# Has Sugarbush Hired Killington's PR Dept?



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

Latest mountain info says 4000+ acres. Yes you can say you have Slidebrook, but come on Win, be real. http://www.sugarbush.com/snow-trails-conditions/mountain-resort-statistics


----------



## bvibert (Sep 25, 2008)

I'm too lazy to look, does it state that it has 4000+ acres or 4000+ acres of skiable terrain?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> Latest mountain info says 4000+ acres. Yes you can say you have Slidebrook, but come on Win, be real. http://www.sugarbush.com/snow-trails-conditions/mountain-resort-statistics



but below that it says skiable 508...totally legit..that stat just shows how spread out Sugarbush is but yeah 4k+ acres is larger than Jackson Hole..


----------



## SpinmasterK (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> Latest mountain info says 4000+ acres. Yes you can say you have Slidebrook, but come on Win, be real. http://www.sugarbush.com/snow-trails-conditions/mountain-resort-statistics



I thought Sugarbush was 5000+ acres and Killington was 6000+ acres! ;-)
Actually, both areas are approximately the same size in regards to total acres. However, it is the developed skiable acres – for eastern resorts – that matter most.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

SpinmasterK said:


> I thought Sugarbush was 5000+ acres and Killington was 6000+ acres! ;-)
> Actually, both areas are approximately the same size in regards to total acres. However, it is the developed skiable acres – for eastern resorts – that matter most.



What about tree skiing?


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

SpinmasterK said:


> I thought Sugarbush was 5000+ acres and Killington was 6000+ acres! ;-)
> Actually, both areas are approximately the same size in regards to total acres. However, it is the developed skiable acres – for eastern resorts – that matter most.


 
Tom, are you moonlighting for Sugarbush


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

I see skiable acres listed as 508. What's the problem here, Andy? Just grumpy today?


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2008)

Honestly, need we look this closely?  Slow day?  We all know that Win is the man and that Sugarbush is great...

Yes, I am giving some Sugarbush loving....  :wink:


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Sep 25, 2008)

I'm pretty sure "skiable acres" includes designated glade areas.  No way they have 508 acres of trails, right?


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

thetrailboss said:


> Honestly, need we look this closely?  Slow day?  We all know that Win is the man and that Sugarbush is great...
> 
> Yes, I am giving some Sugarbush loving....  :wink:



I agree. Calling out Win was not warranted. He's always been a huge AZ supporter.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> I'm pretty sure "skiable acres" includes designated glade areas.  No way they have 508 acres of trails, right?



Yes they have 508 acres of trails..


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Sep 25, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Yes they have 508 acres of trails..




Not so sure.  Doesn't "skiable acres" include marked glades, not just trails?  Otherwise, how do marked glades get accounted for?

Look how after "skiable acres" they divide out "miles of trails" and "wooded areas"....Makes me think that they're not grooming 508 acres, but, rather, that the 508 number includes glades.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> how do marked glades get accounted for?



Surface area of the cleared glade minus the surface area covered by each tree. Yes, it's true, they actually do measure every tree.


----------



## WWF-VT (Sep 25, 2008)

Here's a link to a cool pic of the Slidebrook lift

http://wikimapia.org/5959615/Slide-Brook-Express-Chairlift

That's a lot of total acreage that's accessible today but not likely considered in the 508 "skiable acres"


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Surface area of the cleared glade minus the surface area covered by each tree. Yes, it's true, they actually do measure every tree.





I'm looking for the ;-) at the end of that post....You're joking, right?

If true, wow, the PR departments must command a pretty big budget!  Not sure why else they'd go through the effort, other than to pump up the stats....


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Surface area of the cleared glade minus the surface area covered by each tree. Yes, it's true, they actually do measure every tree.



steezy


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> I'm looking for the ;-) at the end of that post....You're joking, right?
> 
> If true, wow, the PR departments must command a pretty big budget!  Not sure why else they'd go through the effort, other than to pump up the stats....



Nope. No winkie. They do measure every tree. Trust me.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Nope. No winkie. They do measure every tree. Trust me.




Aaah, OK, well, that's pretty interesting, then.  Thanks for the info.


----------



## Beetlenut (Sep 25, 2008)

Has anyone here ever skied in Slide Brook? Guided tour or on their own? If so, any descriptions or pics?


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Aaah, OK, well, that's pretty interesting, then.  Thanks for the info.



Happy that I was able to teach you something.


----------



## billski (Sep 25, 2008)

Beetlenut said:


> Has anyone here ever skied in Slide Brook? Guided tour or on their own? If so, any descriptions or pics?



I really want to but don't want to do it first time "unguided".  Bush offers a "guided tour" of it, but the price is a bit much for me.  Now to find a local...


----------



## billski (Sep 25, 2008)

WWF-VT said:


> Here's a link to a cool pic of the Slidebrook lift
> 
> http://wikimapia.org/5959615/Slide-Brook-Express-Chairlift
> 
> That's a lot of total acreage that's accessible today but not likely considered in the 508 "skiable acres"



yeah, and it's "lift served" only to the top.  At the bottom at the road, your thumb must be employed.  I would be disinclined to capture it for marketing information if the region isn't served both top and bottom.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 25, 2008)

billski said:


> yeah, and it's "lift served" only to the top.  At the bottom at the road, your thumb must be employed.  I would be disinclined to capture it for marketing information if the region isn't served both top and bottom.



When both North and South are open there is a free shuttle bus that stops at the bottom of Slide Brook.  So it's not ski lift served, but it is "served."


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 25, 2008)

billski said:


> I really want to but don't want to do it first time "unguided".  Bush offers a "guided tour" of it, but the price is a bit much for me.  Now to find a local...



I did the guided tour once and have since gone in 2-3 times without the tour (but with others, of course).  I still don't feel confident enough to be the only guide, but to be honest, the tour route is marked pretty well and unless it's right after a storm, you'll see tracks.  I'd be happy to go with you if we were ever there at the same time, but I'd want at least one other person with at least similar knowledge of the area to me.  That said, I don't think I've skied the best parts by any stretch, since I've done basically what the tour would do I think.


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

thetrailboss said:


> Honestly, need we look this closely? Slow day? We all know that Win is the man and that Sugarbush is great...
> 
> Yes, I am giving some Sugarbush loving....





Greg said:


> I agree. Calling out Win was not warranted. He's always been a huge AZ supporter.


 
I agree with you guys, I love Sugarbush and I believe Win has been doing a great job. I appreciate his willingness to get on this board and discuss. Does that give him immediate protection from some of the tougher questions?


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> I agree with you guys, I love Sugarbush and I believe Win has been doing a great job. I appreciate his willingness to get on this board and discuss. Does that give him immediate protection from some of the tougher questions?



No...but since the skiable acres total is right next to the full acreage, where is the tough question?  It seems informative to include both numbers.  It would be helpful though to have more of an idea exactly what each number covers.  But I don't see any overhyping given that they include the smaller number.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

AndyZee needs a lesson in reading comprehension..lol


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 25, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> I'm looking for the ;-) at the end of that post....You're joking, right?
> 
> If true, wow, the PR departments must command a pretty big budget!  Not sure why else they'd go through the effort, other than to pump up the stats....



Don’t take it personnel Andy and Comeback, even the slightest inference that somehow Sugarbush is less than perfect is put down pretty quickly here.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> I agree with you guys, I love Sugarbush and I believe Win has been doing a great job. I appreciate his willingness to get on this board and discuss. Does that give him immediate protection from some of the tougher questions?



Certainly not. I just had a problem with the way he was called out which was based on nothing really. The skiable acreage stat is clearly listed right below the overall acreage. I also think Sugarbush is warranted to post the overall stat. Anyone that has skied there knows there is a ton of skiable off map terrain when the snowpack is deep, and not just in Slide Brook.

Win has been very available to the AZ and SkiMRV community. He's also offered us discounted skiing. Call me a sell-out if you will, but I think he deserves a bit of respect based on that. Again, I just thought taking Win to task on this particular item as well as taking an indirect shot at Tom was not called for, tongue-in-cheek or not. But I'm just an industry shill, right?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> I agree with you guys, I love Sugarbush and I believe Win has been doing a great job. I appreciate his willingness to get on this board and discuss. Does that give him immediate protection from some of the tougher questions?



Nice post. Fair question.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Don’t take it personnel Andy and Comeback, even the slightest inference that somehow Sugarbush is less than perfect is put down pretty quickly here.



For the record, I would feel the same way if this had been any ski area, so maybe it's time to lose the Sugarbush immunity argument, eh HPD?


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Nope. No winkie. They do measure every tree. Trust me.



I'd be surprised if that statement is 100% accurate, Greg.  Rather than measuring the area of every tree, which for a glade like Exterminator Woods would be a truly daunting task, it's far more likely that they "cruise" the glade and perform a statistical estimate.  Cruising a stand of trees is what loggers do to figure out how many board feet (or tons) may be within a given parcel, and can be done with a pretty high level of accuracy.  If you know the species and ages of the trees along with the total acreage in question, it's relatively easy to do.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Nice post. Fair question.



I don't agree that it was a fair question. It would be like questioning *Whiteface* for including the Slides in acreage and vertical despite them being open only a few days per year. But I'm sure you feel hose are appropriate stats, right?


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> For the record, I would feel the same way if this had been any ski area, so maybe it's time to lose the *Sugarbush immunity argument*, eh HPD?



It's always bugged me, can't let it go. When WF is attacked in a much nastier way then this I and other fans come to it's defense, BUT the attacks are allowed to be posted and rightly so. People have a right to their opinion.

Andy can't even ask a softball question about their skiable acreage? Come one. 

I also think Sugarbush is a great mountain, but they get the halo treatment in Alpinezone.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> I don't agree that it was a fair question. It would be like questioning *Whiteface* for including the Slides in acreage and vertical despite them being open only a few days per year. But I'm sure you feel hose are appropriate stats, right?



So question that, so what? If I think you're wrong I'll tell you so, but why can't you question it?


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I'd be surprised if that statement is 100% accurate, Greg.  Rather than measuring the area of every tree, which for a glade like Exterminator Woods would be a truly daunting task, it's far more likely that they "cruise" the glade and perform a statistical estimate.  Cruising a stand of trees is what loggers do to figure out how many board feet (or tons) may be within a given parcel, and can be done with a pretty high level of accuracy.  If you know the species and ages of the trees along with the total acreage in question, it's relatively easy to do.



Gee, thanks. :roll:







If anyone missed it, I was kidding about the tree measuring. I thought it was a ludicrous enough comment that the winkie was implied... :lol:


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 25, 2008)

SpinmasterK said:


> I thought Sugarbush was 5000+ acres and Killington was 6000+ acres! ;-)
> Actually, both areas are approximately the same size in regards to total acres. However, it is the developed skiable acres – for eastern resorts – that matter most.



