# Rental cars for western travel



## MommaBear (Feb 2, 2019)

Hi all - hoping to tap the wisdom of those who travel west to ski.  We are headed to Mount Bachelor in a few weeks and trying to find a rental vehicle for the 4 of us (plus a possible 5th).  No sites I've looked at indicate whether vehicles are 4 wheel/all wheel or if ski racks are available.  Do I need to make some phone calls?  Or is there an easier way to find something to get us around for a week?
Thanks in advance.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 2, 2019)

Good luck with that.  I've experienced this dilemma each time I've tried to rent out west, and you have a better chance learning the codes to open the nuclear football than you will getting a 100% "yes" or "no" on 4WD on a blind SUV rental.   The good news is, apparently, most SUVs in the major's fleets are in fact either AWD or 4WD, but in order to guarantee that I imagine calling direct is your only hope.


EDIT:  If you are 100% committed to 4WD, however, do so in advance.  I was at the rental counter in SLC a few years ago getting a sedan, and a storm was coming in, so they skyrocketed the cost of rentals of the 4WD/AWD vehicles.  And I do mean skyrocket.  As in well over $1,000 increase for a week over what the same vehicle was going for just the day or two before.


----------



## kingslug (Feb 2, 2019)

Very tough to get a guarantee on that


----------



## dlague (Feb 2, 2019)

Try to get a 4wd, since many places will require chains with 2wd if it snows.  I was able to rent an SUV when I visited Colorado on vacation.

Sent from my SM-G930V using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## MommaBear (Feb 2, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> If you are 100% committed to 4WD, however, do so in advance.  I was at the rental counter in SLC a few years ago getting a sedan, and a storm was coming in, so they skyrocketed the cost of rentals of the 4WD/AWD vehicles.  And I do mean skyrocket.  As in well over $1,000 increase for a week over what the same vehicle was going for just the day or two before.



:-o

I appreciate the help from all, thanks!  Guess I'll be making some phone calls early this week (with the understanding there will be no guarantee).


----------



## MommaBear (Feb 3, 2019)

Anyone used Turo?


----------



## Edd (Feb 3, 2019)

MommaBear said:


> Anyone used Turo?



A co-worker just used it last week for an SLC trip. It was 3 younger guys so I suspect they went cheap. He said the car smelled and was generally dirty. 

I almost always reserve a 4WD out west and I’ve never failed to get it. But I’ve also received no guarantees beforehand.

I recommend Autoslash.com for a good deal. It’s a little weird because they get back to you with a quote but it worked out well for me and others I know.


----------



## HowieT2 (Feb 3, 2019)

I researched this for my trip to bc because we have 3 hour drive from Spokane.  The suvs r awd.  They generally don’t have ski racks to offer nor do they have snow tires.


----------



## machski (Feb 3, 2019)

The best bet for being more likely than not to have 4WD/AWD is to rent a regular or full size SUV and skip the smaller ones.  Most of the small SUV's tend to be FWD only if that is an option on that particular model.  When I have had ford explorers, Chevy Tahoes, etc, they have always been AWD/4WD but when I have gone smaller (Ford Escape comes to mind) it has been FWD.  Bachelor this time of year you need AWD/4WD as that is required on the highway to the mountain from Bend (or snow tires/chains which you will not get in the US from rentals).  Been out there when it snows, they only grit the roads, no salt used.  I had an Escape on 1 trip and I could feel it sliding (and that was in April).

Good luck!

Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## benski (Feb 3, 2019)

HowieT2 said:


> I researched this for my trip to bc because we have 3 hour drive from Spokane.  The suvs r awd.  They generally don’t have ski racks to offer nor do they have snow tires.



Denver and SLC have much more traffic going ski areas. And a few of them really demand snow tires. I would suspect it’s much easier to make money off offering snow tires and ski racks in those cities.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 3, 2019)

Snow tires on rental SUVs, is that even a thing on the 4WD models?


----------



## Edd (Feb 3, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Snow tires on rental SUVs, is that even a thing on the 4WD models?



Not that I know of


----------



## machski (Feb 3, 2019)

Yeah, it is unfortunate US rental car companies are pathetic with respect to snows or chain rentals.  In New Zealand, no problem renting chains through Avis, at least out of Queenstown.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## VTKilarney (Feb 3, 2019)

Vermont almost passed a law requiring snow tires on rentals.


----------



## benski (Feb 3, 2019)

VTKilarney said:


> Vermont almost passed a law requiring snow tires on rentals.



Not a bad idea. Any time it’s bellow 40, snow tires are beneficial. They might save fuel.


----------



## bushpilot (Feb 4, 2019)

With the added cost of an SUV with 4WD you might be better off getting a sedan and getting chains from Les Schwab tires. Keep the receipt and if you don't use them you can return them. The $75 cost will be less than the added cost of guaranteeing a 4WD SUV. Also, the drive up Century Road is not too difficult. Bachelor also has a ski bus that leaves from Bend. It's an awesome mountain if you've never been. When are you planning on being there?


----------



## jimk (Feb 5, 2019)

bushpilot said:


> With the added cost of an SUV with 4WD you might be better off getting a sedan and getting chains from Les Schwab tires. Keep the receipt and if you don't use them you can return them. The $75 cost will be less than the added cost of guaranteeing a 4WD SUV. Also, the drive up Century Road is not too difficult. Bachelor also has a ski bus that leaves from Bend. It's an awesome mountain if you've never been. When are you planning on being there?



This.

Try for good deal on 4 wd, but don't fear if not available, work rental agency for better deal on whatever they eventually do give you for vehicle.  Mt. B is surrounded by high desert and not especially treacherous winter driving, unlike Tahoe which can range from drought/no-problem to six foot dumps and mandatory chains/4wd.

Six years ago I flew into SFX for a two week ski trip.  Went up to Mt. Bachelor for three ski days, Then a few days in N. Lake Tahoe, then sightseeing in San Fran for a few days, then 5 days at Kirkwood/S-A-T/Heavenly.  I had reserved a good two week rate of something like $550 total for a small 4wd SUV at SFX, but none available when I got there because storm in Tahoe pushed up demand.  After 30 minutes of consternation, I took a minivan for same price.  Rental guy suggested I buy $60 chains and just put them on if needed.   I had a group of four, so minivan was actually very functional for us and our gear.  I needed the chains exactly one day while driving to S-A-T for an outstanding powder day, then at end of trip I threw them away at motel dumpster.  Best $60 insurance policy I ever bought


----------



## andrec10 (Feb 5, 2019)

Just try and rent a Jeep Grand Cherokee. Awesome in snow even without snows.


----------



## MommaBear (Feb 6, 2019)

bushpilot said:


> With the added cost of an SUV with 4WD you might be better off getting a sedan and getting chains from Les Schwab tires. Keep the receipt and if you don't use them you can return them. The $75 cost will be less than the added cost of guaranteeing a 4WD SUV. Also, the drive up Century Road is not too difficult. Bachelor also has a ski bus that leaves from Bend. It's an awesome mountain if you've never been. When are you planning on being there?



We will be there 2/20 to 2/27.  My son moved out to Bend and works the mountain during the winter (then up to High Cascades camp at Mount Hood for the summer as the media guy).  This will be our first time to Mt Bachelor.  He's warned us that the roads aren't maintained the way they are in the East (someone above mentioned the cinder vs salt) and there have been a couple of nasty days (one especially over MLK weekend).  We are doing an Airbnb closer to the mountain so not sure the bus from Bend would work, but thank you for that suggestion.  My son uses it to get to and from work most days - didn't think about US using it!


----------



## jg17 (Feb 6, 2019)

I think you just need to get lucky, unless you rent a larger SUV class where any possible vehicle has 4WD. As previously mentioned, no guarantee of AWD on even the smaller SUVs/crossovers.

I got lucky (definitely a bunch of dumb luck) today on my drive JAC-SLC. Originally booked a standard sedan (probably a bad idea to begin with), and asked at pickup if they had anything AWD. Turned out they needed to get a Suburban down to SLC for tomorrow morning so they were able to send me with that.


----------



## MommaBear (Feb 8, 2019)

jg17 said:


> I think you just need to get lucky, unless you rent a larger SUV class where any possible vehicle has 4WD. As previously mentioned, no guarantee of AWD on even the smaller SUVs/crossovers.
> 
> I got lucky (definitely a bunch of dumb luck) today on my drive JAC-SLC. Originally booked a standard sedan (probably a bad idea to begin with), and asked at pickup if they had anything AWD. Turned out they needed to get a Suburban down to SLC for tomorrow morning so they were able to send me with that.



Nice!  Trying to avoid the big ass ones.  Drove a Suburban for several years.  Great for hauling kids and gear, sucked to use and park in day to day stuff.  But I guess we will see what we get! 

Thanks to everyone for all the info!  Lots of ideas to run with.    :beer:


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 8, 2019)

jg17 said:


> *I think you just need to get lucky*, unless you rent a larger SUV class where any possible vehicle has 4WD. As previously mentioned,* no guarantee of AWD on even the smaller SUVs/crossovers.*



And assume nothing!

I once rented a RAV4 thinking it would be 4WD. 

 Keep in mind this is no crazy assumption given RAV4 literally stands for, _"Recreational Activity Vehicle: 4-Wheel Drive"_.  

Nope.  Believe it or not they make 2WD models of the _"Recreational Activity Vehicle: 4-wheel drive"_, which rental car companies do own.


----------



## skimagic (Mar 28, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> And assume nothing!
> 
> I once rented a RAV4 thinking it would be 4WD.
> 
> ...



I'm heading to CO shortly and have a RAV 4  through advantage which I know will end as 2wd.  It looks like Payless has some 4wd wagons, anyone ever use them?  I saw the chaos at the Fox rental counter in SLC and would never ever use them .

If its supposed to snow, I might just do  Turo to ensure a 4wd but tim unsure how the insurance works out.


----------



## mikec142 (Mar 28, 2019)

We were in Utah two weeks ago and rented from National.  We got a Toyota Highlander AWD.  I asked about snow tires and the agent said that none of their cars had them.  I did see a few cars with ski racks (probably 20%) and most cars were SUV's.

I do like the idea of buying chains and keeping the receipts.  My bigger concern is that I have zero idea of how to put chains on the car and I would imagine that I'd be attempting to do so in poor conditions.


