# NY Skiing, an observation I've long held



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2009)

Seems to me that NY State got the shaft in the boom of large ski area development of the 50s, 60s, 70s. 

Please don't take offense to that NYers.  I know there are some great ski areas in the state.   

It just seems that in comparison to the rest of the Northeast, NY didn't see their fair share given the vast amount of high mountains in the State.  Heck, Vermont has only handful of peaks higher than 3500 feet more than the Catskills alone, never mind the Adirondacks.  Granted, much more snow in VT.


----------



## Greg (Dec 18, 2009)

I believe New York has more ski areas than any other state, but indeed not a lot of big vert resorts. Isn't there some sort of mileage limit too?


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 18, 2009)

Yeah NY definitely has quantity.  Guess I just look over there and what are there? 5 areas total of 1500 vert or greater?  Whiteface, Gore, Hunter, Windham, Bellayere?   Compared to what could be developed, the ratio is astoundingly lower than VT, NH and ME.


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 18, 2009)

I wonder how much of it is due to the NYS laws regarding state and national forests?  I know dmc said once that while Hunter Mountain is a 4,000+ ft summit, skiing only goes up to 3,600 because the rest of the mountain (and surrounding area) has been deemed "forever wild".  If a similar statute was put on most of the higher ADK peaks, that could explain a lot.


----------



## Greg (Dec 18, 2009)

http://skiing.alpinezone.com/resorts/map/?state=NY


----------



## wa-loaf (Dec 18, 2009)

The Adirondack Park kinda limits ski area construction on most of the high peaks there.


----------



## dmc (Dec 18, 2009)

wa-loaf said:


> The Adirondack Park kinda limits ski area construction on most of the high peaks there.



Same with the Catskill Park...  And I'm generally cool with that...


----------



## mondeo (Dec 18, 2009)

VT is as close to NYC as much of the 'daks, plus gets traffic from the rest of NE. Combine that with lack of snow and latitude difference, not really surprising that VT is the hot spot for ski resorts. Plus competing with resorts that don't have to be profitable to remain operational isn't the easiest thing to do.


----------



## SteveInCT (Dec 18, 2009)

There may be environmental regulations and limitations now but back in the 50's & 60's, regulation was much less of a factor (if at all). The difference between New York and upper New England was simple back then: Cost and recurring expenditures. Back then, the cost of land in VT and NH was ridiculously cheap and the ongoing costs (taxes) were cheap as well. From what I understand, New York taxes in the 50's and 60's were comparatively high, so you would have a harder time maintaining profit. Now, the taxes have evened out a bit, but the resorts in NH and VT already exist so the upfront costs are lower than if you were to buy a mountain, clear the trails, erect the lodge and lifts, etc. These days, people just recycle the old resorts to new ownership. 

Speaking of that, when was the last time a new resort was cut in the northeast? Anyone know? (IOW - what is the newest resort in the northeast?)


----------



## dmc (Dec 18, 2009)

SteveInCT said:


> There may be environmental regulations and limitations now but back in the 50's & 60's, regulation was much less of a factor (if at all).



Oh yeah... Hunter basically blew the mountain up to create trails - it was built by road builders..  You can't get away with that now..


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Dec 18, 2009)

SteveInCT said:


> There may be environmental regulations and limitations now but back in the 50's & 60's, regulation was much less of a factor (if at all). The difference between New York and upper New England was simple back then: Cost and recurring expenditures. Back then, the cost of land in VT and NH was ridiculously cheap and the ongoing costs (taxes) were cheap as well. From what I understand, New York taxes in the 50's and 60's were comparatively high, so you would have a harder time maintaining profit. Now, the taxes have evened out a bit, but the resorts in NH and VT already exist so the upfront costs are lower than if you were to buy a mountain, clear the trails, erect the lodge and lifts, etc. These days, people just recycle the old resorts to new ownership.
> 
> Speaking of that, when was the last time a new resort was cut in the northeast? Anyone know? (IOW - what is the newest resort in the northeast?)



Saddleback feels like one............but isn't as I believe it never really ever completely shut down...........also are you talking from scratch or do places that have reopened count?


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 18, 2009)

Isn't Crotched a recent addition?


----------



## witch hobble (Dec 18, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Compared to what could be developed



Definately the key phrase.  New York also has very few ski "resorts".  It has many ski areas and ski centers.

Vermont hogs the quaintness, the charm, the snow, and it is easier to tell who is cool and who is not by the color of their license plates.  State of Vermont chose not to enter the ski biz, unlike it's neighbors.


----------



## Puck it (Dec 18, 2009)

ADK Park Comission is the main reason.  I think the lack of infrastructure and access played a roll too.


----------



## SteveInCT (Dec 18, 2009)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> Saddleback feels like one............but isn't as I believe it never really ever completely shut down...........also are you talking from scratch or do places that have reopened count?



I mean cut from scratch. A untouched mountain turns into a resort. Reopening would mean it was already there.


----------



## dmc (Dec 18, 2009)

witch hobble said:


> Definately the key phrase.  New York also has very few ski "resorts".  It has many ski areas and ski centers.



Right  - at least down south...   And the Catskill resorts know that they need to become "resorts" so they are turning the heat up by putting up hotels and planning VT style villages...

Hunter is trying to expand - the rumor mill is churning again..


----------



## SteveInCT (Dec 18, 2009)

As a side note, the OP didn't use the word "resort". That was Greg and I and (for me at least) were using the term to mean "ski area" -- regardless of additional development.


----------



## Rambo (Dec 18, 2009)

I guess NY has the most Lost Ski Areas:

http://www.nelsap.org/ny/ny.html

Also interesting web-site about a ski area north of Hunter that was called Bearpen Mountain:

http://skikabbalah.com/lostNY/BEARPEN STORY.htm


----------



## witch hobble (Dec 18, 2009)

Yeah, a lot of people use the term ski resort as a catch all.  I was just pointing out that there is nowhere near the amount of amenity driven ski vacation destinations in NY as in VT.  

Lake Placid is sort of a "Resort Town", if there is such a thing, with an awesome ski area not too far away.  Gore is not a resort, altho certain factions aspire for it to be thought of as  one.  I've only been to Hunter once, and it was resorty.  have not been to other Catskills ares.  I've never been to Holiday Valley, but I'm sure it is resorty.  

My point is just that much of the skiing (and accomodations) in NYS is more spartan than across the lake.


----------



## SteveInCT (Dec 18, 2009)

St. Bear said:


> Isn't Crotched a recent addition?



