How about the option of I already live 30 minutes from ski hills and mountains of Colorado (or wherever there is skiing) and I do downhill ski, I am aware of the problem, and I also snow shoe, cross country ski, and walk/jog in my own neighborhood. Ski resorts did not cause global warming, and we can't simply shut down one of our state's biggest money makers, because people have to fly/drive to get there. If we did that everywhere our economy would come to a standstill, so this poll really isn't very practical. At least with a ski resort you have people concentrated in one area, instead of thousands of people spreading out and breaking their own tracks through the wilderness, a wonderful experience for the individual, but not so great for the wilderness! Instead of closing the resorts, we should get train service on I-70 and figure out someway to make planes pollute less. Perhaps in the future high speed trains, like the bullet will get people from places like Dallas to the mountains of Colorado.

The above commenter hit on a lot of the points above. What about those of us who live areas like New England or the Rockies, who don't have to travel far at all to ski.

Yes, there are still problems there, but there are also, other, higher impact problems, such as snowmobiling in our national parks.

I'd love to see a ski resort that could only be reached by train. Not only would energy be saved because there are less cars driving to it, but it would also avoid the ugliness that cars (and especially cars in the snow) bring. A pedestrian ski village accessible only by train would be lovely.

'Ski resorts did not cause global warming,'
I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning. Yes, ski resorts DID cause global warming. We ALL caused global warming to some extent or other. No one is blameless and no one has a right to excuse themselves from blame. We have all been sinners in this, knowingly or unknowinlgy, willingly or unwillingly. None of us has a right to claim innocence. What we can claim is that we are doing our best to stop being part of the problem. Our sins are not erased through denial, only through penance. What counts now is not what was done yesterday but what we are doing today and, especially, what we are trying to achieve for tomorrow. Ski resorts did cause global warming and must now make an honest effort to stop being part of the problem, just like everyone else.

'and we can't simply shut down one of our state's biggest money makers, because people have to fly/drive to get there. If we did that everywhere our economy would come to a standstill,'
First, the fact that an industry is a major money maker for an area is NO excuse for supporting that industry if that industry is having a negative impact on society. The coca fields of southeastern Columbia and the poppy fields of southernwestern Afghanistan are the life blood of the only real 'industries' of these two areas - cocaine and heroine. They bring in a lot of money and support millions of people. Yet no responsible politiician OUTSIDE of these areas would seriously make the argument: 'we can't simply shut down our regions biggest money maker because people can't control their consumption of our product. If we did that everywhere our economy would come to a standstill.' Nevertheless, you DO hear many, possibly most, politiicans and individuals within those regions say such things. No doubt, you are shaking your head muttering how inappropriate such a comparison is because I am comparing hard drugs to skiing. But make no mistake, the same basic argument you just used is the one used by community leaders in poppy and coca field growing areas. They will pour their hearts out with as much passion and authenticity, if not more, as you do. But this argument only goes so far in those areas. National govt officials understand the need to help coca and poppy farmers try to find an adequate substitute economic activity (and not just simply rampage through their fields tearing up their livelihoods), but these officials keep clear in their minds that the fields are a net detriment to society and that is why they have to go. Global warming is a serious problem. It is in my opinion the biggest problem facing human civilization - ever. Even bigger than the global drug problem. It is imperative that we get some kind of control over global warming. We need to do whatever we can to achieve this without making the cure worse the the illness. If society has to make sacrificies, which it should go without saying that it will, I am personally willing to go without ski resorts. I think most of Mankind will manage the pain of losing the ski resort industry. Having said that, that is not what I am proposing. It is not yet clear that ski resorts CAN'T find some combination of solutions that help them either seriously reduce their impact on global warming or even have zero carbon footprint. Rather than push for ski resorts to be eliminated, we must push for them to try to find an adequate combination of solutions. It should be clear that cutting more and mores swaths of forest to INCREASE skiier numbers is not part of that combination. Particularly if those increasing numbers of skiiers are travelling by plane.
Second, you falsely imply that 'our economy would come to a standstill.' If society decides to give up marginal luxury activities in order to try to reduce GHGs emissions related to those activities, the economy will NOT come to a standstill. When people gave up overland transport by horse carriage for rail, the economy did not crash. Actually, the shift GREW the economy. The only thing that crashed was the horse coach industry. If the needed greening of society to avert the worst effects of global warming lead to a massive reduction in skiing and ski resorts and other marginal luxury industries, this will NOT cause the economy to come to a standstill. As a matter of fact, the greening of society will lead to a massive EXPANSION of the overall economy from the vast number of new industries that will be needed - from renewable energies (solar, wind, wave, biomass, biofuels, geothermal, etc.) to sustainable forestry and fishing (certified forest plantations, monitoring institutions, etc) to green design and architecture and construction and furniture and clothing and, and, and, and, and.......Many economists have clear that we are at the beginning of another wave of economic revolution, just like the agricultural, industrial, transportation, and information revolutions that preceded. The green revolution will cause the decline and elimination of some sectors but the net impact on the economy will be strongly positive, and more importantly society as a whole, and not just the one aspect which is the economy, will be much better off.