----------



## machski (Mar 28, 2019)

Still blows my mind that rental car companies inside the US will not rent you chains with the cars.  When we were in NZ, all the big US rental companies offered chain rentals with the cars straight up front out of Queenstown.  Could have rented chains too out of Auckland when we were on the North Island but didn't as both Ruapahue resorts have sealed roads (even though they have chain requirements too at times).  I do not get why out west US they do not rent out chains with their cars since they will not equip the rentals with snow tires.  They seem to in other parts of the world.

Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## mikec142 (Mar 28, 2019)

machski said:


> Still blows my mind that rental car companies inside the US will not rent you chains with the cars.  When we were in NZ, all the big US rental companies offered chain rentals with the cars straight up front out of Queenstown.  Could have rented chains too out of Auckland when we were on the North Island but didn't as both Ruapahue resorts have sealed roads (even though they have chain requirements too at times).  I do not get why out west US they do not rent out chains with their cars since they will not equip the rentals with snow tires.  They seem to in other parts of the world.
> 
> Sent from my SM-T830 using AlpineZone mobile app



While I agree that it would be a good way for the rental co's to make a few bucks, I'd be curious as to two things.  Is there a possibility of damage to the car if the driver doesn't put the chains on correctly?  What is the liability to the company if the driver doesn't know how to use the chains correctly and injury occurs?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Mar 28, 2019)

machski said:


> *I do not get why out west US they do not rent out chains with their cars *since they will not equip the rentals with snow tires.  *They seem to in other parts of the world.*



Could it be mandated by local legislation in Australia?   I'm thinking in the US it's probably because they're worried if a chain gets thrown or broken it will damage the rental car.  Given we turn-over rental cars to the secondary market at pretty low mileage in America, I can see how that's not a small concern to the rental car company.


----------



## machski (Mar 28, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Could it be mandated by local legislation in Australia?   I'm thinking in the US it's probably because they're worried if a chain gets thrown or broken it will damage the rental car.  Given we turn-over rental cars to the secondary market at pretty low mileage in America, I can see how that's not a small concern to the rental car company.


It was New Zealand but I know in Europe they rent out chains as well.  It could be due to our loose litigation society here in the USA.  My guess is that it is a lack of perceived demand in the US.  Even in mountain locations, I bet the majority of US drivers don't even know tire chains are a thing and renters probably even less so!

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Mar 28, 2019)

machski said:


> My guess is that it is a lack of perceived demand in the US.  Even in mountain locations, I bet the majority of US drivers don't even know tire chains are a thing and renters probably even less so!



I was with a friend of my dad's last weekend (that skis a lot) that was talking about how years ago people used these things called "snow tires" in the winter but now all-seasons are good enough. Me and my dad both proceeded to tell him that we both have snow tires on our vehicles and would never trust all-seasons. He seemed surprised to find out people still swap tires in the winter. So yea, I wouldn't at all be surprised if most US drivers don't even know tire chains are a thing.


----------



## MommaBear (Mar 28, 2019)

mikec142 said:


> I do like the idea of buying chains and keeping the receipts.  My bigger concern is that I have zero idea of how to put chains on the car and I would imagine that I'd be attempting to do so in poor conditions.



We lucked out in OR as all they had left was a suburban when we arrived to pick up our standard SUV.  2nd day to the mountain, huge dump,  roads not plowed, traffic backed up and we are sitting waiting for it to move again.  Several cars ahead of us and one behind had people hop out and start putting on chains.  At one of the cars ahead, a woman is standing in the middle of the road with the instructions spread wide while two guys were kneeling in the snow trying to figure out how to get the chains on.  Couple of guys from another car hop out and help them out.  Amazing how quickly they got them on!  All the "chain up" areas weren't plowed out so either, so next best thing was out in the road while traffic was halted.


----------



## Teleskier (Jun 7, 2019)

*Not being able to reserve a legal AWD rental is simply the very start of the madness*

So I'm going through similar hassles putting together my next western trips.

This probably belongs in the various (IMO completely apocryphal) “western airline ski trips are always cheaper and easier than New England car ski trips” threads, but I find this is pure bunk regarding all my western trips! They are always 4x to 10x the costs. New England is cheap and easy by comparison!

The room prices in Whislter, Vail, Kirkwood (etc) are completely insane compared to New England! What’s the typical average nightly room price at every one of these, around $400/night? $$$$

The various western local road enforcement branches require you to rent SUV AWD! At ski resort airport hubs, in high demand when it snows! Or they will turn your car around at barricaded road closings - only SUV's pass, they never check their tires. So now, on your way there, do you hope for snow or no snow on your western trip? That will drive you insane - it does me. Ski resort airport SUV AWD = $$$$

Try finding cheap direct flights within a reasonable driving distance to western ski resort towns. Aspen, Telluride, etc local airfields are all $$$$. Never mind these are not direct flights either, for all that $$$$ extra ‘luxury’ cost. How many lost skis have I had doing that? Never lost a single ski “anything” while driving in my car on NE trips.

Or you end up flying to Sea-Tac or SFO for the cheaper flights, only to have to drive half a day through snowy rush hour city traffic for longer than any New England drive would ever take from Boston. Leave work Friday, land after a long flight at midnight, worried about your skis the whole time, driving 6+ hours without sleep to get at the ski resort at 6AM, now do you sleep or instead wearily ski without sleep that day after crappy flight + crappy stressful drive?, etc. I’ve done that enough times… to try to defray a little on high western extra costs… not sure it’s worth it anymore. You’re wiped and stressed when you finally get there, it’s a crappy ski day, never mind how the lack of sleep makes you look to the customs guard while crossing the Canadian border, where that 15-30 minute interrogation at 4am is no fun on no sleep. “Really! I’m not here to stay to steal your healthcare! Do you know how expensive this western trip is!”

Whereas a typical ski trip from Boston, in your own car, with your already-good AWD and your already-good snow tires, driving a car where you already know how it behaves in snow, where it’s entirely a pleasant rural countryside drive, all for the price of one tank of gas. And people complain about this vs all the hassles of flying out west? There really is no comparison. 

Getting back to the subject of western AWD SUV rentals “as required by law”… two warnings:


Enough abusers have done this that many western stores now charge extra re-stocking fees on chains for all the people doing this ‘free’ chain rental idea.
Chains are strictly forbidden by most (ALL?) rental car agencies - huge fines if found. Nevermind when/if the chains slip off and mar the wheel well area, from someone who has never installed one before, trying to do so out of the shrink-wrap package for the first time in the whipping snow, along the slippery side of a dangerous snowy CA highway.
It’s personal preference whether western skiing is worth all the extra costs and hassles or not, but it is certainly NOT cheaper or easier than local New England skiing.

The western price of (impossible to secure ahead) airport AWD SUV rentals is just one example of the many extra $$$ costs for western trips, for me, in all my western experiences.

Expensive is one thing. Being forced to consider breaking the law and possibly stranding yourself and family in snow because you cannot reserve these ahead of time, is another. 

Every western trip I ask… is it really worth all this stress and hassle? Getting to the airport 3-hours ahead of your flight, usually fighting Friday city rush-hour traffic to get there, worried about high priced airport parking total for the week, worried about wading through long sweaty security lines, worried about your skis getting damaged or even being there for you when you land, worried about driving all through the night after a long crappy dry-air (will I catch a cold?) flight, worried about the customs/border crossing (did I buy too much wine at the 24-hour grocery store when I landed and shopped on no sleep, are the various cheeses I bought legal?), worried that you will find your rental keys at 6am, etc, etc. When your ski mountain could all be western bare or western cement when you finally get there?

It makes a NE car ski trip seem like bliss!! For much less cost. Your mileage may vary.

But not being able to find and reserve a legal AWD rental is simply the very start of the western madness….


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 7, 2019)

Seeing this thread bumped made me realize I never updated post my March/April Utah ski trip playing the _"will it be or wont it be"_ SUV rental game.

It wasn't.

I received a non-4WD Kia Sorrento as my promised, _"GMC Acadia or similar"_ when I arrived in SLC.  Now, I personally own a GMC Acadia, and I'm here to tell you a Kia Sorrento is nothing like a GMC Acadia in terms of niceness & quality.  The fact it wasn't even 4WD was just salt-in-the-wound.   Like showing up at a restaurant for a _"Ribeye steak or similar" _and getting a White Castle burger.


----------



## gregnye (Jun 7, 2019)

The key is to go to Colorado. Their traction law doesn't require chains for passenger cars (at least in the front-range stuff like I-70). Chains only required for trucks.

Or go to Utah and take the UTA bus. The ski bus (which is actually just a normal route on the public transit system) is actually pretty reliable and saves you the cost of even renting a car! However this only allows you to go to Alta, Snowbird, Solitude and Brighton.

Also I've never understood the point of non-4 wheel drive SUV's. Like the point of an SUV is to go off-road. 

Most of the people driving an SUV today would be better suited with a minivan. Particularly those who drive things like the Honda CRV and Toyota Rav4. Minivans are underated. You can move furniture (like a truck), people (unlike a truck), sleep in it (unlike a truck), and toyota makes an all-wheel drive version. I'm young with no family and drive a toyota sienna minivan and find that it's the perfect east coast ski mobile.


----------



## abc (Jun 7, 2019)

Teleskier said:


> Every western trip I ask… is it really worth all this stress and hassle?
> 
> When your ski mountain could all be western bare or western cement when you finally get there?


In the middle of ski season, I would ignore this because I'd be too busy skiing...powder out west!

But this is summer. I have not much to do except roll out of my door on my bike for a 50 mile loop. So I have a lot more spare time in hand...

I pity those who are so convinced the western mountain are bare or cements. Plenty of people are equally convinced lobster taste no better than chicken (and chicken taste like wet cardboard). Keep thinking that way. At least you won't be pushing up the airline prices, or the room prices in Whistler. 

If only everyone else think like ... *Teleskier*, there'll be tons of spare rooms in Whistler and I can stretch across 3 seats on my flight to Vancouver. 



> It makes a NE car ski trip seem like bliss!! *For much less cost*.


Try a ski simulator! Since you can't tell the difference of snow anyway, you will find the simulator just as much "a bliss". Save your tank of gas. Ski in your basement.


----------



## abc (Jun 7, 2019)

> I've never understood the point of non-4 wheel drive SUV's. Like the point of an SUV is to go off-road.


No, the point of SUV is to keep up with the Jones. It's fashionable to have an SUV. 