I just checked and it was cut in 1964. I suppose that could be the newest one built, but I am not sure.


----------



## dmc (Dec 18, 2009)

Rambo said:


> I guess NY has the most Lost Ski Areas:
> 
> http://www.nelsap.org/ny/ny.html



I was hanging out at Cortina last night.  NELSAP....


----------



## SteveInCT (Dec 18, 2009)

witch hobble said:


> Yeah, a lot of people use the term ski resort as a catch all.  I was just pointing out that there is nowhere near the amount of amenity driven ski vacation destinations in NY as in VT.
> 
> Lake Placid is sort of a "Resort Town", if there is such a thing, with an awesome ski area not too far away.  Gore is not a resort, altho certain factions aspire for it to be thought of as  one.  I've only been to Hunter once, and it was resorty.  have not been to other Catskills ares.  I've never been to Holiday Valley, but I'm sure it is resorty.



I believe the reason for the catch-all phrase is it's actual definition: "a place providing recreation and entertainment especially to vacationers". Using that, it is easy to see why ANY ski mountain is a resort. On the other hand, the term has morphed into something that means "A place where there is a lot of amenities and stuff to do". So, using the phrase can be misconstrued when it is used to describe the former instead of the latter. Oddly, if we use the dictionary definition, "resort town" makes complete sense. It is a town that also has a resort in it or very close by. Bored yet? ;-)



witch hobble said:


> My point is just that much of the skiing (and accomodations) in NYS is more spartan than across the lake.



Agreed!


----------



## evantrentful (Dec 18, 2009)

Yeah like others point out, the ADK park policies on development along with the catskills hinder (though, I dont think thats a bad thing) the development of ski areas. Both the Catskill Park and ADK Park had been established since the late 1800's. 

The Green Mountain nation forest was established in the early 1930's, but who knows what land was originally apart of the park, and if policies were as strict early on which helped ski area development.

DMC, were the Hunter and Windham general region not apart of the original Catskill Park, but then latter annexed after the ski areas were built. I cant remember how that worked out


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 18, 2009)

The ADK's are a state park.  The APA was set up in the 70's for the stuartship to keep the dacks wilderness.   There can not without an amendment tothe constitution  be another ski resort up here.   THere are plenty of big peaks that get as much or more snow than the greens.  You just dont know about them cause the types that are crawling around on them don't use the internet.
There were a few people that used to be on here that could provide some great info on the topic.   Sally banned them :blink:

The greens are a national park.  They have there own set of rules which must have been more liberal back in the day when ski areas were popping up.


----------



## witch hobble (Dec 18, 2009)

SteveInCT said:


> Bored yet?



No way!  Love to split hairs and knit pick.

How 'bout "resorty"?  What do ya think of that?


----------



## Warp Daddy (Dec 18, 2009)

AS Others have said the Forever Wild  restrictions ,  Strong Regulation by APA ,  coupled with a VERY   strong  and Very well funded environmental lobby  that is  Both politically & socially  connected'  and the need to compete with publicly funded ski areas all make NYS a limited Market for  corporate  ski resort development.    

The existence of many local feeder or regional day areas is a good thing  for the sport and serves to both assist local economies and KEEPS the $$$$$ local as opposes to  the bottom line of meganormous corp run ski resorts .


----------



## dmc (Dec 18, 2009)

evantrentful said:


> DMC, were the Hunter and Windham general region not apart of the original Catskill Park, but then latter annexed after the ski areas were built. I cant remember how that worked out



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catskill_Park


> The park is governed by Article 14 of the state constitution, which stipulates that all land acquired within cannot be sold or otherwise transferred (absent amending the constitution, which has been done on several occasions), may not be used for logging and must remain "forever wild."





> The most important change during this time period was the amending of Article 14, in 1948 to allow for the construction of Belleayre Mountain Ski Center and thus encourage skiers to come to the Catskills, following the lead taken in the Adirondacks by the creation of Whiteface and Gore ski areas. It remains in operation today, and several other private ski areas such as Hunter Mountain and Windham Mountain have followed its lead.


----------



## dmc (Dec 18, 2009)

http://www.adirondack-park.net/history/article14-text.html


----------



## SteveInCT (Dec 18, 2009)

witch hobble said:


> How 'bout "resorty"?  What do ya think of that?



Resorty gives me gas.


----------



## abc (Dec 18, 2009)

I'm not sure what the OP's point. "short shaft" implies it's a negative...

If the ADK ever comes up for vote to change the "forever wild" status, I'll be the first in line to vote AGAINST the change! 

Here's why:

1) Vermont is just as easy, if not easier, to get to from both NYC and Boston.

2) Vermont gets more snow anyway (I've skied WP a lot in the past, before I finally realize its immense ice sheet was not shared by other northeast mountains, especially NOT in VT)

3) There aren't that many good place left for BC skiing (both xc and alpine). What there is, a lot are in the ADK region. 

4) There aren't that many good place for summer camping/hiking/paddling. Again, AKD has a wealth of that.

I've hiked in the Whites. It's great hiking but it's not a wilderness experience. Vermont in the summer? It's just Disney on grass. I treasure the ADK for what it is, the only one large track of land left "somewhat wild" in the east.

With ski resorts in VT, leaving NY for more BC and wilderness experience, we New York downstaters gets to enjoy BOTH. I'd say I feel lucky that's the way it turns out! 

So I'd say it's a GOOD thing that New York doesn't get a lot of ski resort!


----------



## Harvey (Dec 19, 2009)

My two cents ... it's all about the snow. Adks are looking at 150-200 inches and VT is between 250-350.  That has everything to do with north/south orientation of the Green Mtn spine.

It makes sense that 2x the snow would yield more resorts. It's easier to a make a profit when you get more natural snow.

I know the Adks is protected, and I wouldn't have it any other way. But I think IF the Adks got the snow that VT did the pressure to develop would have been much greater in the past.

Can't tell you how many times I've heard people fantasizing about moving Gore onto the Tug Plateau.  If Gore was on the Tug, it would be Kmart.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)


----------



## takeahike46er (Dec 19, 2009)

harvey44 said:


> But I think IF the Adks got the snow that VT did the pressure to develop would have been much greater in the past.



There are peaks in the Adirondacks that I would estimate hit the 250'' mark for snowfall.  They also happen to be remote, have little or no roads anywhere near their bases, and no nearby towns to house workers and skiers.  Add in development restrictions and any pressure to develop a ski area in these areas would be squelched.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Dec 19, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> The greens are a national park.  They have there own set of rules which must have been more liberal back in the day when ski areas were popping up.