I disagree.  That provides an artificial advantage to those resort that have chainsawed their trails into McBoulevards.  You know, runs like Superstar, Ovation, Double Dipper and the coming iteration of Skyelark.  Just b/c Double Dipper is half a mile wide doesn't make it ski any longer.  A more accurate measure is trail mileage for cut trails, though acreage for glades is a superior number - each line in a given glade creates a different run.  I'm sure the comparison still favors Killington on 5 days a week when Pico is open.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> It's always bugged me, can't let it go. When WF is attacked in a much nastier way then this I and other fans come to it's defense, BUT the attacks are allowed to be posted and rightly so. People have a right to their opinion.
> 
> Andy can't even ask a softball question about their skiable acreage? Come one.
> 
> I also think Sugarbush is a great mountain, but they get the halo treatment in Alpinezone.










highpeaksdrifter said:


> So question that, so what? If I think you're wrong I'll tell you so, but why can't you question it?



The question was fine. The presentation was poor. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> It's always bugged me, can't let it go. When WF is attacked in a much nastier way then this I and other fans come to it's defense, BUT the attacks are allowed to be posted and rightly so. People have a right to their opinion.



BTW, aside from the casual "Iceface" comment, exactly how is Whiteface attacked so nastily? Personally I think Hunter and undoubtedly Killington get beat up on far more than Whiteface does. Quit the martyr routine, willya?


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> I don't agree that it was a fair question. It would be like questioning *Whiteface* for including the Slides in acreage and vertical despite them being open only a few days per year. But I'm sure you feel hose are appropriate stats, right?


 

I'm sure if I asked the same question of Killington, no one would have a problem with it. As a matter of fact, you'd have folks dumping fuel into the fire by the truckload.


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

I could go back to showing off my nipple if you all prefer :lol:


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> But I'm just an industry shill, right?



No, not for the whole industry.  Just for sponsors.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> I'm sure if I asked the same question of Killington, no one would have a problem with it. As a matter of fact, you'd have folks dumping fuel into the fire by the truckload.



I would. Folks like JimG. and I have stuck up for Killington in the past when comments were made off base. Suggesting that Win should "be real" when when the skiable acreage was right underneath the overall was silly, bottom line. I'm the one who's keeping it real, Andy.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> I'm sure if I asked the same question of Killington, no one would have a problem with it. As a matter of fact, you'd have folks dumping fuel into the fire by the truckload.



Well Smuggs claims 1000 acres due to their boundary to boundary policy.  I think the Loaf does something similar.  It's not like SB or K are out on a limb putting this information out there, especially in light of the fact that they clearly point out skiable acreage right next to the larger figure.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

Tin Woodsman said:


> No, not for the whole industry.  Just for sponsors.



How so?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> I could go back to showing off my nipple if you all prefer :lol:



I would like that..:lol:


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

Ok, ok, my apologies, I will never question Sugarbush again.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> Ok, ok, my apologies, I will never question Sugarbush again.



AndyZee there was nothing to question...it said total acres and skiable acres..


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> Ok, ok, my apologies, I will never question Sugarbush again.



You and a few others have obviously missed my point.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> AndyZee there was nothing to question...it said total acres and skiable acres..



See? Even GSS gets it.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> The question was fine. The presentation was poor. I guess we'll have to agree to disagree.





Greg said:


> BTW, aside from the casual "Iceface" comment, exactly how is Whiteface attacked so nastily? Personally I think Hunter and undoubtedly Killington get beat up on far more than Whiteface does. Quit the martyr routine, willya?



You have a picture of a baby crying and you say I have a martyr routine, so now you can't make a point without being personally insulting? When did you turn into that guy?

I agree with Hunter and Kmart being picked on more then WF. You're the one who brought up the Slides acreage, I replied go ahead, so what? My whole point is asking a question about SB's claimed acreage, and the tounge in check the way it was asked, should not have been put down by you and I don't think it would have been if it was any other mountain.

So yeah, we'll agree to disagree.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> Ok, ok, my apologies, I will never question Sugarbush again.




Now you're safe.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> You have a picture of a baby crying and you say I have a martyr routine, so now you can't make a point without being personally insulting? When did you turn into that guy?
> 
> I agree with Hunter and Kmart being picked on more then WF. You're the one who brought up the Slides acreage, I replied go ahead, so what? My whole point is asking a question about SB's claimed acreage, and the tounge in check the way it was asked, should not have been put down by you and I don't think it would have been if it was any other mountain.
> 
> So yeah, we'll agree to disagree.




Whiteface gets picked on because is really far north and doesn't get that much natural snowfall..and doesn't have a whole lot of skiable terrain...


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2008)

I was being tongue and cheek in my post...but my original point is REGARDLESS of WHO made that statement, it seemed as if that was being a bit nitpicky.  

And again if we were really industry shills, this thread would have been locked, edited, and deleted.  But alas, it is not!


----------



## 2knees (Sep 25, 2008)

this thread is like a free for all/mob riot.  Just come in to the romper room and take your shots at someone.


Madskier6 molests donkeys.


----------



## WJenness (Sep 25, 2008)

2knees throws chairs like a girl.

-w


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> You have a picture of a baby crying and you say I have a martyr routine, so now you can't make a point without being personally insulting? When did you turn into that guy?
> 
> I agree with Hunter and Kmart being picked on more then WF. You're the one who brought up the Slides acreage, I replied go ahead, so what? My whole point is asking a question about SB's claimed acreage, and the tounge in check the way it was asked, should not have been put down by you and I don't think it would have been if it was any other mountain.
> 
> So yeah, we'll agree to disagree.



_That _guy? I'm joshing with ya just like I was with TW with the Captain O pic. If I personally insulted either of you, I apologize.

For the record, I have no problem with Whiteface including the Slides in it's area and vert stat. It's a feature of the mountain and is skiable so if someone questioned that, I, and undoubtedly you would come to their defense.

The bottom line is I'm a pretty easy going guy. I can have fun skiing just about anywhere and am not one to nitpick things about an area, or play the ski area armchair quarterback game. I've been called a lemming for having that view but it is what it is. Finally, I'm not beholden only to ski areas that sponsor this site. The bottom line is I really don't make a point of slamming any ski area really. I like some better than others, but quite honestly they're all okay in my book. After that shitty day we had at Gore HPD, I could slam that place, but I'm not ignorant in being able to identify that it has a lot of great terrain despite not being able to ski it all. And despite the conditions being so crappy (as we expected), I don't regret the 3 hour drive up and 5 hours home and still had fun hanging with you, Jim and Brian and just getting a feel for the place.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 25, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Nice post. Fair question.



But this has nothing to do with whether people care if others call out Sugarbush.  The skiable acreage number is clearly stated.  I would feel the same for any area.  If only the 4,000-acre number was given, I would think Andy would have a fair point and Win/whomever should be asked about it.  But given that they have both numbers, what is the issue?  I would be interested to know whether the 500ish number includes marked glades, and that would be a fair question for any ski area that doesn't clearly specify.  But there is no "tough[]" question here at all.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> I don't agree that it was a fair question. It would be like questioning *Whiteface* for including the Slides in acreage and vertical despite them being open only a few days per year. But I'm sure you feel hose are appropriate stats, right?





highpeaksdrifter said:


> So question that, so what? If I think you're wrong I'll tell you so, but why can't you question it?



He can question whatever he wants, but it's good to make the question fair.  If the questions are, "What does the 4000 acre number include?  What does the 500 number include?", that is totally fair, and I'd love to know.  If the question is (paraphrasing with some freedom) "Why do you say 4,000 acres?  Isn't that overmarketing like crazy?", well, they do also say 500 acres are skiable.  I definitely want to know what the numbers mean, and to that extent Andy's question is perfectly fair.  But ignoring the existence of the smaller number or implying that it isn't there is not fair.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 25, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> I agree with Hunter and Kmart being picked on more then WF. You're the one who brought up the Slides acreage, I replied go ahead, so what? My whole point is asking a question about SB's claimed acreage, and the tounge in check the way it was asked, should not have been put down by you and I don't think it would have been if it was any other mountain.
> 
> So yeah, we'll agree to disagree.



HPD - 

Sorry, but you're entirely missing the point.  I'm a big SB fan, but I slam them as well, though mostly over at SkiMRV where it is more likely to get noticed.  Of course, when I do so, I got slammed for whining about the Castlerock Pub being too small (doubling in size this year), lack of boot/bag storage (doubling in size this year), and too few seats in the cafeteria (they now open the old VH lodge on weekends/holidays).  But I don't think it's whining when it's a real problem, and especially when you're subsequently vindicated by the resort throwing down susbstantial coin to fix the problems you've been talking about. 

The issue Andyzee raised is, however, a complete red herring.  It says the resort is 4000 acres, which is quite frankly true on a boundary to boundary basis.  It says right next door that this includes 508 skiable acres.  I really don't see any intent to deceive here, as it's pretty clear what the relevant numbers are for anyone paying attention.  Now if you just want to stir shit up, then you come in and squawk about how misleading it is and the injustice of it all.  

Put it this way, having those numbers there side by side is far more innocuous than Whiteface including the acreage of the Slides in light of the fact that they are open a handful of days per year.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2008)

kcyanks1 said:


> But this has nothing to do with whether people care if others call out Sugarbush.  The skiable acreage number is clearly stated.  I would feel the same for any area.  If only the 4,000-acre number was given, I would think Andy would have a fair point and Win/whomever should be asked about it.  But given that they have both numbers, what is the issue?  I would be interested to know whether the 500ish number includes marked glades, and that would be a fair question for any ski area that doesn't clearly specify.  But there is no "tough[]" question here at all.



x2.


----------



## bvibert (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> After that shitty day we had at Gore HPD, I could slam that place, but I'm not ignorant in being able to identify that it has a lot of great terrain despite not being able to ski it all. And despite the conditions being so crappy (as we expected), I don't regret the 3 hour drive up and 5 hours home and still had fun hanging with you, Jim and Brian and just getting a feel for the place.



I especially liked the inside of the bottom shack for the Topridge Triple, it was nice and cozy.   The food was pretty good too...


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

2knees said:


> this thread is like a free for all/mob riot.  Just come in to the romper room and take your shots at someone.
> 
> 
> Madskier6 molests donkeys.



ahahahahaha..I heard the donkeys like it..


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Sorry, but you're entirely missing the point.  I'm a big SB fan, but I slam them as well, though mostly over at SkiMRV where it is more likely to get noticed.  Of course, when I do so, I got slammed for whining about the Castlerock Pub being too small (doubling in size this year), lack of boot/bag storage (doubling in size this year), and too few seats in the cafeteria (they now open the old VH lodge on weekends/holidays).  But I don't think it's whining when it's a real problem, and especially when you're subsequently vindicated by the resort throwing down susbstantial coin to fix the problems you've been talking about.



