does that advance your argument that the snowmobile are a selfish and irresponsible addition? It's not the fault of the person that brought the snowmobile into skiing. You could say that the person that invented skis was selfish since there have been deaths from skiing. If there were no skis, we wouldn't have this thread, this site, or much fun for that matter. People who use sleds should know that death is an inherent risk; which they probably do; skiers know that about skiing. You just have to be responsible for your own decisions... if you die you obviously are.
 
listen here goretex, nobody gives a shit about the environment. everything is bad for the environment. if you do away with sleds why no do away with cars, planes, boats and all other motorized vehicles because they are just as bad.
 
progression of the sport. are you proposing that we sit in a terrain park with texans and progress? my sled get's me the fuck away from fags like you. i get to build a jump without you, hit it with my friends, and so on. i want to type for hours on this matter, but....there are so many flaws in your rant. how many nsers ride to progress the sport or just ride to have fun. by the way, the best films which you kids sweat are primarily made by snowmobile accessed shoots (i.e. all mack dawg, L1P, PBP, Robot Food and so on). these are just a few examples of sleds and their ability to progress the sport.

go fall off a chairlift and progress your movement towards san fransisco. we will all die, polluted or not polluted.
 
i defintely agree with you now, but once im the one hiking for hours up a hill with ski boots, id definitely want a sled.

maybe something in the form of hybrid/ environmentally friendly sleds could be develped
 
first of all....ANYBODY who goes out in the backcountry is going in a high risk zone. Sled or no. Sleds don't cause more avalanches, people who are not properly trained to go into the backcountry do. Ohh yeah....a helicopter that brings up 4 people is more efficient then a sled, a snowcat is more efficient? Not offence but a Rolls Royce tubro prop engine puts out more emissions then 10 of those sled put together. A snowcat has horrible gas consuption, triple the emissions of a snowmobile, and does more physical damage then a sled. Its backcountry....are you trying to say that everybody schould just ride chairs everyday, and hike up for any backcountry cause that is just plain stupidity. I hate how every magazine rags on snowmobiles to get to the pow. Honestly its the most efficient, environment friendly, and cheep way to get to the pow quick. No offence but i don't have 2000$ to spend on two runs in a damn helicopter.
 
well you might want to consider the fact that there probably are a lot more snowmobiles these days compared to 20 years ago. find a graph that compares the number of sleds sold over time and compare it to the deaths and youll probably find not much of an increase at all. more sleds = more deaths. most of those deaths are probably from recreational snowmobilers as to skiers who basically only go half way up the mountain.
 
i thought u were talking about sit skiing when i read the tittle, i was about to smack the shit out of you, but yeah i still dont agree with you
 
Theres hundreds of thousands of acres of skiing out there untapped by the normal skier, let alone ANY skier, so if a sled lets these guys get otu there and explore an area full of amazing snow, let them do that. It is no different than helicopter skiing, and compared to how many cars are in the world, sleds have a minute effect on the environment, especially the new sleds. And also, have you ever been sled skiing??? You cannot bash or hate on something until you have actually tried it.

I respect your opinion though, I'm just saying you cannot come out and put such blatant ignorance into this forum without thinking about both sides of the argument.
 
jeez whats next? driving the speed limit to conserve gas? come on. do u hike to your mountain? cuz if not ur hurtin the environment. but who cares? theres nuthin u can do about it. plus global warming is a joke
 
ya, and driving your car or truck to the hill doesn't make an "impact", you selfish car driver you.
 


This is true- and for the most part "sled skiers" are impacting a lot less than full on recreational snowmobilers.

But,

I feel like I am riding a fucking chainsaw when I am out in the usually beautiful/pristine environments that sleds can take you to, spewing out 2-stroke fumes and disturbing every fucking animal in a 20 mile radius. Not to mention that you do a whole lot less skiing than you would at an actual ski hill.

Basically, although I agree sleds are nessicary to get the goods, and somewhat addictingly fun, I feel like we are just participating in hastening the demise of good skiing.
 
Stop and think about that graph. In 2002 there were 1000 times more snowmobiles than 1990 at the least. But only 20 times more deaths. If you actualy consider the increase in snowmobiles you'll realize there are now less deaths per snowmobile user than before.
 
i disagree... sled access is sick.. you've probably just never done it... not much impact... not quite leave no trace... but they're sick for the sport
 
I'm sorry, there is no disagreeing. You may enjoy snowmobiles and sled-accessed backcountry skiing, but that doesn't make me wrong.

Let's try some points, I'll work a few angles with a simple yes/no.

Do recreational snowmobilers help the ski industry or ski resort economies? No, not measurably. While they may serve to access terrain for promotional media, they do not directly bring money to ski equipment manufacturers or most ski areas.

Are snowmobiles environmentally detrimental? Yes. Well they certainly aren't beneficial. The degree to which they do harm can be argued, but there is no argument for positive influence.

Are snowmobiles safe? No. Averaging number of sled-related deaths and accidents by the number of them on the hill doesn't apply here, the fact is the death toll has surged. Increased backcountry use doesn't make it any better or safer, it just increases the human and environmental toll.

Do sleds progress skiing? Arguable. Yes they access better, less utilized terrain more easily, but plenty of ski film segments, even movies have been shot inbounds or near inbounds. While it's not a big name example to most, nor is it progressive in the newschool sense, but many of the lines from Parental Advisory are visible from Whistler/Blackcomb chairlifts.

Here's where you win. Are sleds fun and easy ways to access the backcountry? Yes, of course.

But that wasn't my point. My point was that a sled benefits only its rider, whereas the effects of people sledding affect many more people. You can say, well, it's a small number, not nearly as bad as cars, cats, resorts, helis... etc, but as an increasing addition to the sport, the benefits don't even touch the detriments. It benefits you as a rider alone, it is therefore a selfish act. Yes, skiing itself is too... but it's a further addition.
 
quit being a pussy and leave people the fuck alone. if they want to sled, they're going to sled, so shut the hell up. you aren't changing anyone's mind.
 
sleds provide access to good terrain.

good terrain makes for better ski movies.

the end result of good ski movies is more product sold - that's why companies sponsor movies.

more product sold boosts the industry as a whole.

now if the motive behind your rant is that you don't want to see the industry grow, you're ranting on the wrong website.

 
ooh, looks like somebody took a class, maybe even college level! goretex is very smart everybody. don't argue with his vast wealth of knowledge, and just look at that graph! it's amazing! surely this figure cannot be questioned!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top