The only national park in the northeast is Acadia NP up in Maine. The "greens" are in Green Mountain NF, a huge diference is mission than a NP.


----------



## campgottagopee (Dec 19, 2009)

harvey44 said:


> Can't tell you how many times I've heard people fantasizing about moving Gore onto the Tug Plateau.



See if you can work on that for us Harv......what a special place that would be!!!!


----------



## abc (Dec 19, 2009)

harvey44 said:


> Can't tell you how many times I've heard people fantasizing about moving Gore onto the Tug Plateau.  If Gore was on the Tug, it would be Kmart.  (Not that there's anything wrong with that!)


No, it won't. It's too far away. But if you can move Tug Plateau to Gore, that would be different!


----------



## witch hobble (Dec 20, 2009)

abc said:


> No, it won't. It's too far away. But if you can move Tug Plateau to Gore, that would be different!



Maybe relocate Lake Ontario to Indian Lake instead.  Might be easier.

Bill McKibben's small book "Wandering Home" has a lot of meditations on the differences between Vermont and the Adirondacks, if you are interested.

"Somewhat Wild" doesn't have the same ring as "Forever Wild".


----------



## dbking (Dec 20, 2009)

I kinda remember back in the mid 60's, NYS put forth a proposition to build another ski area in the ADKs named Hoffman Mt. It is located just North of Schroon Lake. It got voted down. I wonder how and why NYS got into the ski area business. Are`there other states with state run ski areas? Does NYS do a good job at it these days?


----------



## deadheadskier (Dec 20, 2009)

There are other States that own ski areas, but usually the operations are contracted out to private companies.

A few off the the top of my head that represent this are Cannon and Sundapee here in NH and Winterpark in Colorado.


----------



## severine (Dec 20, 2009)

abc said:


> I treasure the ADK for what it is, the only one large track of land left "somewhat wild" in the east.


Aren't the Great North Woods in Maine more wild? I thought that was a larger tract of land that is far less populated than the ADKs. I mean, my husband's uncle lives in Indian Lake and we've hiked in the area... the towns are small, but there are towns. Getting into the Great North Woods, there's nothing....


----------



## billski (Dec 20, 2009)

severine said:


> Aren't the Great North Woods in Maine more wild? I thought that was a larger tract of land that is far less populated than the ADKs. I mean, my husband's uncle lives in Indian Lake and we've hiked in the area... the towns are small, but there are towns. Getting into the Great North Woods, there's nothing....



"Leaving T5R19, Entering T6R19"


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Dec 20, 2009)

The North Woods of Maine is definately less populated than the AP but the AP is strictly regulated and a state park while the North Woods is just a region without real boundaries other than Baxter State Park and is not as strictly regulated. 

There are many that would love a North Woods National Park, but IMHO it will never happen. Plum Creek, the biggest landowner in the country, based out of Oregon owns millions of acres of the North Woods and is currently trying to put in a huge developement on the east shore of Moosehead Lake. It's taken about 5 years and they are semi-close to breaking ground. They had to make consessions. Lots of folks in Maine and in the country have been fighting it. 

Alot of people, especially those out west, don't realize how big the AP is. It's about 2 1/2 times larger than Yellowstone NP.


----------



## tjf67 (Dec 20, 2009)

harvey44 said:


> My two cents ... it's all about the snow. Adks are looking at 150-200 inches and VT is between 250-350.  That has everything to do with north/south orientation of the Green Mtn spine.
> 
> It makes sense that 2x the snow would yield more resorts. It's easier to a make a profit when you get more natural snow.
> 
> ...




Do you go out into newcomb at all and look over at the high peaks from that side?  From Newcomb side of the high peaks al lthe way over to 87 you have a lot of 4k+ peaks that catch all the snow.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Dec 20, 2009)

ski_resort_observer said:


> The North Woods of Maine is definately less populated than the AP but the AP is strictly regulated and a state park while the North Woods is just a region without real boundaries other than Baxter State Park and is not as strictly regulated.
> 
> There are many that would love a North Woods National Park, but IMHO it will never happen. Plum Creek, the biggest landowner in the country, based out of Oregon owns millions of acres of the North Woods and is currently trying to put in a huge developement on the east shore of Moosehead Lake. It's taken about 5 years and they are semi-close to breaking ground. They had to make consessions. Lots of folks in Maine and in the country have been fighting it.
> 
> Alot of people, especially those out west, don't realize how big the AP is. It's about 2 1/2 times larger than Yellowstone NP.



I don't know much about the AP, but I do know Maine is the most forested state in the country, has little in the way of population, the town i was from is the largest in Piscataquis County (size of Rhode Island) and has only 4000 people and the county has 16000 people.  And as far as the Plum Creek deal, it will take 30 years to come to full development, much of it is in populated areas and some developed areas of Moosehead (lilly bay, squaw mountain).  I still have mixed feelings about it, but being from that area it's tough to have people from Boston (restore) and southern Maine wanting things left natural in an area they don't make a living in.  The county and area is one of the poorest areas around.  Sorry to get side tracked.


----------



## polski (Dec 20, 2009)

Re Crotched (NH):


SteveInCT said:


> I just checked and it was cut in 1964. I suppose that could be the newest one built, but I am not sure.


It's actually a little complicated. The original Crotched (later known as Crotched East) opened in 1964. A neighboring area, Onset, opened in 1970; later it was renamed Bobcat. Crotched took Bobcat over in 1980 and renamed it Crotched West. All of Crotched closed in 1989/90; the old Crotched West reopened in 2003, while Crotched East stayed closed. So the current Crotched actually dates to 1970.

I know Hidden Valley in NJ (near Mountain Creek) opened in the mid-70s. That's the most recently cut ski mountain I'm aware of in the Northeast.


----------



## Rambo (Dec 21, 2009)

polski said:


> Re Crotched (NH):
> I know Hidden Valley in NJ (near Mountain Creek) opened in the mid-70s. That's the most recently cut ski mountain I'm aware of in the Northeast.



Montage Mountain now named Sno Mountain was cut sometime in the 1980's and is in the Pocono mountains of PA at Scranton. 1,000 ft. vertical. (I never skied there.)

"Snö Mountain, formerly called Montage Mountain Ski Area, was developed by Lackawanna County, Pennsylvania in the 1980s, using Federal economic development funds. Snö is now one of the largest ski areas in the Pocono region of Pennsylvania, featuring some of the steepest skiing terrain in the region. The mountain has 26 trails for skiing. Snö Mountain also has 2 terrain parks and two new halfpipes including a 22' half pipe."