They're obviously just trying to make *you *happy! Did they rip down those damn digital ad boards yet? Big wink here:






There's a big difference between constructive criticism and incessant whining, or being condescending (I'm not suggesting anyone is doing that here, but there's plenty of it especially in the K threads). It's all in the presentation which is admittedly difficult to perfect at times with just the typed word.

With that said, I'm hopeful that industry people do take the suggestions posted here seriously. I suspect that many do and as Tinny points out the folks at Sugarbush have actually implemented some of them. I think that's pretty cool. But again we should all be civil about it. Give respect to get it.


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

Mission accomplished


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> Mission accomplished



The bigger man would just own it and admit you were off base.

:razz:


----------



## bvibert (Sep 25, 2008)

HPD, I can see where your coming from and how it may look that way.  However, IMHO, in this case Greg was just telling Andy what an idiot he is for asking a stupid question.  I didn't see it as slamming anyone for offering a negative opinion on SB.  In other cases I believe Greg speaks passionately about the mountains he likes, just as you do.  That doesn't necessarily mean that there's an AZ policy of stifling negativity towards them.  I think we do a pretty good job of letting these types of "discussion's" run their course, or until they turn into an all out flame war.  I think it would be unfair for anyone to expect Greg not to voice his opinion just because he's the site admin.

That said; Greg, cut the crap with the cry baby picture, it's getting old.  Consider yourself warned... :roll:


----------



## Grassi21 (Sep 25, 2008)

2knees said:


> this thread is like a free for all/mob riot.  Just come in to the romper room and take your shots at someone.
> 
> 
> Madskier6 molests donkeys.





WJenness said:


> 2knees throws chairs like a girl.
> 
> -w



2knees plays for the women's softball team in the industrial league...


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> Mission accomplished




Was gonna say...were things getting quiet on Kzone?


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

bvibert said:


> I think it would be unfair for anyone to expect Greg not to voice his opinion just because he's the site admin.



Thank you, Brian. I've always said I'm a member first and an admin second. Difficult line to travel sometimes. If I didn't enjoy this community on a personal level, I wouldn't be posting here.



bvibert said:


> That said; Greg, cut the crap with the cry baby picture, it's getting old.  Consider yourself warned... :roll:



Then ban me bitch.


----------



## billski (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> If anyone missed it, I was kidding about the tree measuring. I thought it was a ludicrous enough comment that the winkie was implied... :lol:



I've seen too many flamefests on various forums because the writer thought his remark was clear and obvious.  :smash:


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Then ban me bitch.


 
Yes, please do, at the very least for using such vulgar lanuage on a family board.


----------



## Grassi21 (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Then ban me bitch.



Signature quote material?


----------



## Grassi21 (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> Yes, please do, at the very least for using such vulgar lanuage on a family board.



Speaking of a family board...  Your avatar looks like some pedo gym teacher with his face pressed up against the glass window of his office inside the boys locker room.

Where is that pic from andy?  Its scaring me...


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

Andy is such a little baby..lol


----------



## Beetlenut (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Then ban me bitch.


 
I smell a Ski-off!! But they have to swap skis!!


----------



## Beetlenut (Sep 25, 2008)

Grassi21 said:


> Speaking of a family board... Your avatar looks like some pedo gym teacher with his face pressed up against the glass window of his office inside the boys locker room...


 
Repressed memory??


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> They're obviously just trying to make *you *happy! Did they rip down those damn digital ad boards yet? Big wink here:


Don't you know how important I am??!!  They obviously bowed to my will.  As for the digital ad boards, I have fired merely an opening salvo. :-D  Took me two years to get traction on the CR Pub and boot/bag room.  Give me time.  :lol:


----------



## Grassi21 (Sep 25, 2008)

Beetlenut said:


> Repressed memory??



Thank God, no.  Time to curb my cringe humor for a bit.  ;-)


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Don't you know how important I am??!!  They obviously bowed to my will.  As for the digital ad boards, I have fired merely an opening salvo. :-D  Took me two years to get traction on the CR Pub and boot/bag room.  Give me time.  :lol:



Best of luck on this latest crusade. Maybe they'll name a glade after you or something...


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Best of luck on this latest crusade. Maybe they'll name a glade after you or something...



Tin's Woodland?  Please no.... :wink:


----------



## 2knees (Sep 25, 2008)

Grassi likes to fart in a jar and smell it.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

2knees said:


> Grassi likes to fart in a jar and smell it.



who doesn't


----------



## Grassi21 (Sep 25, 2008)

2knees said:


> Grassi likes to fart in a jar and smell it.





GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> who doesn't



everybody loves their own brand....  just sayin',,,,,

2knees frequents pickle parks!


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

Grassi21 said:


> Speaking of a family board... Your avatar looks like some pedo gym teacher with his face pressed up against the glass window of his office inside the boys locker room.
> 
> Where is that pic from andy? Its scaring me...


 
That's my faced pressed up against a glass window at home. I was working on trying to make my avatar look like a window (too much work does that to a person) and it came out like that. 

Glass area: 2 sq. feet
Faceable area: .75 sq. feet


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

Hahaha..yeah Andy does look like a Pedophile..maybe a trip to Smugglers notch is in order for Zee-man..he can leave the wife at home and invite little kids into the hottub..


----------



## Grassi21 (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> That's my faced pressed up against a glass window at home. I was working on trying to make my avatar look like a window (too much work does that to a person) and it came out like that.
> 
> Glass area: 2 sq. feet
> Faceable area: .75 sq. feet



i want that expression with an exposed nipple.  sounds hot, right?


----------



## 2knees (Sep 25, 2008)

andyzee said:


> That's my faced pressed up against a glass window at home. I was working on trying to make my avatar look like a window (too much work does that to a person) and it came out like that.
> 
> Glass area: 2 sq. feet
> Faceable area: .75 sq. feet



Do you eat paste by any chance?


----------



## bvibert (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Thank you, Brian. I've always said I'm a member first and an admin second. Difficult line to travel sometimes. If I didn't enjoy this community on a personal level, I wouldn't be posting here.



I suppose I'll be looked at as a kiss ass now because of that post... :roll:



Greg said:


> Then ban me bitch.





Grassi21 said:


> Signature quote material?



:lol:


----------



## Grassi21 (Sep 25, 2008)

Nice sig B!


----------



## skiadikt (Sep 25, 2008)

kcyanks1 said:


> He can question whatever he wants, but it's good to make the question fair.  If the questions are, "What does the 4000 acre number include?  What does the 500 number include?", that is totally fair, and I'd love to know.  If the question is (paraphrasing with some freedom) "Why do you say 4,000 acres?  Isn't that overmarketing like crazy?", well, they do also say 500 acres are skiable.  I definitely want to know what the numbers mean, and to that extent Andy's question is perfectly fair.  But ignoring the existence of the smaller number or implying that it isn't there is not fair.



agree. i got no fight with win or da bush. luv the place. but admittedly total acres is not a number most ski areas mention. why was it mentioned? perhaps a little misdirection? we're talkin jackson or whistler-like numbers here. in any case i never would have noticed if andy hadn't point it out.

as for draggin k's pr dept into the fray, it might have been uncalled for, but not untrue. from a pr point of year, last year was a fiasco for k. maybe now that rathbun is gone, things will improve.


----------



## 2knees (Sep 25, 2008)

bvibert said:


> In other cases I believe Greg speaks passionately about the mountains he likes, just as you do.  That doesn't necessarily mean that there's an AZ policy of stifling negativity towards them.  I think we do a pretty good job of letting these types of "discussion's" run their course, or until they turn into an all out flame war.  I think it would be unfair for anyone to expect Greg not to voice his opinion just because he's the site admin.






Greg said:


> Thank you, Brian. I've always said I'm a member first and an admin second. Difficult line to travel sometimes. If I didn't enjoy this community on a personal level, I wouldn't be posting here.



So where are you two going on your honeymoon?


----------



## bvibert (Sep 25, 2008)

2knees said:


> So where are you two going on your honeymoon?



Like we'd tell you. :roll:


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 25, 2008)

skiadikt said:


> agree. i got no fight with win or da bush. luv the place. but admittedly total acres is not a number most ski areas mention. why was it mentioned? perhaps a little misdirection? we're talkin jackson or whistler-like numbers here. in any case i never would have noticed if andy hadn't point it out.



Haven't looked into it myself, but I think others have mentioned that Smuggs and Sugarloaf give total acreage numbers, and perhaps Killington as well.  Going solely from memory, so I may be wrong, but I think MRG and Jay might too, though at those places, pretty much everything is skied.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 25, 2008)

bvibert said:


> HPD, I can see where your coming from and how it may look that way.  However, IMHO, in this case Greg was just telling Andy what an idiot he is for asking a stupid question.  I didn't see it as slamming anyone for offering a negative opinion on SB.  In other cases I believe Greg speaks passionately about the mountains he likes, just as you do.  That doesn't necessarily mean that there's an AZ policy of stifling negativity towards them.  I think we do a pretty good job of letting these types of "discussion's" run their course, or until they turn into an all out flame war.  I think it would be unfair for anyone to expect Greg not to voice his opinion just because he's the site admin.
> 
> That said; Greg, cut the crap with the cry baby picture, it's getting old.  Consider yourself warned... :roll:



I think this thread has proven my point that SB can do no wrong in Alpine Zone more then any other. Andy made a half joking comment and was taken to task for it. 

Only thing I don't like about these SB threads over the years is they make me look like a SB hater and I'm not at all. Don't know Win, but from everything I've read he seems like a standup guy. I'm sure he can take the weight of the acerage question.


----------



## Greg (Sep 25, 2008)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> I'm sure he can take the weight of the acerage question.



One final time. There is no question.


----------



## drjeff (Sep 25, 2008)

2knees said:


> So where are you two going on your honeymoon?





bvibert said:


> Like we'd tell you. :roll:



Please no TR's or pics of that event!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

I think Greg should go on Moderator preview..AZ parole..lol..and bring AndyZee with you..


----------



## takeahike46er (Sep 25, 2008)

While the statistics in both the Sugarbush and Whiteface examples are largely useless, neither of them are used in a deceptive way.  The Sugarbush website makes a clear distinction between the total number of acres vs. the skiable acres.  The Whiteface website states its total acreage and then details how many acres make up the slides and its glades-- simple arithmetic can tell you exactly how many acres are dedicated to trails.


