From: eugene@wilbur.nas.nasa.gov (Eugene N. Miya)
Subject: Re: Alaskan Heliskiing
Organization: NAS, NASA Ames Research Center, Moffett Field, CA
Date: Sat, 11 Apr 92 19:33:45 GMT

In article <1992Apr9.162208.9148@Arco.COM> Jim Isbell writes:
>In article <1992Apr8.193318.292@tc.fluke.COM> lowell@tc.fluke.COM (Lowell
>Skoog) writes:
>>Does it bother you entering this country in a helicopter?

Lowell's question assumes a certain opinion and a certain background
in order to be bothered.  More below.

>>It seems to me that the helicopter would diminish the experience somewhat.
>>Certainly it would diminish the experience for someone who had
>>reached the country on foot.  Do people who have heli-skied (or
>>heli-hiked) ever have doubts about the practice?

Mea culpa, I have sinned.  I would not heli-hike, but I have heliskied.
Worse, by my past action, other skiing buddies have gone as well.
(Me not in Alaska, yet, but ski-plane, soon.) From the stand point that
a helicopter is perhaps one of the most inefficient and more hazardous
methods of transportation [save maybe the Harriers we have here (as well
as many helicopters), I will mention that I have some doubts about the
practice.  I have seen one heli-ski-operation crash-land, and I have
also seen one of our helicopters after a warning light sent it down in Fremont.

My doubts about the practice are that it is seen as a status symbol.
It is not only noisy, but also in my opinion a waste of fuel (helicopters
have their uses), a luxury, and it can present enough of a stimulus to
set avalanches off.  But our society is willing to trade $$s for pollutants.
It is not necessarily seen by the participants of heli-skiing that they
are diminishing some one elses experience.  Out of sight, out of mind.
Except my mind, because I am certainly one of those people out of sight.
The experience is also somewhat short (except for the very rich, and
they wouldn't be reading net news, they'd have some one read it for them ;^).
Additionally, we have aerodynamicists whom would never get into a
helicopter, because "helicopters can't fly."  No joke. That is a doubt as well.

I had my initial curiosity, and I also am lucky to have friends who
use helicopters are part of their research (which needs skis to
get around).  I also know the industry well enough that I no longer
have to pay full price for rides (there are ways, it's not go when you want).

Heli-ski operations are forbidden in designated wilderness areas.
Yes, it is kind of annoyance when one X-C or ski-mountaineering.  But
I am more annoyed by snowmobiles in non-designated areas.  A pilot's
license is a little harder to come by than a snowmobile.  That adds to
extra intelligence, extra moral conviction.  Heli-skiing is too new an
experience to cause doubt in most people, unless you watched an avalanche
(or bird) go down, and come to the realization just how hazardous this
activity really is.  One is making an assumption on the nature of the
experience one is seeking.

But on my part, I was not raised with the concept of Original Sin.
So I don't feel guilty.  Nor am I proud that I have done it.
I think there are more significant environmental and wilderness
problems.  Jim rationalizes a plane ride to Alaska (I have sinned here
as well, as I have used cars and bicycles to go skiing).  One can also
look at lift-served skiing.  As long as our world is willing to trade $$s
for fuel and noise, this quandary will exist.  By our economic "rules,"
heli-skiing has to price itself out of existence.  I do not believe
this will happen.

It is not hypocracy.  Consider: if I bashed heliskiing without the
experience, then those who did would say: How can you bash it if you have not
tried it.  Yes, it's a nice way to get down-hill turns; a little different
from lift served skiing.  I have also hoofed it up peaks, which most
heli-skiers have not done, but I don't throw that in their faces.
So now years after, when I have gone heliskiing, am I any better for it?
No, it's just one experience.  While it is fun, it is a silly waste of fuel
in my opinion, but we have a silly economic system as well (we have some
good points as well).

I will admit to Jim's argument that skiing in Alaska is not possible
(easily) without mechanical assistance.  A plane is really the "only"
way to get around that state.  It is large.  The bush pilot Don Sheldon
specifically built a cabin off the Ruth Glacier just so he could fly in
and go skiing.

But I do not hold that Alaska is an unspoiled wilderness.
Just flying in the Brooks Range showed me that.  There lies up there,
an incredible amount of waste and "damage."  And there is evidence of
humans up there every where, you just have to keep your eyes open
(it depends on the season as well).

>Considering that there wouldn't be an experience without a helicopter I would
>have to vote for using that method.  While it might be possible to get to the
>valley floor beneath these runs after 10 - 20 hours on snowshoes (cross country
>skiis, snow machines, etc. will not work in this kind of bottomless snow), the
>necessity to escape the violent and unpredictable weather requires immediately
>available mobility.
>
>Also, when you consider flying in a jet at 500+mph from Seattle to Anchorage
>and you're continuously over this same range of mountains for three hours and
>in all of the times I've flown it (day and night) and not see a trace of human
>intrusion, it's a huge piece of wilderness that for all intents and purposes is
>inaccessible.  And this is only a VERY small portion of one of the lesser
>mountain ranges up here.

No, it's accessible.

>One more point - it's also a renewable wilderness in that ALL traces of your
>visit vanish in a matter of hours and considering that it's quite likely that
>no one will go that way again for years and possibly generations, the next one
>to visit it can have exactly the same experience as we did.
>
>I can understand your concern but you have to understand "wilderness" in
>Washington and Colorado and even British Columbia is a little different than it
>is here.  Many people have no concept of the magnitude and dimensions of this
>place (and there is great sensitivity among many of us about others' desires to
>lock us out of our own back yard, a back yard they want to preserve "just so
>they know it's there").  Off my soap box!

BTW, Jim if you are reading this, it would help if you had a signature, I
have a request: please email me the details of the news interface you
are using on the Mac.  Another former reader is looking for news software.

Consider your second post more proof that the Distribution: field on your
interface work 8^).

--eugene miya, NASA Ames Research Center, eugene@orville.nas.nasa.gov
  Resident Cynic, Rock of Ages Home for Retired Hackers
  {uunet,mailrus,other gateways}!ames!eugene
This is the Usenet: do you expect anything other than gross generalizations?
Ref: Mathematics and Plausible Reasoning, vol. 1, G. Polya