----------



## AndyEich (Dec 21, 2009)

Whitetail, in south-central PA (almost MD), opened in 1992.  Good consolation prize for those who were disappointed that development of College Mountain fell through.
________
Volcano vaporizers


----------



## St. Bear (Dec 21, 2009)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> I don't know much about the AP, but I do know Maine is the most forested state in the country, has little in the way of population, the town i was from is the largest in Piscataquis County (size of Rhode Island) and has only 4000 people and the county has 16000 people.  And as far as the Plum Creek deal, it will take 30 years to come to full development, much of it is in populated areas and some developed areas of Moosehead (lilly bay, squaw mountain).  *I still have mixed feelings about it, but being from that area it's tough to have people from Boston (restore) and southern Maine wanting things left natural in an area they don't make a living in*.  The county and area is one of the poorest areas around.  Sorry to get side tracked.



Very interesting point to be made here, I'm glad we have an opinion of someone who grew up there.


----------



## UVSHTSTRM (Dec 21, 2009)

St. Bear said:


> Very interesting point to be made here, I'm glad we have an opinion of someone who grew up there.



It's a very nice area, but its tough to make a living, I ended up going to school outside the state and had no reason to go back, nothing to go back to as far as a job.  Unfortunately I didn't become a teacher, social worker or a nurse.  I love getting back there though, hit up Sugarloaf (use to hit up Squaw), Sebec Lake, Moosehead and some of the local watering holes.  Hopefully someday things will change, but I doubt it, Maine is much to unfriendly of a business climate.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Dec 21, 2009)

UVSHTSTRM said:


> It's a very nice area, but its tough to make a living, I ended up going to school outside the state and had no reason to go back, nothing to go back to as far as a job.  Unfortunately I didn't become a teacher, social worker or a nurse.  I love getting back there though, hit up Sugarloaf (use to hit up Squaw), Sebec Lake, Moosehead and some of the local watering holes.  Hopefully someday things will change, but I doubt it, Maine is much to unfriendly of a business climate.



It's an incredibly beautiful area with the same problems your speaking of as the resort area of the Daks I grew up in. If your not employed in the snowmobile business in some way, directly or indirectly, or the other professions mentioned, many are on unemployement. Squaw having major issues is not helping. 

For a bunch of summers the only vacation the wife and I took away from the kids was renting a cheap cabin on the lake in Rockwood. Many times it was the same weekend as the Fly-In in Greenville which was alot of fun. When Squaw's lift ran to the summit the view from up there is really amazing. 

It's a very complicated issue for locals. Like many similar developements I guess it will happen when common ground that everyone can live with is acheived. On one side it means jobs and local tax revenue while on the other side it means housing prices will go up, crowds and all the other bad things that come with a big resort developement in an area that's not very developed, even tho Greenville is the biggest/busiest most developed town of the area.


----------



## jtothewang (Jan 7, 2010)

Ski areas (not resorts) in the Catskills don’t attract midweek visitors.  Midweek skiers go west or to Vermont.  Fixed costs are real high in the hospitality business, so therefore lodging, skiable terrain, etc, etc is limited in the Catskills because there is virtually no midweek income.  I have always thought the Catskills should offer a multi-mountain midweek pass.  Two resorts in two days, three resorts in three days or four resorts in four days.  I think the multi-mountain midweek pass as well as the close proximity to NYC may be enough to attract midweek visitors.  Just a thought, but I think VT has figured out the midweek much better than Catskills, can’t speak for ADKs though.  I don’t think the limiting factor is the type of terrain.  I just think more terrain needs to be offered as well as conference capabilities and better restaurants and lodging.  All of those things can be found in VT.  A ski vacation is an experience that includes food, lodging and other activities.  I honestly believe the Catskills will eventually figure that out.  If nothing else, the billionaire owner of Windham will.


----------



## Adunn (Jan 27, 2014)

Nys laws suck! Such a nanny state


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 27, 2014)

Adunn said:


> Nys laws suck! Such a nanny state


 

Uh this is a skiing forum dude ! Observations about SKIING are the subject being discussed ,not your right wing politics


----------



## Puck it (Jan 27, 2014)

Warp Daddy said:


> Uh this is a skiing forum dude ! Observations about SKIING are the subject being discussed ,not your right wing politics




What is wrong with being a conservative?


----------



## Edd (Jan 27, 2014)

Puck it said:


> What is wrong with being a conservative?



Doesn't read like he says anything is wrong with it.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 27, 2014)

Edd said:


> Doesn't read like he says anything is wrong with it.


 

Nothing wrong with being conservative at all Puck ! Simply saying the topic is NY skiing NOT a political agenda of ANY persuasion . Dude has VERY few posts and then focuses on political CHIT , come on man its a skiing forum . You wanna trash talk politics take it elsewhere , i for one am WEARY of all the political nonsense and bickering .......just sayin :flag:


----------



## marcski (Jan 27, 2014)

To give the benefit of the doubt to the newbie, perhaps he was referring to the Forever Wild laws and the NYC DEP's extensive ownership and anti-development stance?  Personally, I don't have issues with either law.  Plus, I ski NYS every weekend and some weekdays too!


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 27, 2014)

I want to meet the guys that decided only building one ski area in the High Peaks was a good idea and punch him in the mouth. Yea the Catskills have much better terrain and snowfall!


----------



## Puck it (Jan 27, 2014)

Warp Daddy said:


> Nothing wrong with being conservative at all Puck ! Simply saying the topic is NY skiing NOT a political agenda of ANY persuasion . Dude has VERY few posts and then focuses on political CHIT , come on man its a skiing forum . You wanna trash talk politics take it elsewhere , i for one am WEARY of all the political nonsense and bickering .......just sayin :flag:



Just bustin'!!!


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 27, 2014)

Lets get BeerPen open.


----------



## moresnow (Jan 27, 2014)

Scotty said:


> Lets get BeerPen open.



+1

http://nyskiblog.com/magazine/#nabble-td2551736


----------



## St. Bear (Jan 27, 2014)

I would definitely visit a ski area named BeerPen.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 27, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> I would definitely visit a ski area named BeerPen.



Call it Beer Pong and I'm sold


----------



## 4aprice (Jan 27, 2014)

And just to point out, both major ski areas in the Dacks are state owned, so much for competition.  I've often looked across the lake (on 22A) and shook my head at the unused terrain that's looks delicious,  but I'm not a NYS resident so I withhold my opinion as to wild or developed.  