----------



## skimore (Sep 25, 2008)

kcyanks1 said:


> Haven't looked into it myself, but I think others have mentioned that Smuggs and Sugarloaf give total acreage numbers, and perhaps Killington as well. Going solely from memory, so I may be wrong, but I think MRG and Jay might too, though at those places, pretty much everything is skied.


 
and what is considered skiable out of the 4000 is a personal opinion.....some would have much more than 508


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

Killington has 200 trails. :lol:


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 25, 2008)

Greg said:


> Nope. No winkie. They do measure every tree. Trust me.



Little quiz

do you know the term for the total area covered by trees in a given plot of land?


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 25, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Little quiz
> 
> do you know the term for the total area covered by trees in a given plot of land?



tree-clad?


----------



## 2knees (Sep 25, 2008)

what is the acreage of seeded bumps at sugarbush?  thats all that matters really.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 25, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> tree-clad?



nope, basal area

http://forestry.about.com/cs/glossary/g/basal_area.htm


at UVM where I got me edumacation I studied mucho basal area  :dunce:


----------



## win (Sep 25, 2008)

Fair question!  I and other ski or ride in the 4,000 so if you want to join us, come on up! Some up here even find more!


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Sep 25, 2008)

win said:


> Fair question!  I and other ski or ride in the 4,000 so if you want to join us, come on up! Some up here even find more!



Clever response, as always.  See you in November!


----------



## win (Sep 25, 2008)

PS:  Andyzee,

Love this thread!  Your generated a lot of really good dialogue. I interpret this as people getting excited about winter.  The leaves are turning, the nights are getting colder, people are buying their season passes, the Farmer's Almanac is encouraging.  I can't wait to get on the slopes, and I know all of you feel the same way no matter where you ski or ride.  Keep the passion going!


----------



## andyzee (Sep 25, 2008)

win said:


> Fair question!  I and other ski or ride in the 4,000 so if you want to join us, come on up! Some up here even find more!




Win, doubt I could keep up with you, but I'd love to join you. Never skied slidebrook, but always wanted to. 

Also, knew I could depend on you to respond, unlike other resort managers. Thanks. 

One question, does Sugarbush actually own Slidebrook?


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Sep 26, 2008)

Any ski area in New England that received more than 200" per year should report total acreage and trail acreage separately.  This is a small group:  Killington, SB, MRG, Bolton, Burke, Stowe, Smuggs, Jay, Sugarloaf, Saddleback, Wildcat.  At each and every one of those places, tree skiing is a time honored tradition that's been going on for decades.  It's safe to say that the actual skiable acreage, including glades (be they on the map, off the map, in bounds, sidecountry or back[side] country), doubles or even triples the amount of reported trail acreage. 



> One question, does Sugarbush actually own Slidebrook?


I'm not Win, and I don't play him on TV, but the answer is mostly yes. Here's a map to show the land holdings:






Basically the USFS owns most of the upper third, especially towards Castlerock, and then the southern bit down past the top of North Lynx.  Not that it matters though - the area has been labeled critical bear habitat and has pretty strict rules on what can be done and when.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Sep 26, 2008)

Just to recap, we still don't know if the 508 "skiable acres" refers to marked trails only, or marked trails + gladed terrain.  It's not a big deal at all, but it remains a question (of ever-so-slight importance).

Regarding the 4,000 acres point, it's clearly pretty meaningless PR drivel that doesn't provide much real/helpful information.  

"Oooh, we own 4,000 acres!"  

So, should Jay include the forest land on Big Jay in its total acreage, since one can ski in those woods from Jay lifts?  What about Whiteface?  It's in the middle of the Adirondack park, which totals about 6 million acres, with approximately half of that being public land.  Can't wait for state-owned WF to claim something like "_Total acres: 3,000,000; skiable acres: 200_".


----------



## win (Sep 26, 2008)

At Lincoln Peak, we own the base area and the Eden area.  Above the Valley House, Bravo, Village and Gate Houselifts , the rest of the land at Lincoln Peak is leased from the USFS.  Slidebrook is mostly owned by us, but there is a small retangular piece in the middle that is USFS land.  At ME we own most of the land almost up to Black Diamond and FIS.  Then the USFS takes over. The entire ridgeline is USFS.


----------



## andyzee (Sep 26, 2008)

win said:


> At Lincoln Peak, we own the base area and the Eden area.  Above the Valley House, Bravo, Village and Gate Houselifts , the rest of the land at Lincoln Peak is leased from the USFS.  Slidebrook is mostly owned by us, but there is a small retangular piece in the middle that is USFS land.  At ME we own most of the land almost up to Black Diamond and FIS.  Then the USFS takes over. The entire ridgeline is USFS.




Win, you're a good man and a good sport! 

Just let it be known that I am fully responsible for this thread, Greg had nothing to do with it. By the time he saw it, it was probably too late to delete it so it had to stay. Please do not take it out on him or he may start to:






:lol::lol:


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 26, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Just to recap, we still don't know if the 508 "skiable acres" refers to marked trails only, or marked trails + gladed terrain.  It's not a big deal at all, but it remains a question (of ever-so-slight importance).
> 
> Regarding the 4,000 acres point, it's clearly pretty meaningless PR drivel that doesn't provide much real/helpful information.
> 
> ...




WOW...3 million...Whiteface rules.:-D


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Sep 26, 2008)

win said:


> Fair question!  !





win said:


> PS:  Andyzee,
> 
> Love this thread!  !


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 26, 2008)

What about the land above Inverness and then along the ridge across towards Exterminator?  What are the ownership / development rights for this area?  I seem to recall seeing an old Glen Ellen either trail map or proposed map where it looked like another lift and trails were planned for this area.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 26, 2008)

Found it

This is what I was thinking of


----------



## skidmarks (Sep 26, 2008)

*I Luv Sugarbush*

Last season Feb 6th it was raining cats and dogs down in Southern Vt, had turned into an ice storm as I passed Killington, and was just dumping at Sugarbush.  We had to delay our plans to train for the down-hill race by one day but it was worth it.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 26, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Just to recap, we still don't know if the 508 "skiable acres" refers to marked trails only, or marked trails + gladed terrain.  It's not a big deal at all, but it remains a question (of ever-so-slight importance).
> 
> Regarding the 4,000 acres point, it's clearly pretty meaningless PR drivel that doesn't provide much real/helpful information.
> 
> ...



I would be careful with your quotes.  Win said, "I and other ski or ride in the 4,000," not "we own 4,000."  Do you ski 3,000,000 acres from Whiteface?  Yes, I totally agree it would be useful to find out what exactly the 4,000 includes, as well as what the 500 includes, and hopefully Win will answer.  But assuming (which I think is reasonable) that it includes the outer boundary of South to the outer boundary of North and all that is in between (e.g., Slide Brook), then that's quite different than the absurd analogies you are making.  

As for Big Jay, Sugarbush provides guided tours into Slide Brook and a bus (even for those not on the tour).  The Dip might be a closer comparison if you are looking at Jay, because the Jay ski school does gives tours of that area ... but there is still no bus for people going on their own.  

Perhaps it might be even more useful to include a third number specifying the acreage of Slidebrook / the acreage that leads you away from the ski lifts.  But once we clarify exactly what the 4,000 number means, I don't think it will be uninformative at all, like the the 3,000,000 acres of Whiteface.  So I don't agree that the "4,000 acres . . . [is] clearly pretty meaningless PR drivel that doesn't provide much real/helpful information."  Yes, it's clearly for PR.  But it's not "meaningless . . . drivel."


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Sep 26, 2008)

kcyanks1 said:


> I would be careful with your quotes.  Win said, "I and other ski or ride in the 4,000," not "we own 4,000."  Do you ski 3,000,000 acres from Whiteface?  Yes, I totally agree it would be useful to find out what exactly the 4,000 includes, as well as what the 500 includes, and hopefully Win will answer.  But assuming (which I think is reasonable) that it includes the outer boundary of South to the outer boundary of North and all that is in between (e.g., Slide Brook), then that's quite different than the absurd analogies you are making.
> 
> As for Big Jay, Sugarbush provides guided tours into Slide Brook and a bus (even for those not on the tour).  The Dip might be a closer comparison if you are looking at Jay, because the Jay ski school does gives tours of that area ... but there is still no bus for people going on their own.
> 
> Perhaps it might be even more useful to include a third number specifying the acreage of Slidebrook / the acreage that leads you away from the ski lifts.  But once we clarify exactly what the 4,000 number means, I don't think it will be uninformative at all, like the the 3,000,000 acres of Whiteface.  So I don't agree that the "4,000 acres . . . [is] clearly pretty meaningless PR drivel that doesn't provide much real/helpful information."  Yes, it's clearly for PR.  But it's not "meaningless . . . drivel."




Take it easy.....I wasn't attributing any words to anyone, just making comments on the words on Sugarbush's website.  

As far as whether giving acreage from boundary to boundary is meaningless PR "drivel" or not is a matter of opinion.  You think it means something, I don't.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 26, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Take it easy.....I wasn't attributing any words to anyone, just making comments on the words on Sugarbush's website.



I apologize; I'm not trying to go on the attack.  The quotes without a disclaimer made me think that someone (Win or whomever) was being quoted, which wasn't true, and the rest of your post followed from that quotation.  Sorry for misinterpreting.  I think the fact that the quote was made up takes away most of your point, though.



ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> As far as whether giving acreage from boundary to boundary is meaningless PR "drivel" or not is a matter of opinion.  You think it means something, I don't.



Do you think a boundary-to-boundary number is just meaningless?  What about at an area like MRG that doesn't have a "Slide Brook" equivalent?  What about at Jay?  People ski lots of woods at Sugarbush.  I also realize that it is somewhat different in that Slide Brook is SO vast compared to the main mountains.  I just want to find out whether in your view, the problem is the vastness of Slide Brook, or whether you just don't find a boundary-to-boundary number informative at all.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Sep 26, 2008)

kcyanks1 said:


> Do you think a boundary-to-boundary number is just meaningless?  What about at an area like MRG that doesn't have a "Slide Brook" equivalent?  What about at Jay?  People ski lots of woods at Sugarbush.  I also realize that it is somewhat different in that Slide Brook is SO vast compared to the main mountains.  I just want to find out whether in your view, the problem is the vastness of Slide Brook, or whether you just don't find a boundary-to-boundary number informative at all.




It's pretty meaningless without knowing the boundary policy and the quality of the unmarked terrain (is it skiable?  would you end up in the middle of nowhere if you went there?  policy for retrieval if lost/hurt?  etc.).

Plus, I doubt even 5% of customers care about the extent of completely unmarked and unpatrolled terrain exists at an area.  The 4,000 number is meant to sound huge, but does it really ski bigger for most customers?  I think the skiable acres figure is way more informative, and the 4,000 number is the new version of inflated trail counts from last decade.

The people who care a lot about unmarked terrain know which areas have it and which don't, IMO....For average Joe New Yorker, it's all about the trails and lifts.  And there's nothing wrong with that.

