# Gore improvements....



## faceplant (Oct 1, 2009)

just got email- 'Sagamores' that new bump run.....

"INCREASED SNOWMAKING, NEW TRAIL, & EXTENDED GLADES ON BURNT RIDGE MOUNTAIN
Our newest development on Burnt Ridge Mountain will feature several new improvements during 2009/2010!  Snowmaking is being added to "Sagamore"- a monster expert trail that will keep you on your edges for over 1400' vertical.  Guests should look for the opening of "Eagle's Nest", an intermediate trail that connects from "Upper Pipeline" to the base of the Burnt Ridge Quad.  In improving access to Burnt Ridge, the Cirque Glades will be extended all the way to the base of the lift and work will be done to regrade the "Cedars" trail.  The opening of Burnt Ridge Mountain during the 2008/2009 season increased Gore's vertical drop to 2,300 feet, and offers a blend of intermediate and expert terrain serviced by the luxurious high-speed Burnt Ridge Quad.
EXCITING SKI BOWL PROGRESS - Celebrate with us the 2009/2010 opening of the all-new Ski Bowl Lodge!    Look for new restrooms, updated ticketing, modernized foodservice, and better seating. (The only thing we are keeping the same is the fireplace.)  Trail work is underway towards Gore's interconnect with the historic area, scheduled to open in 2010/2011.  The interconnect will further increase Gore's vertical to 2,500' the sixth greatest in the eastern US.
ALL-NEW TERRAIN PARK ON WILD AIR - We are moving our terrain park to a widened "Wild Air"!  This location offers quicker access from the gondola, to show off your latest tricks on all of the Terrain Park Team's new elements.
 IT'S ALL ABOUT THE PRODUCT... When we expand terrain, we expand our snowmaking and grooming capabilities to match.  Look for yet ANOTHER new grooming machine during 2009/2010 and thirty more tower guns.  50 new tower guns were installed on “Hawkeye” and “Echo” for 2008/2009.


saweeet
:beer:


----------



## ta&idaho (Oct 2, 2009)

I'm excited to check out Gore this year.  Emilio's just sent out their trip schedule, and they're running busses to Gore on Saturdays this year.

http://www.emiliosskishop.com/gore.html


----------



## twinplanx (Oct 2, 2009)

ta&idaho said:


> I'm excited to check out Gore this year.  Emilio's just sent out their trip schedule, and they're running busses to Gore on Saturdays this year.
> 
> http://www.emiliosskishop.com/gore.html



Bonus!! :beer:


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 2, 2009)

Tell you what.  Gore has been doing a ton of stuff over the years.  They get the snow and its a great hill.  Glade skiing is abundant, drops, steeps, bumps it all there.  Only negative is there runs are short.


----------



## Skimaine (Oct 2, 2009)

Putting Gore on the wish list.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 4, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> Tell you what.  Gore has been doing a ton of stuff over the years.  They get the snow and its a great hill.  Glade skiing is abundant, drops, steeps, bumps it all there.  Only negative is there runs are short.



They get the snow?

That's news to them, according to their published snowfall statistics.


----------



## catskills (Oct 4, 2009)

*Jealous. * Belleayre was suppose to break ground on a new lodge last year. :sad:  Even though the money was allocated for the Belleayre new lodge, the project was stopped due to NY State's financial problems.  I guess ORDA ( a separate entity)  already cashed the check from NY state for the Gore lodge before the economic implosion.  

More than half the skiers and riders at Gore drive past the Catskill ski areas from points south.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 4, 2009)

catskills said:


> More than half the skiers and riders at Gore drive past the Catskill ski areas from points south.



I kinda doubt that. If that where true they would be traveling 3+ hours depending on how far south they are starting. The bulk of Gore skiers are from Albany- Saratoga- Glens Falls areas. It is still largely a day trip place. Gore certainly does have asperations of becoming a destination resort in the near future. Time will tell.


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Oct 4, 2009)

catskills said:


> *Jealous. *
> 
> More than half the skiers and riders at Gore drive past the Catskill ski areas from points south.



I'm one of those that drive past the Catskills to go to Gore. It's comparing apples and oranges as far as terrain and snowfall.


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 4, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> I'm one of those that drive past the Catskills to go to Gore. It's comparing apples and oranges as far as terrain and snowfall.



I'm not saying no one does, but I stand by my opinion, based only on my personel experiences. I use to ski Gore about 10x a season, now I'm only able to get there 2 or 3.
Most of the conversations I get into there or over hear on a lift are from people from the areas I mentioned.

I certainly didn't mean to imply that Gore wasn't worth the trip. I like it there.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 4, 2009)

I really want to get back there... last time I was there the old gondola was still running...


----------



## Warp Daddy (Oct 4, 2009)

i usually get to Gore a couple times a season . I always have fun there lots of variety and now that they've bypassed the old horrible flat section on Cloud skiing from the gondola is a good alternative  . I like skiing the stuff off the true summit too and down to the old summit double  and when the wind is nasty  the Sleeping Bear section is a great place to get out of the wind .

 . Didn't get there last yr so haven'r skied Burnt Ridge trails


----------



## x10003q (Oct 4, 2009)

The following info is on the Gore web. This is from the Appendix 2 Economic analysis pdf.
I happen to question the current estimate of 65 destination/35 day skiers. There is a nice pie chart (that I could not copy) that shows the distribution. However Gore does not show how many tickets were sold to which regions. Also, Albany (20%) plus Saratoga/Glenns Falls (18%) adds up to 38%. All these skiers are a day trip away (in theory). They might visit more individual day trips than the (overnight) NYC/NJ/LI total of 33%.

"In 1995, Gore estimates that their skier mix was 35 percent destination skiers and 65 percent day skiers. In comparison, the ski facility currently (2007) estimates that the mix is 65 percent destination skiers and 35 percent day skiers. As such, Gore’s economic impact has increased not only in response to higher ski visit numbers, but also in response to increasing numbers of destination skiers.
The graphic below shows the geographic distribution of Gore skiers in recent years.

Geographic Distribution: Gore Skiers

Albany - 20%
Canada - 1%
Central & Western NY - 10%
Connecticut - 3%
Hudson Valley - 3%
Long Island - 10%
Mid-Atlantic - 4%
New England - 3%
New Jersey - 13%
NYC - 10%
Other USA - 2%
Pennsylvania - 3%
Saratoga/Glens Falls - 18%


----------



## skimore (Oct 4, 2009)

x10003q said:


> The following info is on the Gore web. This is from the Appendix 2 Economic analysis pdf.
> I happen to question the current estimate of 65 destination/35 day skiers. There is a nice pie chart (that I could not copy) that shows the distribution. However Gore does not show how many tickets were sold to which regions. Also, Albany (20%) plus Saratoga/Glenns Falls (18%) adds up to 38%. All these skiers are a day trip away (in theory). They might visit more individual day trips than the (overnight) NYC/NJ/LI total of 33%.
> 
> "In 1995, Gore estimates that their skier mix was 35 percent destination skiers and 65 percent day skiers. In comparison, the ski facility currently (2007) estimates that the mix is 65 percent destination skiers and 35 percent day skiers. As such, Gore’s economic impact has increased not only in response to higher ski visit numbers, but also in response to increasing numbers of destination skiers.
> ...


 
I'd like to know where the 65 percent destination skiers are staying


----------



## crank (Oct 4, 2009)

Me 'n the boys certainly enjoyed Cirque Glade over at Burnt Ridge last MLK weekend.  Probably be there again MLK 2010.

Here's a few pics...


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 4, 2009)

skimore said:


> I'd like to know where the 65 percent destination skiers are staying



My guess is they either made it up or they somehow redefined  "destination skier".  It is a vague enough term to allow for that.  Perhaps they allowed people to define themselves.  Or took a random sampling of one gondola cabin load.

That said, it is a fun place to ski.


----------



## catskills (Oct 5, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> I kinda doubt that. If that where true they would be traveling 3+ hours depending on how far south they are starting. The bulk of Gore skiers are from Albany- Saratoga- Glens Falls areas. It is still largely a day trip place. Gore certainly does have asperations of becoming a destination resort in the near future. Time will tell.