Alex

Lake Hopatcong, NJ


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 27, 2014)

I suspect access in the ADK provides an issue. Lots of those mountains would require tens of miles of brand new roads in previously undisturbed terrain, if they could be realistically accessed at all. 

The ADK park is just fine as it is. Best backcountry terrain in the country when they have snow.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 27, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> I suspect access in the ADK provides an issue. Lots of those mountains would require tens of miles of brand new roads in previously undisturbed terrain, if they could be realistically accessed at all.
> 
> The ADK park is just fine as it is. Best backcountry terrain in the country when they have snow.



Well there is a lot more than roads that stand in the way these days but there are quite a few mountains near Whiteface that could have been developed and turned into phenomenal ski areas. It's great they were left the way they are but it makes me wonder what if.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 27, 2014)

It really is a shame there's not a private ski area in northern NY.  Best terrain in the east it would be.  When you ski at Whiteface, you really FEEL the vertical advantage they have over the rest of the east.


----------



## abc (Jan 27, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> but it makes me wonder what if.


"What if"? They'd be another Okemo, aka another also-ran Disney with man-made snow!

I don't know what everyone is moaning about. Why must all the high mountains with decent snow falls be developed into "resorts"?????

The northeast has more than enough lift-served skiable acreage. In fact, too many to be sustainable by the region's skiing population! Just look at how many ski hills had gone under over the years. The surviving ones were only sustainable by selling condos. Is that what you all mean by NY state getting a "short shift", aka not enough condo's at the bottom of the lift?


----------



## 180 (Jan 27, 2014)

dmc said:


> Right  - at least down south...   And the Catskill resorts know that they need to become "resorts" so they are turning the heat up by putting up hotels and planning VT style villages...
> 
> Hunter is trying to expand - the rumor mill is churning again..



No wonder they are blowng 44, no reason to expand if they don't open the existing terrain. Biggest limiting factor is no water on the West Side, I has to come over the top. New pond is approved, but the cost close $10m


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 27, 2014)

abc said:


> "What if"? They'd be another Okemo, aka another also-ran Disney with man-made snow!
> 
> I don't know what everyone is moaning about. Why must all the high mountains with decent snow falls be developed into "resorts"?????
> 
> The northeast has more than enough lift-served skiable acreage. In fact, too many to be sustainable by the region's skiing population! Just look at how many ski hills had gone under over the years. The surviving ones were only sustainable by selling condos. Is that what you all mean by NY state getting a "short shift", aka not enough condo's at the bottom of the lift?



No I'm not saying that at all. I just don't get what developers were thinking when the folks in NY designed these ski areas. To your point, the mountains that are the most successful and sustainable are ones that have good natural snowfall and expansive - challenging terrain.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 27, 2014)

abc said:


> Why must all the high mountains with decent snow falls be developed into "resorts"?????



I'm not following you.  My initial thought behind this years old thread was that in NYS, only a small fraction of it's vast mountainous terrain has been developed into ski areas compared to VT.  

Would a couple (and I mean just a couple) major ski areas in the Catskills and the Daks really screw up the "forever wild" experience in those areas?  I personally don't think so.  The struggling economies I've visited in those areas certainly could use the help as well.


----------



## bdfreetuna (Jan 27, 2014)

It would be my dream to take my pick of ADK high peaks, design and cut an epic trail network. Adirondacks have the steeps and vertical for plenty of better-than-Whiteface terrain. In my own observational experience there seems to be a similar amount of snow there to southern Vermont, but with more cold days.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 27, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> *Would a couple (and I mean just a couple) major ski areas in the Catskills and the Daks really screw up the "forever wild" experience in those areas? * I personally don't think so.



Not by a long-shot, it's millions of acres (literally).  

The Cats dont need another competitor though, but up by Whiteface another resort could thrive.   Unless you've skied at Whiteface, you cant have an appreciation of just how much "bigger" it is than any other eastern ski mountain.  And there are about a dozen other peaks that are about the same height as Whiteface.


----------



## Domeskier (Jan 28, 2014)

bdfreetuna said:


> It would be my dream to take my pick of ADK high peaks, design and cut an epic trail network. Adirondacks have the steeps and vertical for plenty of better-than-Whiteface terrain. In my own observational experience there seems to be a similar amount of snow there to southern Vermont, but with more cold days.



:beer: I would definitely ski a bdfreetuna designed mountain.  I assume there will be some strategically placed outhouses in the woods?


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 28, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> :beer: I would definitely ski a bdfreetuna designed mountain.  I assume there will be some strategically placed outhouses in the woods?



And Mary Jane would visit to lol.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 28, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> Would a couple (and I mean just a couple) major ski areas in the Catskills and the Daks really screw up the "forever wild" experience in those areas?  I personally don't think so.  The struggling economies I've visited in those areas certainly could use the help as well.



It's really at tragedy of commons thing. It's a slippery slope  ;-)


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 28, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Not by a long-shot, it's millions of acres (literally).
> 
> The Cats dont need another competitor though, but up by Whiteface another resort could thrive.   Unless you've skied at Whiteface, you cant have an appreciation of just how much "bigger" it is than any other eastern ski mountain.  And there are about a dozen other peaks that are about the same height as Whiteface.



From a ski area standpoint, Whiteface is probably the best mountain.....Lots of elevation, prominence, location of terrain (northern side with lake effect). There are steeper mountains like the Gothics but they don't have all those things going for them.


----------



## steamboat1 (Jan 28, 2014)

Whiteface stands alone outside of the main range therefore not benefiting from location.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 29, 2014)

steamboat1 said:


> Whiteface stands alone outside of the main range therefore not benefiting from location.



+1 I wish they got lake effect. I think my favorite hill in Roxbury gets more lake effect then Whifteface.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 29, 2014)

Scotty said:


> +1 I wish they got lake effect. I think my favorite hill in Roxbury gets more lake effect then Whifteface.


 

This AND the fact that some early whiteface trail design consultants  FEEL  that the trail layout is on the  WRONG  side of the mtn  to capture maximum snow potential.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 29, 2014)

Warp Daddy said:


> This AND the fact that some early whiteface trail design consultants  FEEL  that the trail layout is on the  WRONG  side of the mtn  to capture maximum snow potential.



I thought it faced northeast?


----------



## Puck it (Jan 29, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> I thought it faced northeast?



East facing, maybe ENE but that is it.


