I don’t read it that way at all.
Can anyone say that PROTECT (Bauer) is factually incorrect on anything stated in that letter?
Not that I, personally, care all that much about hiking and biking trails on an existing ski (and biking/hiking) mountain…..but do any of us truly want to live in a world where SOMEONE isn’t keeping people honest?
Reductio ad absurdum, if you will. Under what is allowed, by law, to support an existing ski area….a business (or State org) is allowed to cut trees and re-grade land to support biking/hiking trails….leading to loss of habitat and significant erosion and such….wouldn’t that be a bad thing?
Shouldn’t SOMEONE be minding the cookie jar, or should anyone be able, through loophole or manipulation, do whatever they want, wherever they want? Not that I think anyone here is really trying to manipulate, but oversight (generally speaking) ain’t always a terrible thing, no?
Bottom line….PROTECT didn’t say “kick ‘em out the f’ing park”. Seems they said “we want to know more about what they intend to do before we approve their doing it.” I’m ok with that.