From Gore Suplimental Environmental Impact Statement  on Page 59 Figure 4-2


----------



## x10003q (Oct 5, 2009)

skimore said:


> I'd like to know where the 65 percent destination skiers are staying



I would like to know also. I think that the 65% is BS, but I could be wrong. They do ask for zip codes when you buy the lift ticket. A  2 day ticket with a NJ zip would most likely indicate an overnight stay. I guess if you include from Lake George Village to Scroon Lake to Indian Lake to Speculator (?) there are quite a few vacation type places to stay that are in a reasonable driving distance.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 5, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> They get the snow?
> 
> That's news to them, according to their published snowfall statistics.



It might be news to you but not them...


----------



## legalskier (Oct 5, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> I'm one of those that drive past the Catskills to go to Gore. It's comparing apples and oranges as far as terrain



You're depriving yourself of some excellent terrain. Gore is a fun mountain which I plan on skiing this season, but if you want steeps there, it's basically Rumor, the (unnamed?) trail under Staightbrook Quad and Darkside Glades (I haven't skied Burnt Ridge yet). I'd put all of Hunter West/LowerK27/Racer's Edge/Crossover up against Gore any day for steeps. Plattekill has Blockbuster, Freefall, Plunge and glades. Windham has Wheelchair and Wedel, and Cathedral Brook, Dot Nebel, Onteora and the glades at Belleayre are a lot of fun. IMHO, you ought to give them a try sometime; you would save yourself time and gas.


----------



## catskills (Oct 5, 2009)

+1 ^^^ what legalskier said


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Oct 5, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> I'm one of those that drive past the Catskills to go to Gore. It's comparing apples and oranges as far as terrain and snowfall.





legalskier said:


> You're depriving yourself of some excellent terrain. Gore is a fun mountain which I plan on skiing this season, but if you want steeps there, it's basically Rumor, the (unnamed?) trail under Staightbrook Quad and Darkside Glades (I haven't skied Burnt Ridge yet). I'd put all of Hunter West/LowerK27/Racer's Edge/Crossover up against Gore any day for steeps. Plattekill has Blockbuster, Freefall, Plunge and glades. Windham has Wheelchair and Wedel, and Cathedral Brook, Dot Nebel, Onteora and the glades at Belleayre are a lot of fun. IMHO, you ought to give them a try sometime; you would save yourself time and gas.



You left out an important part of my original point in the portion you edited for the quote-snowfall.

I ski the Catskills several times every season, and don't dispute that Hunter and Plattekill have terrain that can be fairly compared to Gore's. The Windham and Belleayre comparison may be a bit of a stretch. To me, the combination of terrain and the snow quality and quantity (I admit to saying quantity without bothering to look at average snowfall for southern ADK or Catskills) makes Gore my preferred destination. The 'dacks  don't get quite the thaw/freeze that the 'skills do. Of course that assumes I'm able to do at least an overnight as opposed to a day trip.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 5, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> It might be news to you but not them...



What does that even mean?

They get 150" per year, measured (like all resorts) in a high-elevation, wind-protected spot.  That's less than every resort in VT.  Less than Whiteface.  About equal to the Catskills (Belleayre and Plattekill), much further south.  They most certainly do NOT "get the snow".


----------



## x10003q (Oct 5, 2009)

legalskier said:


> You're depriving yourself of some excellent terrain. Gore is a fun mountain which I plan on skiing this season, but if you want steeps there, it's basically Rumor, the (unnamed?) trail under Staightbrook Quad and Darkside Glades (I haven't skied Burnt Ridge yet). I'd put all of Hunter West/LowerK27/Racer's Edge/Crossover up against Gore any day for steeps. Plattekill has Blockbuster, Freefall, Plunge and glades. Windham has Wheelchair and Wedel, and Cathedral Brook, Dot Nebel, Onteora and the glades at Belleayre are a lot of fun. IMHO, you ought to give them a try sometime; you would save yourself time and gas.



At Gore you forgot 2 short narrow trails - Lower Steilhang and  Upper Darby, and one longer steeper one - Lies. The trail under the Straightbrook quad at Gore is Double Barrel. I did not ski the BRQ at Gore that much, but has has some nice sustained steepness and is pretty long. It also has the awesome Cirque Glades. Lies is very much like the Catskills, steep at the top and mellowing farther down. Lies is also not as steep as Rumor but steeper than anything in the Catskiils except for Lower K-27.  As much as I love Platekill, the 2 of 3 trails you mention (Freefall, Plunge) are not as steep as Lies and after the top 200 feet are pretty much blue trails. Blockbuster is not as steep as Lies either , but it does have more of a sustained steepness (when it is open).  

Windham has a similar profile to Plattekill with a little longer steep section on the trails mentioned. Belleayre has a shorter top steep section than Plattekill or Windham. Hunter West has some nice long steeps and there are the mentioned trails on the front of Hunter.
K-27 is by far the steepest and it rivals Rumor. However the steep section is short.

The Catskills are my day areas. I enjoy all of them. If I am daytripping on the weeekend, Plattekill is my choice. When you try to compare them to Gore, Gore will always win. The glades are way better at Gore, there is more natural snow at Gore (except for Plattekill), and there is a lot more terrain( green, blue and black) to ski at Gore. As mentioned in the thread, there are less freeze/thaw cycles. Hunter is a zoo on the weekends and Windham can be crowded. At Belleayre and Hunter the blue runs are crowded roads. The Catskills do the best with what they have, but intermediate skiers have a lot more choices at Gore as do beginners (thanks to Ruby Run off the Gondola). I still will pound the black trails, but most of my family members do not. Trails like Showcase and Twister at Gore are 1500 vert feet of sustained blueness that just does not exist in the Catskills.
One more thing to remember about Gore: even when the cars are parked down the access road and they are turning people away, the lifts and trails will not be crowded. The mountain has lots of room. The only place in the Catskills that is never crowded is Plattekill and that is because it is a longer drive from the NY Thruway.


----------



## ta&idaho (Oct 5, 2009)

Here's a question: does Gore get enough snow that the trees/glades have skiable coverage most of the season?  In my limited experience, that's a big limitation for the Catskills.


----------



## x10003q (Oct 5, 2009)

ta&idaho said:


> Here's a question: does Gore get enough snow that the trees/glades have skiable coverage most of the season?  In my limited experience, that's a big limitation for the Catskills.



This is an important point. Hunter is never cheap about snowmaking, but over the 35 years I have been skiing at Hunter I can remember many seasons with little or no snow in the woods. I have been skiing Gore for 23 years and there are very few I have not been in the woods. Gore is 100 miles further north than Hunter and this does make a difference in how the snow lasts.


----------



## ta&idaho (Oct 5, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> They get 150" per year, measured (like all resorts) in a high-elevation, wind-protected spot.  That's less than every resort in VT.  Less than Whiteface.  About equal to the Catskills (Belleayre and Plattekill), much further south.



Just the facts, Tin Woodsman:

According to the highly scientific OnTheSnow.com, Bromley and Suicide Six actually get less (145 and 90 inches, respectively) annual snowfall, and Ascutney gets the same amount (150 inches).  Take that, Vermont!

Whiteface snags the Adirondack title, narrowly besting Gore with 163 inches to Gore's 150.

Plattekill receives a whopping 200 inches, but its listing includes a suspicious footnote posing the age-old question: "If a snowflake falls in the woods and there is no one there to ski it, does it trigger a pre-season Alpine Zone kerfluffle?"

The other Catskills resorts all get less than Gore: Belleayre 120, Hunter 120, Windham 63 (don't be led astray by the discrepancy between Hunter and Windham...those eight miles make all the difference in the world).

;-)


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 5, 2009)

ta&idaho said:


> Just the facts, Tin Woodsman:
> 
> According to the highly scientific OnTheSnow.com, Bromley and Suicide Six actually get less (145 and 90 inches, respectively) annual snowfall, and Ascutney gets the same amount (150 inches).  Take that, Vermont!


Suicide Six is not a resort.  It's a small ski hill.  I intentionally used the "resort" terminology to exclude bumps like Suicide Six and Cochrans that are low elevation and not useful comparators.

As for Bromley, that mountain has been described in a variety of positive ways, but "they get the snow" is not one of them.  Not exactly a glade skiing/powder mecca.  Though they and Ascutney likely qualify, so kudos to you for looking it up.   Still, not exactly a great marketing slogan  - "Gore: We beat (by 5") or tie the least snowy resorts in VT!"



