Ski area growth omits global warming

There's an article in the NY Times today "Where Snow is all that Glitters, Worry Over Growth's Effect." It highlights a ski area (not resort) in Arapahoe Basin outside of Denver Co. The ski area is facing criticism from "environmentalists" and die-hard skiiers who say that the proposed expansion of said ski area will require the cutting of trees, and will bring undesireable, high-brow skiiers that will change the rustic feel of the area.

As far as I'm concerned, as long as the ski area's expansion is mindful of neighbors, takes into consideration its new environmental impacts and plans accordingly (which isn't addressed in this article) they should be able to expand. Afterall, the owner is quoted in the article as saying that growth is crucial to survival, and maybe the area needs a little economic boost from additional ski bunny dollars. (Of course I'm not an avid skiier so I welcome any perspective from those who are.)

The thing that isn't mentioned at all in this article is global warming (the two key words mentioned in nearly every other article these days). Of course the grand Rocky Mountain range may be a little ways off from feeling the heat and its snow pack may be able to last quite a few more years, which will probably keep the current owner in business until his retirement. But any long term ski resort folks should think hard about extending their spring time activities to accommodate long term viability for their areas.