My friend, who like you are young and single, drives a minivan. People ask how many kids he has. Like they don't even ask if he's married. They assume since he has a minivan, he must have been already married and have kids! There goes all the eligible young single women!


----------



## Teleskier (Jun 7, 2019)

*Ditto - stay in NJ and go to Utah when it snows here!*



abc said:


> In the middle of ski season, I would ignore this because I'd be too busy skiing...powder out west!



And don't think the hypocrisy of you, the person who apparently lives inside EWR who constantly falsely extols how cheap western airline ski trips are over NE car ski trips, who says driving to NE is ‘so hard and terrible’, suddenly got in a car and drove to NE when it dumped here for spring skiing the other month, wasn't noticed by me.

I had the same exact thought as you just said… she should fly to Utah this weekend instead and keep our NE roads and trails clear for the people who truly DO value and enjoy NE skiing. Go to Utah when it snows here!

IE - Ditto!


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 7, 2019)

gregnye said:


> The key is to go to Colorado. Their traction law doesn't require chains for passenger cars (at least in the front-range stuff like I-70). Chains only required for trucks.
> 
> Or go to Utah and take the UTA bus. The ski bus (which is actually just a normal route on the public transit system) is actually pretty reliable and saves you the cost of even renting a car! However this only allows you to go to Alta, Snowbird, Solitude and Brighton.
> 
> ...


I drive an AWD Sienna minivan for work. It without a doubt offers better utility than most SUVs. I absolutely love the automatic sliding rear doors.  When you're heading to the van with a few bags of groceries and a baby in your arms, it's a real easy system. Great in parking garages too.  I'm kinda surprised automakers haven't figured out how to get those kind of doors onto full size SUVs. 

 With snow tires this winter it did pretty well. Only complaint is the ass end certainly can fish tail pretty easy if you aren't paying attention.  The handling in general kinda sucks compared to most SUVs.  In bad weather, I'll take my Golf All Track every time. The Alltrack is a beast in the snow.

As for why they make SUVs without AWD?  Probably 60% of the population in this country never really sees snow or ice driving.  Probably another 30% only deals with it a handful of days a year.  The vast majority of people never take them off road.  So a 2WD system is fine and appealing due to lower cost and better fuel economy. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## abc (Jun 7, 2019)

Teleskier said:


> And don't think the hypocrisy of you, the person who apparently lives inside EWR


Wrong again! It’s JFK. 

But I don’t expect you, who can’t tell the difference between snow in Jackson over Killington, can tell the difference.


----------



## dblskifanatic (Jun 8, 2019)

I am surprised at some of the rant by Teleskier!  In Colorado you are not required to have an SUV anything AWD is fine and do not require chains.  In most cases, chains are need for mountain passes if not AWD otherwise not needed.  

When we lived in New England and made a trip to Colorado we rented a small SUV for $360 for 6 days so I found that to be reasonable.  We rented an AirBnB for $900 in Dillon because we were not interested in one resort.  We cooked our own food brought our gear and got a great deal on a flight from Boston to Denver.  Driving from Denver to Aspen is not that big of a deal 3.5 hours with no traffic or weather (timing is everything with I70) but for about $150 more you can fly into Eagle County - just looked it up for a January flight.

When we travelled to Alberta to ski Sunshine, LL and Kicking horse. The means of transportation was the shuttle or bus.  We stayed in Banff so getting around was walking.  It was a group deal so the trip was reasonable.

There are plenty of people that pay the crazy prices of staying at the resort eating at the resort and rent monster SUVs but clearly they are not to concerned about the cost.  As long as some want to compare ski trips in a car to ski trips out west or other fly to destination then there is hope that fewer will return.

With planning you can travel most places at reasonable costs.  Comparing costs for a car trip vs flying some where is apples to oranges.  One is a destination trip the other is probably a common weekend trip.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 8, 2019)

dblskifanatic said:


> I am surprised at some of the rant by Teleskier!



Only because you have a May 2019 join date.  ;-)


----------



## Quietman (Jun 8, 2019)

I am very fortunate.  I have been out west twice.  Once to ski Abasin, Keystone, Copper, and the next was Utah to ski Snowbird, Canyons, PC, Deer Valley, and Snowbird.  Those were great trips, but my parents own a 2nd home near Bethel, ME.  So with a 3 1/4 hr drive up, I can ski SR, Wildcat, Mt Abram, Black Mtn of Maine, and have the options of hitting Loon, or Cannon on the way up.  I really enjoyed the trips out west, but with the cost and other considerations, it probably won't happen again.  Also, I live 15 minutes from the Crotch, which is VERY convenient.


----------



## cdskier (Jun 9, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Only because you have a May 2019 join date.  ;-)



I'm thinking that is just a new account for someone that has been here for a while and not actually someone that just found this board now...


----------



## abc (Jun 9, 2019)

cdskier said:


> I'm thinking that is just a new account for someone that has been here for a while and not actually someone that just found this board now...


Based on what evidence?


----------



## cdskier (Jun 9, 2019)

abc said:


> Based on what evidence?



Just to be clear, I was referring to dblskifanatic (since that's who BG mentioned had a recent join date) and not Teleskier.

My only intention was to point out to BG that he's probably seen Teleskier's rants before despite the recent join date and isn't necessarily surprised to see a rant since this certainly isn't the first one, but rather is surprised because he doesn't think the content of the rant is valid.


----------



## Domeskier (Jun 10, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Just to be clear, I was referring to dblskifanatic (since that's who BG mentioned had a recent join date) and not Teleskier.



It's dlague, which, I assume from the winking face graphic, BG already knows.


----------



## abc (Jun 10, 2019)

OK. 

I was slow to pick up on that.


----------



## cdskier (Jun 10, 2019)

Domeskier said:


> It's dlague, which, I assume from the winking face graphic, BG already knows.



Yea, I wasn't naming the name in case he had an actual reason for changing it (although in that case he probably wouldn't have used the same name that he already uses elsewhere). :razz:


----------



## big_vert (Jun 11, 2019)

Teleskier said:


> Every western trip I ask… is it really worth all this stress and hassle?
> 
> It makes a NE car ski trip seem like bliss!! For much less cost. Your mileage may vary.





Quietman said:


> I really enjoyed the trips out west, but with the cost and other considerations, it probably won't happen again.  Also, I live 15 minutes from the Crotch, which is VERY convenient.



You get what you pay for. 

Is the effort worth it? Really? REALLY? Wow. Even bad western conditions are still waaaaaay better than the normal northleast drek. Lived in NE for 40+ years and the last 10 wouldn't bother to go north. Life's too short for that, even with a bud with a ski-in/out on Bear mountain.

If you can't find a way to make a west trip work, you're doing it wrong. Really wrong.

Chains - go on ebay and get the ones that look like oversized tie wraps. work fine and easy on and off. Rentals - All of the places at SLC have a lot of 4wd vehicles. No issues. Only advice if DO NOT go to Budget in downtown SLC, they'll rip you off with the car and airport fees and everything else. Same at Budget at YVR - notorious for ripping people off for non-existent problems and damage


----------



## cdskier (Jun 11, 2019)

big_vert said:


> Even bad western conditions are still waaaaaay better than the normal northleast drek.



This stupid nonsense argument again?


----------



## JimG. (Jun 11, 2019)

cdskier said:


> This stupid nonsense argument again?



Welcome it's summer again.


----------



## Teleskier (Jun 11, 2019)

*New England snow does suck. Please. Stay in NJ. Fly to Utah. Don’t ski here.*



gregnye said:


> The key is to go to Colorado.



These last two frustrating weeks, I just happen to have been trying to book my personal trips to Kirkwood and Whistler for next year, so it’s on my mind. 

I should have specified ‘which western’. Thus I was specifically thinking of CA and BC here.

Agreed. My “cheapest available car” FWD rentals from Denver have all been fine, always, no matter what ski resorts I drive to in CO. 

I feel I can drive anything in any snow especially FWD, but last year’s bald tire RWD Cadillac from Seattle (last car at airport at 2am) to Whistler was really pushing it (not even I would do that again).  Trying to keep up with the front pack of cars out of Vancouver in ice and snow led to start to finish white knuckles and stay-100%-on-top-of-it driving skills (after a midnight flight of no sleep, which put you at Saturday 6am Vancouver get-to-mountain highly competitive rush hour traffic)… would have been more fun in a different car.




abc said:


> If only everyone else think like Teleskier, there'll be tons of spare rooms in Whistler and I can stretch across 3 seats on my flight to Vancouver.



More lies and BS.

The real reason that you might find yourself alone on your flight to Whistler is that Whistler has begun to price itself out of the US market. 

Last year (ie, a few months ago)… the most affordable room I could find in Whistler was 5x/night price of the usual places I stay in to ski locally here. 

Despite that high price, my place was not even in Whistler Village but a drive away … yet worse still, turned out to be a whole building of 100% Airbnb absent landlord rentals… so it turned into a glorified college dorm filled with drunken US college students coming across the border for the lower drinking age… the place was replete with drunken hall fights and smashed drinking glasses thrown around in hallways at night… and sirened police visits whose multiple police cars blocked my car from driving to dinner. Etc. Etc. Sure, you can say this happens anywhere, but to be able to garner that high price for such down-market ‘features’… illustrates how “not cheap” Whistler really is in actual reality.

This is Whistler - which you have the nerve to use as your example of “cheap western trips.” Not true! FAKE ACCOUNTING!

A NE Motel-6 is no Westin, but also doesn’t think it can charge Westin prices. But out west, they think they can! And Motel-6 would have been a lot safer, quieter and cleaner than what I rented there. 

(For the record, I would have been fine with this place as a ski dorm ‘dive’ per my old NE days, if they charged similar $15/night commensurate for what the venue actually was, not western > $200/night).

And yet you keep insisting with the falsehood that western skiing (and Whsitler in specific)  is cheap.

Maybe that was just last year? Nope. I was just recently looking again, thinking I might be early enough to find some hidden values in Whistler for next year…  and surprise, surprise… the same over-priced and/or crap rentals and hotels are available now for the same sky-high prices - despite being a year away - as I found for my trip last year. 

I dare you to put up or shut up. Everyone else besides you must be “doing it all wrong.”