> Plattekill receives a whopping 200 inches, but its listing includes a suspicious footnote posing the age-old question: "If a snowflake falls in the woods and there is no one there to ski it, does it trigger a pre-season Alpine Zone kerfluffle?"
> 
> The other Catskills resorts all get less than Gore: Belleayre 120, Hunter 120, Windham 63 (don't be led astray by the discrepancy between Hunter and Windham...those eight miles make all the difference in the world).
> ;-)


Per Belleayre's website, they get 141 inches, a scant 9 inches less than Gore.  They are, for all intents and purposes, equal.  

Gore doesn't get the snow by nearly any reasonable definition of the term.  Gore aspires to be a major ski resort.  They compare themselves against the major resorts in VT and elsewhere in northern NE, as well as to Whiteface.  This is born out by their publicly available economic study supporting the recent round of expansions.  The only major resorts it gets more snow than in all of northern NE are Bromley and Loon (with a base elevation of 800').  Neither of those places are known as deep powder meccas.  

Again, there are a lot of nice things to say about Gore, but "they get the snow" is not one of them.


----------



## ta&idaho (Oct 5, 2009)

Tongue-in-cheek statistical posturing aside, Gore still seems like an intriguing place to check out (I've never been, but its definitely on the list for this year).  Coming from the city, its a closer drive than most (if not all) of the resorts in Vermont, and they seem to have opened up (or at least begun advertising) some interesting (if not knock-your-socks-off) terrain.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Oct 5, 2009)

x10003q said:


> At Gore you forgot 2 short narrow trails - Lower Steilhang and  Upper Darby, and one longer steeper one - Lies. The trail under the Straightbrook quad at Gore is Double Barrel. I did not ski the BRQ at Gore that much, but has has some nice sustained steepness and is pretty long. It also has the awesome Cirque Glades. Lies is very much like the Catskills, steep at the top and mellowing farther down. Lies is also not as steep as Rumor but steeper than anything in the Catskiils except for Lower K-27.  As much as I love Platekill, the 2 of 3 trails you mention (Freefall, Plunge) are not as steep as Lies and after the top 200 feet are pretty much blue trails. Blockbuster is not as steep as Lies either , but it does have more of a sustained steepness (when it is open).
> 
> Windham has a similar profile to Plattekill with a little longer steep section on the trails mentioned. Belleayre has a shorter top steep section than Plattekill or Windham. Hunter West has some nice long steeps and there are the mentioned trails on the front of Hunter.
> K-27 is by far the steepest and it rivals Rumor. However the steep section is short.
> ...



Yeah, what he said . . .


----------



## deadheadskier (Oct 6, 2009)

At a distance, all I can say is Gore looks AWESOME.  I wish all the major NY areas were closer to me.  Would love to someday ski Whiteface, Gore, Hunter, Belleyare, Greek and most especially Plattekille.  That place looks really special on a powder day......in the MRG, Magic, Saddleback category of serious terrain with minimal competition on a powder day.

Who knows if I'll ever get over there, but I can completely see why so many folks in that neck of the woods are so passionate about each of these areas.


----------



## legalskier (Oct 6, 2009)

x10003q said:


> At Gore you forgot 2 short narrow trails - Lower Steilhang and  Upper Darby, and one longer steeper one - Lies. The trail under the Straightbrook quad at Gore is Double Barrel. I did not ski the BRQ at Gore that much, but has has some nice sustained steepness and is pretty long. It also has the awesome Cirque Glades. Lies is very much like the Catskills, steep at the top and mellowing farther down. Lies is also not as steep as Rumor but steeper than anything in the Catskiils except for Lower K-27.  As much as I love Platekill, the 2 of 3 trails you mention (Freefall, Plunge) are not as steep as Lies and after the top 200 feet are pretty much blue trails. Blockbuster is not as steep as Lies either , but it does have more of a sustained steepness (when it is open).
> 
> Windham has a similar profile to Plattekill with a little longer steep section on the trails mentioned. Belleayre has a shorter top steep section than Plattekill or Windham. Hunter West has some nice long steeps and there are the mentioned trails on the front of Hunter.
> K-27 is by far the steepest and it rivals Rumor. However the steep section is short.
> ...



I'm aware of those other trails, having skied them many times, but if you check http://ski-degrees.synthasite.com you'll see that most of the Catskill trails I mentioned have a steeper pitch than Lies (Yahoo at Belleayre tops it too). Also, Lies always is flat when I'm there; perhaps if they let it bump up it would present more of a challenge. And if a blue run at Belleayre is too crowded, I just move one or two runs over and have it all to myself. Don't get me wrong--I've never not enjoyed a day at Gore, even after a thaw-freeze. And I agree that for blue cruisers, nothing compares to Twister, which offers a nice warm-down after skiing the upper mountain all day. I was merely pointing out that the Catskills have so much to offer that it's a shame some people blow past the region on their way north. One thing you didn't mention, though, is the great views from the top of Gore, especially facing the snow-capped "northern peaks." 
Btw, if Double Barrel is the trail under Straightbrook Quad, then what's the name of the trail between that and Rumors? Seems to me the trail map is missing one trail name, no?


----------



## ta&idaho (Oct 6, 2009)

legalskier said:


> I'm aware of those other trails, having skied them many times, but if you check http://ski-degrees.synthasite.com you'll see that most of the Catskill trails I mentioned have a steeper pitch than Lies (Yahoo at Belleayre tops it too).



Interesting compilation, although focusing on steepness ignores the many other factors that make a particular run interesting.  Plattekill, for example, is a pretty consistent pitch from top-to-bottom.  I'd wager it never gets above 25 degrees, with an average (for the double side of the mountain) of probably something like 20 degrees.  But its a blast to ski.  Hunter West also maintains a good pitch from top to bottom, and when the snow is decent, its also a lot of fun.

Windham and Belleayre, by contrast, both start with about 200 vertical feet of 30-degree "headwall," and then it pretty quickly flattens out.  In my opinion, the bottom two thirds of most of the runs at these two mountains are boring, and often icy and crowded.  In fact, I'd probably prefer a flat run-out (common at resorts with a traverse back to the lift area), where you can just let your skis run (unless the mountains are empty, there's enough slope on the bottom sections of the runs at Windham and Belleayre that I don't feel comfortable straight-lining).


----------



## kcyanks1 (Oct 6, 2009)

legalskier said:


> Btw, if Double Barrel is the trail under Straightbrook Quad, then what's the name of the trail between that and Rumors? Seems to me the trail map is missing one trail name, no?



They are both "Double Barrel," hence the "double" (as I understand it, at least).


----------



## skimore (Oct 6, 2009)

ta&idaho said:


> Just the facts, Tin Woodsman:
> 
> 
> 
> ...


 
But you will routinely find better conditions a Gore. Most of the time the snow just blows off Whiteface with very few options to go find it


----------



## Harvey (Oct 6, 2009)

x10003q said:


> One more thing to remember about Gore: even when the cars are parked down the access road and they are turning people away, the lifts and trails will not be crowded. The mountain has lots of room.



I'm with you on this X. I remember MLK in 2008 the  parking lot was jammed to the point where they turned people away. I had a couple of great days at Gore and never felt crowded on the hill. If you've got the kind of mtn knowledge that Matt has...you probably never see anybody.



ta&idaho said:


> Here's a question: does Gore get enough snow that the trees/glades have skiable coverage most of the season?



Gore's trees are open a lot. I have no real data, but I'm guessing some runs are skiable (vs."open") at least 60% of the season.  I'd like to hear Matt's guess on that number. Would be interesting to keep data on that stat too.

With regard to how much snow Gore gets... because Gore doesn't do a season total, I kept track of reported totals in 08/09. I came out right at 150". While the early and mid-season was pretty good for snow and had limited freeze/thaw...March and April had minimal snowfall.  And I checked those totals against numbers at our place (2000') when I was up there. I thought they were pretty legit numbers. I actually think they are measured at the base.

With regard to destination/day split of skiers...a very non-scientific study does seem to classify Gore as more of a day trip mountain.  I think there were somewhere around 225,000 skier visits last year. If there were 100+ ski days you'd be putting up 2000+ people a night in the area. I don't see that the room inventory for that. Even if you include Indian Lake and Chestertown etc.

