Dear Dave P and all,

This initial piece is so wrought with misinformation and opinion, I simply have to respond.

First and foremost, the description of the work done on upper Chester makes it appear as though some idiots from St. Scholastica went to upper Chester and raped and pillaged an old growth forest.  Dave P clearly holds Dan Proctor in high regard so I will start by addressing the vast majority of brushing done by the CSS ski team, and address the by-pass issue separately.

The brushing and widening of the ski trail is 20 years overdue. There are several reasons I believe that our ski team is the only group of skiers who use it with any regularity:

1.  Dog poop.  Nobody enjoys skiing through it, and the trout stream this "massive cutting" of brush supposedly threatens to destroy is arguably much more polluted by dog feces and urine than by cutting a bunch of scrub brush.

2. Skier safety.  The trail has overgrown its already too-narrow-by-modern-standards width, and as we brushed the trail, we could see sizer scars several feet or more into the woods on either side of the trail, suggesting the trail is already narrow than when we were skiing on wooden skis and bamboo poles.  

Working with the city's trail liaison through CSS's community day, we used our community service day to brush back the entire trail system to meet a safe standard by today's Federation Internationale de Ski standards for a racing trail (which Chester ski trails most definitely are), that will carry skiers at a speed modern equipment will carry them down and up such hills.  This is a safety issue.  

Dan Proctor oversaw all this work, and was so happy with the work we did, he gave our skier/workers cookies he baked when we were all done.  

The minimum safety for hills like we ski at Chester is 6 meters wide.  18 feet. Minimum.  Thats a fast trail and some of those holls should really be 8 meters wide at apex.  

The DXC trails master-planning group worked with the city of Duluth to bring in the world's foremost expert in ski-trail design when working on master planning for city-wide advocacy to better and safer ski trails.  This was his recommendation.  It just needed a work force.  It had nothing to do with the storm.  It's what a safe ski trail today should be.  On the city's behalf, CSS skiers donated their time to do so.  You can disagree with that decision, but its the city's decision to make, not Dave P's, nor the CSS ski team's, nor DXC's.

Which brings me to the next point.  The city of Duluth was 100 percent behind and driving the brushing work and the by pass that was cut, which I will get to.  As for widening the trails on the whole, not a single native species tree was cut that Dan Proctor himself didn't oversee or cut himself.  In fact, Dan was telling us to cut stuff that I would never had made the call to cut.  What was cut widening Chester was 90 percent brush weed, 9 percent Buckthorn, 1 percent young spruce or dead trees of other species Dan called "widow makers."  

In regards to the bypass, I as the head coach assumed our work with Dan was done after widening the trail as it should be for safe skiing.  The bridges were the only necessary piece left to make Chester ski trails usable again. About a month later, the city liaison contacted the DXC trails master planning group for some help on an imminent issue at Chester Bowl.  Several of the group were unavailable so I and my assistant coach who was on the DXC board and trails planning group, both volunteered to meet her to discuss the issue.  The city liaison had met with the engineers in charge of restoring Chester and was given a very short timeline to create a solution.  The timeline to replace the bridge had been moved up to early this winter, and the city was under the gun to meet the deadline.  The trails liaison from the city was excited because it meant Chester could be up and running again by this winter for everyone.  We were excited too because we like skiing there.  

She was told a replacement bridge was going to have to go where the eventual bypass was cut.  She asked us for a consultation as to whether it would work.  Neither of us were in love with what the engineer was forcing the city to do about the bridge, but we agreed that her initial path laid out with tape in the woods before we got there, would work with a slight change in her flow, and some pretty significant excavation that would be necessary to make it safe.  We were asked if we could provide the manpower to at least brush the path to the new bridge location, which we did with our ski team's second community service day of the fall.

I want to underscore here that it was not the city trails liaison driving it.  It was the engineer and the timeline for the work to be done.

The tone of Dave P's assertions are pretty damning and are an attempt to smear a program with nothing but the best intentions, doing so on emotion and opinion, not with fact and foresight.   Further, it is clear that Dave P has no understanding of forest management in his description of what he describes since 90 percent of it was directed by his forestry hero, Dan Proctor. 

This is not my first rodeo, and I think anyone who knows me knows I run the CSS ski team.  I am not trying to deflect criticism either. The bridge plan was not the best solution but it was what the city trail liaison was being directed to do.  The brushing we did is common practice for a ski trail so there is absolutely nothing there that I will even attempt to deflect.  I simply wanted to present what actually happened in a factual manner.  

If Dave P or anyone wants to paint me as a skiing zealot, go ahead, but get your facts straight before you do it.  This is par for the course with the blogosphere -- post something that is pure conjecture and misinformation and pass it off as editorial journalism.  Anyone who thinks I would allow blades being wielded around a city park without the express consent of those in charge of the land, doesn't know me very well.  

No effort I am aware of is being made to make Chester Bowl a world-class ski racing facility.  Many in the community would like to ski on it more often under safer and cleaner conditions.  It would be great to host some college races there in the future -- not on the county forfeited land behind the CSS campus that is untouchable.  (The fact is CSS has used almost every last inch of the land it owns). The fact few people ski there should highlight for everyone how simply "taking over" a situation actually works.  It is actually and always has been a ski trail.  It has become a walking trail out of neglect by the city to make it the safe, awesome, best ski trail in the city that it should be.  Further, it works better for people who want to walk there if it is wider, but the fact still remains, it is a ski trail.  Making it so again is not a felony.  It's simply wise.

Further, if you take issue with anything that has transpired regarding the issue above, take it up with the owner of the land, the city of Duluth.  DXC is stewarding ski-trail initiatives, and quite well I might add.  Trying to give DXC a black eye of any sort because you don't like trail management, is barking up the wrong tree.  The main thing DXC did in this instance was partner with the city to highlight a best-practice plan for re-invigorating the Chester Bowl ski trail to its original use.  The action was taken by the city with the work being done by CSS Ski Team.  I just wanted to make that clear.