Pick any place in Whistler Village, or even in much-further away and ‘cheaper’ Creekside (where I/everyone endured 2.5-hour gondola waits before their first turn in snow), that is within ski boot walking distance to any chair or gondola of Whistler, that has overnight parking for your rental car, that is a standard private room with private bathroom of even the most basic NE “Motel 6” variety …  I’ll even let you skip other ‘usual’ desirable “destination ski trip” essentials such as a hot tub/etc … in February for less than $200/night total in Whistler. Go ahead!

And since you often only just take simple shallow web swipes at it, factor in everything - not just the headline price - add up the full accommodation price including BC taxes, how much the place charges for parking per night when you read the fine print, the rental cleaning fees, service fees (etc) and divide that “true total” by the number of nights to compute the true hotel cost. How much is that? Versus a typical less-than-$100/night NE motel, hotel, or B&B?

And this is just one item of western trip cost - only the hotel.  

If you saw my trip report from this year’s Whistler trip (not posted here), it details the shocking high prices I paid for ‘brown water’ Canadian whiskey and basic groceries such as cheese, milk, and eggs in town. Skiing in Vermont wins just for its more ordinary price for cheese alone!! No wonder the Canadian border guards check for and restrict cheese brought into BC province. It’s not just the “sin tax” items that are sky high.

How out of whack is Whislter accommodation??  The Toyko-style pod hotel in Whistler… the very fact they even HAVE a Tokyo-style pod hotel tells you something….  where you actually slide in to a hole in the wall to sleep in a coffin sized ‘pod’ … with no room to stand up to put ski pants on for example… never mind not having your own private bathroom, shower or toilet… has the nerve to charge $300/night for a “front entry pod,” or $340/night for a woman-only pod on my current search. A YEAR ahead! This place is always in the top list of ‘affordable’ (they must mean “western affordable”) Whistler places.

What does $340/night buy you in a New England motel, hotel or B&B??  Well at least you can stand up in it to change your clothes and not have to wait in a line to use the bathroom or shower!! 

Sorry - it’s not being truthful to insist Whistler is cheaper out there than here. 

You then go even further to say a flying trip is cheaper than a driving trip. Not only is it apples to oranges as others said, it’s patently untrue. How much does it cost JUST to park your car at JFK for the week, as one simple factor alone?

Prove me wrong… I’ll love to see all these cheap $100/night Whistler rooms I somehow missed last year and am missing now. Safe parking on premises, can walk to lifts, private bathroom, at least 50/50 in reviews, you can stand up in it to change your clothes… just the same as any cheap New England motel room where you can park over night for free and park at the ski area for free. 

Try doing that there in Whistler! 

So I gave up on Whistler for next year. Sadly I’m going to miss skiing with my New Zealand friends - but I just can’t get myself to do an exact over-priced-for-crap repeat like last year (same high-priced but down-market places, huge lift lines, expensive groceries, alcohol, milk and cheese, long flights, crappy drive, high risk of bad wet rainy coastal snow) - the value is just not there.

Try doing that Kirkwood! So now onto Kirkwood… I also recently tried to put together my first visit there, for next year. 

I found some places in the 5x of NE range. Great. Except last week, when I tried reserving a room in Kirkwood (the same guy appeared to own most of them), the guy called me back and laughed at me. “You think you can ski here and stay here for that price!! Dude!! That’s the summer price… no way you can stay here for under $400/night in winter!!” 

‘Yeah sorry, dude, I was only using your own published prices, no matter’.

Prove me wrong in Kirkwood… I finally gave up in Kirkwood for next year’s trip too… and am going elsewhere. 

And say I had I pre-booked in Kirkwood for $400/night… I’d still have to worry about Sierra Cement and lack of snow… their poor hotel reviews which say it’s dirty and not maintained… its hot tub always broken… no food options nearby (etc) … and yet he gets $400/night?!?  “Dude!!!” No way that sells in New England.

AND as I said at the beginning of this thread regarding AWD, I’d also still be afraid that I might get snow… since when they do get snow in Tahoe, it dumps… such that the police shut down the roads, so you can’t even get up there to ski it. Which do you hope for, or fret over, for the whole year before your pre-booked trip? Do you want it to snow… or not snow? 

This is considered “a skiers paradise” for people to cross the globe for, and pay those sky-high premiums for?!?

Never mind the original question… will you even be able to find an overpriced AWD SUV, at the airport, when your plane landed at 2am, when it snowed all day, and all the non-bald-tire rentals are gone, leaving you with the sole remaining crappy bald-tire clunky Cadillac? etc. etc.

This is “Cheaper and easier than New England” - whose leg are you trying to pull!! 

And yes - I should be agreeing with you - to keep the NYC/NJ crowd in Utah and not clogging up our roads and trails when there is beautiful snow here. 



abc said:


> Wrong again! It’s JFK. But I don’t expect you, who can’t tell the difference between snow in Jackson over Killington, can tell the difference.



Yeah, as if WHICH airport was of any consequence to the argument. JFK and EWR are interchangeable here, ie, a major airport socked in by major urban traffic. Pardon if you come across as more NJ than NYC to me (not that the two are really any different).

>Jackson

If you were from here, you’d know that most of us would immediately respond “Yes, the XC snow in renown Jackson *IS* truly excellent” but of course, we’d be meaning the awesome Jackson NH. Which being the person who knows NE as well as you clearly do, you totally did mean that, and didn’t mean Jackson Hole, right?

I’ve had “more than a few” ski years where the very BEST SNOW of the year I skied was in New England, despite my multiple $$$$ western trips in the same year, where you ask yourself sitting now out west having paid a pretty penny... “Now why didn’t I just stay home to ski where all the awesome snow is this week?”

But sure, New England snow does suck. Please. Stay in NJ. Fly to Utah. Don’t ski here. [As you hypocritically did this spring].


----------



## abc (Jun 11, 2019)

> Yeah, as if WHICH airport was of any consequence to the argument. JFK and EWR are interchangeable here, ie, a major airport socked in by major urban traffic. Pardon if you come across as more NJ than NYC to me (not that the two are really any different).


Sucks when one try irony and they take it literally. 

I rest my case.

(Summer thread all over)


----------



## Smellytele (Jun 11, 2019)

Teleskier you are the winner of the internet with the longest post ever.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Edd (Jun 12, 2019)

I haven’t been to Whistler for a long time. I’ve also never done a western ski trip alone, which certainly makes it challenging to stay cheap. If cost is a top concern, South Lake Tahoe has some reasonably priced lodging. 

We almost always use HomeAway and I aim for $100/night per person, and that can fetch you some decent properties. I’m not always successful there but it’s usually doable. 

Also, though, our group is kid-free and we avoid weekends and holidays like the plague, which keeps some of the costs down. 


Sent from my iPad using AlpineZone


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 12, 2019)

abc said:


> Sucks when one try irony and they take it literally.  I rest my case.



His post was TLDR, so I didnt bother, but the snippet you posted from him is entirely false. 

 While JFK is a_"major airport socked in by major urban traffic"_, the same can not be said for EWR, which is usually an absolute joy to drive to, certainly when compared to JFK.   I've literally missed a flight to JFK when I lived only 20 miles to it & I left several hours early.  That doesn't happen with EWR, there are too many approaches, and not nearly as bad of traffic in NJ than in NYC.


----------



## Domeskier (Jun 12, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> His post was TLDR, so I didnt bother, but the snippet you posted from him is entirely false.
> 
> While JFK is a_"major airport socked in by major urban traffic"_, the same can not be said for EWR, which is usually an absolute joy to drive to, certainly when compared to JFK.   I've literally missed a flight to JFK when I lived only 20 miles to it & I left several hours early.  That doesn't happen with EWR, there are too many approaches, and not nearly as bad of traffic in NJ than in NYC.



It's probably best that a guy with all these geographical prejudices and budgetary constraints just stay at home in Rhode Island.


----------



## abc (Jun 12, 2019)

Edd said:


> I haven’t been to Whistler for a long time. I’ve also never done a western ski trip *alone, which certainly makes it challenging to stay cheap*. If cost is a top concern, South Lake Tahoe has some reasonably priced lodging.
> 
> We almost always use HomeAway and I aim for $100/night per person, and that can fetch you some decent properties. I’m not always successful there but it’s usually doable.
> 
> Also, though, our group is kid-free and we avoid weekends and holidays like the plague, which keeps some of the costs down.


Well, I end up doing it solo 2 years ago. It was definitely "not cheap" at $200/night, IN Whistler Village, about 20 steps from the lift, a gorgeous studio with a real kitchen. Wish I had someone to split it with to bring it down to $100/head/night, which is my usual target. 

Being IN the village presented me with a "1st world" dilemma. Do I sample the many good restaurants in the village? Or do I cook? In the end, I did half and half. 

The only thing I can say is I booked about 3 days advance. So I probably picked up a cancellation (or two, as I recall having to decide on a few comparable options). BTW, it's March. Not exactly peak season, but nor was it low season either.


----------



## Edd (Jun 12, 2019)

abc said:


> Well, I end up doing it solo 2 years ago. It was definitely "not cheap" at $200/night, IN Whistler Village, about 20 steps from the lift, a gorgeous studio with a real kitchen. Wish I had someone to split it with to bring it down to $100/head/night, which is my usual target.
> 
> Being IN the village presented me with a "1st world" dilemma. Do I sample the many good restaurants in the village? Or do I cook? In the end, I did half and half.
> 
> The only thing I can say is I booked about 3 days advance. So I probably picked up a cancellation (or two, as I recall having to decide on a few comparable options). BTW, it's March. Not exactly peak season, but nor was it low season either.



I meant going alone is tough to do cheap. I worded that poorly. Late March/ early April is my go to period for western trips due to my wife’s schedule. A couple of years I’ve done an additional early trip without her. 

Some (a good number on AZ) see these trips as strictly about the skiing but for me it’s a travel opportunity also. Especially if it’s 5+ days. I like to check out the area. 

Lake Tahoe is my favorite destination so far. All of these areas are different but there’s no place like LT. Needs a direct flight from Boston, though.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Jun 12, 2019)

abc said:


> a "1st world" dilemma


  As is every topic here on AZ.


----------



## Teleskier (Jun 12, 2019)

*As a SW engineer you've never seen that before?*



abc said:


> Sucks when one try irony and they take it literally.



Well if you didn't start your interactions as attacking, people might read it differently. 

There was no hint of irony there. 