One thing I really like about Gore...I can't really imagine the whole mountain in my mind at once....there are so many nooks and cranies...if  the whole mountain is open (and that's a big if midweek)....there is a lot and official and unofficial lift served terrain.  I don't have a lot of experience at other mountains, but to me Gore has a lot to ski for what some consider a second or third tier mountain.


----------



## x10003q (Oct 6, 2009)

legalskier said:


> I'm aware of those other trails, having skied them many times, but if you check http://ski-degrees.synthasite.com you'll see that most of the Catskill trails I mentioned have a steeper pitch than Lies (Yahoo at Belleayre tops it too). Also, Lies always is flat when I'm there; perhaps if they let it bump up it would present more of a challenge. And if a blue run at Belleayre is too crowded, I just move one or two runs over and have it all to myself. Don't get me wrong--I've never not enjoyed a day at Gore, even after a thaw-freeze. And I agree that for blue cruisers, nothing compares to Twister, which offers a nice warm-down after skiing the upper mountain all day. I was merely pointing out that the Catskills have so much to offer that it's a shame some people blow past the region on their way north. One thing you didn't mention, though, is the great views from the top of Gore, especially facing the snow-capped "northern peaks."
> Btw, if Double Barrel is the trail under Straightbrook Quad, then what's the name of the trail between that and Rumors? Seems to me the trail map is missing one trail name, no?


Thanks for reminding me of the steepness site. I forgot I had it in my favorites. There is one line in your quote I want to focus on:

"I was merely pointing out that the Catskills have so much to offer that it's a shame some people blow past the region on their way north."

I hate blowing past the Catskills. It angers me when you come around a bend on the Thruway between exits 18 and 19 and you see the 4000 foot peaks of the Catskills and you know you still have a couple of hours of driving left. Somehow the only ski areas that have developed are 1100-1600 verticals with a max acreage of 267 acres (Windham). With the exception of Plattekill, the glades at the other 3 (Hunter, Windham, Belleayre) are more miss than hit. For me these places need more trails and if possible more vertical. Hunter cut that long liftline on the west side maybe 20 years ago. What happened? Did the Slutzkys piss off the DEP in NYS so much that they can never expand? About 5-7 years ago there was a Hunter expansion map on the internet. Was that just a wish? Lazlo Vajtay does a great job at Plattekill. He owns the much of the back side of the mountain. He cannot develop it just from the mountain's cash flow so he continues to run a tight ship that is mostly open Fri-Sun and holidays. Plattekill is awesome. It takes me about 2 to 2:15 to get to the mountain and the last 1 hour plus are 2 lanes of towns and lights. But in an easy 3 hour drive I can get to Gore with its claimed 400 acres. I do not know if this includes the marked glades and there are plenty of unmarked glades that are not included. 
There is a huge mountain past Hunter called Bearpen Mountain. It was a ski area in the 1950s called Princeton Ski Bowl with 1900 vert feet. Here is a link to some info:http://skikabbalah.com/lostNY/BEARPEN STORY.htm
This could have set the standard that others could shoot for and maybe the Catskills would have been a mecca for eastern skiing instead of mostly day areas for the NYC metro region.

As I have indicated I enjoy the Catskills. There is just not enough to hold my attention for the 7 to 10 weekends I ski each season plus the occasional midweek fun. We all make our decsions on many factors. As much as I enjoy Gore I certainly would rather be skiing Sugarbush and MRG on those weekends, but a 5-6 hour drive is out of the question. 

Maybe if I was 5 hours form Gore I would be a regular at Hunter.:smile:


----------



## Greg (Oct 7, 2009)

Only been once and on an incredibly horrible day conditions-wise (read: frozen granular). Definitely looks like there is some fun skiing, especially the lift lines. Will have to try and re-visit after a dump, and it does seem like sometimes Gore is in the bullseye. Problem is at a 3 hour drive, I could be at Magic in less time and Killington in the same amount of time. Still, would like to get back for something different eventually though.


----------



## ta&idaho (Oct 7, 2009)

harvey44 said:


> I'm with you on this X. I remember MLK in 2008 the  parking lot was jammed to the point where they turned people away. I had a couple of great days at Gore and never felt crowded on the hill. If you've got the kind of mtn knowledge that Matt has...you probably never see anybody.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Wow...quite the blog.  I've spent most of my morning poking around and checking out the Gore pics.  Love your little cabin: http://harvey44.blogspot.com/2008/10/cabin-in-north-river.html

Time to get some work done...


----------



## legalskier (Oct 7, 2009)

x10003q said:


> There is a huge mountain past Hunter called Bearpen Mountain. It was a ski area in the 1950s called Princeton Ski Bowl with 1900 vert feet. Here is a link to some info:http://skikabbalah.com/lostNY/BEARPEN STORY.htm
> This could have set the standard that others could shoot for and maybe the Catskills would have been a mecca for eastern skiing instead of mostly day areas for the NYC metro region.



So what could have been the largest ski area in the Catskills was destroyed by a defective title...but only after the true land owner slept on his rights for years while many worked so hard to build up a remarkable destination.  Ben Lane, the young ski entrepreneur, believed he had taken good title from record owners who evidently had the imprimatur of the State of New York, only to watch his dream slip through his fingers in a court of law of the State of New York. (He also lost his father to the mountain.) One wonders whether the trial focused on a claim of adverse possession, why he lost, and why he and Goff couldn’t have come to an amicable settlement that kept the ski area alive.  What a sad story–both for him and the skiing industry in the Catskills. Thanks for the link.

Incidentally, there was a claim of adverse possession recently established in Pennsylvania against owners who slept on their rights.  Unlike Goff and Bearpen Mountain, they lost their land:

_*Couple loses land to squatter's rights law*
The Standard Speaker ^ | October 5, 2009 | JIM DINO
Posted on Monday, October 05, 2009 7:34:30 PM by Daffynition
If you own a piece of property, it's a good idea to know what is going on there. If you don't, you could end up losing it. A Valley woman can attest.
The woman and her husband purchased a large parcel of land a few miles away from their home as an investment, and sort of forgot about it. Meanwhile, a neighbor to the land used it for 21 years and then claimed ownership, using the old "squatter's rights" law in Pennsylvania. "We purchased it in the 1970s, as an investment," the woman said. "We paid the taxes on it every year, but never looked at it. We thought, who is going to steal it? It's land. You can't put it on a flatbed and haul it away." Also, the neighbors of the land were friends of the couple. "These were people we knew all of our lives," she said. "We were not aware what was going on with the land." When the couple decided to sell the parcel to raise money for their four children, they discovered the plight of the land. "We had a buyer, so we hired a surveyor," she said. "That's how we found out about it. When we hired the surveyor, we got served with papers that (the neighbors) had put in a claim." Then, lawyers for both sides began to negotiate and the result was that the neighbors ended up with 55 percent, the lawyer for the couple 25 percent and 20 percent for the couple. "Hopefully, we can still sell it," she said. "One of the reasons we didn't keep up with what was going on there was that the land was off then beaten path. The land was a few miles away from our house. And the land was landlocked. We went out to see it, and it was a very bumpy ride "
But the woman wanted to use her unpleasant experience to educate others. "It's just not ethical," she said. "I wouldn't do that to somebody. It's so much like stealing. (The neighbors) didn't pay the taxes on it, nor did they have the deed. We paid the taxes on it, all those years. I think people should be made aware that this law exists," she continued. "I don't want to see this happen to someone else. We should teach children in school skills they will need to live, like how to balance a checkbook and how the stock market works. We should also teach them about the law."
The law is called adverse possession, and what happened to the woman is relatively common across the United States, according to attorney William Hoffmeyer, of the Hoffmeyer & Semmelman law firm of York, experts in land law. Hoffmeyer said any neighbor who permits use of their land for 21 years can lose the land to the person using it. Hoffmeyer said the law arose when Pennsylvania was being settled by William Penn. "It started when land was going to waste," Hoffmeyer said. "The law was created so that if someone else could use the land, they got it." Hoffmeyer said there are four key concepts for someone to claim, or lose, adverse possession. "Those words are open, notorious, hostile and visible," he said. "Open means if someone is doing something with the land right out in the open and not hiding it," Hoffmeyer said. "Notorious is if anybody knows what is happening on the land. Visible means one can see what is being done with the land, and hostile means what is being done with the land is against the rights of the true owner." There are some ways to fight the law. Hoffmeyer said. "If the landowner could take action to eliminate any of those words," he said. "For instance, to eliminate hostile, the landowner can take specific legal action against the user. They can tell them they are no longer permitted to use the land, and if they continue to do so, a trespass action will be filed against them. Or a court injunction could be filed, that forbids the people on the land." Hoffmeyer said he encounters many cases of adverse possession in his daily practice. "We see it quite a bit," he said. "It happens many times with people who inherit land from their parents. They don't live anywhere close to the property, so have no idea what is going on there. Out of loyalty to their parents, they pay the taxes on it every year, but never look at the property until they discover a neighbor is trying to take it from them. "It also happens when neighbors around a property inch over a boundary line," Hoffmeyer continued. "A less-than-desirable neighbor may mow the lawn over the line; or plant trees, flowers or shrubbery over the line, or install a fence over the line." It is up to the property owner to monitor such activity, and stop it as soon as he or she learns it is happening, Hoffmeyer said. "You can write a letter to the neighbors, telling them they are trespassing," he said. "In the letter, you tell them if they don't cease and desist, you will initiate a trespassing action against them." Hoffmeyer said in one case, a landowner who had sold land around him noticed his new neighbors were moving in - literally - toward him. "The landowner sent the neighbors a letter which stated they all acknowledged and understood they were not acquiring ownership of the land, but were being permitted to use it," Hoffmeyer said. "They were also told they had to assume the liability for the property they are using."_
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/2355560/posts


