# AZ Challenge 2009: Win Smith, Sugarbush Resort



## Greg (Jul 21, 2009)

Win Smith, President, of *Sugarbush Resort* has agreed to participate in the 2009 AlpineZone Ski area Challenge! This is your opportunity to ask questions, offer suggestions, or say some praise to the men and women who are in charge of the Northeast's ski areas. Please post some suggested questions in this thread and we'll select ten to present for official response. 

Also please don't be offended if we edit/change your question for grammar, tone, or some other minor thing. In order to get in all of the questions we MAY merge some questions but we'll do our best to keep the substance of your question. If we don't get your question in, feel free to post a follow up after we get the results...we are encouraging the representatives follow the feedback threads.

As always, please be respectful of Win and keep it civil. Also, please refrain from asking specifics about skier visit numbers, financials, demographic information, etc. Win needs to be discrete about certain information. 

Ask away!

*Sugarbush Profile*


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Jul 21, 2009)

Is Sugarbush planning on installing any new lifts in the future?

Any word on a possible combined Sugarbush/Stowe multi-day pass?

Any new glades or trails being cut?

Any snowmaking improvements?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 21, 2009)

What do you see the base area of Mt. Ellen looking like ten years from now?


----------



## RISkier (Jul 21, 2009)

We have friends in Stowe and have skied there quite a bit but we've hit Sugarbush the last two years and really enjoy it.  We'll be back.  We rode the Slidebrook Express for the first time last year.  It was a bluebird day and it was a great ride.  Easily the most interesting and entertaining chair lift I've ever been on.  That said, I couldn't help but think it was a real boondoggle.  I believe it was installed by ASC prior to your arrival.  I'd be interested to hear any thoughts you would be willing to share regarding practicality of the lift both economically and in terms of mountain operations.  Again, I think your doing a great job with Sugarbush and I look forward to returning.  Thanks.


----------



## shpride (Jul 22, 2009)

The past two years I have hit up Sugarbush during late April.  I have really enjoyed myself, and applaud you for keeping the mountain open so late.  These were the first times skiing there, and the only reason I decided to head up the first year is because you were still open.  I now plan on heading up there sometime this winter for a few days because I want to try out the rest of the mountain.  Do you feel that keeping the mountain open late is working as a way to promote SB skiers like me?  Do you plan on continuing this trend of staying open as late in the season as possible?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 22, 2009)

Will Mount Ellen receive consideration next season for being the spring skiing operations center?  Without getting into specifics, do you feel that having these operations at Lincoln the past few seasons has had a significant financial benefit compared with Mt. Ellen?


----------



## Greg (Jul 22, 2009)

I already know of some in the works, but do you have any plans to offer reciprocal benefits to pass holders from other mountains? Any details yet?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 22, 2009)

Could you comment generally as to how cat skiing operations went this season?  And any thoughts as to lowering the price or making it easier for a couple or individual to enjoy spring cat skiing at Mount Ellen?  I only know of one cat skiing trip at Mount Ellen this spring, and while I can appreciate the overhead, adjusting the price downwards might entice more people to do it.  

And a perennial question: how are the reliability problems with North Ridge Express going?  Last season it did not seem to be down as often.  

If early season skiing is to stay at Lincoln Peak for the time being, any thoughts about blowing snow on Heaven's Gate Traverse so as to have two routes from Superbravo to Heaven's Gate?  Only having Downspout makes for very crowded and dangerous skiing at times.  

And during early season skiing, there was a college or high school team that set up gates on Organgrinder.  This made for a dangerous situation with such limited terrain open.  In general the racing scene keeps to their areas, but I must say that having Spring Fling closed so often for races really restricts where folks can go.  Any thoughts at to how to better share the terrain with racers?  

When can we expect Mount Ellen's winch cat to be repaired?  

Thanks.


----------



## jaytrem (Jul 22, 2009)

Thanks for taking the challenge, and thanks for taking such great care of one of my favorite ski areas.

I was just wondering if there's ever been any thought of adding a mid-station to the Slidebrook chair?  If so, do you think there would be much opposition from the USFS or various environmental groups?  I always thought adding a mid-station near the brook would be an inexpensive way to make that chair a lot more useful.  It would definitely change the slack-country experience, not sure for the better or worse.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 22, 2009)

jaytrem said:


> Thanks for taking the challenge, and thanks for taking such great care of one of my favorite ski areas.
> 
> I was just wondering if there's ever been any thought of adding a mid-station to the Slidebrook chair?  If so, do you think there would be much opposition from the USFS or various environmental groups?  I always thought adding a mid-station near the brook would be an inexpensive way to make that chair a lot more useful.  It would definitely change the slack-country experience, not sure for the better or worse.



The naturalists would be against this, but I think this is a WAY cool idea.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 22, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> The naturalists would be against this, but I think this is a WAY cool idea.



Was going to say the same thing.  You have not spent much time in Vermont, have you?  It took a lot to get SBX installed--Les Otten had to give up developing the Slide Brook area and agree to only run the lift certain months of the year so as not to interfere with bear habitat.


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Jul 22, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> When can we expect Mount Ellen's winch cat to be repaired?



Not to speak for Win, but I can answer this one and get it out of the way.  The new wire rope winch cable was ordered, and the winch will be operable on day one this season.  Although, the machine is much more efficient and effective (and much better to run) without the winch on it.  As a result, the goal is to operate without the winch mounted as much as possible.  But our esteemed mechanics have come up with a pretty slick system for mounting and removing the winch, so we can easily mount it up for the nights that we need it, and take it back off for regular grooming ops.


----------



## jaytrem (Jul 22, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> Was going to say the same thing.  You have not spent much time in Vermont, have you?  It took a lot to get SBX installed--Les Otten had to give up developing the Slide Brook area and agree to only run the lift certain months of the year so as not to interfere with bear habitat.