You know another thing that might help, adding a Worcester-invented smiley face. Tends to be a clue in written media when it's faceless "I don't know you, and you don't know me" media. 

Just say'in.


----------



## Teleskier (Jun 12, 2019)

*Fingers crossed it's not another Utah (and being so close to SFO it probably isn't)*



Edd said:


> Lake Tahoe is my favorite destination so far. All of these areas are different but there’s no place like LT. Needs a direct flight from Boston, though.



Thanks, having never been there, that's good and encouraging to hear. Guess I'll find out. SLT is where I booked after the various unsatisfactory Kirkwood lodging interactions.

The Kirkwood slum-lord that cornered a huge number of rental places in the too-few buildings on-site to charge $400/night monopoly prices for his very dated single rooms with poor reviews, has the nerve to do so despite there being NO restaurants or supermarkets nearby. You'd have to bring 100% of your own food for the week by car and cook in every night, and be stuck in his drab dated room 24/7 with nowhere else to go, with a usually broken hot tub to boot. Sounds miserable, not luxury accommodation. 

From the reviews, Kirkwood reads like a no-frills Cannon, yet charges Aspen prices. Guess I'll find out if it's truly worth that steep markup. I love no-frills Cannon, but would even I spend $400/night for nine days to ski it?

I reasoned that, either way, you're stuck driving an hour there and an hour back regardless: 

Sleep at Kirkwood: walk to ski but drive an hour to dinner, and then drive another hour back, tired after dinner/drinks
OR
Sleep in SLT: Drive hour each way to ski, but you have both apres and restaurants next door at night (and casinos too if desired)
The place I ended up seemed clean, a good value, an always working hot tub, with apres, food, bars, grocery, nightlife nearby. 

This seemed like a no brainer given all the skier risks (never been, so might not like it or feel it's worth $400/night, if there is no snow or Sierra Cement, at least I have dinner/apres/casinos/driving around the lake as fallback) versus the too-high  financial risk of being stuck at the mountain with poor or no snow in a $400/night crappy room without any amenities around it, and hating it. I can read a book at home.

Of course, it could also dump snow and they close the road to Kirkwood for the week, and I'll be regretting it, but to me I'll play those odds and risk. I plan to explore the other nearby ski areas and drive the lake regardless, even if I stayed at Kirkwood. 

Plus I can always go back to ski Kirkwood exclusively, if it really turns out to be THAT "pay any price" mortgage-your-house and cancel-all-your-summer-vacations amazingly rare-in-the-world fantastic. For $400/night it better be all that, versus for $100/night, it can just be a "good enough and fun enough" trip to be a success. For me. Your experience may vary. I like my odds where I booked.


----------



## chuckstah (Jun 12, 2019)

South Lake Tahoe is a good choice, having stayed there several times. And yes, if it dumps you won't get to Kirkwood, or anywhere else for a while. I was stuck in SLT for 2 days with ALL ski areas closed after 96 inches.  3rd day we walked over a mile toHeavenly when it finally opened. Epic. 4th day the road to Kirkwood was open, and worth every white knuckle minute of driving.  Oh, I've stayed in Kirkwood also, very convenient, and yes, there are indeed restaurant's bars and (overpriced) stores. 

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Edd (Jun 12, 2019)

chuckstah said:


> South Lake Tahoe is a good choice, having stayed there several times. And yes, if it dumps you won't get to Kirkwood, or anywhere else for a while. I was stuck in SLT for 2 days with ALL ski areas closed after 96 inches.  3rd day we walked over a mile toHeavenly when it finally opened. Epic. 4th day the road to Kirkwood was open, and worth every white knuckle minute of driving.  Oh, I've stayed in Kirkwood also, very convenient, and yes, there are indeed restaurant's bars and (overpriced) stores.
> 
> Sent from my moto e5 cruise using AlpineZone mobile app



I certainly enjoy Kirkwood, but in terms of SLT areas, I absolutely love Sierra-at-Tahoe. Great vibe and terrain. Good size. It just has it all. 

But Kirkwood vs SAT is not a fair comparison. When it comes to big LT areas we’re talking about Kirkwood vs Heavenly vs Squaw. 

Squaw wins it clear for me for the stunning geography although they’re all great for that. Heavenly, which I like quite a bit for its trees, is a shitshow with crowds. True locals know how to avoid them but Heavenly’s truly advanced terrain can be a bit much for me. 

Squaw and Kirkwood seems to do a better job of dispersing crowds but there’s something about Squaw....


----------



## chuckstah (Jun 12, 2019)

Edd said:


> I certainly enjoy Kirkwood, but in terms of SLT areas, I absolutely love Sierra-at-Tahoe. Great vibe and terrain. Good size. It just has it all.
> 
> But Kirkwood vs SAT is not a fair comparison. When it comes to big LT areas we’re talking about Kirkwood vs Heavenly vs Squaw.
> 
> ...


Agree. I have 3 days total at SAT. All low key and low crowds. One great powder day.  Squaw has great terrain, but I've never caught it at it's best. Had some great days at Heavenly, but if you don't know what you're doing you can traverse all day. And yes, Mott's and Killebrew are gnarly, especially if you don't know where you are going. I remember skiing what looked like a too good to be true untracked line, and then realized it was.  Granite. Ouch. I would also recommend Homewood for a nice, low key day. Great terrain and even better views. 

Sent from my moto e5 cruise using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## dblskifanatic (Jun 12, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Yea, I wasn't naming the name in case he had an actual reason for changing it (although in that case he probably wouldn't have used the same name that he already uses elsewhere). :razz:



Got a new phone and the app on the old phone would not allow me to change my password so .... create a new account!

BTW when we rented and SUV we rented from Fox which a creep rental but it worked.


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## jaytrem (Jun 12, 2019)

dblskifanatic said:


> BTW when we rented and SUV we rented from Fox which a creep rental but it worked.



I used Fox this year for my Tahoe trip.  Had no problems at all.  Did a one way from Oakland to San Fran.  10 days, total price $362 for a Jeep Renegade.  It was mid April though.


----------



## Edd (Jun 12, 2019)

chuckstah said:


> I would also recommend Homewood for a nice, low key day. Great terrain and even better views.



Agree totally! Homewood is amazing, with the best views of the lake. I hope to return.


----------



## abc (Jun 12, 2019)

Teleskier said:


> Well if you didn't start your interactions as attacking, people might read it differently.
> 
> There was no hint of irony there.
> 
> ...


Its not my problem if you don’t get the irony. Other “people” gets it. 

Keep spewing garbage as you always do. Or perhaps you don’t even understand the word “garbage”?


----------



## abc (Jun 12, 2019)

Edd said:


> Agree totally! Homewood is amazing, with the best views of the lake. I hope to return.


Homewood is nice. 

Mt Rose is also very nice. 

Squaw-alpine, Heavenly, Kirkwood we all know. Northstar if you know where to go. 

Lake Tahoe mountains each has its own distinct character. And all are fantastic mountains. 

Last but not least, Mammoth is only a couple hours away. 

All in all, fantastic area. 

Just don’t come expecting blower powder. Even when I lived in the Bay area and going up every other weekend for 2 years, I only got it once! Instead, I got lots and lots of Sierra cement, feet and feet of it!


----------



## asnowmobiler (Jun 13, 2019)

jaytrem said:


> I used Fox this year for my Tahoe trip.  Had no problems at all.  Did a one way from Oakland to San Fran.  10 days, total price $362 for a Jeep Renegade.  It was mid April though.



Stay away from Fox Rental near SLT. 
The two times we used them, it took nearly two hours to get a vehicle, they were way understaffed and this was on a tuesday.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 13, 2019)

asnowmobiler said:


> Stay away from Fox Rental* anywhere*



FIXED.

You are playing the automobile rental version of Russian Roulette when you rent from Fox.   

It is not a "normal" rental car company, they have a very old fleet that is not properly serviced.  I've seen and heard horror stories, and your tale of it taking almost 2 hours to get your vehicle is not unusual.  There's a reason their prices are by far lower than all competition.


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 13, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> FIXED.
> 
> You are playing the automobile rental version of Russian Roulette when you rent from Fox.
> 
> It is not a "normal" rental car company, they have a very old fleet that is not properly serviced.  I've seen and heard horror stories, and your tale of it taking almost 2 hours to get your vehicle is not unusual.  There's a reason their prices are by far lower than all competition.



I don't know or care about any of that, but why does your signature indicate that you want to exterminate an entire species?  Are you psychotic?


----------



## skifree (Jun 13, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> I don't know or care about any of that, but why does your signature indicate that you want to exterminate an entire species?  Are you psychotic?



summer has arrived early this year.


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 13, 2019)

skifree said:


> summer has arrived early this year.


What summer?  It's 62 and raining.

I think that signature line is beyond bizarre.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 13, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> I don't know or care about any of that, but why does your signature indicate that you want to exterminate an entire species? Are you psychotic?




 Of course I'm not psychotic; we're not seeking extinction, merely extirpation.


----------



## cdskier (Jun 13, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> What summer?  It's 62 and raining.
> 
> I think that signature line is beyond bizarre.



What's bizarre is that you just registered on a northeast ski forum yet your first two posts are about criticizing someone's signature.


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 13, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Of course I'm not psychotic; we're not seeking extinction, merely extirpation.



Well then you should change the name of your LLC.  Where do you seek this bird's extirpation and why?


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 13, 2019)

cdskier said:


> What's bizarre is that you just registered on a northeast ski forum yet your first two posts are about criticizing someone's signature.



No, chumly, that's not what's bizarre.


----------



## cdskier (Jun 13, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> No, chumly, that's not what's bizarre.



Yes it is.



Dirty White Boy said:


> Well then you should change the name of your LLC.  Where do you seek this bird's extirpation and why?



It is also bizarre that you apparently seem to know nothing about this bird and its relation to skiing in the northeast if you're asking this question...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 13, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> *Well then you should change the name of your LLC.*  Where do you seek this bird's extirpation and why?



There's nothing wrong with the name.  

The problem is you don't understand the difference between extermination & extinction.

It costs $125 to register a business name, and an additional $275 for the Federal trademarking.  I'm not ponying-up $400 because some keyboard warrior didn't pay attention in 5th grade English class.


----------



## cdskier (Jun 13, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> There's nothing wrong with the name.
> 
> The problem is you don't understand the difference between extermination & extinction.