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 7, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> What does that even mean?
> 
> They get 150" per year, measured (like all resorts) in a high-elevation, wind-protected spot.  That's less than every resort in VT.  Less than Whiteface.  About equal to the Catskills (Belleayre and Plattekill), much further south.  They most certainly do NOT "get the snow".



OK if you say so stay over in Vermont what the heck do i care.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 7, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> What does that even mean?
> 
> They get 150" per year, measured (like all resorts) in a high-elevation, wind-protected spot.  That's less than every resort in VT.  Less than Whiteface.  About equal to the Catskills (Belleayre and Plattekill), much further south.  They most certainly do NOT "get the snow".



  So all you guys talk about the ski mags and the bias about brands.  You dont think the hills have a little hype going when they report snow fall?

So here  is the observation from living in tri city area most of my life and traveling around to all the hills.  Gore get as much or more snow than all the hills from killington south.   I travel to NC every Wed.  Have been for a couple of years.  They get the snow.   From Albany there is not a better mountain closer than Gore.  .


----------



## mattchuck2 (Oct 7, 2009)

harvey44 said:


> If you've got the kind of mtn knowledge that Matt has...you probably never see anybody.



True



harvey44 said:


> Gore's trees are open a lot. I have no real data, but I'm guessing some runs are skiable (vs."open") at least 60% of the season.  I'd like to hear Matt's guess on that number.



Using skiadk.com as a reference, I find that the glades were open around December 12th during the 2008/2009 season, December 17th in the 2007/2008 season (but closed around January 10th and reopened around January 25th), and January 30th in the 2006/2007 season. After these dates, the glades were "open" until the 1st or 2nd week of April for our skiing pleasure.

So, yeah.  The glades are there for the skiing.  Sure, some days we get a freeze/thaw and they aren't open.  Some days we get an ice storm and they get trashed.  And some days conditions just aren't good in there.  But the reality remains.  If you want trees at Gore (and know where you're going), you can get there.  Gore's Glades (ESPECIALLY the dark side - the north side of the mountain) are REALLY good at holding snow and keeping it there.  I've had a couple of experiences skiing out west where a lot of the mountain sucked, but there were some places on the mountain (north facing, east facing, etc.) that had sweet conditions.  Gore is kind of like that (not that the terrain is similar, just that Gore has a lot of different exposures leading to a lot of different skiing experiences all over the mountain).   

More trees for me.


----------



## ta&idaho (Oct 7, 2009)

mattchuck2 said:


> Gore's Glades (ESPECIALLY the dark side - the north side of the mountain) are REALLY good at holding snow and keeping it there.  I've had a couple of experiences skiing out west where a lot of the mountain sucked, but there were some places on the mountain (north facing, east facing, etc.) that had sweet conditions.  Gore is kind of like that (not that the terrain is similar, just that Gore has a lot of different exposures leading to a lot of different skiing experiences all over the mountain).



That makes a lot of sense.  Some places in Tahoe definitely exhibit this phenomenom.

I'm excited to check it out...


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 7, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> OK if you say so stay over in Vermont what the heck do i care.



Well apparently you do care, since you insisted that "they get the snow" when provided with conclusive facts that they do not.   If you get your knickers in a twist by my pointing out where you were quite wrong, that sounds like your problem, not mine.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 7, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> So all you guys talk about the ski mags and the bias about brands.  You dont think the hills have a little hype going when they report snow fall?
> 
> So here  is the observation from living in tri city area most of my life and traveling around to all the hills.  Gore get as much or more snow than all the hills from killington south.   I travel to NC every Wed.  Have been for a couple of years.  They get the snow.   From Albany there is not a better mountain closer than Gore.  .



Right - as if Gore is unique among ski areas in reporting their snow totals with complete accuracy.  If there is bias, they are likely all biased.  Regardless, it is not opinion but rather established fact that the Southern Greens get more snow than the southwest corner of the Dacks.  Even if you discount some 50 years of ski resort data, this is still born out by hydrological data and NWS data from spotters located in high elevation locales.

If you want to say that from Albany there isn't a better mountain closer than Gore, that seems very much true.  But they don't get the snow.  Not even close.


----------



## AdironRider (Oct 8, 2009)

So youre saying Mt. Snow and Magic get more and therefor better snow than Gore? Noone said Gore gets as much snow as Killington or Stowe or Jay, but rather that Gore gets more snow than any of the Catskill areas and certainly holds it longer than most places. But I guess you can just stay in southern VT, riding park at Mt Snow or you might get lucky and get a decent Magic which barely can afford to turn the lifts, let alone set up a base with any decent amount of snowmaking. Suhweet. Clearly Tin, you win.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Oct 8, 2009)

mattchuck2 said:


> True, but I could always use less people on the mountain . . . Hunter Rules!!!!!
> 
> 
> 
> ...



You have more experience than me, especially in recent years.  But when I skied there more often when I was younger, mostly before they added a lot of glades but during the time they added Chatiemac, Straightbrook, Twister, and Tahawus glades, the glades seemed to be open irregularly at least from my visits.  Also, at that time it seemed like trails on which they didn't make snow, namely Upper Darby and Lower Steiling (with a couple exceptions), were almost never open.  I wouldn't be surprised if there were full seasons when those trails never opened or were open no more than a handful of days in the late 1980s through 1990s.

Around elementary-school or junior-high time, based on my experience at Gore, I was mind-boggled how a place like MRG that hardly makes snow could exist in the east.  I realize this is all very unscientific.  But my personal experience, for what the sample-size is worth, is that Gore doesn't manage to keep glades or natural-snow trails open nearly with the regularity that northern VT areas do, at least.  I realize the comparison here is more Gore vs. southern VT, of which I don't have enough experience to say much.

I will admit that the snow is not the only problem; Gore also seems less willing than other mountains to open trails with marginal conditions.  But I do think the snow difference between gore and N.Vt is substantial and it leads to Gore not being able to keep open natural terrain throughout the season.

Edit:  To give Gore somewhat of a benefit of the doubt, when I was younger I also wasn't seeking off-trail experiences to the extent I do now, and also was probably myself more concerned about marginal conditions than I am now.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 8, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Well apparently you do care, since you insisted that "they get the snow" when provided with conclusive facts that they do not.   If you get your knickers in a twist by my pointing out where you were quite wrong, that sounds like your problem, not mine.



 There is not a problem that I am aware of..  I was just pointing out to people on here what a great hill gore has become, and they most certainly get snow.  I have snomobiled all over the southern greens.  If you think there is more snow from Mount Snow up through  Manchester than in North Creek going out toward indian lake you are mistaken.  keep doing what you are doing.


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 8, 2009)

Not so long ago, most northeastern skiers were indifferent about or oblivious to Gore mountain.  

L. Steilhang has had snowmaking on it the last 4 or 5 years.  It is open much more often now, altho often the headwall has great pyramid shaped moguls and  icy, banana shaped troughs eight feet deep and 12 feet long.  Generally better to duck to the right.