When asking a question in a Q&A like this, I figure some people reading don't know all the details about the given subject, so I tried to phrase my question without any assumed knowledge.  In reality,yeah, I know there would be some opposition, duh!!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 22, 2009)

jaytrem said:


> When asking a question in a Q&A like this, I figure some people reading don't know all the details about the given subject, so I tried to phrase my question without any assumed knowledge.  In reality,yeah, I know there would be some opposition, duh!!!



Well, there's opposition, and opposition in Vermont.  The two are very different.  :wink:


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 22, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> You have not spent much time in Vermont, have you?



Pretty much every family vacation since I was 9, family home there since 12, went to high school in Southern Vermont, UVM grad, several years living in either Burlington or Stowe.......spent more time in VT than any other state actually. 

I definitely understand the environmental gestapo in VT.  Can't build a bird house without an Act 250 permit.


Still would be WAY cool.  Essentially would make for what? Two thousand acres of easy access slack country?  

yes please


----------



## jaytrem (Jul 22, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Pretty much every family vacation since I was 9, family home there since 12, went to high school in Southern Vermont, UVM grad, several years living in either Burlington or Stowe.......spent more time in VT than any other state actually.
> 
> I definitely understand the environmental gestapo in VT.  Can't build a bird house without an Act 250 permit.



I think he was talking to me.  But that is a lot of VT time.  I did ski 102 days in VT one year while going to school in NJ.  Didn't miss a single class.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 23, 2009)

BushMogulMaster said:


> Not to speak for Win, but I can answer this one and get it out of the way.  The new wire rope winch cable was ordered, and the winch will be operable on day one this season.  Although, the machine is much more efficient and effective (and much better to run) without the winch on it.  As a result, the goal is to operate without the winch mounted as much as possible.  But our esteemed mechanics have come up with a pretty slick system for mounting and removing the winch, so we can easily mount it up for the nights that we need it, and take it back off for regular grooming ops.



Nice.  But I thought you needed the winchcat to groom Inverness?


----------



## BushMogulMaster (Jul 23, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> Nice.  But I thought you needed the winchcat to groom Inverness?



In deep powder or boilerplate, definitely.  And it always makes the headwall come out nicer.  But we ended up becoming pretty accomplished at freegrooming it under "ordinary" conditions.


----------



## mattlucas (Jul 23, 2009)

Win, 

Thanks for stepping up to the plate and answering a lineup (1-9 and a few extras depending on lefty/righty matchups) of these questions.

Terrain questions:

Any updates on whether you intend to pursue developing the peak above Inverness within the next few years?

Any news about the state of the forest in the midmountain after the storm? Is there a call for volunteers to remove the deadfall, or does the mountain ops take care of it?

Will the Valley House be running more than in the last few years passed? The VH is pretty much my favorite area for lift line free skiing on a crowded or cold weekend, when it isn't running I am pretty bummed. Many people, not just in my family feel this way, Mall mega-laps are sweet. Actually, there could be a nice vertical challenge over there too.

Cheap skier questions:

When will you announce the details of the improved SugarCard for this year?

Will SB participate in the Mobil fill up for lift tickets again this year? I had friends that would join me after the multitude of gallons in years past, but last year it wasn't valid on weekends or not at all. Either way, that deal really opened their eyes (from Summit Colorado no less) at the quality of the snow and woods at Sugarbush Vermont.

Any deals like Jay has for passholders of other mountains?

Hospitality Question:

Would you consider keeping the Gatehouse Bar open later so people can drink beer and eat chili into the evening and enjoy the wifi, bands, etc? The crowd has been impressive at the bar on big nights, and I think more people would go if it could be more a part of the visiting routine.

Ownership Questions:

How has owning Sugarbush differed from how you would have expected it to be? Is there the potential for a _Moneyball_ style book about the ski industry? What areas does SB management see as the biggest problems within SB and what are you working hardest to fix if none of the questions in this thread address it.

General Skiing Afficionado Question:

Have you considered lending a hand to save Magic?



Thanks, I'm looking forward to all of your answers as usual and another year in the Mad River Valley. Also, I'd like to complement all of the lifties, groomers, cashiers, bartenders, and patrol that really made SB stand out compared to many of the other mountains I hit this year. See you in the winter.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 23, 2009)

Question for win


When will you be hiring Mr. Matt Lucas?  The man has some excellent questions.......especially the terrain pod above Inverness that was once on a map......looks killer and would really balance out the Ellen and Lincoln areas well where as now the Lincoln side sees the lionshare of focus.


----------



## thebigo (Jul 23, 2009)

Win, thank you for your time

Which has a greater impact on revenue? snowfall or the economy?


----------



## dbking (Jul 25, 2009)

Sorry to get off thread, but in responce to Mattlucas and VH... there used to be a vertical challenge on the Mall in the 80s. John Egan and his then girlfriend, Emily Hart, both skied it 32 times in a day. And they were really skiing it. Emily was a really hot skier/ snowcat operator that later moved to Squaw Valley. I don't remember what happened to the comp. Back in the day, Sugarbush had alot of compititions like that, but that was the first one I recall that was about vertical numbers.
So, to get back on the thread, Hey Win, any interest in restarting March Madness? It used to be very popular for both locals and the tourists.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jul 25, 2009)

Just got this question....add it to the list:



> Your post prompted me to go read the article on improvments to Sugarloaf. I ski at Sugarbush, but was curious. So, I read the article. Here is my question and it pertains to the improvements to lifts they made for wind resistance. I think I understand what they did for the T Bar (some type of fence) but what exactly did they do for the quad? As you know, we have had many wind holds at Sugarbush this past season, and I was wondering maybe some of this could be done at Sugarbush. What do you think?