----------



## x10003q (Jan 30, 2014)

Hoffman Mtn was voted down in 1967 despite lots of local support. It would have been the third major NYS ski area in the Adirondack Park.
Hoffman is about 5 miles north of Schroon Lake just west of the Northway. It has potential for 2500 vertical feet with plenty of north facing slopes. It is way less funky than Gore.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 30, 2014)

x10003q said:


> Hoffman Mtn was voted down in 1967 despite lots of local support. It would have been the third major NYS ski area in the Adirondack Park.
> Hoffman is about 5 miles north of Schroon Lake just west of the Northway. It has potential for 2500 vertical feet with plenty of north facing slopes. It is way less funky than Gore.



We should send NY governor Combo I petition to get it open now.


----------



## Nick (Jan 30, 2014)

Haha ... Combo....

Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 30, 2014)

Nick said:


> Haha ... Combo....
> 
> Sent from my SCH-I545 using AlpineZone mobile app



Phone changed it but I knew it would.


----------



## Warp Daddy (Jan 30, 2014)

Puck it said:


> East facing, maybe ENE but that is it.


. 

Yeah early St Lawrence University Ski Coach James "Doc " Littlejohn made these observations when it was being built . Apparently then Gov Averill Harriman a skier and former Union Pacific mogul,who was also very instrumental in getting SUN Valley idaho going was pushing to get this done in a rush to push NY skiing .

 Thus they opted for the current layout to EXPEDITE the opening and contain cost . Apparently building on the lake side in DOCS opinion anyway would have produced better venues but would have run BOTH the cost up AND required more construction time thus delaying Harriman's  goal . This is the urban legend anyway :wink:


----------



## abc (Jan 30, 2014)

deadheadskier said:


> I'm not following you.  My initial thought behind this years old thread was that in NYS, only a small fraction of it's vast mountainous terrain has been developed into ski areas compared to VT.


Well, I got your point. And my counter point being that's really not such a bad thing. It left the area for non-resort skiers to enjoy. 

Let me go into a bit more detail. 

- Southern VT is only 4 hrs from NYC, 3 hrs from Boston. Southern Adirondack is also 4 hrs from NYC and nearly 5 hrs from Boston. Except there're no big mountain in southern Adirondack. 

- Central VT is 4-5 hrs from NYC and 3-4 hrs from Boston. Northern VT 5-6 hrs from NYC and 4 hr from Boston. The high peak region of the 'Dack is 5-6 hrs from NYC and god known how many hours from Boston. 

Basically, the 'dack always lose in drive time whether you're from NYC or Boston! Snowfall-wise, the 'dack can't compete with northern VT but has longer drive than southern/central VT. 

Simply put, the ADK is at a competitive disadvantage against VT. I think it's a good thing no ski resort had been developed except the one that were build for the Olympic. It probably wouldn't have survived had they build more. 

(Look at Gore. Who goes there but mostly upper Hudson Valley locals? Sure, I go there sometimes and a few people I know do. We go there because...it's *uncrowded*! Great for us but not so great for the bottomline of the operator! Certainly not a good indicator to build more of them)

Another example is Maine. It's not protected, not like the ADK park. But still you don't see large number of ski resorts dotting the landscape. Why? Because it's too far from population center! Only those bc travellers seeking solitude make the long track up there, and be rewarded with...unbroken wilderness! 

The same draw of the Adirondack Park for non-resort skiers, to escape from the population madness. 



> Would a couple (and I mean just a couple) major ski areas in the Catskills and the Dacks really screw up the "forever wild" experience in those areas? I personally don't think so.


There ARE already several ski areas in the Cats. Snow was not entirely reliable and they're not exactly thriving. (though fortunately not exactly starving either). I don't believe there's enough demand for more areas in the Cats either.

Given the remote location (removed from population center) of the 'dacks, I have serious doubts more ski areas up there will do well at all. At worst, it simply thin out the skier traffic to Gore/WF. 

It's less about preserving the "forever wild" experience at all cost. But I see relatively few benefit additional ski 'resorts' could bring.  



> The struggling economies I've visited in those areas certainly could use the help as well.


We need to be VERY careful on that! There're plenty of examples in other wilderness that got trampled in the name of "developing tourism", only to have so few tourists visit it were unsustainable. The environment were left scared and in some cases the taxpayer left to mop up the mess. The Dack would be a prime candidate for such a fate. Fortunately, it's "protected" from our own stupidity.

Personal, I believe that it makes more economic sense to cluster the development in area that are best suited for high traffic tourism. VT already has the roads, lodging and other infrastructure. And it has the highest amount of snowfall in the whole northeast. That's where it would be more *profitable *to build high volume ski "resorts". 

Instead of building more roads that only serve a small skier traffic to ADK or the Great North Woods of Maine. Leave those areas to people who want to experience wilderness and are willing to endure the long travel and somewhat spartan infrastructures.

Let's not create "tourism sprawl" in wilderness area as we did with urban sprawl in large tract of suburban around cities!

(sorry, didn't mean to write such a long thesis)


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 30, 2014)

abc said:


> (*sorry, didn't mean to write such a long thesis*)



I agree with pretty much everything you said, except for your belief that a 2nd ski resort way up in the DAX wouldnt likely be profitable.  

The terrain would be fantastic, it's close enough to NYC to survive on that alone, and even with all the negatives Whiteface has going for it, it still gets enough skier traffic and revenue to be profitable each year (unlike Belleayre), even though it's an inefficiently high-cost government-run facility.  A 2nd ski resort up there, privately run, would likely thrive, IMO.


----------



## x10003q (Jan 30, 2014)

abc said:


> Well, I got your point. And my counter point being that's really not such a bad thing. It left the area for non-resort skiers to enjoy.
> 
> Let me go into a bit more detail.
> 
> ...



You have no idea what you are talking about. 

I get to Gore from NJ (you know, the state across the Hudson from NYC) in a little over 3 hours and S VT takes almost 4.  The idea that you think the Adirondacks are "remote" like Maine is laughable. Did you forget about the Montreal metro area (population 3.8 million)? It is 2 hours to Lake Placid. How about Toronto (5.5 million)? Toronto is 5.5 hours from Lake Placid. How about NYC? Lake Placid is 4:45 and Gore is 3:50. There are 30 million people within 5 hours of the Adirondacks. Boston metro is 4.4 million. That is why Maine is so empty.

If Gore did not have the ORDA/NYS anchor around its neck since the early 1980s it would have developed to its current size 20 years ago. The plans existed 30 years ago. ORDA is another word for Lake Placid First. The majority of the ORDA board members are connected to Lake Placid and its well being. Gore directly competes with Whiteface. 

