 Poster: A snowHead
|
The federal parliament in Switzerland has approved the continuation of heli-skiing, overriding objections from environmental groups such as Pro Natura, WWF and Mountain Wilderness. Economic arguments won out over environmental concerns, and the activity will continue in 30 areas, with 42 take-off areas for helicopters above 1,100m, mostly in the canton of Valais.
This means that Switzerland will still be able to boast the largest heli-skiing area in the Alps. ...Heli-skiing has been banned in the French Alps since the 1972, and is also prohibited in Germany. Austria only allows heli-skiing on weekdays in two areas, while Italy has largely restricted it to three areas.
Source
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
el Hen, out of curiousity, just what are the arguments against heliskiing that don't apply to lift served skiing in general - or indeed heli-served rescue services. The helo in Chamonix appears to be flying nearly all the time, certainly at busy periods.
Clearly one can imagine that heli-lifts are desperately inefficient but surely the impact of all lift served skiing must be massively greater than that of all heli served skiing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
Apparently, according to the original article (see Source above), "concerns center around the noise made by helicopters and the effect this has on wildlife and the ambience for nature seekers."
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
David Murdoch, my guess would be if there're A LOT of helicoptors flying all over the mountain, it can be quite unpleasent for the local residents, 2 legged or 4.
Also, the exhaust of ONE helicoptor is just much worse than MANY buses. I had to bike past a heli-port every morning/evening. For the few seconds I rode past, I pretty much had to held my breath or I'd be coughing up a fit!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
el Hen, out of curiousity, just what are the arguments against heliskiing that don't apply to lift served skiing in general - or indeed heli-served rescue services. The helo in Chamonix appears to be flying nearly all the time, certainly at busy periods.
|
some of the arguments are expanded in the first paras of this article
http://pistehors.com/backcountry/wiki/Articles/Heliskiing
Environmentalists also object to heliskiing on principle. They feel that motorized transport is inappropriate in a high mountain environment (source: Gilles Privas, former head of Mountain Wilderness, France).
Can you imagine what the Savoies would be like if heliskiing was allowed? It is already noisy enough with tourist flights. One of the reasons that Michel Charlet and co. object to Mont-Blanc being classified as a National Park is that it would restrict helicopter flights. At the same time he promotes the purity of the Mont-blanc environment.
Regarding the pilot training mentioned in the source article. I spoke to the head of helicopter rescue for the Isere in October 2006 while researching an article on Swiss Heliskiing and he said there was no benefit from heliskiing for pilot training. He told me that the only real training for pilots and crew was taking part in actual mountain rescue.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
el Hen, should have read the source shouldn't I? Seems like there are more important things than could be done...
abc, I should have made it clear that I don't think that there are a lot of heli trips (could well be wrong, would be interested in some real data).
Ah, interesting. Reading the Federal Aviation Authority summary here what seems to have actually happened is that the Swiss federal aviation authority have decided that their study investigating the use of high altitude airports in general that started in 2002 hasn't come to any conclusions yet so they'll need to keep studying it (to be finished in 2010). In particular, heliskiing is still being evaluated.
And out of around 50,000 annual take offs and landings, 5,600 were "to do with" heliskiing. I don't know if that relates to rescue services.
Is that a big number or not? I don't know. It's only spread across 42 altiports, so potentially a nuisance in some locations. But the climatic effect generally is going to be a lot lower than that of the the postbus network I would suggest 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, I will admit that I find the near constant drone of helicopters (much though I like helicopters as a concept) just a wee bit irritating in Chamonix. I have also to admit that while I have partaken in heliskiing, and I did inhale the fumes, but I didn't swallow - I think it's significantly more fun to walk up to ski down.
I just wonder whether it's more useful to expend effort on big projects than little ones. "Switzerland allows heliskiing" doesn't seem like such a big deal to me, relative to some of the other crap we're doing (to people and the planet). However, maybe we need (and I stress "need") a global zero tolerance to (and you can define this how you like) "poor" use of resources.
M. Charlet seems a little confused on that stance doesn't he? And, if you ban heliskiing, shouldn't you ban heli-rescue in some sort of bizarre Darwinian fittest-survival thing?
Maybe expanding a little bit on my original reaction, I think part of my motivation-to-post is that it's dead easy to target heliskiing but not ski lifts. I think it's entirely reasonable to use the same basic economic argument in both cases. I don't see why a few people (heli operators, who presumably use their helos for important construction work in summer: building nuclear power stations, drilling for oil, etc.) should suffer for a minor environmental problem while many people (many alpine inhabitants) get away with the operation of huge ski lift complices (I think that's the plural of complex?) just because there are more of them. Especially as I get the flavour that the big protests are by people who don't like their alpine pursuits to be occasionally disrupted by a helo landing and are simply exploiting the poor fluffy bunnies, ibex, chamois and marmottes as furred vehicles to make specious arguments valid.
Also, heliskiing is perceived to be a sport only open to the wealthy, and who cares about them, eh?
(I do hope I had my anti-rant-filter switched on!!!)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| David Murdoch wrote: |
And, if you ban heliskiing, shouldn't you ban heli-rescue in some sort of bizarre Darwinian fittest-survival thing?
|
it is a thought isn't it? I suppose the argument is that heli-rescue saves lives of rescuers who would otherwise "have" to organise dangerous ground based rescue. But hasn't the convenience of heli-rescue made some people more blase about the risks?
I'm mildly rather than fiercely anti-helski because I also see that when I drive my car past your house I also inconvenience you with noise and exhaust pollution and I can only drive a car because I have enough money to do so. I appreciate the argument of the Mountain in its Purist Form to borrow St Gervias' slogan.