Wait a minute...so you mean to tell me that the exterminator that comes to my house to spray for insects isn't actually getting rid of them everywhere? I feel so ripped off now! :-(


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 13, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Yes it is.
> 
> 
> 
> It is also bizarre that you apparently seem to know nothing about this bird and its relation to skiing in the northeast if you're asking this question...



I know everything about this bird and its relationship to Northeast skiing.  There's plenty of places to ski in the Northeast without harming this threatened species' habitat.  And if comes down to a choice between some weekend warrior from NJ or Connecticut or the bird, well....that choice is easy.


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 13, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> There's nothing wrong with the name.
> 
> The problem is you don't understand the difference between extermination & extinction.
> 
> It costs $125 to register a business name, and an additional $275 for the Federal trademarking.  I'm not ponying-up $400 because some keyboard warrior didn't pay attention in 5th grade English class.



We're not going to harm natural habitat in order to build a lift to winch your fat ass up a mountain. Run-along now, little one.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 13, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> *I know everything about this bird* and its relationship to Northeast skiing.  There's plenty of places to ski in the Northeast without harming this *threatened species'* habitat.



The Bicknell's Thrush is not a threatened species; its' petition for_ threatened_ status was soundly rejected by The US Department of Fish & Wildlife (it was quite the scientific bitch-slapping actually).

One might think someone who, _ "knows everything about his bird"_ would have known that.


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 13, 2019)

Shut up asshat:
It's conservation status is "Vulnerable".  You know who's staus is not "vulnerable"?  Trashbags from New Jersey.



_Threats
Its numbers are declining in some parts of its already limited range as a result of habitat degradation. Scientists believe that industrial pollution is one of the main reasons for the decline of the red spruce, an important element in Bicknell's thrush habitat in the United States. Airborne heavy metals may also damage high-elevation forests in the northeastern United States. Furthermore, based on expected substantial carbon dioxide increases by the end of the century, scientists predict a radical reduction of balsam fir forest in the eastern United States. If average global temperatures increase and forests change as much as predicted, Bicknell's thrush habitat is very likely to be altered in ways that may seriously affect the species' survival. Indeed, models predict that Bicknell’s thrush will lose more than 50% of its breeding habitat over the next 30 years.[18] Furthermore, recreational development, telecommunication towers and windmills increase is a major cause of habitat fragmentation and deterioration.

Industrial forestry practices, although possibly harmful, may be modified to aid in conservation efforts to protect Bicknell's thrush. While more study is needed, the bird's apparent acceptance of certain commercial second-growth forest gives promise to possibilities of man-made "growing" Bicknell's thrush habitats in the future.

Bicknell’s thrush has a higher concentration of Mercury in its blood than any lower-elevation Catharus thrush.[19] Mercury level increases greatly with altitude and its concentration bioaccumulate in the food web, probably explaining why it decreases as breeding season advances and birds begging to feed more on fruits.[19] High Mercury concentrations may cause reproductive impairment.[19]

There is also considerable concern about the degradation of Bicknell's thrush's wintering habitats. The Dominican Republic's native forests are under considerable pressure from naturally occurring events such as hurricanes, as well as changes from agricultural activities, particularly at low altitudes. The forested lands of Haiti have been almost completely eliminated, and in Cuba, most of the known suitable habitat exists only in protected parklands.[13]_

In all seriousness dude, leave the bird alone.  We don't need to build lifts in the few places these birds thrive.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 13, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> In all seriousness dude, leave the bird alone.  We don't need to build lifts in the few places these birds thrive.



In all seriousness dude, quoting Wikipedia isnt a good look.   The actual scientific findings are better.  

A small excerpt from the scientific bitch-slapping the Eco-extremists received:



> _*Based on the species' abundance* and distribution in its breeding and wintering locations, *the continued presence of adequate habitat quality and quantity to meet the species' breeding and overwintering needs*, and our consideration of the species' future distribution, abundance, and diversity, we conclude that *the Bicknell's thrush is likely to remain at a sufficiently low risk* of extinction that it will not become in danger of extinction in the foreseeable future (i.e., approximately 30 years) and thus does not meet the definition of a threatened species under the Act._



There is nothing "threatened" or "endangered" about Bicknell's Thrush.

It is simply one of an increasingly larger (and growing) number of organisms that have been attempted to be used as a wedge to stop *any* & all development by eco-extremists.  Ironically, these eco-extremists are doing more harm than good to the environment and to legitimately threatened species, by wasting the government's time, money, and scientific resources  that could better be used to protect actual threatened species.


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 13, 2019)

The wiki was well sourced or I wouldn't have used it.   And you're using a finding by _Trump's_ Fish and Wildlife Service.  "Actual scientific findings"  Ha!  Your President doesn't believe in science.  Major fail.  

The species is "Vulnerable".  That's enough for me to block ski lift development in their habitat.  Again if it comes down to the bird or some fat ass from New Jersey.........easy. Bird wins every time.  They're a lot cooler than Jersey fat asses.

Waddle along now, fat boy.  You're dismissed.


----------



## Smellytele (Jun 13, 2019)

Rental cars to birds. Thread has taken a strange turn. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## cdskier (Jun 13, 2019)

Did FBGM create a new identity by any chance?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 13, 2019)

cdskier said:


> *Did FBGM create a new identity by any chance?*



I initially thought that too, as there are similarities, but this one's more like, "teenage boy rambling on about things he knows nothing about", whereas FBGM is more, "intentional hard-core douche".


----------



## JimG. (Jun 13, 2019)

There ain't no cure for the summertime blues.


----------



## ss20 (Jun 13, 2019)

This is rich.  Can't wait to hold this over you BG next time there's a thread on a ski resort expansion.


----------



## ThinkSnow (Jun 14, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> I initially thought that too, as there are similarities, but this one's more like, "teenage boy rambling on about things he knows nothing about", whereas FBGM is more, "intentional hard-core douche".


  lol


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 14, 2019)

ss20 said:


> This is rich.  Can't wait to hold this over you BG next time there's a thread on a ski resort expansion.



I don't get it?


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 14, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> I don't get it?



No......No you don't.


----------



## GregoryIsaacs (Jun 14, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> No......No you don't.



Welcome to the Thread! 

If you dont get baptized by making some idiotic comment and having an AZ old timer rip you a new one then did you even join this forum?


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 14, 2019)

Once again, please, in English this time.


----------



## gregnye (Jun 14, 2019)

GregoryIsaacs said:


> Welcome to the Thread!
> 
> If you dont get baptized by making some idiotic comment and having an AZ old timer rip you a new one then did you even join this forum?



I mean I've always wondered why BenedictGomez hated Bicknell's Thrush so much he has it in his signature. I've just never asked.

I mean it's just a bird. The bird has no idea it's blocking ski area expansion. If anything, a better use of time would be promoting how to protect this bird's habitat through legislature that allows ski areas to expand in harmony with the bird rather than suggesting that it would be better to exterminate every bird ever.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 14, 2019)

The issue is environmentalists have no tolerance for development and bird harmony.  They basically want every acre in New England between 3000-3500k elevation off limits to development because of that one bird.  

In NH there are probably close to 200 peaks with elevation above 3k feet.  There's ski area development on 5 of them.  Any time these areas have proposed expansion at elevation, the environmentalists march their beloved Bicknells thrush into the conversation. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jun 14, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> The issue is environmentalists have no tolerance for development and bird harmony.  They basically want every acre in New England between 3000-3500k elevation off limits to development because of that one bird.
> 
> In NH there are probably close to 200 peaks with elevation above 3k feet.  There's ski area development on 5 of them.  Any time these areas have proposed expansion at elevation, the environmentalists march their beloved Bicknells thrush into the conversation.



THIS!

A far bigger issue than what a handful of ski areas in New England do is the deforestation in places way south where the birds spend a significant portion of their time.

Let's be realistic...the bird's population is not being impacted by a few trails or lift lines being cut in New England. Like DHS said, that represents a tiny fraction of their nesting territory.

Environmentalists do themselves and their causes a major disservice when they take things to the extreme...


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 14, 2019)

You wanna know why I hate that damn bird personally?  This is why.  There is not a single developed glade above roughly 2800 feet elevation at Wildcat.  There is an abundance of side country options and a few in bound creek beds that are great, but not a single on map developed glade above the red line in this picture.  There are tons of mountain managed glades below the red line.  I've been told multiple times over the years that the USFS won't let Wildcat cut any glades above the red line because of that bird.  The three blue circled areas probably amount to around 200 acres of land.  You're telling me that bird is going to "suffer" severe habitation loss if you cut glades in those areas?  You don't have to glade it all, but how about 50 acres?  That would make a huge difference for the ski experience on the mountain and vastly spread people out off the trails. The added elevation means more snow and snow preservation too, so those glades would be skiable for much longer during the season. 

On the whole of the Wildcat Range extending out to Carter Dome and Moriah there's probably easily 10,000 acres of terrain above 3K elevation.  But us skiers can't get 50 acres of glades.  Glades! Not trails with snowmaking, but thinned out forest.  It's bullshit.  F that bird.

I should also mention that what is available via side country is all unsanctioned cuts done by locals 20+ years ago.  Or so I'm told.  I know of nothing new since I started skiing there in 06.  People have tried to cut new stashes, but get this; the USFS has actually caught people with motion detecting cameras in the woods trimming and prosecuted them.  People likely wouldn't attempt to do their own work up high if the mountain was allowed to manage some glades up there.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 15, 2019)

When I was younger, the human condition used to be a truly amazing thing, it was worthy of study, and an expenditure of time thinking about what it is that separates us from the animals & what characterizes a human existence. 

But now I just mostly realize people prattle away desperately trying to make other people think they're "good people" by espousing "correct" thoughts online.  It's overtly genuine douchebaggery, yet the people guilty of this dont ever seem to be capable of recognizing it.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 15, 2019)

cdskier said:


> A far bigger issue than what a handful of ski areas in New England do is *the deforestation in places way south where the birds spend a significant portion of their time. *



Wait.....what?    What's that?  That seems like it might be a *REALLY* important point.

So, I realize few people here have ACTUALLY taken the time to really read about the science regarding this bird.  Why would they. 

 But if you do, the amazing thing is the scientists claim the DANGER to the bird is NOT when it's in Vermont or New Hampshire, but the danger to the bird is when they WINTER in the Caribbean. 