About Jay, should Jay include Big Jay in its terrain?  People are allowed to ski it from the top, so why not?  But, then, where do you draw the line?  That's why I made the "absurd" comment about WF and the 'dax.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Sep 26, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> What about the land above Inverness and then along the ridge across towards Exterminator?  What are the ownership / development rights for this area?  I seem to recall seeing an old Glen Ellen either trail map or proposed map where it looked like another lift and trails were planned for this area.



If memory serves the liftline for this new pod was started but was quickly halted as, unrealized by Glen Ellen, the land is owned by Betsy Pratt, a Sugarbush supporter, despite what you might hear about her.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Sep 26, 2008)

Another view of that liftline (?):


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 26, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Another view of that liftline (?):



man, would it be killer if they were able to find a way to put in another castle rock esque pod in that area.


----------



## Geoff (Sep 26, 2008)

If you could somehow get past the Vermont eco-Nazis and the NIMBY people, a few surface lifts in strategic spots could let you ski anywhere from MRG to LP with very low impact.


----------



## billski (Sep 26, 2008)

Geoff said:


> If you could somehow get past the Vermont eco-Nazis and the NIMBY people, a few surface lifts in strategic spots could let you ski anywhere from MRG to LP with very low impact.



It seems like a near certainty that we will never see a new resort in the east in our lifetimes.  That's why it's such a shame to see an area go belly-up. Even with grandfathering, it takes decades (sans Loon West) to get anything done.:argue:


The other problem with Geoff's suggestion is that watery thing in between LP and MRG 
(or is LP "lincoln peak"?)


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 26, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> It's pretty meaningless without knowing the boundary policy and the quality of the unmarked terrain (is it skiable?  would you end up in the middle of nowhere if you went there?  policy for retrieval if lost/hurt?  etc.).



Of course, I agree that you need to know that info.  Sugarbush lets you ski boundary-to-boundary (policy is found on their trail map and is posted at most if not all lifts), and as for the quality of the unmarked terrain, I know many places at SB that are good, but am far, far from the expert as to all 4,000 acres.  Knowing that, and of course the boundary itself, which is on SB's trail map, is important.



ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Plus, I doubt even 5% of customers care about the extent of completely unmarked and unpatrolled terrain exists at an area.  The 4,000 number is meant to sound huge, but does it really ski bigger for most customers?  I think the skiable acres figure is way more informative, and the 4,000 number is the new version of inflated trail counts from last decade.



I agree that most people don't care.  But for those 5%, they have the 500-acre figure. I certainly am not arguing that the 4,000-acre figure should be given without the other number.  But there are others who do care, like many on this message board.  For those people, both numbers are informative.  In the case of Sugarbush and Slide Brook's unique nature, I think that it would be informative to even have a third number that excludes Slide Brook / states how much of the acreage is Slide Brook.  This number actually is avaialble on Sugarbush's website, I just discovered.  At http://www.sugarbush.com/snow-trails-conditions, it mentions "the 2,000 acre Slide Brook Wilderness area."

One thing I did just check, though, is that Slide Brook is considered out of bounds based on the boundary line on the trail map.  I wasn't sure of this.  This does, IMO, make the third number even more important, since the 4,000 includes not only boundary-to-boundary skiing, but out of bounds skiing.



ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> The people who care a lot about unmarked terrain know which areas have it and which don't, IMO....For average Joe New Yorker, it's all about the trails and lifts.  And there's nothing wrong with that.



No, there isn't.  But there is nothing wrong with loving the trees either and wanting a measurement of how much off-trail terrain is available.  The "average" skier might not care, but there are other skiers too.



ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> About Jay, should Jay include Big Jay in its terrain?  People are allowed to ski it from the top, so why not?  But, then, where do you draw the line?  That's why I made the "absurd" comment about WF and the 'dax.



I don't think so, but I do see where you are going as far as trying to pin me down as to where I would draw the line.  Slide Brook is accessible by tour, without a hike, and transportation is provided back to the lifts even for those who go on their own without a tour.  Big Jay is more of a "real" backcountry experience and the ski area doesn't take you back.  So I can see a difference between the two, but where exactly between the two I would draw a line is tough to say.  I would not mind if Jay had an aside comment about "and access to Big Jay, where a ___ minute hike can lead you to ___ acres of a true, backcountry powder experience [+ disclaimer]" or something like that .

As I conceded above, though, the fact that Slide Brook is not technically within bounds does make me feel that the third number (Slide Brook being 2,000 acres) is an important addition, since it is really 2,000 acres in bounds (I presume other out-of-bounds terrain is not included), plus 2,000 Slide Brook.


----------



## tjf67 (Sep 26, 2008)

bvibert said:


> I suppose I'll be looked at as a kiss ass now because of that post... :roll:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Nope, cum guzzler:flag:  easy big guy its a joke


----------



## SkiDork (Sep 26, 2008)

Glen Ellen - that rings a belll....  Is that now part of Surgarbush?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Sep 26, 2008)

After a quick analysis, 4000 acres covers the general area encompassed by the highlighted area in the attached image. Roughly boundary to boundary including EVERYTHING off of the ridge between LP and Ellen.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 26, 2008)

from_the_NEK said:


> After a quick analysis, 4000 acres covers the general area encompassed by the highlighted area in the attached image. Roughly boundary to boundary including EVERYTHING off of the ridge between LP and Ellen.



Thanks!  Pretty much what I figured, except for the coverage of what seems to be the pod above  Inverness or at least things way, way to the skier's left of Exterminator.  I wasn't thinking that would get mixed in, but maybe people traverse over there from the top of the North Ridge Express or something and I just don't know about it.


----------



## djspookman (Sep 26, 2008)

SkiDork said:


> Glen Ellen - that rings a belll....  Is that now part of Surgarbush?


yup.  Now called Mt. Ellen (@ Sugarbush)


----------



## djspookman (Sep 26, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> man, would it be killer if they were able to find a way to put in another castle rock esque pod in that area.



It would be nice.. but its a little flat up in there (from the bushwhacking I did up there a few years ago.)

You can hike up in the woods nearby and get some decent turns in the hardwoods though.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Sep 26, 2008)

kcyanks1 said:


> Thanks!  Pretty much what I figured, except for the coverage of what seems to be the pod above  Inverness or at least things way, way to the skier's left of Exterminator.  I wasn't thinking that would get mixed in, but maybe people traverse over there from the top of the North Ridge Express or something and I just don't know about it.



Note: The map I provided is not a property map or anything. It is simply a polygon I drew over the general Sugabush resort area that got me a 4000 acre result. I tried to include areas the would be steep enough to ski. I ended up having to stretch into the the area above Inverness lift to achieve 4000 acres.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Sep 26, 2008)

from_the_NEK said:


> Note: The map I provided is not a property map or anything. It is simply a polygon I drew over the general Sugabush resort area that got me a 4000 acre result. I tried to include areas the would be steep enough to ski. I ended up having to stretch into the the area above Inverness lift to achieve 4000 acres.



Got it, thanks.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Sep 26, 2008)

For comparison sake - 
I've never skied Killington so some of my assumptions on "skiable terrain" may be off here. I've tried to include everything "downhill" from a "peak" of the resort that generally leads to a road (no long flat bottom area). The resulting polygons are as follows:

green = 4100 acres
pink = 1700 acres

total = 5800 acres

Again this may be a bit far fetched to be a publishable number. However, Sugarbush's 4000 acre number definitely includes some non-skiable terrain that are merely cliffs along the ridgeline.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 26, 2008)

djspookman said:


> It would be nice.. but its a little flat up in there (from the bushwhacking I did up there a few years ago.)
> 
> You can hike up in the woods nearby and get some decent turns in the hardwoods though.



I guess the area between Inverness and Exterminator is kinda flat, but the stuff up to lookers right in the direction of where the lift line was going to go looks killer.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Sep 26, 2008)

Not disputing your analysis but the areas within the red areas are not skied or in the resort's designated boundary.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Sep 26, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Not disputing your analysis but the areas within the red areas are not skied.



I figured that they probably weren't. Especially the area off the ridge above Slidebrook. However, since these areas aren't skied and that removes roughly 1000 acres from my polygon, where can another 1000 acres of "skiable" terrain be added to my polygon to reach the 4000 acre mark?

Is there terrain off of the West side of the ridge or south of Lincoln Peak that I should include?


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Sep 26, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Not disputing your analysis but the areas within the red areas are not skied or in the resort's designated boundary.



The red area on the Mt. Ellen side is a bit off, I think, SRO.   Most of that area is SVNE privately held property, and the only thing affecting use is the long trail easement.

If you look at the composite map of assets, or at a current infrastructure map, the property line extends to the peak where Glen Ellen was supposed to expand.


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Sep 26, 2008)

In fact, the red area you drew on the far North side of Mt. Ellen, above Inverness and beside Exterm, is actually part of the same parcel that most of the developed trails are on (3c).


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Sep 26, 2008)

BushMogulMaster said:


> The red area on the Mt. Ellen side is a bit off, I think, SRO.   Most of that area is SVNE privately held property, and the only thing affecting use is the long trail easement.
> 
> If you look at the map of composite assets, or at a current infrastructure map, the property line extends to the peak where Glen Ellen was supposed to expand.



Correct but it is still not skied...I took the info from the infrastructure map we have hanging in the shop. I'm not pointing out property ownership but what is regularly skied.



> n fact, the red area you drew on the far North side of Mt. Ellen, above Inverness and beside Exterm, is actually part of the same parcel that most of the developed trails are on (3c).



Your right in that the left side of that section near Exterminator is skied but the area above and to the right of Inverness is not skied on a regular basis.


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Sep 26, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Correct but it is still not skied...I took the info from the infrastructure map hanging in the shop.



What exactly do you mean by "not skied?"  The area is within the ski area boundary, according to the current "existing conditions" map.  Of course, according to the trail map, anything outside the trails/marked tree areas is outside the boundary.


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Sep 26, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Your right in that the left side of that section near Exterminator is skied but the area above and to the right of Inverness is not skied on a regular basis.



Ok, gotcha.  You're right, it's not considered "ski terrain" by the ski area right now.  But it is within the company's property and ski area boundary.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 26, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Another view of that liftline (?):



That gully to the lookers right of Inverness looks sa weet..


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Sep 26, 2008)

djspookman said:


> yup.  Now called Mt. Ellen (@ Sugarbush)



When I first skied Sugarbush..It was either Sugarbush South or North..not Mount Ellen and Lincoln Peak..I first skied there during the 95-96 season when there were lots of new high speed quads including the Slidebrook..for a total of 28 million dollars..ASC sure put alot of money into the place..back then there were ads on all the lift towers for various Peaks of Excitement promotions like the magnificant 7 tickets and perfect turn clinics..their signature snow was great..especially after operation Blizzard..lol..not as steezy as Nivis the mascot from Killington..