----------



## mattlucas (Jul 25, 2009)

DBKing, 

That Mall contest sounds fun, right? 

In case you haven't been by in awhile, March Madness still happens and people (even cranky internet skiers like me) still have a lot of fun. The biggest difference is that they moved the pond skimming from Ellen to South. I'm not sure which I prefered, the pond skimming is short and sweet at South though. 

Sugarbush's biggest competitive event is probably the Castlerock Challenge, which is like two runs down the top of Liftline. It's a good contest, but I think showcasing old school bump shralping on the Mall could open up the fun to many more people.


----------



## dropKickMurphy (Jul 26, 2009)

Win -

Any chance you'd consider running the Slidebrook for a couple of hours on weekdays? Having the Slidebrook open from 12:00 - 1:00; and from 3:00 - 4:00 would be very convenient for those that like to ski both mountains on the same day. 


To me, the ability to get to any area of Sugarbush without taking a bus is a significant plus. I enjoy different ski areas for the things that make them unique. When riding the Slidebrook Express, I know that it's an experience that I can only get at Sugarbush.


----------



## mattlucas (Jul 26, 2009)

That is a great suggestion if it is possible.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 26, 2009)

agreed

I'm sure staffing it would be the biggest challenge, but running SB for a couple of hours a day is a fantastic idea.  I'd be fine with a similar schedule on the weekend.  I can't ever recall taking SB more than twice in a day.  It wouldn't be that difficult to plan around 3 staggered hours of operation.  10:30 - 12:30 and  3-4

The question becomes what you do with the staff during off hours.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 27, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> The question becomes what you do with the staff during off hours.



Send em off to ski.


----------



## skiadikt (Jul 27, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> agreed
> 
> I'm sure staffing it would be the biggest challenge, but running SB for a couple of hours a day is a fantastic idea.  I'd be fine with a similar schedule on the weekend.  I can't ever recall taking SB more than twice in a day.  It wouldn't be that difficult to plan around 3 staggered hours of operation.  10:30 - 12:30 and  3-4
> 
> The question becomes what you do with the staff during off hours.



i'm sure win will answer this but to me doesn't make sense to have staggered operating hrs for a lift. it's either open or not. maybe during the week if you want to save on op costs, you open later & close earlier. maybe open it fridays or do like k does w/ some lifts and run them thurs-mon.


----------



## mattlucas (Jul 27, 2009)

the mountain does also pay for the bus, so i could see them not wanting to pay twice for the same service. But, I think that the slidebrook twice daily would be an asset in a perfect world.


----------



## mountainman (Jul 28, 2009)

*Why?*

Why is Chris at Killington getting more responses than Win at the Bush?


----------



## mattlucas (Jul 28, 2009)

*Ticket Scanners*

One last question - 

The ticket scanning process is still in my mind kind of in its infant stages. IR technology that is affordable may be around the corner, but until we get it fumbling with a ticket on a powder day while empty chairs get sent up is sometimes infuriating. Is the purpose more to gather user data or to prevent theft of services?

For more crowded lifts on busy weekends (think Bravo 12/27), do you think it would be possible or make sense to have one or two lifties organizing the corral into foursomes, and one or two people near the load zone to pop everybody's ticket very quickly? 
Having the scanners in front of corrals just seems to create a swarm of chaos rather than pushing everyone into the corrals in an organized way. 

Furthermore, the scanners seem to take away from the lifties independence, and they have less incentive to be cheery and awesome ski bums/employees, and rather, cogs in a way that brings you out of VT/MRV perfection  and puts you back in a more commercialized setting and mindset.

Also, if the data that you're mining is very valuable, do you think that it would be possible to let the public look at some of it at the end of the day? Maybe each ticket could have a user login # and password printed on it so you could see your stats. This might not interest everyone, but it could be a relatively cheap way to provide an extra service. It's extremely dorky, but also kind of cool to figure out price per run / average vert / fastest lap etc. 

Thanks again for considering these questions.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 28, 2009)

Matt Lucas going over the fence again!  Great Question


Haven't been held up on a powder day, but have been annoyed by the scanning process.  The one instance that comes to mind specifically was at Pico last winter skiing ten or so runs off the summit quad on a dead Sunday afternoon following a frozen rain event.  Maybe one in four chairs had riders on it.  There's no line, there's no rush, but there are so few people at the mountain that the lifty probably knew how may nose hairs I had by the fourth ride.  Any scanning at that point to me is completely annoying bordering on harassment.  It's the equivalent of a bartender checking your ID before every single drink you buy in a bar that has ten patrons.


----------



## bvibert (Jul 29, 2009)

mountainman said:


> Why is Chris at Killington getting more responses than Win at the Bush?



I figure it's because people don't find as many faults with Win and Sugarbush, so they have less questions to ask.

I know I certainly enjoyed my experiences at Sugarbush last season.


----------



## WWF-VT (Jul 29, 2009)

mountainman said:


> Why is Chris at Killington getting more responses than Win at the Bush?



3/4 of the Killington thread is a bitchfest about the current management and operations at Killington. Win is the principal owner at Sugarbush and is very responsive to suggestions, complaints and criticism both here and at the SKIMRV forum.  More important is that Win is very visible at the mountain on any day and is very focused on doing what is right for the customer, the mountain and the MRV.


----------



## Geoff (Jul 29, 2009)

WWF-VT said:


> 3/4 of the Killington thread is a bitchfest about the current management and operations at Killington. Win is the principal owner at Sugarbush and is very responsive to suggestions, complaints and criticism both here and at the SKIMRV forum.  More important is that Win is very visible at the mountain on any day and is very focused on doing what is right for the customer, the mountain and the MRV.



Win also has probably never received an email complaint from a customer directed to the president of the ski resort sent from the customer's work email address that he then forwarded it to the guy's boss trying to get the guy fired.