Hoffman Mtn (that I mentioned earlier in this thread) is right next to the Northway about 10 miles north of exit 28 - Schroon Lake. Hardly remote or hard to get to. Having a couple thousand acres (out of 6 million acres in the Adirondack Park) for another ski area would only enhance the Park. Having another ski area might have drawn more skiers to the area and increased usage at both Gore and Whiteface. 

Try to remember that around 130,000 people live in the Park. They need places to earn a living in the highly controlled Park. There are plenty of roads and towns in the Park. Maybe you need to visit the Park and see for yourself before you offer "advice" about "developing tourism".


----------



## abc (Jan 31, 2014)

x10003q said:


> You have no idea what you are talking about.


And you talk like you're the only one who had visited there. 

I used to have my own place up in Lake Placid! I drove the NYC to Whiteface probably 10 times more often than you do. Your drive time example is for starting 5am in the morning in the middle of the week!

You need to take your own advice:


> Maybe you need to visit the Park and see for yourself before you offer "advice" about "developing tourism".:roll:


----------



## Mapnut (Jan 31, 2014)

My favorite "dream mountain" close to the Northway is Macomb, just a little north of Hoffman, 4390 ft. and I'd get 2,700" vertical. Anybody know if the eastern ranges of the Adirondacks get decent snowfall?


----------



## St. Bear (Jan 31, 2014)

I think it's safe to assume that there are probably a good reasons why nothing more ever got built.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 31, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> I think it's safe to assume that there are probably a good reasons why nothing more ever got built.



The Adirondack Park Commission? 

The only reason is they were never allowed.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 31, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> I think it's safe to assume that *there are probably a good reasons why nothing more ever got built*.



Yes, left-wing politicos beholden to environmental extremists.


----------



## Edd (Jan 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> Yes, left-wing politicos beholden to environmental extremists.



Hey, I've wondered, are you in the business of politics? It comes up a lot in your posts. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## Domeskier (Jan 31, 2014)

Edd said:


> Hey, I've wondered, are you in the business of politics? It comes up a lot in your posts.
> 
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone



You will learn the answer to your question tomorrow morning when you head out for the slopes only to find all of the streets of Newmarket, NH shut down for a traffic study.


----------



## Edd (Jan 31, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> You will learn the answer to your question tomorrow morning when you head out for the slopes only to find all of the streets of Newmarket, NH shut down for a traffic study.



Well, if Bene is involved in that I will be sooo angry with him. 


Sent from my iPhone using AlpineZone


----------



## skifree (Jan 31, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> You will learn the answer to your question tomorrow morning when you head out for the slopes only to find all of the streets of Newmarket, NH shut down for a traffic study.



Funny


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 31, 2014)

Edd said:


> Hey, I've wondered, *are you in the business of politics?* It comes up a lot in your posts.



I'm in the business of answering posts truthfully.   

Environmental extremism and political money/power are the reason why you cant so much as step on a blade of grass there.   I would file that one under,_ "things most people regardless of political ideology commonly understand"._


----------



## Edd (Jan 31, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm in the business of answering posts truthfully.
> 
> Environmental extremism and political money/power are the reason why you cant so much as step on a blade of grass there. I would file that one under,_ "things most people regardless of political ideology commonly understand"._



No traffic study for you then, I assume?  Domeskier is such a liar.


----------



## Domeskier (Jan 31, 2014)

Edd said:


> No traffic study for you then, I assume?  Domeskier is such a liar.



Answering posts truthfully is so overrated!


----------



## abc (Feb 1, 2014)

St. Bear said:


> I think it's safe to assume that there are probably a good reasons why nothing more ever got built.


The reason is some rich guy made that a condition for the rest of us to use that chunk of land that he owned!

And that's as left-wing politicos as it gets, Benedict!


BenedictGomez said:


> Yes, left-wing politicos beholden to environmental extremists.


----------



## x10003q (Feb 1, 2014)

abc said:


> The reason is some rich guy made that a condition for the rest of us to use that chunk of land that he owned!
> 
> And that's as left-wing politicos as it gets, Benedict!



The name of that rich guy was The State of New York


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 1, 2014)

x10003q said:


> The name of that rich guy was The State of New York



And that's the real reason for lack of expansion. If they were run privately they would most likely be more efficient. Expansion around Whiteface or Gore would benefit everyone.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 1, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> And that's the real reason for lack of expansion. If they were run privately they would most likely be more efficient. Expansion around Whiteface or Gore would benefit everyone.



Expansion of what terrain or infrastructure or condos?


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 1, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> And that's the real reason for lack of expansion. If they were run privately they would most likely be more efficient. Expansion around Whiteface or Gore would benefit everyone.



Not sure on Gore, but NYS limits overall trail milage. Would take a revision of the state constitution to fix. Never going to happen. 

So even if privately owned, they couldn't expand terrain.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 1, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Expansion of what terrain or infrastructure or condos?



Well my guess is all of the above. I would try and turn into a destination area where people would ski and stay. Like what Sugarloaf has done. I think that's a great comparison in terms of potential.


----------



## teqeeler (Feb 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm in the business of answering posts truthfully.
> 
> Environmental extremism and political money/power are the reason why you cant so much as step on a blade of grass there.   I would file that one under,_ "things most people regardless of political ideology commonly understand"._



The words that YOU type are not the truth but your own personal opinion, one that I disagree with. 
So my words must be the truth then if that is what i think from your logic?
Environmental extremism as you call it has resulted in clean drinking water, clean rivers and lakes, clean soil and clean air, poisons taking out a million different products etc. 
 If it wasn't for the "extremism" as you call it non of that stuff would have happened the way it did. If you let big business control those measures and do it on there own term then nothing would ever get done. Businesses aren't going to regulate themselves and the environment if other competing companies aren't doing it. They especially won't make changes if it affects their bottom line.
 The only way they will protect the environment is if they are forced too.
Yes EPA laws are extensive, hurt profits and can hinder growth but if they weren't there they would be exploited beyond belief, I personally wouldn't want to exist in a world where the environment isn;t important.  Go visit china and see how life is there. 