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Sep 26, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> That gully to the lookers right of Inverness looks sa weet..



Yeah, it runs pretty good in the winter.  You really don't want to get stuck in there!


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Sep 26, 2008)

Most of the red areas I drew, forgetting about Slidebrook since it is regularly skied, are outside the resort's boundary.


----------



## Highway Star (Sep 26, 2008)

from_the_NEK said:


> I figured that they probably weren't. Especially the area off the ridge above Slidebrook.



Tin Woodsman, are you reading this....?


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Sep 26, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Most of the red areas I drew, forgetting about Slidebrook since it is regularly skied, are outside the resort's boundary.



Right, according to the trail map.  I guess I just want to make sure everyone understands that the boundary on the trail map is not necessarily static.  If there were to be some sort of an on-mountain expansion, be it lift served or otherwise, those boundaries can change because the actual "Ski Area Boundary" according to permitting and property status is well outside the range on the trailmap.  But as of now, those (on the trail map) are the "official" boundaries.


----------



## andyzee (Sep 26, 2008)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> Another view of that liftline (?):




Great shot!


----------



## eastcoastpowderhound (Sep 30, 2008)

Whoa, mascara mtn has 4000 acres...holy crap that's almost as big as vail...don't tell the texans!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Oct 4, 2008)

bump for Stoke!!!


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 4, 2008)

Tin Woodsman said:


> The issue Andyzee raised is, however, a complete red herring.  It says the resort is 4000 acres, which is quite frankly true on a boundary to boundary basis.  It says right next door that this includes 508 skiable acres.  I really don't see any intent to deceive here, as it's pretty clear what the relevant numbers are for anyone paying attention.  Now if you just want to stir shit up, then you come in and squawk about how misleading it is and the injustice of it all.


Not sure I want to jump into this one... but.... what the heck 

Boundary to boundary acres can be both a relevant and irrelevant number. The further north in Vermont you travel to ski, the more relevant it becomes, IMO. At a place like Jay, where this is skiing (of some sort) in between every marked trail... then it is an extremely relevant number. But if you are including one or two thousand acres of unskiable woods, that number becomes a lot less relevant. I am pretty sure the topic has been hashed through before, but in general, there are only a hand full of eastern ski areas that have any business claiming boundary to boundary acres in their stats as anything more than hyperbole and boasting of complete irrelevance. You might as well include the total acres of real estate and slopeside housing. It is a non-sense number dressed to impress. It does not mean the number is inaccurate or over the top. But rather that there are only a small handful of ski areas at which that number means anything in New England. Bush is not one of them though they do have more off map tree skiing than most other ski areas they certainly don't have anything close to 4000 acres of skiing. So to me it is a non-sense stat that doesn't mean much. 

Essentially, I am not questioning the marketing departments use of the number but rather calling into the question the use of that number at almost any New England ski area as a number that doesn't have much mean except to impress people that don't know any better.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 4, 2008)

I don't care what the stats are.  When I think Sugarbush, I think 'one big ass ski area'  :lol:

next to Killington and maybe SR, nothing 'seems' bigger to me in the east.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Oct 4, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't care what the stats are.  When I think Sugarbush, I think 'one big ass ski area'  :lol:
> 
> next to Killington and maybe SR, nothing 'seems' bigger to me in the east.



true true...Gadd Peak, Lincoln Peak, Nancy Hanks(Castlerock), Lynx, Mount Ellen, Inverness..but I still like Stowe better for the top to bottom nature of the mountain and all the snow..but Sugarbush is a close second..


----------



## win (Oct 6, 2008)

I enjoyed reading all the comments.  Actually, it wasn't marketing that pushed the 4,000 acres.  It was me, because that is how I think of the place and ski it!  The real message is that the East has some stuff that isn't well discussed and understood by a lot of people who skied here decades ago and think of us as only icy trails.  Whomever you like best, spread the word that Sugarbush and others in the East have great terrain variety and vertical and you don't have to fly to enjoy!


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 6, 2008)

If you wouldn't mind addressing my previous question win, any chance of re-visiting the abandoned lift above Inverness at North?  Post 152 has the most recent photo of it.


----------



## win (Oct 6, 2008)

Could be some great Cat skiing terrain!  Needs some permitting, so can't do this winter but hopefully next year!


----------



## andyzee (Oct 6, 2008)

Win, as they say any publicity is good publicity, I'll PM you my address.


----------



## castlerock (Oct 6, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Not disputing your analysis but the areas within the red areas are not skied or in the resort's designated boundary.



I have to beg to differ, two of those four areas I've skied multiple times each of the last two seasons.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 6, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> Not sure I want to jump into this one... but.... what the heck
> 
> Boundary to boundary acres can be both a relevant and irrelevant number. The further north in Vermont you travel to ski, the more relevant it becomes, IMO. At a place like Jay, where this is skiing (of some sort) in between every marked trail... then it is an extremely relevant number.



Absolutely correct.  I think I said the same thing earlier up thread.



> But if you are including one or two thousand acres of unskiable woods, that number becomes a lot less relevant. I am pretty sure the topic has been hashed through before, but in general, there are only a hand full of eastern ski areas that have any business claiming boundary to boundary acres in their stats as anything more than hyperbole and boasting of complete irrelevance. You might as well include the total acres of real estate and slopeside housing. It is a non-sense number dressed to impress. It does not mean the number is inaccurate or over the top. But rather that there are only a small handful of ski areas at which that number means anything in New England. Bush is not one of them though they do have more off map tree skiing than most other ski areas they certainly don't have anything close to 4000 acres of skiing. So to me it is a non-sense stat that doesn't mean much.



I'm sure there aren't 4000 acres of skiing, just like there wouldn't be if SB got the same snow as Jay.  At some point, some trees are just to tight to ski.  But your evaluation of SB is mostly off base.  I think you've admitted in this or another thread that you haven't had the chance to do as much exploring at SB as you would have liked.  Your statement above is a reflection of that.  Anyplace receiving 250" or more in the Northeast can pretty much be considered on a boundary to boundary basis as long as there is some sort of conveyance other than your thumb or the car you stashed to get you back to the trails.  This would include Slidebrook, the Notch, the Bruce, and the 20th, but would exclude The Dip, Big Jay, Cotton Brook, backside K, and various other bits and pieces.  Kind of arbitrary I guess, b/c most Jay skiers I know include the Dip and Big Jay in their skiing universe, but you've got to draw a line somewhere.  If/when Jay starts running some sort of shuttle back to the base from off of 242, then that changes.



> Essentially, I am not questioning the marketing departments use of the number but rather calling into the question the use of that number at almost any New England ski area as a number that doesn't have much mean except to impress people that don't know any better.


Skiable trail acreage at anywhere receiving more than 200-250" in the Northeast is an irrelevant stat for anyone who ventures off the trails.  Going to the other extreme is misleading as well for sure, so I'm not sure what the happy medium is for the PR/marketing types.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 6, 2008)

castlerock said:


> I have to beg to differ, two of those four areas I've skied multiple times each of the last two seasons.



+1


----------



## billski (Oct 6, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> Boundary to boundary acres can be both a relevant and irrelevant number. The further north in Vermont you travel to ski, the more relevant it becomes, IMO.



Touche'.
The further south you go, the more apt you are to see nasty-gram signs threatening jail or death for passing the designated boundary.


----------



## teleo (Oct 6, 2008)

hmm, If it was permitted for cat skiing, would it be set up for sanctioned hiking too?  Or shouldn't we ask such things...


----------



## Lostone (Oct 6, 2008)

My beliefs are that the 4K is the left to right, all inclusive size.  The 580(?) (_That number was a lot of reading ago_. :roll:     ) is inside the LP and ME areas plus the area of Slidebrook that is permitted.

Most of Slidebrook is not permitted for skiing.  For example, there is no permitted way in from North, so nobody skis there. . .  right? :-?  right!


The other thing I might add, is when people say an area is not skiable. . .   Wouldn't  that beg the question, "Not skiable by who?"     :smile:


----------



## kcyanks1 (Oct 6, 2008)

Lostone said:


> My beliefs are that the 4K is the left to right, all inclusive size.  The 580(?) (_That number was a lot of reading ago_. :roll:     ) is inside the LP and ME areas plus the area of Slidebrook that is permitted.



I wouldn't think any of Slide Brook is included in the ~580.  Slide Brook is technically outside the boundary, at least as drawn on the trail maps.  I could be wrong though of course.


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Oct 6, 2008)

The number is 508, and it is inbounds trail acreage AFAIK.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 6, 2008)

BushMogulMaster said:


> The number is 508, and it is inbounds trail acreage AFAIK.



I don't know why that number seems so low to me.  It seems bigger than the Okemo's, Stratton's etc that advertise more acreage


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Oct 6, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't know why that number seems so low to me.  It seems bigger than the Okemo's, Stratton's etc that advertise more acreage



Sugarbush has a lot of trails, but many of them are skinny, classic New England runs.  Stratton, Okemo and the likes are covered in wide-open interstate trails.  That's where the major discrepancy in total acreage originates.  That's why mileage, IMO, is a better estimation of the total amount of trail skiing in New England.


----------



## andyzee (Oct 6, 2008)

BushMogulMaster said:


> Sugarbush has a lot of trails, but many of them are skinny, classic New England runs.  Stratton, Okemo and the likes are covered in wide-open interstate trails.  That's where the major discrepancy in total acreage originates.  That's why mileage, IMO, is a better estimation of the total amount of trail skiing in New England.



Good point.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 6, 2008)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I'm sure there aren't 4000 acres of skiing, just like there wouldn't be if SB got the same snow as Jay.  At some point, some trees are just to tight to ski.  But your evaluation of SB is mostly off base.  I think you've admitted in this or another thread that you haven't had the chance to do as much exploring at SB as you would have liked.  Your statement above is a reflection of that.


Care to suggest how much of Bush's 4000 acres you think is actually skiable? I haven't had a chance to dabble much off map at the Bush. But I got a pretty good read for the area and it clearly isn't in the same league for boundary to boundary as Jay or Stowe. It may just well be that extra 125-150 inches per year open up things better further north (no doubt it doesn't open up everything, not disputing that... rather it opens up a significantly higher percentage). And no doubt cutting is helping at all places (e.g. hard to even consider the dip as off the map... most on map glades are tighter). With Jay, you don't even need to look down to 242... you can hop into the woods almost anywhere between trails. 

But I don't see where my "evaluation is off base". I don't need to ski every nook and cranny at the Bush to get a good read that off map tree skiing is not as high a percentage of the skiable acres as areas north of I-89. Once you know what you are looking for, you can identify skiable woods without actually skiing them. Where would you draw the line on which ski areas have a legit claim to market total acres? One ski area south of your favorite mountain?