Personal integrity, honesty, and lucid communications go a long way.


----------



## skiadikt (Jul 29, 2009)

WWF-VT said:


> 3/4 of the Killington thread is a bitchfest about the current management and operations at Killington. Win is the principal owner at Sugarbush and is very responsive to suggestions, complaints and criticism both here and at the SKIMRV forum.  More important is that Win is very visible at the mountain on any day and is very focused on doing what is right for the customer, the mountain and the MRV.



while it's certainly drifted off topic, the K thread is certainly a lot less of a bitchfest than your garden variety k thread. pretty mild actually.


----------



## JerseyJoey (Jul 29, 2009)

WWF-VT said:


> 3/4 of the Killington thread is a bitchfest about the current management and operations at Killington. Win is the principal owner at Sugarbush and is very responsive to suggestions, complaints and criticism both here and at the SKIMRV forum.  More important is that Win is very visible at the mountain on any day and is very focused on doing what is right for the customer, the mountain and the MRV.



Win = win

Chris = lose


----------



## snafu (Jul 29, 2009)

Win ftw?


----------



## dropKickMurphy (Jul 30, 2009)

Win -

Other than your own mountain, which ski areas, in the East and West, do you most enjoy skiing?


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 31, 2009)

Win - 

Thanks again for participating.  

Can you elaborate on your ongoing discussions with the USFS with respect to the implementation of a holistic forestry mgmt plan on USFS land at Sugarbush?  What would be the elements of such a plan, be it on USFS land or land owned by Summit Ventures?  Why has Sugarbush failed to introduce changes to its snowmaking routines that would help minimize damage to trees (both in islands and on trail edges)?  Is USFS input needed for such a decision?  

Last season, Sugarbush leased one of the new, high technology fan guns in order to test its usefulness, economics, and potential applications at SB.  Can you share the results of this test run with us?  Is there a reasonable likelihood that SB purchases some of these guns as a means to cover wide, high-traffic trails and intersections more quickly and cost efficiently?

The plans for Phase 2 of the LP base village has changed several times in the last few years.  Will this year's delay lead to any more adjustments in the plan before shovels hit the dirt next (hopefully) off-season?

In the wake of your Op-Ed in the Valley Reporter on the subject. to what extent is there dialogue with Sugarbush Village and/or the Town of Warren with respect to the optimal manner in which that entity is linked physically and otherwise (e.g. from a marketing and appearance perspective) to LP Village?

To you knowledge, are there any reasonable options available to SB that would provide it with more flexibility relative to buying power from GMP?  My understanding is that during periods of high usage (read: extreme cold), SB is lower on the pecking order than Valley residents and busineses, leaving SB short of power during critical snowmaking windows.  Buying through that contract is expensive.  What are your alternatives?"

Can you provide us with more detail around the new tree skiing areas planned for LP this season?  Where will they be?  How badly have well-known stashes been impacted to construct them?

What are the feasible alternatives being discussed with the USFS with respect to increased usage of the Slide Brook basin?  Would there be tours initiated from Mt. Ellen?  More "official" runs from LP?  Anything else?


----------



## kcyanks1 (Jul 31, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Win -
> 
> Thanks again for participating.
> . . .



Lots of great questions!


----------



## JD (Aug 23, 2009)

When will you let people ski tour at your area at their leisure like they do at J and Stowe.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 24, 2009)

JD said:


> When will you let people ski tour at your area at their leisure like they do at J and Stowe.



My guess is that this will likely occur when Sugarbush is no longer on USFS land and therefore subject to the restrictions that come with their operating lease.


----------



## JD (Aug 24, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> My guess is that this will likely occur when Sugarbush is no longer on USFS land and therefore subject to the restrictions that come with their operating lease.



From my understanding, USFS has nothing to do with this ban, it's sugarbush poilicy and fear of liability.  Mansfield is also on USFS land and has no such restriction.  Maybe Win can clear things up...


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 25, 2009)

JD said:


> From my understanding, USFS has nothing to do with this ban, it's sugarbush poilicy and fear of liability.  Mansfield is also on USFS land and has no such restriction.  Maybe Win can clear things up...



No, Mansfield is not USFS/GMNF land.  The USFS northern boundary is on Mount Ellen.  The state owns the land on Mansfield and leases it to Stowe.


----------



## JD (Aug 25, 2009)

Ah.  So the usfs lease specifies no ski touring?


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 25, 2009)

JD said:


> Ah.  So the usfs lease specifies no ski touring?



I think we kicked this dead horse last fall.......


----------



## JD (Aug 25, 2009)

It was discussed w/o any real conclusive answer as to why sugarbush doesn't allow it.  I think every year that AT becomes a larger and larger demographic in DH skiing (see the how fat thread) this question becomes more important.  I'm still waiting on a real answer and since Win has agreed to discuss sugarbush skiing, I thought I would get to hear the real reason this decision has been made.  It's the closest big Mtn to me, I would like to ski it w/o feeling like I'm doing something wrong.  Is it in the lease argeement, where can we view it?


----------



## Riverskier (Aug 25, 2009)

JD said:


> It was discussed w/o any real conclusive answer as to why sugarbush doesn't allow it.  I think every year that AT becomes a larger and larger demographic in DH skiing (see the how fat thread) this question becomes more important.  I'm still waiting on a real answer and since Win has agreed to discuss sugarbush skiing, I thought I would get to hear the real reason this decision has been made.  It's the closest big Mtn to me, I would like to ski it w/o feeling like I'm doing something wrong.  Is it in the lease argeement, where can we view it?



Free use of a typically paid for product plus potential liability issues, for no revenue? Kind of seems like a no brainer. If there is some legal or contractual explanation, all the better, but regardless I am not sure what is so difficult to understand or accept.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 25, 2009)

Riverskier said:


> Free use of a typically paid for product plus potential liability issues, for no revenue? Kind of seems like a no brainer. If there is some legal or contractual explanation, all the better, but regardless I am not sure what is so difficult to understand or accept.