'so this poll really isn't very practical.'
Only to you. I think the poll is appropriate.

'At least with a ski resort you have people concentrated in one area, instead of thousands of people spreading out and breaking their own tracks through the wilderness, a wonderful experience for the individual, but not so great for the wilderness!'
Skiiers go to ski resorts for several reasons. One, because of the ski related facilities. Two, the lifts. Three, the cut and maintained trails. If skiers decide to go to mountains that don't have ski resorts to ski, and I don't expect many will do this because of the inconveniences of not having facilities, lifts and clear-cut ski routes, I don't expect they will be taking chainsaws to cut trees and bushes that are in their way. And if they did, then they will have taken the first step in the creation of a ski resort. Ski resorts aren't a net benefit for mountain ecosystems, as you make them sound. The only reason there are so many skiers is because there are ski resorts that provide the things needed to make it appealing to large numbers of individuals. Without the ski resorts and what they provide, very few would do it. My sister snowboards - all the time - she is currently spending several months in the Alps doing it. Just like she did two years ago in the Pyrenees. I know this, if it weren't for the cheap ski resorts and the facilities they provide, she wouldn't be boarding because she won't walk up a mountain or ski through a thicket of trees and bushes or be where there are not readily available services - restaurants, bars, hotels, etc. Ski resorts create the massive numbers of skiers. Take them away and you take away the appeal of skiing. Virtually all of the environmental damage related to skiing is caused by and because of ski resorts. Don't confuse things.

'Instead of closing the resorts, we should get train service on I-70'
I strongly agree that train service should probably be a part of that comination of solutions that will make ski resorts environmentally responsible.

'Perhaps in the future high speed trains, like the bullet will get people from places like Dallas to the mountains of Colorado.' Better to New Mexico's Ruidoso (much closer), which is where most of my friends from Dallas went when I attended university in Texas.

'Ski resorts did not cause global warming,'
I strongly disagree with this line of reasoning. Yes, ski resorts DID cause global warming. We ALL caused global warming to some extent or other. No one is blameless and no one has a right to excuse themselves from blame. We have all been sinners in this, knowingly or unknowinlgy, willingly or unwillingly. None of us has a right to claim innocence. What we can claim is that we are doing our best to stop being part of the problem. Our sins are not erased through denial, only through penance. What counts now is not what was done yesterday but what we are doing today and, especially, what we are trying to achieve for tomorrow. Ski resorts did cause global warming and must now make an honest effort to stop being part of the problem, just like everyone else.