  Let me repeat that in case some readers are a bit slow......... the danger to the species is when they WINTER in the CARIBBEAN.   The bird is not even present in the winter in the areas where we ski.  This is actually pointed out in the government's prose where they reject the "Endangered" and "Threatened" designations for this species.  Once again I say, this bird is being used as a "tool" by the eco-extremists to attempt to block any & all development.  Even if "development" means 3 or 4 ski trails on a 483 acre mountain.


----------



## gregnye (Jun 15, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Wait.....what?    What's that?  That seems like it might be a *REALLY* important point.
> 
> But if you do, the amazing thing is the scientists claim the DANGER to the bird is NOT when it's in Vermont or New Hampshire, but the danger to the bird is when they WINTER in the Caribbean.



So using that logic we should just trash all mountainside forests above 3,000 feet--because the bird is actually more in danger when it's in a different country?

Once again *all this energy and hate against a bird could be put into creating a law that allows a balance of both protected bird habitat and ski area expansion.* You can have both. It's not development vs. birds.

I hike. I ski. I rock climb. All these activities benefit from and put a drain on our natural systems. *Good land-use regulation allows for all these activities to take place in their designated areas.* So yes, maybe 5 out of the 48 4,000 ft mountains in NH have ski areas on them. Great! Don't build any more new areas. However that doesn't mean you can't expand the ski areas you already have.

Good land-use laws allows for all of this. That's why we have a government--to structure beneficial development while also preserving resources. It's why New Hampshire has a state-owned ski area (Cannon) within a beautiful natural forest. You can have both. 

The promotion of eradicating a species is misplaced. Remember when New Hampshire's slogan was "Scenic New Hampshire" and not the aggressive anti-government campaign of "Live Free or Die"? The solution here is not removing these animals but developing with them in mind.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 15, 2019)

BG was exaggerating.  And if we are talking 4k foot NH peaks only 3 out of the 48 have ski development.  The bird threshold is 3k feet, which as I've mentioned there are 5 out of  almost 200 3k elevation peaks with ski terrain.  The actual number is 173 that I just looked up.  That bird has plenty of real estate. A place like Wildcat shouldn't get hassled putting in a few glades, but here we are. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Teleskier (Jun 15, 2019)

Is the irony not lost on anyone that what we have here is… 

We have a bunch of NYC/NJ folks lecturing New England folks that they should erode their environment and what makes New England special, in order to go more pro-development - to make it look more like NJ?

We aint gots no stinking birds (or trees) in NJ - we love our over developed urban NJ ‘forest’ mudflats! You NE folks should copy us!

Now THAT abc is IRONY! And hutzpah.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 15, 2019)

What a dumb thing to say

I've lived in NH for 11 years, VT for 13, ME for 3.  So, well over half my life in the three primary New England ski states.

I don't feel my opinion on development at NH ski areas is any more important than those from New Jersey.   

Where's home for you Teleskier?



Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## cdskier (Jun 15, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> I don't feel my opinion on development at NH ski areas is any more important than those from New Jersey.



I really don't get the hate for people from NJ by some people on this board. The attitude from some people that they're somehow better than people from NJ is just ridiculous. I've never met any locals in VT that expressed opinions like that.

Never mind the fact that I probably spend more money outside NJ than in it between what I spend in VT and upstate NY in the Finger Lakes region. I own property and pay taxes in VT. I support the local economy up there. But somehow my opinion is irrelevant because I'm from NJ? Meanwhile one of the people making some of these comments is in Boston according to his profile. I don't see how that is substantially different from NJ.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 15, 2019)

Boston?

Oh, they're much better than NYC and JC!  Boston is only the Fourth most densely populated city in the US! They're big on preserving open space! 

Teleskier = self'd


Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 16, 2019)

gregnye said:


> So *using that logic we should just trash all mountainside forests above 3,000 feet**--because the bird is actually more in danger when it's in a different country?*



If somehow you arrived at that as your logical conclusion, then you dont do "logic" well.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 16, 2019)

Teleskier said:


> We have a bunch of NYC/NJ folks lecturing New England folks that they should erode their environment and what makes New England special, in order to go more pro-development - to make it look more like NJ?
> 
> We aint gots no stinking birds (or trees) in NJ - we love our over developed urban NJ ‘forest’ mudflats! You NE folks should copy us!



I'm beginning to think this guy doesn't travel much.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 16, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Meanwhile one of the people making some of these comments is in Boston according to his profile. *I don't see how that is substantially different from NJ.*



Probably 70'ish% of NJ is far more naturally beautiful than Boston & near environs, so that is different.


----------



## cdskier (Jun 16, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Probably 70'ish% of NJ is far more naturally beautiful than Boston & near environs, so that is different.



Agreed...I was referring more to the metro NYC suburb areas of NJ since that's what Teleskier implied all of NJ is like. Although even Paterson has a pretty amazing beautiful waterfall in it!


----------



## gregnye (Jun 16, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> You wanna know why I hate that damn bird personally?  This is why.  There is not a single developed glade above roughly 2800 feet elevation at Wildcat.
> 
> It's bullshit.  F that bird.
> 
> ...



Once again it's not the bird's fault. In this situation it's the state of new Hampshire's fault. Overall wildcat now has more on-map glades than ever before! I remember going there when I was young and there were only 2 "tree areas" both of which were not named. 

But back then Wildcat was different. They made snow on Upper Wildcat. They also had a terrain park. In a way wildcat has continued to become more hardcore in recent years which is what is awesome.

I also think that the state should be a little less strict when it comes to new glades over trails. A new trail can cause major damage to bird habitat. A new glade--well the birds still have trees to nest on! Particularly if it's hand-cut.


----------



## gregnye (Jun 16, 2019)

Teleskier said:


> We aint gots no stinking birds (or trees) in NJ - we love our over developed urban NJ ‘forest’ mudflats! You NE folks should copy us!



I go to NJ every year. There are beautiful parts. However there certainly is lack of respect for wildlife there. 

Beach towns like Ocean City and wildwood have removed or built over their sand dunes in places to construct boardwalks. And besides destroying bird habitat, they've removed the natural flood protection system the island needs to survive and prevent flooding from hurricanes like Sandy and Irene.


----------



## machski (Jun 16, 2019)

gregnye said:


> Once again it's not the bird's fault. In this situation it's the state of new Hampshire's fault. Overall wildcat now has more on-map glades than ever before! I remember going there when I was young and there were only 2 "tree areas" both of which were not named.
> 
> But back then Wildcat was different. They made snow on Upper Wildcat. They also had a terrain park. In a way wildcat has continued to become more hardcore in recent years which is what is awesome.
> 
> I also think that the state should be a little less strict when it comes to new glades over trails. A new trail can cause major damage to bird habitat. A new glade--well the birds still have trees to nest on! Particularly if it's hand-cut.


No, it is not the State of NH's fault.  Wildcat is on WMNF land, thus they are regulated by the federal government.  So the United States is at fault for blocking any high elevation glading on Wildcat.  The state for all I know might want this to happen to increase draw but what the state wants in this case is irrelevant.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## machski (Jun 16, 2019)

Teleskier said:


> Is the irony not lost on anyone that what we have here is…
> 
> We have a bunch of NYC/NJ folks lecturing New England folks that they should erode their environment and what makes New England special, in order to go more pro-development - to make it look more like NJ?
> 
> ...


Totally misinformed opinion.  Outsiders from NH have actually blocked development in the past as well as pushed for it.  Loon's South Peak expansion was haulted and delayed for over a decade by opponents from outside of NH blocking it on account of using Loon Pond as a snowmaking reservoir and replenishing it from the Pemi.  They claimed ecological damage was being done to the pond even though study after study showed Loon Pond was a dead pond.  Not that the state and local residents all wanted this expansion.  So it can go both ways.

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 16, 2019)

machski said:


> No, it is not the State of NH's fault.  Wildcat is on WMNF land, thus they are regulated by the federal government.  So the United States is at fault for blocking any high elevation glading on Wildcat.  The state for all I know might want this to happen to increase draw but what the state wants in this case is irrelevant.
> 
> Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app


100% true.  And for Wildcat to challenge and change this reality, they'd be looking at six figure legal bills.  That's something a small revenue ski area would never be willing to do. 

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 16, 2019)

gregnye said:


> * A new trail can cause major damage to bird habitat. *A new glade--well the birds still have trees to nest on! Particularly if it's hand-cut.



No, it really cant.

With a new trial, you're talking about an infinitesimally small area even on a localized basis, let alone on a regional basis.  You act as if they're clear-cutting 200 acres when a small portion of a single trail at >= 3,000 foot elevation goes in. Your belief is mathematically ridiculous.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 16, 2019)

cdskier said:


> Agreed..*.I was referring more to the metro NYC suburb areas of NJ since that's what Teleskier implied all of NJ is like. *



Yup, hence my, _"he must not travel much"_ comment.  

Teleskier's erroneous belief is typical of westerners, southerners, midwest folk, etc, who've never been to Jersey, but generally people from the northeast know better.  The relatively few northeast folk I've met who think NJ is a giant parking lot are the sort who never left the 4 county area they were born in.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 16, 2019)

Yes math!

That's the point I was trying to make with 5 ski areas on the 173 NH peaks with Bicknells thrush preferred SUMMER habitat.  No one's advocating for it, but you could literally clear cut these 5 areas above 3k feet and the habitat loss would probably amount to a quarter of 1 percent.  Likely less than that.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 17, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yup, hence my, _"he must not travel much"_ comment.
> 
> Teleskier's erroneous belief is typical of westerners, southerners, midwest folk, etc, who've never been to Jersey, but generally people from the northeast know better.  The relatively few northeast folk I've met who think NJ is a giant parking lot are the sort who never left the 4 county area they were born in.




Yes, NJ is a veritable treasure trove of natural wonders.  Said no one.  Ever.

What's your BMI, chubby?


----------



## abc (Jun 17, 2019)

I’m learning a bunch more of teenage talk by being on this board.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> Yes, NJ is a veritable treasure trove of natural wonders.  Said no one.  Ever.



It actually is quite beautiful, being you're roughly 15 years old, it's not shocking you dont know better.  

Teleskier, however, has no plausible excuse.


----------



## GregoryIsaacs (Jun 17, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Probably 70'ish% of NJ is far more naturally beautiful than Boston & near environs, so that is different.