That was the conclusion--liability issues being the main factor.  The issue was that JD did not, and apparently still does not, accept that as the conclusion.  Here is one of many threads where he voiced his opinions:  http://forums.alpinezone.com/42211-sugarbush.html


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 25, 2009)

JD's experience was specifically before the mountain was even open for the season.  As he also mentioned, there are other areas that do allow skinning in winter.  As far as I'm concerned, it's Win's mountain, he can do what he wants for whatever reason he wants.  For someone like JD however, I think it's reasonable to ask for a proper explanation on the policy.


----------



## JD (Aug 25, 2009)

I'm curious why sugarbush doesn't allow it while other resorts like Stowe and Jay have no problem with it.  The liability argument doesn't really hold water with me when you consider their tree skiing policy.  Coming from Stowe down to central VT, I was just kind of shock at the thought that folks couldn't earn turns at sugarbush.  Never really heard a good reason why not.  This seemed like an oppertunity to hear from the owner of the resort why he feels it should not be allowed.  I understand that all of you think up hill skiing is stupid.  I don't really need to hear any of that from you folks anymore.  But I would like to know from the horse's mouth, since he graciously offered to answer any reasonable questions, my question is why no uphill traffic.  Other resorts allow it.  Starting the conversation with the person who makes the rules might start us down the path of understanding the policy and finding a solution that would allow this demographic, which is growing fast, to enjoy this section of the green Mtns w/o having to feel like criminals.  Plus, what if a pass holder wants to do a lap with their new dukes before the lifts turn.  Maybe the bush can designate an uphill trail that can be used pre lift to avoid conflicts with groomers.  Might be an aspect of skiing sugarbush that can be marketed.  With the whole cat skiing thing and tours of the BC offered, it seems as if the Mngt. is trending towards catering to the BC enthusiast, this might just be another facet of skiing that Win could encourage instead of resist.  Lots of folks show up at Stowe and MRG to burn a quick lap before the lifts turn...and they don't go to the Bush beause the policy is well know by that crowd, it's not a welcome activity, and as an aspect of skiing they enjoy, in conjuction with some lift served laps, they end up at resorts that do allow, or at least openly tollorate it.  I think it's a valid question despite the fact that all of you, the vast majority of who have never skinned a stride in their lives, don't get it.   I'm not trying to bust Wins balls.  I know he is a good person.  Our mutual frien Yen speaks very highly of him, and Yen is a person I repect.  He has shown emense generosity in helping deal with Yen's situation so this is not a hate fest (maybe it was last year), just a chance to open a dialogue.


----------



## JD (Aug 25, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> That was the conclusion--liability issues being the main factor.  The issue was that JD did not, and apparently still does not, accept that as the conclusion.  Here is one of many threads where he voiced his opinions:  http://forums.alpinezone.com/42211-sugarbush.html



This explaination seems to contradict other policies at the bush, not to mention the fact that the landowner liablity act seems to offer protection from liability law suits unless I pay to use the area.  If I am charged for use, then I could sue if I felt Sugarbush was not offering a safe product according to the staute.  If I am allowed access to skiing for free, the landowner is protected from liability lawsuits in the state of vermont.  This statue was passed to encourage private land owners to allow access to public land thru privately owned land.  Such is the case at the Bush.  
If you're tired of this conversation, then don't participate.  I really only want to hear from Mr. Smith anyway.  Then we can let this die.


----------



## win (Aug 25, 2009)

Waiting for the forum to end and then I will be anwering the submitted questions.  I think this is how it is supposed to work!


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 25, 2009)

win said:


> Waiting for the forum to end and then I will be anwering the submitted questions.  I think this is how it is supposed to work!



Yes, you got it.  Hope Rumble is doing well in this heat!


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 25, 2009)

JD said:


> This explaination seems to contradict other policies at the bush, not to mention the fact that the landowner liablity act seems to offer protection from liability law suits unless I pay to use the area.  If I am charged for use, then I could sue if I felt Sugarbush was not offering a safe product according to the staute.  If I am allowed access to skiing for free, the landowner is protected from liability lawsuits in the state of vermont.  This statue was passed to encourage private land owners to allow access to public land thru privately owned land.  Such is the case at the Bush.
> If you're tired of this conversation, then don't participate.  I really only want to hear from Mr. Smith anyway.  Then we can let this die.



I'm sure Win has a full answer (hint: he's discussed it in detail on the SkiMRV forum) but I'm pretty sure it's related both to his USFS lease restrictions and liability reasons.  It's certainly fair to want to see what specifically in the USFS lease ties Win's hands, but I don't know if that's publicly available.  Regardless, make no mistake that SB is unique among major VT ski areas in that it's on USFS land and not state land.  That creates an entirely different set of issues to deal with, so please don't simplify it by comparing the situation to other mountains.  As for liability, tree skiing in season is a completely different animal than early season skinnign when you have groomers, snowmobiles and snowmaking hoses criss-crossing the trails with thin cover all around.  Sure, experienced skinners know where to go to minimize the chances of an accident, but then again experienced AT skinners know better than to force the owner of the hill to provide a public response to an issue that is best not discussed here.  Your assertion than locals go elsewhere to skin is patently false - they are just smart enough not to talk about it here.