Your comments about ski lifts are interesting. For example Ceuze, which has closed in the Hautes-Alpes because it is not profitable to operate ski lifts for various reasons including the variable snow cover, is a fanstatic bowl for skiing, wouldn't it be a good idea and a lesser evil to allow cat skiing? Well yes but cat skiing is illegal in France.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
Great news....I look forward to next season, and some heli trips will hopefully be involved.
Chocks away!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
davidof, it is a thought. Although, perhaps a more humane solution to that is simply to levy a scale of charges based on how stupid you were to need rescued in the first place. Guided (or properly experienced)+kitted+weather checked+sensible=minimal cost; cimmet (a scottish form of string vest) + somewhere lost below the mer de glace = cost beyond your ability to easily pay. That might engender a couple of interesting "I can't afford that" conversations...either you "can't" or "you can't"...
Re Ceuze, I would have thought cat skiing would be a reasonable idea. I assume the "authorities" have a less than reasonable reason for banning it. A few cat ski trips a day can't be worse than running a bunch of empty and probably deeply inefficient lifts all day can they?
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
|
This was a big talking point the last year in Switzerland. Noise is the biggest problem. Being out of the EU the tourism aspect has won through.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
davidof, Since when has cat skiing been illegal in France ?
I have done it at a major French resort.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Most skilifts will be partially or fully solarpowered or windpowered within 20 years. Scores of US stations, like Vail, are already doing it.
However, lightbulbs and heating in the resorts' accommodation are more likely to be environment-unfriendly than a bit of uphill transport.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rjs wrote: |
davidof, Since when has cat skiing been illegal in France ?
I have done it at a major French resort. |
Well ski resorts are a bit of a law unto themselves but the mayor can agree with the prefet a well defined and limited circuit for motor vehicles but the general environmental code is that you cannot use motor vehicles on snow for tourist purposes except on roads normally open to circulation during the winter. There is an exception for chalet owners to reach their chalets. As an example the refuge Napoleon cannot use skidoos to bring tourists to the refuge by the Izoard pass because this is normally closed in the winter months and they cannot use the surrounding fields or tracks as they are not normally open to motor vehicles.
The conflicts are similar to heliskiing. As an example the Bauges regional park (PNR) has recently allowed 3 skidoo circuits (despite severely restricting mountain bikers, walkers and ski tourers). The one at la Feclaz is appauling. What were once some nice winter walks on cross country skis, snow shoes or on foot are now disturbed by noise and smelly skidoos. If people want to whizz around bikes, get yer license and go down to the hogs back on Sunday. Fortunately the French Environment Minister was furious about the PNR and is taken them to court.
[edited]
I've just searched Google and this website has an article in English discussing the law
http://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/return-of-the-snowmobile/
for a snowmobile you can also read snowcat or any other vehicle.
Of course many resorts flout the law. The only danger with doing activities in contravention of the French law is that the operator's insurer may not cover you in the envent of an accident.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
| Most skilifts will be partially or fully solarpowered or windpowered within 20 years. |
That's a bit of a red herring to be honest. Courchevel also claim they use waterpower electricity that they buy from a Grenoble based company but that just means that electricity isn't available for use elsewhere. Okay it can send a signal to markets that people are prepared to pay a premium for "green" energy but there is a finite generating capacity. It is like biodiesel, beyond a certain point you are taking food out of a poor person's mouth and felling forest to grow corn... which is why the price of the raw materials for biofuels are now aligned with the oil price index.
BTW I checked with an EDF engineer who said most of the generating capacity that really powers Courchevel's lifts comes from Nuclear - which you can also say is a green fuel.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
OMG I agree with stanton  Noise is the cardinal sin in Switzerland and that's probably the key concern
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
One of the pilots we flew with last year in Verbier told me that part of the costs of running the rescue helicopter were offset by using it for heliskiing operations. So really going heliskiing should be seen as a public service 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
I rather like the concept of a nation being free to make its own decision. As I understand the Swiss political system, there is a great deal more opportunity for the individual citizen to influence events that is so over here. I understand the concept that some decisions affect us all. But I have a feeling that mountain folk are more likely to make sensible decisions regarding alpine husbandry than bureaucrats in Brussels.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| davidof wrote: |
| Whitegold wrote: |
| Most skilifts will be partially or fully solarpowered or windpowered within 20 years. |
That's a bit of a red herring to be honest. Courchevel also claim they use waterpower electricity that they buy from a Grenoble based company but that just means that electricity isn't available for use elsewhere. Okay it can send a signal to markets that people are prepared to pay a premium for "green" energy but there is a finite generating capacity. It is like biodiesel, beyond a certain point you are taking food out of a poor person's mouth and felling forest to grow corn... which is why the price of the raw materials for biofuels are now aligned with the oil price index.
BTW I checked with an EDF engineer who said most of the generating capacity that really powers Courchevel's lifts comes from Nuclear - which you can also say is a green fuel. |
Few, if any, energy resources are infinite. That includes current forms of nuclear, which are non-renewable and will eventually run out.
The world will forever have to chop and change between different inputs. That is a given.
Today, we use coal, gas and oil. Tomorrow, we will use nuclear, wind, solar and water. The day after tomorrow is anyone's guess.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| Whitegold wrote: |
| .........Few, if any, energy resources are infinite. That includes current forms of nuclear, which are non-renewable and will eventually run out.......... |
True. But there mare an awful lot of nuclear warheads from de-commissioned weapons which could be incinerated. It's been talked about. If it were done, it would be rather nice to think that the energy was being used to power us up chairlifts, rather than what it was originally designed for, in extremis.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
achilles, not so much a chain reaction as a chair reaction. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
laundryman, exactly. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