----------



## kcyanks1 (Oct 8, 2009)

witch hobble said:


> Not so long ago, most northeastern skiers were indifferent about or oblivious to Gore mountain.
> 
> L. Steilhang has had snowmaking on it the last 4 or 5 years.  It is open much more often now, altho often the headwall has great pyramid shaped moguls and  icy, banana shaped troughs eight feet deep and 12 feet long.  Generally better to duck to the right.



Even back then, there was a least one year where they made snow on it.  Upper Darby I think even technically has snowmaking capabilities, but it has never been used there.  I have skied Chatiemac a couple times without snowmaking, and some trails on the North side.  Powder Pass never has snowmaking (I don't believe it has snowmaking capabilities even), and sometimes in more recent years they have let other trails on the North side go natural ("Natural North").  It just doesn't seem like a sustainable approach for Gore for trails that they want to have open throughout most of the season on a reliable basis.

Since some people were comparing to the Catskills, from my few visits to Hunter, Gore does *seem* to get more snow or at least hold it better than Hunter.  So I'd give Gore the edge over the Catskills.  Again, I don't know enough about southern VT.  I would think at minimum Okemo and north probably beat out Gore snow-wise, though I'd take Gore over Okemo overall because of the terrain.


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 8, 2009)

I think that line on Darby is a dead end, de-activated line.  Bit of a xmas tree farm these days.  The Natual North thing is so it can be open after early season storms before that side has become a priority.  I don't think it is sustainable at all.  But it is fun, low angle stuff.  Those trails generally only see a day or two of snowmaking during the season, and hold their snow a long time.

I have skied Gore and SVT pretty extensively and can say that the difference in snowfall is not worth the keystrokes necessary for an argument.  And I know little to nothing of the Catskills.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 8, 2009)

AdironRider said:


> So youre saying Mt. Snow and Magic get more and therefor better snow than Gore?


Who said that other than you?  Stop arguing against a strawman.  Gore is a great mountain and I'd much rather ski there than Mt. Snow or possibly even Magic on most days but, that doesn't mean "they get the snow."



> Noone said Gore gets as much snow as Killington or Stowe or Jay, but rather that Gore gets more snow than any of the Catskill areas and certainly holds it longer than most places.


You're right, no one claimed they get as much snow as northern VT.  Then again, the original claim had nothing to do with a comparison to the Catskills either.  Moreover, if that's what you are comparing yourself too in terms of snowfall, then that's a pretty low bar.  Gore gets more than the Poconos too, but I wouldn't be crowing about it.  Regardless, it's factually incorrect anyway, as Plattekill and the apparently defunct Bobcat get quite a bit more snow than Gore.



> But I guess you can just stay in southern VT, riding park at Mt Snow or you might get lucky and get a decent Magic which barely can afford to turn the lifts, let alone set up a base with any decent amount of snowmaking. Suhweet. Clearly Tin, you win.


The only thing I win is the crown for making you look silly, as you attempt to ride to the rescue of a mountain in the Adirondacks yet again.  The first person to make the Magic/Mt Snow comparison was you.  Look, up in the sky!  Is it a bird?  A plane?  No!  It's Adirondack Strawman!  

Try again.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 8, 2009)

kcyanks1 said:


> Since some people were comparing to the Catskills, from my few visits to Hunter, Gore does *seem* to get more snow or at least hold it better than Hunter.  So I'd give Gore the edge over the Catskills.  Again, I don't know enough about southern VT.  I would think at minimum Okemo and north probably beat out Gore snow-wise, though I'd take Gore over Okemo overall because of the terrain.


I'd agree with all of this.   From a terrain, variety and snowfall perspective, none of the places in the Catskills can hold Gore's jock.  And while Okemo is bigger and may have more reliable on-trail conditions, Gore has a lot more to offer for those who haven't been lobotomized.  In fact, the only place that would be in the conversation with Gore among resorts at an equivalent or lower latitude is Magic b/c of the glades, vibe and lack of crowds.  Gore may not get the snow, but it has a lot going for it.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 8, 2009)

*Tinman*

The only thing I win is the crown for making you look silly, as you attempt to ride to the rescue of a mountain in the Adirondacks yet again. The first person to make the Magic/Mt Snow comparison was you. Look, up in the sky! Is it a bird? A plane? No! It's Adirondack Strawman! 

Try again


I dont understand why you are being such a douche.   Please advise.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 8, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> I dont understand why you are being such a douche.   Please advise.



Let's recap:

1) You say of Gore "They get the snow."

2) I say "No, they don't" and provide figures to illustrate that Gore is, in fact, near the bottom of the pile among large/major resorts in terms of annual snowfall.   Unnoticed, naturally, is that I compliment Gore for having a lot going for it in other areas.

3) You get your feelings hurt, and start telling me to "stay in VT".

4) Adiron Rider rushes to your defense with the classic "Dacks are teh bestest!!!11"  "Stay at Magic and Mt. Snow"

5) You both get called out for this silliness.

What have I missed here?


----------



## EPB (Oct 8, 2009)

"Let's recap:

1) You say of Gore "They get the snow."

2) I say "No, they don't" and provide figures to illustrate that Gore is, in fact, near the bottom of the pile among large/major resorts in terms of annual snowfall. Unnoticed, naturally, is that I compliment Gore for having a lot going for it in other areas.

3) You get your feelings hurt, and start telling me to "stay in VT".

4) Adiron Rider rushes to your defense with the classic "Dacks are teh bestest!!!11" "Stay at Magic and Mt. Snow"

5) You both get called out for this silliness.

What have I missed here?"

I rarely post on this forum. I mostly just use it to gain perspective, but Tin Woodsman's relentless efforts to prove how smart he is cannot go unaddressed. 
Because logical fallacies were brought into this thread, I'll start by pointing out that many in this forum believe that overestimates of average annual snowfall vary by resort and are not necessarily useful for comparison. Stowe's advertised snowfall has jumped from 250 inches to 333 in recent years most likely because the clowns at AIG figured they were fudging all their other numbers, so what the heck? Sugarloaf's numbers have been listed as high as 240 inches per season and they have since backed down to around 200. 

It is also evident that Tin Woodsman is so obnoxiously particular and stubborn that he fails to acknowledge that "GETTING the snow" isn't even as important as "HAVING the snow". Jay Peak closed "Sis Boom Bah" a few years back because it didn't retain the alleged 350+ inches of  snow that it received. Getting the snow was really not the issue.

As far as personal attacks are concerned, since when are people able to psychoanalyze via online forum? Tone doesn't show up through text, and it's downright unreasonable to claim that you understand the manner in which people make their statements in posts.

I will, however, venture a guess as to why the 150 inches of snowfall is such a pressing issue to you. Sunday River has claimed around 155 inches of snowfall (now inflated to 167) and they boast the only glades to feature snowmaking that I have ever encountered. What's that one on the skiers left called again?


----------



## campgottagopee (Oct 8, 2009)

eastern powder baby said:


> "Let's recap:
> 
> 1) You say of Gore "They get the snow."
> 
> ...



You should post more often


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 8, 2009)

eastern powder baby said:


> I rarely post on this forum. I mostly just use it to gain perspective, but Tin Woodsman's relentless efforts to prove how smart he is cannot go unaddressed.


Really?  It doesn't take a genius to see that 150" doesn't constitute "getting the snow" in any meaningful sense of the term.  Taking 2 seconds to look up published anual snowfall stats isn't that much work.  If that equates to a relentless effort to prove how smart I am, then guilty as charged.  



> Because logical fallacies were brought into this thread, I'll start by pointing out that many in this forum believe that overestimates of average annual snowfall vary by resort and are not necessarily useful for comparison. Stowe's advertised snowfall has jumped from 250 inches to 333 in recent years most likely because the clowns at AIG figured they were fudging all their other numbers, so what the heck? Sugarloaf's numbers have been listed as high as 240 inches per season and they have since backed down to around 200.



This is rich.  You start by making claims of logical fallacies, and then go on to make a claim that somehow AIG mgmt is influencing the snowfall numbers that Stowe reports.  Pot, meet kettle.  You may be right - but the conspiracy goes well beyond what you've alluded to here.  In fact, it seems that Bolton Valley and Smugglers Notch are in on it too!  The former claims to receive 312" per year, despite being 600' lower in elevation and w/o the benefit of 4000' mountains surrounding it.  Smuggs just next door receives 321" per year according to Tony Crocker and the NWS spotter at the base.  It's a vast, right wing conspiracy!!!   Or maybe you might be aware that many resorts use a 20 year moving average and, as you'll recall, the 80s weren't all that great for snowfall.  