----------



## JD (Aug 25, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> I'm sure Win has a full answer (hint: he's discussed it in detail on the SkiMRV forum) but I'm pretty sure it's related both to his USFS lease restrictions and liability reasons.  It's certainly fair to want to see what specifically in the USFS lease ties Win's hands, but I don't know if that's publicly available.  Regardless, make no mistake that SB is unique among major VT ski areas in that it's on USFS land and not state land.  That creates an entirely different set of issues to deal with, so please don't simplify it by comparing the situation to other mountains.  As for liability, tree skiing in season is a completely different animal than early season skinnign when you have groomers, snowmobiles and snowmaking hoses criss-crossing the trails with thin cover all around.  Sure, experienced skinners know where to go to minimize the chances of an accident, but then again experienced AT skinners know better than to force the owner of the hill to provide a public response to an issue that is best not discussed here.  Your assertion than locals go elsewhere to skin is patently false - they are just smart enough not to talk about it here.



I am a local.  I go else where when I want to skin a lap and then buy a ticket.  I ussually have company.  Therefore my assertion is true to some extent.  And BTW, your inference that I am stupid is noted.  As I said, I don't want to have to sneak around, so I figured I would just be up front about it.   My point to Win is that if he were able to accomodate "Dawn Patrol" type activities like he does in wind hold situations...some more people might consider heading to the Bush instead of MRG, Stowe or J.  Something he may be interesed in.  But maybe not.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 25, 2009)

JD said:


> I am a local.  I go else where when I want to skin a lap and then buy a ticket.  I ussually have company.  Therefore my assertion is true to some extent.  And BTW, your inference that I am stupid is noted.  As I said, I don't want to have to sneak around, so I figured I would just be up front about it.   My point to Win is that if he were able to accomodate "Dawn Patrol" type activities like he does in wind hold situations...some more people might consider heading to the Bush instead of MRG, Stowe or J.  Something he may be interesed in.  But maybe not.



Apologies for the stupid inference.  That said, it's not wise to make someone state publicly things which are better left to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  There are tracks all over SB pre-season made by those who know where to go so as to avoid any run-ins with people who are obligated to tell them to scram.  As a local, you should know this.  Besides, I thought you were staying away from SB b/c you were mad they don't count pre-season snow in their totals, or that there was less snow three days after an October storm than they claimed to have received the day of the storm.


----------



## mattlucas (Aug 25, 2009)

I will always hate the lack of pre-season snow in the snowfall totals. The main argument doesn't make sense to me.
i.e. "A more reasonable expectation of what to find on the mountain."

What if you arrive after January thaw? Should the previous snow be erased historically as well as literally? When you open natural snow trails early season, it shows that snow falls and accumulates before the season. 

Whatever.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 25, 2009)

mattlucas said:


> I will always hate the lack of pre-season snow in the snowfall totals. The main argument doesn't make sense to me.
> i.e. "A more reasonable expectation of what to find on the mountain."
> 
> What if you arrive after January thaw? Should the previous snow be erased historically as well as literally? When you open natural snow trails early season, it shows that snow falls and accumulates before the season.
> ...



OTOH, does it make sense to include snow from a freak storm in mid-October when there isn't a trace of that by opening day in mid-November?  I think that's BS.


----------



## JD (Aug 25, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Apologies for the stupid inference.  That said, it's not wise to make someone state publicly things which are better left to a "don't ask, don't tell" policy.  There are tracks all over SB pre-season made by those who know where to go so as to avoid any run-ins with people who are obligated to tell them to scram.  As a local, you should know this.  Besides, I thought you were staying away from SB b/c you were mad they don't count pre-season snow in their totals, or that there was less snow three days after an October storm than they claimed to have received the day of the storm.



Yea, some of those tracks are mine. I just don't like sneaking around.  TW, what flavor was the cool aid?


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Aug 26, 2009)

JD said:


> Yea, some of those tracks are mine. I just don't like sneaking around.  TW, what flavor was the cool aid?



I'm not saying I agree with the policy.  Far from it.  Rather, I understand that SB has a unique set of circumstances not faced by any other VT resort and that some things are better left unspoken in a public forum.  It's a pity that you mistake this realization for acquiescence.  

If you don't like sneaking around, go elsewhere.  If you can put aside your distaste for sneaking around, and for a moment concentrate on the fact that you could be making turns in unspoiled powder at the closest big mountain to your house, then perhaps you wouldn't be as worked up.  alas.


----------



## JD (Aug 26, 2009)

Perhaps....but with MRG so close, it's no real loss to me.


----------



## mattlucas (Aug 28, 2009)

well, you can't lose either way then.


----------



## Geoff (Aug 30, 2009)

JD said:


> Perhaps....but with MRG so close, it's no real loss to me.



Somehow, I doubt Sugarbush cares.  You are not their target market.   The people who pay the bills have the deep pockets to buy slopeside real estate or book vacations through the resort.   Unless you have a co-op like MRG where the previous owner basically gave the place away at far less than market value, ski areas have big bills to pay and have to be run as businesses.   Dawn patrol doesn't add to the bottom line and is probably an issue with their insurance company.  Every dollar that insurance policy goes up to fund the liability risk is a dollar removed from the bottom line.   ASC dumped Sugarbush for next to nothing because it wasn't profitable.   If Win Smith is able to come up with a business formula to make the resort profitable, that's way better than having it be a NELSAP poster child.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 30, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Somehow, I doubt Sugarbush cares.  You are not their target market.   The people who pay the bills have the deep pockets to buy slopeside real estate or book vacations through the resort.   Unless you have a co-op like MRG where the previous owner basically gave the place away at far less than market value, ski areas have big bills to pay and have to be run as businesses.   Dawn patrol doesn't add to the bottom line and is probably an issue with their insurance company.  Every dollar that insurance policy goes up to fund the liability risk is a dollar removed from the bottom line.   ASC dumped Sugarbush for next to nothing because it wasn't profitable.   If Win Smith is able to come up with a business formula to make the resort profitable, that's way better than having it be a NELSAP poster child.



Plus SB has a first tracks program with the snowcat.