What maybe is common sense to you is not the case for everyone. Alot of people in this world lack common sense so if those " blades of grass" aka dunes aren't protected people will have no regard for destroying them and thus protection coastal towns from storms, destroying the coast and bird habitats.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 1, 2014)

teqeeler said:


> The words that YOU type are not the truth but your own personal opinion, one that I disagree with.
> So my words must be the truth then if that is what i think from your logic?
> Environmental extremism as you call it has resulted in clean drinking water, clean rivers and lakes, clean soil and clean air, poisons taking out a million different products etc.
> If it wasn't for the "extremism" as you call it non of that stuff would have happened the way it did. If you let big business control those measures and do it on there own term then nothing would ever get done. Businesses aren't going to regulate themselves and the environment if other competing companies aren't doing it. They especially won't make changes if it affects their bottom line.
> ...




Lets see......17 posts in 9 years, but THIS is what he comments on......on a skiing board.

A most impressive post too, I believe he managed to break the all-time internet record for:

_"Most Strawman Arguments Contained in 250 Words or Less"_.

Now, I'm not sure you could have intentionally distorted or exaggerated my comment more if you tried, but lets just diffuse one of those your Strawman Arguments (as opposed to all of them) with an example:

A Government law that you cant dump nuclear waste in rivers *DOES NOT* = _"environmental extremism"_

BUT

A Government law that bans most current wood burning stoves and imposes strict smoke regulations *DOES* = _"environmental extremism"_

http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybe...-chilling-consequences-for-many-rural-people/


----------



## Wavewheeler (Feb 1, 2014)

Domeskier said:


> You will learn the answer to your question tomorrow morning when you head out for the slopes only to find all of the streets of Newmarket, NH shut down for a traffic study.



:lol: :lol: ROTLMAO..


----------



## Scruffy (Feb 1, 2014)

BenedictGomez said:


> I'm in the business of answering posts truthfully.
> 
> Environmental extremism and political money/power are the reason why you cant so much as step on a blade of grass there. I would file that one under,_ "things most people regardless of political ideology commonly understand"._



  Benny and the Jet's says: "I'm in the business of answering posts truthfully."

Then you should learn more about what you think you know all about, or redefine your definition of truth.

Verplanck Colvin was a republican. Regardless, the major reason for the formation of the Adirondack Park, and thus some lands within it classified as Forever Wild, was to protect capitalistic interests - commercial interest in the keeping the Hudson River navigable. 

So, no, "Politico Lefty Environmentalist" had little, to nothing, to do with the reason that today you can't so much as step on a club footed moss there.


----------



## x10003q (Feb 2, 2014)

Scruffy said:


> Benny and the Jet's says: "I'm in the business of answering posts truthfully."
> 
> Then you should learn more about what you think you know all about, or redefine your definition of truth.
> 
> ...



Verplanck Colvin ran as a Republican in 1891. He also was in charge of the survey of the Adirondack region. A bigger worry at the time was the Erie Canal. Run off after too much logging could have caused bad silting for both the Canal and the Hudson. 

Gore has a mileage limit of 40 miles and Whiteface and Belleayre have  limits of 25 miles. Both limits are arbitrary and have no basis in reality. There were also limits on trail width, but those have been modified to accommodate safety needs of ski racing.


----------



## jacknoir (Feb 3, 2014)

The Adirondack State Park has special regs regarding development, and many of us like it that way.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 3, 2014)

x10003q said:


> Verplanck Colvin ran as a Republican in 1891. He also was in charge of the survey of the Adirondack region. A bigger worry at the time was the Erie Canal. Run off after too much logging could have caused bad silting for both the Canal and the Hudson.
> 
> Gore has a mileage limit of 40 miles and Whiteface and Belleayre have  limits of 25 miles. Both limits are arbitrary and have no basis in reality. There were also limits on trail width, but those have been modified to accommodate safety needs of ski racing.



Do glades count towards the mileage?  Seems like Gore would be over that if they counted.


----------



## AdironRider (Feb 3, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Do glades count towards the mileage?  Seems like Gore would be over that if they counted.



I don't think they do. 

Wonder how gore got the added milage and whiteface stuck at 25.


----------



## x10003q (Feb 4, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Do glades count towards the mileage?  Seems like Gore would be over that if they counted.



For some unknown reason Gore does not count the glades/lift lines. Double Barrel, Dark Side Glades, High Pines Glades are Gore lift lines that are not counted. They all lack snowmaking. Whiteface does count glades and lift lines. It is not clear why there is a difference. Some have guessed it has to do with different land classifications and/or individual management opinions. The mileage limits are not tied to acreage. A trail 1/2 mile long and 200 feet wide is considered the same as a 1/2 mile trail that is 30 feet wide.


----------



## Smellytele (Feb 4, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> Well my guess is all of the above. I would try and turn into a destination area where people would ski and stay. Like what Sugarloaf has done. I think that's a great comparison in terms of potential.



Well Whiteface has Lake Placid right down the road so they don't need the condos and such. Gore on the other hand may. Not sure what would be needed for Infrastructure at either. They both seem fine. Terrain is a different story.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 4, 2014)

x10003q said:


> For some unknown reason Gore does not count the glades/lift lines. Double Barrel, Dark Side Glades, High Pines Glades are Gore lift lines that are not counted. They all lack snowmaking. Whiteface does count glades and lift lines. It is not clear why there is a difference. Some have guessed it has to do with different land classifications and/or individual management opinions. The mileage limits are not tied to acreage. A trail 1/2 mile long and 200 feet wide is considered the same as a 1/2 mile trail that is 30 feet wide.



They count the glades on the trail map and snow report so I would doubt that New York would count it for Whiteface and not Gore.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 4, 2014)

AdironRider said:


> I don't think they do.
> 
> Wonder how gore got the added milage and whiteface stuck at 25.



They are both located in the Adirondack State Park correct? It doesn't make much sense to me but it's hard to find much information about this law on the interwebs.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Feb 4, 2014)

Smellytele said:


> Well Whiteface has Lake Placid right down the road so they don't need the condos and such. Gore on the other hand may. Not sure what would be needed for Infrastructure at either. They both seem fine. Terrain is a different story.



Well I guess I don't necessarily mean expansion of existing mountains. More about expansion into the mountains and terrain in that area. It's prime real estate but in this day and age I know it's just a pipe dream.


----------



## x10003q (Feb 4, 2014)

MadMadWorld said:


> They are both located in the Adirondack State Park correct? It doesn't make much sense to me but it's hard to find much information about this law on the interwebs.



Here is a discussion on NYSki Blog about Gore and Whiteface mileage:

http://forum.nyskiblog.com/Interesting-area-on-WF-trail-map-What-is-it-td3831864i30.html

The 2 GMs have different counting methods.


----------