You quite literally have zero point here.  Sorry of my online persona rubs you the wrong way, but please come to the table with facts instead of a dilettante's understanding of the issue.



> It is also evident that Tin Woodsman is so obnoxiously particular and stubborn that he fails to acknowledge that "GETTING the snow" isn't even as important as "HAVING the snow". Jay Peak closed "Sis Boom Bah" a few years back because it didn't retain the alleged 350+ inches of  snow that it received. Getting the snow was really not the issue.


If you were talking specifically about Sis-Boom-Bah and someone claimed it "got the snow", I would almost certainly have chimed in that it doesn't hold the snow, so it's irrelevant.  In a similar manner, I've made no statements regarding Gore's ability to hold the snow.  In fact, I've heard great things in that regard about the Darkside with its northerly aspect and relatively narrow, protected trails.  That's a LOT different than saying "they get the snow", especially when only a small portion of Gore's terrain actually faces north and can take advantage of the snow retention assets that the Darkside has.  



> As far as personal attacks are concerned, since when are people able to psychoanalyze via online forum? Tone doesn't show up through text, and it's downright unreasonable to claim that you understand the manner in which people make their statements in posts.


"they get the snow" - what's to psychoanalyze?  All I've seen is a bunch of guys butthurt over a perceived slight regarding on of their favorite resorts.  No psychoanalysis needed.



> I will, however, venture a guess as to why the 150 inches of snowfall is such a pressing issue to you. Sunday River has claimed around 155 inches of snowfall (now inflated to 167) and they boast the only glades to feature snowmaking that I have ever encountered. What's that one on the skiers left called again?


There's comedy.  There's high comedy.  And then there's the fact that I've skied Sunday River but once about 20 years ago and came away unimpressed.   I love how you ascribe my motivations as having something to do with defending a place I could care less about.  As if there is some sort of online ski area popularity contest I'm desperate to engage in.  Who is really that pathetic?

Get a clue and some facts and then come back when you're prepared.


----------



## EPB (Oct 8, 2009)

A. I never said that you thought you were smart for looking up facts. A good example would be referring to my understanding of bogus snow totals as "dilettante's understanding of the issue" because that implies that you are some sort of professional. I didn't know there were professional Northeastern ski area snowfall specialists.
B. You still have given no reason for skeptics to believe that ski resorts cheat equally in their reports.
C. You danced around my point about holding snow being more important than snowfall totals. Instead you went off topic and appealed to your alleged professional authority on the matter of increasingly inflated measurements. (Missing the point fallacy?)
D. Telling people their feelings are hurt is a psychoanalytical remark. Someone as arrogant as you should be smart enough to realize you told people how they were feeling through the internet and that's downright ridiculous.
E. The SR thing was a joke for good fun.


----------



## catskills (Oct 8, 2009)

On snowcoutry Gore lists  400 acres of skiable trails where 57 percent is intermediate.  Gore says they have 228 acres of intermediate trails, which is double Whiteface, Hunter, and Belleayre.   Are these Gore stats real or made up ?  

Further down it says Gore has 95% snowmaking and 285 acres covered by snowmaking.  95 percent of 400 acres is 380 acres.  Someone at Gore failed math class.  Not sure what to belive with Gore stats.

Whitface total skiable acres is 282 with 36 percent intermediate.   Total 102 intermediate acres. 

Hunter Mtn total skiable acres is 240 with 30 percent intermediate.  Total 72 intermediate acres. 

Windham skiable acres is 265 with 45 percent intermediate Total 119 intermediate acres. 

Belleayre skiable acres is 171 with 62 percent intermediate   Total 106 intermediate acres. 

I realize most people here in this forum ski and ride expert trails.  Reality is that most skiers and riders spend their time on intermediate trails.


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 8, 2009)

catskills said:


> On snowcoutry Gore lists  400 acres of skiable trails where 57 percent is intermediate.  Gore says they have 228 acres of intermediate trails, which is double Whiteface, Hunter, and Belleayre.   Are these Gore stats real or made up ?
> 
> Further down it says Gore has 95% snowmaking and 285 acres covered by snowmaking.  95 percent of 400 acres is 380 acres.  Someone at Gore failed math class.  Not sure what to belive with Gore stats.
> 
> ...



I hesitate to push this shitstorm further along, but looking at that stat sheet for Gore I would say that their glades are included, rightfully, in the skiable acres, but excluded below in the percentages of terrain/acres/snowmaking portion of the data.  They probably do have a little over 100 acres of "on map" glades to make up the rest.  And many, many more "skiable" acres of  bastard glades to poke around in.

Or it could all be bullshit.  Smoke and mirrors.  Liars use statistics, blah blah.  You might want to cut the drive short in the Catskills or push on to the MRV or points north.  Or move out west.  Or to New Hampshire.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 8, 2009)

catskills said:


> On snowcoutry Gore lists  400 acres of skiable trails where 57 percent is intermediate.  Gore says they have 228 acres of intermediate trails, which is double Whiteface, Hunter, and Belleayre.   Are these Gore stats real or made up ?
> 
> Further down it says Gore has 95% snowmaking and 285 acres covered by snowmaking.  95 percent of 400 acres is 380 acres.  Someone at Gore failed math class.  Not sure what to belive with Gore stats.
> 
> ...




When they quote snowmaking number glades are not included.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 8, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Let's recap:
> 
> 1) You say of Gore "They get the snow."
> 
> ...



UMMM you are off your rocker.   You got all of that out of my posts.  GEEZ i guess i owe you an apology then.  Tin man for president


----------



## EPB (Oct 8, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> Tin man for president



Agreed..... All kidding aside, I'm done with this thread. It was interesting to say the least.


----------



## mattchuck2 (Oct 8, 2009)

catskills said:


> On snowcoutry Gore lists  400 acres of skiable trails where 57 percent is intermediate.  Gore says they have 228 acres of intermediate trails, which is double Whiteface, Hunter, and Belleayre.   Are these Gore stats real or made up ?
> 
> Further down it says Gore has 95% snowmaking and 285 acres covered by snowmaking.  95 percent of 400 acres is 380 acres.  Someone at Gore failed math class.  Not sure what to belive with Gore stats.



Gore definitely has a lot of Intermediate terrain.  Just about the entire lower mountain (plus the north chair stuff) is intermediate.  The 95% number might be 95% of the trails have snowmaking on them.  Therefore, the numbers (as you read them) can still be correct (A long trail - with a lot of acres - might not have snowmaking on it, so it would drive down the acres covered by snowmaking, but retain the 95% of total trails number).  That's just a guess.

Offhand, it's hard for me to think of trails without snowmaking at Gore . . . Obviously Dark Side Glades, Double Barrel, and High Pines glades don't have snowmaking, but those are listed as Glades and might not count towards the statistics . . . Ummmm .  . Hmmm . . . Powder Pass doesn't have snowmaking?  Pete Gay?  Like I said, it's hard to think of trails without it.

But yes, I would say that Gore probably does have more intermediate terrain than Whiteface and Hunter.  This is easy to see if you look at the Trail maps for those mountains.  The problem is that the runs are a lot shorter, so you don't get the sustained vertical of an Excelsior or a Belt Parkway . . .


----------



## Harvey (Oct 8, 2009)

I wish I knew why I don't get notified of action on AZ threads I've posted on...this is great stuff, mostly.



> Wow...quite the blog.  I've spent most of my morning poking around and checking out the Gore pics.  http://harvey44.blogspot.com



Thanks TA.



> Not so long ago, most northeastern skiers were indifferent about or oblivious to Gore mountain.



Still true IMO.



> L. Steilhang has had snowmaking on it the last 4 or 5 years.  It is open much more often now, altho often the headwall has great pyramid shaped moguls and  icy, banana shaped troughs eight feet deep and 12 feet long.  Generally better to duck to the right.



LOVE those banana moguls. Great name for em too. Also love ducking to the right.



> Stowe's advertised snowfall has jumped from 250 inches to 333 in recent years most likely because the clowns at AIG figured they were fudging all their other numbers, so what the heck?