BAHAHAHAHA wow

Atlantic city/Ocean City are such  GEMS! Im glad people actually have this POV or the traffic on the cape/islands/southshore NH/Maine would be that much worse.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> *That was in the 70's*



Yikes!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2019)

GregoryIsaacs said:


> BAHAHAHAHA wow
> 
> Atlantic city/Ocean City are such  GEMS! Im glad people actually have this POV or the traffic on the cape/islands/southshore NH/Maine would be that much worse.



Why dont people get embarrassed when they post something like this?


----------



## GregoryIsaacs (Jun 17, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Why dont people get embarrassed when they post something like this?



Id rather get the second-hand embarrassment from you struggling to argue that NJ is more "naturally beautiful" than Detroit... let alone MA


----------



## rtjcbrown (Jun 17, 2019)

GregoryIsaacs said:


> BAHAHAHAHA wow
> 
> *Fall River/ Springfield/ Worcester *are such  GEMS! Im glad people actually have this POV or the traffic on the *Cape May/LBI/Spring Lake* would be that much worse.



Look; I can cherry pick too! I don't understand all the mudslinging and bashing all of a sudden. Every state in the NE has good and bad sections, and unfair stereotypes given out by the truly ignorant. New Hampshire is a beautiful state, but should I just label everyone a heroin addict, and lives in towns like Rochester or Berlin? No sir! Not fair, and not accurate.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2019)

GregoryIsaacs said:


> Id rather get the second-hand embarrassment from you struggling to argue that NJ is more "naturally beautiful" than Detroit... let alone MA



I guess you cant get embarrassed if you lack the comprehension of understanding why you should be embarrassed in the first place.

Interesting.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2019)

rtjcbrown said:


> Every state in the NE has good and bad sections, and unfair stereotypes given out by *the truly ignorant.*



This is the key point.

In the immortal words of Jimmy Buffett, _"Don't try to describe a Kiss concert if you've never seen it."_


----------



## cdskier (Jun 17, 2019)

Dirty White Boy said:


> Spent summers on the Jersey Shore (Ocean Grove - God's Square Mile) while dad taught at NYU.  Even spent a summer in Teaneck.  That was in the 70's; you do the math (have a smart person help you).
> 
> Jersey's a sewer.
> 
> Listen, I know you're fat - that's why you can't conceive of how to get to the top of these mountains without plopping your flabby ass onto a chair lift -but I want to know exactly HOW fat.  C'mon, chubby, I won't laugh or tell anyone, what's your BMI?



So you spent time in NJ in the 70s...which means you are at least in your 40s. Yet somehow you have the maturity of a teenager? That's pretty impressive!


----------



## AdironRider (Jun 17, 2019)

New Jersey is a shithole. 

That was true in the 70's and is true now. 

That doesn't mean their aren't valid reasons to live there despite it being a shithole (income, proximity to jobs, etc) but come the fuck on, no one dreams of living in New Jersey.


----------



## rtjcbrown (Jun 17, 2019)

AdironRider said:


> New Jersey is a shithole.
> 
> That was true in the 70's and is true now.
> 
> That doesn't mean their aren't valid reasons to live there despite it being a shithole (income, proximity to jobs, etc) but come the fuck on, no one dreams of living in New Jersey.




And what Utopia do you hail from that you feel you can look down on, and judge NJ?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jun 17, 2019)

Pretty nice out by my company HQ in Mahwah.  Rolling hills with lots of forest.  I'd live there over most Boston suburbs to be honest.  No way would I rather live there than NH, but it's far from a shithole in that area

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2019)

deadheadskier said:


> Pretty nice out by my company HQ in Mahwah. * Rolling hills with lots of forest.  *I'd live there over most Boston suburbs to be honest.  No way would I rather live there than NH, but it's far from a shithole in that area



You just literally described what most of New Jersey looks like. 

Mahwah is the eastern side of the state, here's a picture of 50 miles due west of Mahwah on the western side of the state; notice it's still rural there too, and if you drove it, rural at all points in-between as well.  Generally speaking, the farther west you go the more rural it gets, with the exception of outside of Philadelphia.







I was apparently wrong when I thought most people in the northeast are aware New Jersey isn't a ****hole.  It's a surprising degree of turbo-ignorance on steroids, but suffice-it-to-say lots of people here arent exactly well-traveled.  Bonus points to the people who've literally said "I've been to Atlantic Ciy" or Newark etc.... thus I'm an expert on what most of the 9,000 square miles look like.


----------



## gregnye (Jun 17, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Bonus points to the people who've literally said "I've been to Atlantic Ciy" or Newark etc.... thus I'm an expert on what most of the 9,000 square miles look like.



Says the person who's been to New Hampshire a few times and thinks they are an expert on birds and bird habitat above 3,000 feet. Remind me again a mountain in New Jersey that's 3,000 to 4,000 feet tall. Oh wait, they're only 1,000.


----------



## Not Sure (Jun 17, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> You just literally described what most of New Jersey looks like.
> 
> Mahwah is the eastern side of the state, here's a picture of 50 miles due west of Mahwah on the western side of the state; notice it's still rural there too, and if you drove it, rural at all points in-between as well.  Generally speaking, the farther west you go the more rural it gets, with the exception of outside of Philadelphia.
> 
> ...



That picture is half Pa. :razz:

I thin k they have Thrushs in Jersey too . Tried to identify this guy taken at Barrs landing in Sandy Hook last year .


----------



## abc (Jun 17, 2019)

cdskier said:


> So you spent time in NJ in the 70s...which means you are at least in your 40s. Yet somehow you have the maturity of a teenager? That's pretty impressive!


Mental age of 15!

Many website have minimum age. But none have minimum MENTAL age, unfortunately.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2019)

gregnye said:


> Says the person who's been to New Hampshire a few times and thinks they are an expert on birds and bird habitat above 3,000 feet.



Expert?  Absolutely not, but I have legitimately taken the time to read the actual research, which is far more than you have done. 

 And I do have s Biology degree concentrated in Vertebrate Zoology & took several ornithology classes, but hey, your keyboard warrior skills & poor mathematical aptitude gotta' count for something.    



Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> Any bets? ....Over under # of post before being banned.



On a normal board, it would already have happened, but we dont really have "modding" here.  Can only recall a few non spam advertisement bans ever.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jun 17, 2019)

Siliconebobsquarepants said:


> I thin k they have Thrushs in Jersey too . *Tried to identify this guy taken at Barrs landing in Sandy Hook last year . *
> View attachment 25323



Nope, it's a juvenile European Starling.   The beak turns yellow when it gets some age.   I shoot every one of them one I see, it's one of 2 invasive species (House Sparrow) that wrecks havoc on our native bird populations.  Nasty things, and really smart too.


----------



## Dirty White Boy (Jun 18, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> Nope, it's a juvenile European Starling.   The beak turns yellow when it gets some age.   I shoot every one of them one I see, it's one of 2 invasive species (House Sparrow) that wrecks havoc on our native bird populations.  Nasty things, and really smart too.



Oh good Lord.  Dude, that bird is practically everywhere in the United States; you're not going to eradicate them by "shooting" individuals.  So why would you do it?


----------



## bushpilot (Jun 18, 2019)

So about those cars for western travel.......


----------



## gregnye (Jun 18, 2019)

bushpilot said:


> So about those cars for western travel.......



But birds don't need cars! They have wings!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Dec 13, 2019)

There will likely soon be a more guaranteed, and much cheaper, AWD solution for mountain vacation travel.

LYFT is going after the rental car companies & will soon start car rentals.  You get a $20 credit to take a Lyft to & from the renter.  I'm sure UBER will soon copy that idea rather than risk being left behind in a new, potential market.

I will 100% be doing this on future ski vacations rather than hoping I'm provided with AWD or 4WD.


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Dec 13, 2019)

ive had good results with turo. its airbnb for cars essentially so it really depends on the person providing the car, but ive used it at least 5 times and never had an issue. using it in co over xmas. $400 for a nissan rogue awd for a week. rented by what seems to be a company and not a person (many vehicle listings, a company as the user instead of a person, excellent reviews across the board). the best is that i just go to the parking lot, use a lockbox, and pay $20 to get it out of the lot. no rental counter or taxi to off airport locaiton required.


----------



## abc (Dec 13, 2019)

What happens if there's a mechanical issue with the car (not anybody's fault, say a flat tire or you lock your key in the car)? With regular rental car company, they either come with another key, or another car. And you're on your merry way to resume your vacation. 

What about accidents. Again, you'll get another car if you rent from most "regular" rental company. Does Turo have replacement cars ready to deliver to you? 

Also, do you take out collision waver or rely on your own policy (which typically covers rental cars)?


----------



## KustyTheKlown (Dec 13, 2019)

24/7 roadside assistance per the website

my insurance covers me, and the car owners policy covers them. you have the option to purchase supplemental

https://turo.com/en-us/trust-and-safety


----------



## abc (Dec 13, 2019)

KustyTheKlown said:


> 24/7 roadside assistance per the website
> 
> my insurance covers me, and the car owners policy covers them. you have the option to purchase supplemental
> 
> https://turo.com/en-us/trust-and-safety


I have AAA, which will tow my car to a garage if my car is disabled. But it won’t give me another car to continue my trip.

What does Turo’s “Roadside assistances” covers?

It had also happened once my rental car had one of its headlight burned out. I got another car at the nearest agency (different from the one I pick up my car).


----------



## jg17 (Dec 13, 2019)

BenedictGomez said:


> There will likely soon be a more guaranteed, and much cheaper, AWD solution for mountain vacation travel.
> 
> LYFT is going after the rental car companies & will soon start car rentals.  You get a $20 credit to take a Lyft to & from the renter.  I'm sure UBER will soon copy that idea rather than risk being left behind in a new, potential market.
> 
> I will 100% be doing this on future ski vacations rather than hoping I'm provided with AWD or 4WD.



This is awesome, I hadn't heard of this before! We will still need 1-2 more cars for our Banff trip so I'll look into this.

My buddy said he talked to Enterprise on the phone, and they said he could call a few days ahead to ensure we got a 4wd car from the Calgary airport. Maybe it's a Canadian thing where they will guarantee it?


----------



## kingslug (Mar 10, 2020)

I rented a new jeep grand cherokee in utah..nice..and fit 4 of us and a ton of luggage..AWD..all the bells and whistles..750 for the week..it worked pretty well driving up lcc in a storm


----------