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 30, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Somehow, I doubt Sugarbush cares.  You are not their target market.   The people who pay the bills have the deep pockets to buy slopeside real estate or book vacations through the resort.   Unless you have a co-op like MRG where the previous owner basically gave the place away at far less than market value, ski areas have big bills to pay and have to be run as businesses.   Dawn patrol doesn't add to the bottom line and is probably an issue with their insurance company.  Every dollar that insurance policy goes up to fund the liability risk is a dollar removed from the bottom line.   ASC dumped Sugarbush for next to nothing because it wasn't profitable.   If Win Smith is able to come up with a business formula to make the resort profitable, that's way better than having it be a NELSAP poster child.




I would argue that ASC dumped Sugarbush not because it wasn't profitable, but that they realized it would take them far too long to regain what they had spent (28 million dollars in just two years). That, along with the rising costs of the skiing empire they had created caused them to sell the resort for some quick cash.


----------



## thetrailboss (Aug 31, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> I would argue that ASC dumped Sugarbush not because it wasn't profitable, but that they realized it would take them far too long to regain what they had spent (28 million dollars in just two years). That, along with the rising costs of the skiing empire they had created caused them to sell the resort for some quick cash.



Actually the $28 mill was when LBO was in charge (predecessor to ASC).  Not that it makes much difference.  

The biggest reason why they dumped it I've heard is because they were going NOWHERE with the Grand Summit Resort hotel.


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> The biggest reason why they dumped it I've heard is because they were going NOWHERE with the Grand Summit Resort hotel.



what I heard as well.  Timeline wasn't fast enough for Real Estate development.  That was generally the downfall of ASC overall.  Too much investment in infrastructure prior to securing permits and pre-construction deposits on profitable real estate.  Their business model was the exact opposite of Intrawest.


----------



## JD (Aug 31, 2009)

Geoff said:


> Somehow, I doubt Sugarbush cares.  You are not their target market.   The people who pay the bills have the deep pockets to buy slopeside real estate or book vacations through the resort.   Unless you have a co-op like MRG where the previous owner basically gave the place away at far less than market value, ski areas have big bills to pay and have to be run as businesses.   Dawn patrol doesn't add to the bottom line and is probably an issue with their insurance company.  Every dollar that insurance policy goes up to fund the liability risk is a dollar removed from the bottom line.   ASC dumped Sugarbush for next to nothing because it wasn't profitable.   If Win Smith is able to come up with a business formula to make the resort profitable, that's way better than having it be a NELSAP poster child.



This is prolly true.   But imagine how much untracked pow you could shred if an area like the bush did not run it's lifts all season.  I think I would live in the lot out of my truck all winter.  Dream come true.  Kinda hoping this happens to Stowe.  Imagine Mansfield with no lifts.  Lot party for 6 months!  That would RULE!


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 31, 2009)

JD said:


> This is prolly true.   But imagine how much untracked pow you could shred if an area like the bush did not run it's lifts all season.  I think I would live in the lot out of my truck all winter.  Dream come true.  Kinda hoping this happens to Stowe.  Imagine Mansfield with no lifts.  Lot party for 6 months!  That would RULE!



I like lifts..


----------



## deadheadskier (Aug 31, 2009)

JD said:


> This is prolly true.   But imagine how much untracked pow you could shred if an area like the bush did not run it's lifts all season.  I think I would live in the lot out of my truck all winter.  Dream come true.  Kinda hoping this happens to Stowe.  Imagine Mansfield with no lifts.  Lot party for 6 months!  That would RULE!



the vast majority of Vermont is forested.  There are plenty of mountains for you to have fun on.  Deal with it and respect the desires of others to enjoy lift serviced skiing.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 31, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> the vast majority of Vermont is forested.  There are plenty of mountains for you to have fun on.  Deal with it and respect the desires of others to enjoy lift serviced skiing.



times 2


----------



## JD (Aug 31, 2009)

I'm sure there's be rednecks there with big sleds running folks up.  More like 40ppl an hour instead of a coupla thousand....Anyway.  SB.  Nice looking terrain.  Hopefully they embrace the BC enthusiast who like self powered skiing.  Looking forward to the response.   
Here's and Idea.  How about a touring season pass that gives you access to some facilities like the lodge and what not, but no lifts.  I toss 'em 100 bucks just for the open mindedness.


----------



## GrilledSteezeSandwich (Aug 31, 2009)

JD said:


> I'm sure there's be rednecks there with big sleds running folks up.  More like 40ppl an hour instead of a coupla thousand....Anyway.  SB.  Nice looking terrain.  Hopefully they embrace the BC enthusiast who like self powered skiing.  Looking forward to the response.
> Here's and Idea.  How about a touring season pass that gives you access to some facilities like the lodge and what not, but no lifts.  I toss 'em 100 bucks just for the open mindedness.



then when I'm flying down the trail around a corner I have to watch out for hippies skinning uphill..no thanks..already enough of that at Stowe..


----------



## Newpylong (Aug 31, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> Actually the $28 mill was when LBO was in charge (predecessor to ASC).  Not that it makes much difference.
> 
> The biggest reason why they dumped it I've heard is because they were going NOWHERE with the Grand Summit Resort hotel.



No, since LBO just changed his companies name to ASC, it doesn't matter.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 5, 2009)

OK, maybe too late for this question, but here goes.  I ski Mount Ellen a lot and this season I noticed a big problem with the traffic pattern coming down into the North Ridge base area...the area formerly called "Times Square."

