Highly educated doesn't mean that one is smart or is able to come to a rationale conclusion on issues. Eldora's situation is very unfortunate. The ski area expansion opposition folks are out-of-control because they oppose any and all expansion. There is no compromise at all and they can't be rationalized with.
These folks refuse to acknowledge that our National Forests were not designated exclusively for conservation and one of the many purposes were for them to be playgrounds for outdoor recreation, including winter sports.
They also ignore the fact that ski areas only use 1/10th of one percent of National Forest service acreage. Public land acreage used for skiing is pretty insignificant.
Hypothetically, if we were to DOUBLE the size of all ski areas they would still only use 2/10ths of one percent of all National Forest acreage. That's an incredibly small amount of the total acreage and we all know that there is not enough demand to justify, nor capital available to double the ski area acreage.
When I fly over the Rocky Mountains from Denver to Aspen I'm always amazed at the vast amount of untouched wilderness. There are millions of acres of undeveloped wilderness for as far as you can see. And on thousands of those acres a human being has probably rarely, if ever, been seen.
That's why I find the opposition of the few ski area expansions ludicrous.
Furthermore, they don't acknowledge the economic benefits the ski areas provide to the local communities they operate in.
They don't acknowledge the financial benefit the US Forest Service receives from the fees paid by the ski area for the use of the public land. They fail to realize that those fees that are collected assist with conservation efforts.
Basically, the opposition folks can be best summed up as wackos and unfortunately, the US Forest Service employs too many of them.