----------



## castlerock (Oct 7, 2008)

*Riv, You are killing me with this*



riverc0il said:


> ..... I haven't had a chance to dabble much off map at the Bush. But I got a pretty good read for the area and it clearly isn't in the same league for boundary to boundary as Jay or Stowe.....



A good read huh...what did you read? Ski don't read. Sugarbush has a tremendous amount of boundary to boundary skiing. Due to its sheer size more than both Jay and Stowe. I've had time to more than dabble at all three. I don't leave Smuggs out either. Stowe has the Chin, Jay has big Jay, both of those are unmatched at the Bush. But there is waaaaay more between the trails skiing at Sugarbush, as there are many more trails. I'm skiing powder at Sugarbush well after it is tracked out by the hordes at Jay



riverc0il said:


> .....It may just well be that extra 125-150 inches per year open up things better further north.....



Sugarbush 262
Stowe 333
Jay 366
Data from SkiVermont.com

I wish we had 366 at Sugarbush, but once we get to 150 or so, pretty much everything is open.



riverc0il said:


> .....With Jay, you don't even need to look down to 242... you can hop into the woods almost anywhere between trails......



Also at Sugarbush, but since it is National forest land, we can't cut (especially at the sides of the trails). As such the sides get sun and it grows in, hiding the goods behind. If you ski at a place like Jay, you never develop the eye, required to just go in. There are many places where the side of the trail is impenetrable hedge, but 10 feet on the other side of the hedge is open hardwood. You can only get in where there is a break.



riverc0il said:


> .....But I don't see where my "evaluation is off base". I don't need to ski every nook and cranny at the Bush to get a good read that off map tree skiing is not as high a percentage of the skiable acres as areas north of I-89. Once you know what you are looking for, you can identify skiable woods without actually skiing them......



Wrong..for all the reasons above. The thing is, you don't know what you are looking for, as your experience is limited to some great hills, but ones that have different rules, and therefore a different look. 

I've been at Sugarbush for 7 years, I came here to have a place to ski with my kids, and teach them . I originally thought as you do, that Sugarbush wasn't "as good" as the areas north of 89, for woods skiing.

Well, I was wrong. It is in many ways better, just not as accessible, without real local knowledge.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 7, 2008)

Man, you guys get testy about your home mountain, eh? :lol:

castlerock.... I *NEVER* questioned or stipulated that the Bush does not have more tree skiing than other mountains. I stated that that Bush is no where near 4000 of skiable acres. Maybe "different league" was not the accurate wording for my point. What I am getting at is that at other ski areas further north (never been to Smuggs, but I am assuming much the same there) you can jump into the woods almost any where and ski. That is what this thread is about! What is skiable. Bush very well may have tons more tree skiing than any other ski area in the northeast. Cool. But the percent of skiable acres compared to actual acres just can't be the same as areas further north. I just don't see it. My comments are not directed towards the total acres that are skiable but the percentage compared to actual acres claimed by the marketing department.

As for areas further north, just for the record, my favorite ski area is Mad River (which also has a different set of rules than Bush or ski areas north of I-89 due to organized cutting and slightly more open woods than the Bush). Just wanted to put that out there... I ain't trying to make this into a "Jay and Stowe are better than Bush" even though I prefer to ski at those areas.

As for developing an eye, I cut my tree skiing teeth at Cannon. Good luck finding most tree shots there as most shots either require "local knowledge" or hiking the area during the summer. Trees do hide a lot. But when they hide that much, it reduces skiable acres considerably and relies more on cutting than natural openings.

You guys are skinning me alive here but I think you guys are reading more into what I am saying than I am actually saying. And I misquoted the snowfall for the various ski areas which is my bad. But there have been so many 400"+ years up north recently that sometimes I forget they have been above average so you got me on that exaggeration. Exaggeration or not, it definitely opens up more natural lines that need less maintenance.


----------



## castlerock (Oct 7, 2008)

riverc0il said:


> Man, you guys get testy about your home mountain, eh? :lol:
> 
> castlerock.... I *NEVER* .........you can jump into the woods almost any where and ski. That is what this thread is about! What is skiable. Bush very well may have tons more tree skiing than any other ski area in the northeast. Cool. But the percent of skiable acres compared to actual acres just can't be the same as areas further north. I just don't see it. My comments are not directed towards the total acres that are skiable but the percentage compared to actual acres claimed by the marketing department.



And my point is that you CAN jump in anywhere and ski, it is just that sometimes getting in is tougher. If it is between the trails here it is skied. I even have to remind myself of this sometime. Last season on a windhold powder day, I was skiing, skiers left of the Gatehouse liftline, on some wonderful wide open low angle woods that we never think of skiing. And my friend made the exact comment that we can ski anywhere on the hill.

And maybe we have a bit of a chip on our shoulders here at Sugarbush. There seems to be a Jay and Stowe are the "big leagues" and Sugarbush is the minors ideal out there.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 7, 2008)

castlerock said:


> And my point is that you CAN jump in anywhere and ski, it is just that sometimes getting in is tougher. If it is between the trails here it is skied. I even have to remind myself of this sometime. Last season on a windhold powder day, I was skiing, skiers left of the Gatehouse liftline, on some wonderful wide open low angle woods that we never think of skiing. And my friend made the exact comment that we can ski anywhere on the hill.
> 
> And maybe we have a bit of a chip on our shoulders here at Sugarbush. There seems to be a Jay and Stowe are the "big leagues" and Sugarbush is the minors ideal out there.



+1

Steve - 

The only place where we disagree is in the artificial distinction between north and south of 89.  With respect to snowfall, there's no doubt that North of 89 gets materially more.  In that sense, the tree season there is probably a week or two longer on average.  OTOH, your contention that SB is unlike those places insofar as there isn't skiing between every trail is factually incorrect.  With the exception of trails like Murphy's Glade and Upper Birdland or the runs off North Lynx that are literally 6 feet apart in spots, I think I have skied between every single pair of runs on the mountain, and in many cases, multiple runs therein (rather than just different lines in the same glade run).  The density of skiable terrain in Slidebrook isn't as great, but is certainly orders of magnitude greater than the official lines.  As with most places, the deeper is gets, the more that opens up.

I'll just leave it at that, b/c I'm not really in any rush to publicize this much more.  I'm more than content to leave untested the notion that Jay to Bolton is a different realm.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Oct 7, 2008)

Stowe receives and holds snow way better than Sugarbush...This past April I skied both resorts a day apart on two seperate occasions...and the difference is apples to bananas...lol


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 7, 2008)

GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Stowe receives and holds snow way better than Sugarbush...This past April I skied both resorts a day apart on two seperate occasions...and the difference is apples to bananas...lol



Which resort is the apple and which is the banana......:lol:


----------



## castlerock (Oct 7, 2008)

*Now I've got to bust on Steeze*



GrilledSteezeSandwich said:


> Stowe receives and holds snow way better than Sugarbush...This past April I skied both resorts a day apart on two seperate occasions...and the difference is apples to bananas...lol



I'm not sure what hold actually means. Temp and aspect establish "hold" and frankly Stowe is a bit too East facing and tends to lose snow a bit more quickly. Stowe gets more snow, especially where they measure it. (at the "stake"). But not enough, to say it is 50% more.

Since you were at Sugarbush in April, you were probably skiing the spring trails, which to the chagrin of a lot of us at Sugarbush are at low elevation at South (as opposed to the top of North). You didn't ski North which is a major area in its own right. And summits higher than the lifts at Stowe.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 7, 2008)

I always thought North was the better Spring option, though I can understand the decision to go with south because of the lodging.  If they put a Super Star glacier on FIS, I wonder how late they could go.....


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 7, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> If they put a Super Star glacier on FIS, I wonder how late they could go.....



That's an interesting thought although what do you do about the 2000 vert ft below it that's all dirt and rocks. I guess dowloading two lifts would work but.........:wink:


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 7, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> I always thought North was the better Spring option, though I can understand the decision to go with south because of the lodging.  If they put a Super Star glacier on FIS, I wonder how late they could go.....



This is going a little OT, but IMO North could be the real King of Spring in the East.  The trails off the Summit lift all face NE and bottom out at 3000'.  Upload/download on the GMX with BBQ and tunes at the Glen House, and you've got all the necessary ingredients.  If SB really wanted to, they could be open on FIS and Rim Run into mid-May and beyond every year.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 7, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> That's an interesting thought although what do you do about the 2000 vert ft below it that's all dirt and rocks. I guess dowloading two lifts would work but.........:wink:



I know you and Lostone are on a crusade to convince everyone that LP is the better option, but let's keep it factual.  Which two lifts would you be referring to?  You didn't actually tink he was referring solely to Upper FIS, did you?  That's obviously not much of an option.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 7, 2008)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I know you and Lostone are on a crusade to convince everyone that LP is the better option, but let's keep it factual.  Which two lifts would you be referring to?  You didn't actually tink he was referring solely to Upper FIS, did you?  That's obviously not much of an option.



I was assuming DHS was referring to Upper FIS.......I don't have to convince anyone that LP is the better spring option businesswise cause it's was is.....I think it's about time you got over it. :wink:  Even the slumbering bears know from purely a skiing standpoint it's the better option.

BTW Mr Moderator :wink: means the post was tongue in cheek


> That's an interesting thought although what do you do about the 2000 vert ft below it that's all dirt and rocks. I guess dowloading two lifts would work but.........:wink:


----------



## kcyanks1 (Oct 7, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I was assuming DHS was referring to Upper FIS.......I don't have to convince anyone that LP is the better spring option businesswise cause it's was is.....I think it's about time you got over it. :wink:  Even the slumbering bears know from purely a skiing standpoint it's the better option.



I still don't see how downloading 2 lifts would make sense at all.  You need to have trails going all the way to the bottom of the Summit Chair otherwise you can't do laps at the top.  You download on the GMX.  

I agree south is a better option for skiing .. but not for spring skiing, which is the whole point of this off-topic discussion   If they want to close mid-to-late April, South is fine.  If the goal were to be to stay open into May, South is not the best option.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 7, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I was assuming DHS was referring to Upper FIS.......I don't have to convince anyone that LP is the better spring option businesswise cause it's was is.....I think it's about time you got over it. :wink:  Even the slumbering bears know from purely a skiing standpoint it's the better option.