I know that you want to have a green easy route to the lift, especially for those coming from Inverness, but honestly having Mainstream cutting across three busy cruiser runs (Northstar, Cruiser, Which Way) really makes things bad.  Mainstream is a traverse and in my experience becomes an icy sluice way.  What about closing the traverse, so that you ski Cruiser and Which Way down to North Star?  I have seen some near misses on the traverse, and as I said, it becomes very icy very quickly and interrupts the natural urge for one to ski the fall line.  Thanks.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 8, 2009)

Another question since this is still open.  Regarding Mount Ellen, a lot of emphasis has been placed on attracting locals for weekend skiing or day visits.  With an eye towards improving the quality of the experience, I am wondering if anything can be done about the lodge on race days.  GMVS has their own private lodge by the Inverness Quad and that helps keep the GMVS racers and their junior racing programs in their own area.  But when their guests come to race, which is pretty much every weekend, these folks clog the Mount Ellen Base Lodge, throw their stuff everywhere, take up lots of table space forcing other paying guests to sit on the floor, are rude to guests and staff, and really make the experience not very fun.  Is there any way to ask them to go to the GMVS Lodge or to at least ask that they use a specific section of the lodge?  Any way that GMVS can be asked to help police the situation?  I understand that they can't control their guests, but at least there should be some communication regarding what is proper lodge etiquette and to remind them to be considerate of other guests.  

I understand that GMVS is a major stakeholder at Sugarbush and they are a big reason why Ellen is still in operation, but there are other guests who are paying to use the facilities.  Thanks.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 8, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> But when their guests come to race, which is pretty much every weekend, these folks clog the Mount Ellen Base Lodge, throw their stuff everywhere, take up lots of table space forcing other paying guests to sit on the floor, are rude to guests and staff, and really make the experience not very fun.




Can't speak to the rudeness, just want to comment on people leaving their bags on tables.  We had a strict policy at Wisp against this and a complimentary bag check area.  Staff responsible for bussing tables were instructed to remove bags on or below tables and bring them to bag check. 

I think the Lincoln Base has something similar?  Though I'm not certain it's manned.  I do remember having a place to put my bag out of the way and free of charge.  Ellen should have something similar.

I can't stand manifest destiny lodge campers who stake claim to tables and applaud areas that do their best to educate groups / individuals that it's not 'their' lodge, it's 'our' or 'everyone's' lodge.  And if you really want to get me going, leave your dirty cafeteria tray at a table without cleaning after yourself should be grounds for cruel punishment.     My father would've smacked me silly for doing that like so many kids do today.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 8, 2009)

deadheadskier said:


> Can't speak to the rudeness, just want to comment on people leaving their bags on tables.  We had a strict policy at Wisp against this and a complimentary bag check area.  Staff responsible for bussing tables were instructed to remove bags on or below tables and bring them to bag check.
> 
> I think the Lincoln Base has something similar?  Though I'm not certain it's manned.  I do remember having a place to put my bag out of the way and free of charge.  Ellen should have something similar.



Yes, only LP has the bag check program, not ME.  I think that would go a long way to solving the problem.


----------



## deadheadskier (Sep 8, 2009)

thetrailboss said:


> Yes, only LP has the bag check program, not ME.  I think that would go a long way to solving the problem.



that and hire a few grumpy guys like me to get after the punk kids!


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 8, 2009)

There's limited room in the Alpine Training facility - barely enough to hold the kids usually. There's no room for everyone's family to go there too...




thetrailboss said:


> Another question since this is still open.  Regarding Mount Ellen, a lot of emphasis has been placed on attracting locals for weekend skiing or day visits.  With an eye towards improving the quality of the experience, I am wondering if anything can be done about the lodge on race days.  GMVS has their own private lodge by the Inverness Quad and that helps keep the GMVS racers and their junior racing programs in their own area.  But when their guests come to race, which is pretty much every weekend, these folks clog the Mount Ellen Base Lodge, throw their stuff everywhere, take up lots of table space forcing other paying guests to sit on the floor, are rude to guests and staff, and really make the experience not very fun.  Is there any way to ask them to go to the GMVS Lodge or to at least ask that they use a specific section of the lodge?  Any way that GMVS can be asked to help police the situation?  I understand that they can't control their guests, but at least there should be some communication regarding what is proper lodge etiquette and to remind them to be considerate of other guests.
> 
> I understand that GMVS is a major stakeholder at Sugarbush and they are a big reason why Ellen is still in operation, but there are other guests who are paying to use the facilities.  Thanks.


----------



## thetrailboss (Sep 8, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> There's limited room in the Alpine Training facility - barely enough to hold the kids usually. There's no room for everyone's family to go there too...



Are we talking about the same building?  The one I'm referring to is a fairly significant building...about the same footprint size as the ME Lodge.  

And I understand the issue with space, but in my experience at both Burke and SB, the racing crowd is probably the most inconsiderate bunch of folks I have ever seen.  At least put the bags on the side of the room and don't throw stuff on the floor.


----------



## Newpylong (Sep 8, 2009)

I would assume we are - there's only one at ME that I know of. The entire ground floor is ski lockers and tuning facilities. The top floor is tables and couches - but like I said, not enough space for the kids and all of their families.

Coming from the race world I would have to agree, there are a lot of dinks. 




thetrailboss said:


> Are we talking about the same building?  The one I'm referring to is a fairly significant building...about the same footprint size as the ME Lodge.
> 
> And I understand the issue with space, but in my experience at both Burke and SB, the racing crowd is probably the most inconsiderate bunch of folks I have ever seen.  At least put the bags on the side of the room and don't throw stuff on the floor.


----------



## ski_resort_observer (Sep 9, 2009)

At the Mt Ellen Lodge there is usually plenty of places for bags on overhead shelves and hangers above the tables plus the upstairs. There are small lockers in the lower level and on the main floor in the back room. It does get abit crowded when there big races but people seem to just go with the flow, didn't hear many complaints.

At the Gatehouse Lodge there is paid storage with Guest Services, a free but unsecure baggage room to the right of the GS Desk and small lockers on the first floor. No bags are allowed to be left upstairs in the main lodge.


----------