'and we can't simply shut down one of our state's biggest money makers, because people have to fly/drive to get there. If we did that everywhere our economy would come to a standstill,'
First, the fact that an industry is a major money maker for an area is NO excuse for supporting that industry if that industry is having a negative impact on society. The coca fields of southeastern Columbia and the poppy fields of southernwestern Afghanistan are the life blood of the only real 'industries' of these two areas - cocaine and heroine. They bring in a lot of money and support millions of people. Yet no responsible politiician OUTSIDE of these areas would seriously make the argument: 'we can't simply shut down our regions biggest money maker because people can't control their consumption of our product. If we did that everywhere our economy would come to a standstill.' Nevertheless, you DO hear many, possibly most, politiicans and individuals within those regions say such things. No doubt, you are shaking your head muttering how inappropriate such a comparison is because I am comparing hard drugs to skiing. But make no mistake, the same basic argument you just used is the one used by community leaders in poppy and coca field growing areas. They will pour their hearts out with as much passion and authenticity, if not more, as you do. But this argument only goes so far in those areas. National govt officials understand the need to help coca and poppy farmers try to find an adequate substitute economic activity (and not just simply rampage through their fields tearing up their livelihoods), but these officials keep clear in their minds that the fields are a net detriment to society and that is why they have to go. Global warming is a serious problem. It is in my opinion the biggest problem facing human civilization - ever. Even bigger than the global drug problem. It is imperative that we get some kind of control over global warming. We need to do whatever we can to achieve this without making the cure worse the the illness. If society has to make sacrificies, which it should go without saying that it will, I am personally willing to go without ski resorts. I think most of Mankind will manage the pain of losing the ski resort industry. Having said that, that is not what I am proposing. It is not yet clear that ski resorts CAN'T find some combination of solutions that help them either seriously reduce their impact on global warming or even have zero carbon footprint. Rather than push for ski resorts to be eliminated, we must push for them to try to find an adequate combination of solutions. It should be clear that cutting more and mores swaths of forest to INCREASE skiier numbers is not part of that combination. Particularly if those increasing numbers of skiiers are travelling by plane.
Second, you falsely imply that 'our economy would come to a standstill.' If society decides to give up marginal luxury activities in order to try to reduce GHGs emissions related to those activities, the economy will NOT come to a standstill. When people gave up overland transport by horse carriage for rail, the economy did not crash. Actually, the shift GREW the economy. The only thing that crashed was the horse coach industry. If the needed greening of society to avert the worst effects of global warming lead to a massive reduction in skiing and ski resorts and other marginal luxury industries, this will NOT cause the economy to come to a standstill. As a matter of fact, the greening of society will lead to a massive EXPANSION of the overall economy from the vast number of new industries that will be needed - from renewable energies (solar, wind, wave, biomass, biofuels, geothermal, etc.) to sustainable forestry and fishing (certified forest plantations, monitoring institutions, etc) to green design and architecture and construction and furniture and clothing and, and, and, and, and.......Many economists have clear that we are at the beginning of another wave of economic revolution, just like the agricultural, industrial, transportation, and information revolutions that preceded. The green revolution will cause the decline and elimination of some sectors but the net impact on the economy will be strongly positive, and more importantly society as a whole, and not just the one aspect which is the economy, will be much better off.

'so this poll really isn't very practical.'
Only to you. I think the poll is appropriate.

'At least with a ski resort you have people concentrated in one area, instead of thousands of people spreading out and breaking their own tracks through the wilderness, a wonderful experience for the individual, but not so great for the wilderness!'
Skiiers go to ski resorts for several reasons. One, because of the ski related facilities. Two, the lifts. Three, the cut and maintained trails. If skiers decide to go to mountains that don't have ski resorts to ski, and I don't expect many will do this because of the inconveniences of not having facilities, lifts and clear-cut ski routes, I don't expect they will be taking chainsaws to cut trees and bushes that are in their way. And if they did, then they will have taken the first step in the creation of a ski resort. Ski resorts aren't a net benefit for mountain ecosystems, as you make them sound. The only reason there are so many skiers is because there are ski resorts that provide the things needed to make it appealing to large numbers of individuals. Without the ski resorts and what they provide, very few would do it. My sister snowboards - all the time - she is currently spending several months in the Alps doing it. Just like she did two years ago in the Pyrenees. I know this, if it weren't for the cheap ski resorts and the facilities they provide, she wouldn't be boarding because she won't walk up a mountain or ski through a thicket of trees and bushes or be where there are not readily available services - restaurants, bars, hotels, etc. Ski resorts create the massive numbers of skiers. Take them away and you take away the appeal of skiing. Virtually all of the environmental damage related to skiing is caused by and because of ski resorts. Don't confuse things.

'Instead of closing the resorts, we should get train service on I-70'
I strongly agree that train service should probably be a part of that comination of solutions that will make ski resorts environmentally responsible.

'Perhaps in the future high speed trains, like the bullet will get people from places like Dallas to the mountains of Colorado.' Better to New Mexico's Ruidoso (much closer), which is where most of my friends from Dallas went when I attended university in Texas.