I know that LP is just the choice due to business reasons (i.e. Win can't sell condos at LP Village if the skiing is a shuttle bus away instead of out the front door).  It's too bad, b/c SV was singing a much different tune when they took over.  This is from a FTO article in 2002:



> “We’re most likely in the next couple of years going to work on the lift structure over at Mt. Ellen,” explained Andrew Lafrenz, the resort’s communications manager.  “The initial plan would be to replace the Green Mountain Quad and the North Ridge Express with a quad that would go up to the Glen House.  *It’s frustrating from a management [perspective] that we can’t use what is arguably the best spring skiing and early season skiing in the country.  In the past here, the snowmaking was over at North for the great early- and late-season skiing.  Mt. Ellen was the place to be, and ASC tried to make a shift in that that wasn’t appropriate.  We all as locals hike up to upper FIS well into May in a lot of years,” Lafrenz reminisced*.



Added emphasis is mine.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 7, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> That's an interesting thought although what do you do about the 2000 vert ft below it that's all dirt and rocks. I guess dowloading two lifts would work but.........:wink:



......but it would only be one lift to download 

The elevation advantage, exposure and downloading capabilities really favor north for spring skiing.  It could be a progressive situation where as the spring continues on, they first due downloading on the GMX with North Ridge and the summit quad available for skiing.  When things get boney on the North Ridge, they could close that and continue to offer riding on the Summit lift.  As was also mentioned the Glen House is the perfect outdoor bbq spot for spring days.  Hell if they really went of it on FIS, they might able to offer MTB off the GMX AND skiing at the same time in June 

I really don't think an argument can be made that South is the better option for Spring outside of appeasing the real estate ownership crowd.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 7, 2008)

Come to think of it.....if I were a condo owner, even then I'd still prefer the spring skiing to be over at north as opposed to right out my front door.  I'm probably in the minority, but I'd rather have the best option available to me.  I'd be pissed to be skiing slush at the base of LP when I could have sweet corn up top on FIS for weeks longer.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 7, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> .
> I really don't think an argument can be made that South is the better option for Spring outside of appeasing the real estate ownership crowd.



Actually it's also about the new Gatehouse Lodge with F&B and the ski shop, Timbers, Castlerock Pub, the paved parking lot(if you ever helped push out dozens of vehicles stuck in the mud in the parking lots over at ME in the spring you'd understand that one), the list goes on and on.


----------



## castlerock (Oct 7, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Actually it's also about the new Gatehouse Lodge with F&B and the ski shop, Timbers, the paved parking lot....



Exactly....None of which has anything to do with the skiing


----------



## kcyanks1 (Oct 7, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Actually it's also about the new Gatehouse Lodge with F&B and the ski shop, Timbers, Castlerock Pub, the paved parking lot(if you ever helped push out dozens of vehicles stuck in the mud in the parking lots over at ME in the spring you'd understand that one), the list goes on and on.



And even if we grant you every item on your list, none of them have to do with the *skiing* experience, which is the only point that I think Tin, deadheadskier, and I are making (hopefully I'm not mischaracterizing anyone's views here).


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 7, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Actually it's also about the new Gatehouse Lodge with F&B and the ski shop, Timbers, the paved parking lot(if you ever helped push out dozens of vehicles stuck in the mud in the parking lots over at ME in the spring you'd understand that one), the list goes on and on.



....not a single good skiing argument though.  

Glen House could cover all that is needed F&B wise during the day, apres outdoors at the base,  a temp ski swap type experience could be set up in the North BL.  As for the mud.....pave the upper section or two of the lot.

Mind you I have no vested interest in Sugarbush, but purely from an outside perspective, the summit quad at SB has the best spring skiing potential of any lift I've seen in the east.  The entire area lies above 3400 feet.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 7, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> Actually it's also about the new Gatehouse Lodge with F&B and the ski shop, Timbers, Castlerock Pub, the paved parking lot(if you ever helped push out dozens of vehicles stuck in the mud in the parking lots over at ME in the spring you'd understand that one), the list goes on and on.



People would be just as hungry and just as thirsty over at North, they'd just be that way for about a month longer.  As for the paved parking lot - foul on SRO.  It was only paved last year whereas the switch to LP occured two seasons ago.   

Guess I'll just have to wait until the LP base area real estate is fully developed and sold, so the focus can then shift to the new base area at ME with a new base lodge/condo development below the GMX.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 7, 2008)

Tin Woodsman said:


> People would be just as hungry and just as thirsty over at North, they'd just be that way for about a month longer.  As for the paved parking lot - foul on SRO.  It was only paved last year whereas the switch to LP occured two seasons ago.
> 
> Guess I'll just have to wait until the LP base area real estate is fully developed and sold, so the focus can then shift to the new base area at ME with a new base lodge/condo development below the GMX.



Why was I under the impression that Real Estate development was not permitable at North?


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 7, 2008)

deadheadskier said:


> Why was I under the impression that Real Estate development was not permitable at North?



I don't know.  They own all or most of the land in that area.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 7, 2008)

> As for the paved parking lot - foul on SRO. It was only paved last year whereas the switch to LP occured two seasons ago.



Once again you have accused me of misfacts when again it's you who are misinformed. This has turned silly. I already posted that skiingwise ME is the better option in the spring. 

Tin - the parking lot at LP was paved when Claybrook was built, fall of 2006. 
DHS - you said it was all about the real estate owners. I was merely pointing out that in addition to that it is also about many other business pieces of the resort ay LP. The thousands of day skiers at  the Bush on a busy weekend, most are not real estate owners.

Geesh...I'm done here and go have a beer with Riv.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Oct 7, 2008)

ski_resort_observer said:


> I was assuming DHS was referring to Upper FIS.......I don't have to convince anyone that LP is the better spring option businesswise cause it's was is.....I think it's about time you got over it. :wink:  Even the slumbering bears know from purely a skiing standpoint it's the better option.





ski_resort_observer said:


> Once again you have accused me of misfacts when again it's you who are misinformed. This has turned silly. I already posted that skiingwise ME is the better option in the spring.



I think some of us (well, I know I did) misread your previous post as saying that "[e]ven the slumbering bears know from purely a skiing standpoint it's [South] the better option."  I guess you meant North, which would cancel out the last round of vehement replies  Sorry.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Oct 7, 2008)

My bad...your right. I did mean ME but since we all know that so I guess I didn't think to put that in.


----------



## castlerock (Oct 7, 2008)

*Castlerock is dumb*



castlerock said:


> Exactly....None of which has anything to do with the skiing



Not exactly, I beg to differ as without the revenue of the LP base, maybe the mountain wouldn't be open till the end of April!


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 7, 2008)

castlerock said:


> Exactly....None of which has anything to do with the skiing





castlerock said:


> Not exactly, I beg to differ as without the revenue of the LP base, maybe the mountain wouldn't be open till the end of April!



Que?

They must have gotten to him.


----------



## riverc0il (Oct 7, 2008)

Alright, I am a big enough man to admit my perceptions and visual interpretation may not be in step with reality. Clearly I need to inspect a little closer as I would be interested in seeing just how much skiable space there is hidden between the trails since they were so successful in deceiving me.

Coming from a skier that cut my teeth on Cannon, I hear you about the whole south of I-89 not getting respected as much as north of I-89. Though I used to, I hold no chip on my shoulder any more about Cannon not being respected as much as many other places. Matter of fact, some days I wish it was even more over looked. Personally, my opinion is Bush is a superior resort "as a whole" compared to Jay and I am not sure how much the Bush really is disrespected compared to its northern neighbors.


----------



## castlerock (Oct 7, 2008)

Come down with NHski and you'll get the real tour


----------



## hardline (Oct 7, 2008)

i think i really just boils down to the place you know the best. id probally have fun at the bush chasing some people thru the woods but i would be following not charging. while at stowe i dont really think about where im going i just sorta flow, no real thought involved. i couldn't do that at the bush.


----------



## Lostone (Oct 8, 2008)

> I know you and Lostone are on a crusade to convince everyone that LP is the better option,



I don't say it is a better skiing option for everyone.  Just for me.  I read above someone saying that even if they had a condo at South, they'd rather ski North.  Most actual condo owners at South say otherwise.

As for South not lasting as long,_ it lasts as long as they want to stay open. _ North could go longer, but could they make money to make it worthwhile?  You say may yes, but all told their business plan says they disagree with you.  I'm sure that if you'll guarantee them a profit, they'll be happy to hear what you have to say.  

As stated above, Sugarbush feels their facilities at South are far superior.  It isn't just Claybrook, but Lincoln Peak Village which includes Claybrook, Timbers, Gatehouse and has much more in the planning stage.

Part of the problem is that many are looking at it as a ski area, while Sugarbush may be looking at it as Sugarbush _*Resort*_.


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 8, 2008)

Lostone said:


> I don't say it is a better skiing option for everyone.  Just for me.  I read above someone saying that even if they had a condo at South, they'd rather ski North.  Most actual condo owners at South say otherwise.
> 
> As for South not lasting as long,_ it lasts as long as they want to stay open. _ North could go longer, but could they make money to make it worthwhile?  You say may yes, but all told their business plan says they disagree with you.  I'm sure that if you'll guarantee them a profit, they'll be happy to hear what you have to say.
> 
> ...



It was me that stated I would rather ski at North during the spring even if I had a condo at South.  This is spring we're talking about, not regular season.  I'm actually split between the two areas year round.

If South implemented a plan where they ran Heaven's Gate late and downloaded on Super Bravo, that would seem to be a decent option.  It also would seemingly be much more expensive in terms of what they would have to cover with snow to achieve this.  At North, you blow deep on UFIS and Rim and you're good to go.  South you'd have to cover three times the area to do a Heaven's Gate w/ Super Bravo download.   

No one is arguing which area has the better 'resort' experience, it is clearly south.  North however, clearly offers the better 'ski' experience in the spring.  The latter is what would be important to me, but maybe not the majority.

Either way, I'm impressed with Win's commitment to provide a long season when so many other areas close up shop early.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 8, 2008)

Lostone said:


> I don't say it is a better skiing option for everyone.  Just for me.  I read above someone saying that even if they had a condo at South, they'd rather ski North.  Most actual condo owners at South say otherwise.
> 
> As for South not lasting as long,_ it lasts as long as they want to stay open. _ North could go longer, but could they make money to make it worthwhile?  You say may yes, but all told their business plan says they disagree with you.  I'm sure that if you'll guarantee them a profit, they'll be happy to hear what you have to say.
> 
> ...



I doubt that either of us have seen the numbers, but the question boils down to this:  Can they generate enough incremental margin from the ancillary "resort" activities at South to overcome the loss of margin that would be generated by a season extended 2-4 weeks longer at North.  Will fewer people stay at CB b/c the skiing is at North?  What will be the difference in sales/margins selling burgers and beers in GH Lodge vs. at Glen House?  How many fewer people will utilize Timbers?  I guess the lunch business, to the extent there is one at that time of year, goes away.  But dinner too?  Hard to imagine that's going to have much of an impact.


----------