Freakin hilarous.

My two cents on Gore, the appeal of Gore and snowfall.  

I haven't studied it but I'm pretty sure that anything on the Green Mtn spine is going to beat Gore for total snowfall in an average season.  That north-south running ridge creates it's own snow in a way that Gore never will.  The effect is more dramatic from MRG north but it exist all the way down the spine. And I've seen plumes of lake effect reach Killington, when Gore was getting skunked.  Gore's in a snow shadow... the spine that's west of Indian Lake... Snowy and Squaw steal a lot of what seems to be headed to Gore.

Obviously new snow, and the ability to hold it, are key elements that make a mountain great. Gore's appeal is about something beyond it's 3600' summit and 150" of snow.  Almost every inch of that summit bowl is skiable and it's only got 8-10 trails on it. There's all that stuff outside of the summit bowl. There's the Darkside, The North Side, the Cirque and Burnt Ridge, The new Ski Bowl.  What I've listed is more than most could ski in a day, and it's all on the map.  There's even more off the map than on it.  I've been skiing there for quite a while and I'm literally clueless about 50% of the tree skiing Gore offers.  When the mountain is OPEN it's HUGE.  I grant you that it's not always open due to midweek lift closures and snow issues. But the Gore faithful know the day will come.

Another thing some like about Gore....IMO if Gore got 250" of snow, North Creek would be more like the Killington access road. I think the financial pressure to develop the real estate would overwhelm North Creek.  Hey I like Killington. A lot.  But the Adks are special, and part of the reason they are so well protected is back when it all happened people figured ...what the heck... we can't make any money there anyway. Let's protect it. I not sure it was done out of pure concern for the environment.

EDIT:  Two snowfall maps to add to the discussion.  First the "snow shadow" that Gore is in:

http://harvey44.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-york-state-snowfall-map.html

Second, a map that compares Southern VT to Gore for snow:

http://harvey44.blogspot.com/2009/09/kalb-snowfall-map.html


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Oct 9, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> I dont understand why you are being such a douche.   Please advise.




:smile:

(i missed all the excitement of this thread!  me thinks tin's obsession with inches stems from a more personal issue than his preferences of hills in vermont over hills in the adirondacks.)


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 9, 2009)

Trails not listed as glades that don't have snowmaking?

Upper Darby
Mica Park
North Star (Powder Pass does.  And those two names should really be switched)
Wood Out
Ward Hill
Cut Off
Jug Handle 
1A 

Mostly extraneous stuff there.
There are probably some others I've forgotten.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 9, 2009)

eastern powder baby said:


> A. I never said that you thought you were smart for looking up facts. A good example would be referring to my understanding of bogus snow totals as "dilettante's understanding of the issue" because that implies that you are some sort of professional. I didn't know there were professional Northeastern ski area snowfall specialists.



More misdirection.  Yes - claiming that Gore is somehow standing apart form the crowd in not inflating their snowfall totals represents a dilettante's understanding of the issue.  Sorry if that hurts your feelings.  Are you implying that the great State of NY is somehow above such impropriety given what a clean record its state politics have?   My God you are incredibly naive.



> B. You still have given no reason for skeptics to believe that ski resorts cheat equally in their reports.


See my answer above.  Regardless, What would be Gore's motivation for being the sole ski area not goosing their totals?  More importantly, why would the NWS spotter at the base of Smugglers Notch lie?  I mean, sure - those evil bastards at AIG are surely scheming in their guilded board room to inflate the snow totals at their ski area, but does such logic hold for smaller, family run areas like Bolton Valley and Smuggs?  You've made a wild accusation with absolutely no supporting facts, yet the burden of proof is on me?  



> C. You danced around my point about holding snow being more important than snowfall totals. Instead you went off topic and appealed to your alleged professional authority on the matter of increasingly inflated measurements. (Missing the point fallacy?)


I didn't dance around it at all.  Gore holds snow well on its few north facing aspects.  That has nothing, ZERO to do with whether "they get the snow", which they don't.  If you want to change the subject and pretend like that's what we've been talking about all along, be my guest.  Let's just be clear regarding what you're doing. 



> D. Telling people their feelings are hurt is a psychoanalytical remark. Someone as arrogant as you should be smart enough to realize you told people how they were feeling through the internet and that's downright ridiculous.


Let's see now.  I make a throw-away comment that Gore doesn't "get the snow" and the responses I receive include not a single relevant fact regarding comparative snowfalls, but rather just obfuscation and exhortations to stay in Southern VT or some such nonsense which had never been mentioned by me.  Sounds like I struck a nerve and people jumped over themselves to defend their fave-o hill/region.  



> E. The SR thing was a joke for good fun.



You suck at the Internet.  Keep lurking.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 9, 2009)

harvey44 said:


> I haven't studied it but I'm pretty sure that anything on the Green Mtn spine is going to beat Gore for total snowfall in an average season.  That north-south running ridge creates it's own snow in a way that Gore never will.  The effect is more dramatic from MRG north but it exist all the way down the spine. And I've seen plumes of lake effect reach Killington, when Gore was getting skunked.  Gore's in a snow shadow... the spine that's west of Indian Lake... Snowy and Squaw steal a lot of what seems to be headed to Gore.
> 
> Obviously new snow, and the ability to hold it, are key elements that make a mountain great. Gore's appeal is about something beyond it's 3600' summit and 150" of snow.  Almost every inch of that summit bowl is skiable and it's only got 8-10 trails on it. There's all that stuff outside of the summit bowl. There's the Darkside, The North Side, the Cirque and Burnt Ridge, The new Ski Bowl.  What I've listed is more than most could ski in a day, and it's all on the map.  There's even more off the map than on it.  I've been skiing there for quite a while and I'm literally clueless about 50% of the tree skiing Gore offers.  When the mountain is OPEN it's HUGE.  I grant you that it's not always open due to midweek lift closures and snow issues. But the Gore faithful know the day will come.
> 
> Another thing some like about Gore....IMO if Gore got 250" of snow, North Creek would be more like the Killington access road. I think the financial pressure to develop the real estate would overwhelm North Creek.  Hey I like Killington. A lot.  But the Adks are special, and part of the reason they are so well protected is back when it all happened people figured ...what the heck... we can't make any money there anyway. Let's protect it. I not sure it was done out of pure concern for the environment.


I think you hit the nail on the head.  If Gore got another 100", it would be up there among the giants of Eastern skiing.  Lots of terrain.  Unlimited snowmaking water.  Convenient access to the NY metro.  Real town near the base.  The whole enchilada.



> EDIT:  Two snowfall maps to add to the discussion.  First the "snow shadow" that Gore is in:
> 
> http://harvey44.blogspot.com/2009/09/new-york-state-snowfall-map.html
> 
> ...



Say it ain't so Harv!  Are you in on AIG's evil conspiracy too?  Is the NWS office in ALB also involved?  The horror!  The horror!

I would hope we can all agree, based on these maps (except for the tinfoil hat crowd out there) that while Gore is a great mtn, it most certainly doesn't "get the snow" as compared to the majority of its peers in Northern NE.


----------



## ComeBackMudPuddles (Oct 9, 2009)

tin woodsman managed to turn a thread about someone's excitement over improvements at a ski resort into multiple attacks using SAT words.  nice.  imo, he's strangely like highwaystar in this thread, only, instead of ranting about against k-mart's owners, he's ranting against fans of gore.  pretty pathetic.  

i can't believe gss gets banned, but this sustained attack against multiple posters is tolerated.  

whatever.


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 9, 2009)

I feel like I'm in some sort of internet prison with this thread.  Laying low while some tough guys at the next table try to make each other their bitch.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 9, 2009)

ComeBackMudPuddles said:


> tin woodsman managed to turn a thread about someone's excitement over improvements at a ski resort into multiple attacks using SAT words.  nice.  imo, he's strangely like highwaystar in this thread, only, instead of ranting about against k-mart's owners, he's ranting against fans of gore.  pretty pathetic.
> 
> i can't believe gss gets banned, but this sustained attack against multiple posters is tolerated.
> 
> whatever.



If you took a moment to read from the beginning, you'd notice that I had a lot of nice things to say about Gore, but simply took exception to one poster's comment that "they get the snow".  

They don't.  

It's empirically true.  

Some people have a problem with my pointing that fact out.  If SAT level words annoy you, that's your problem.  Should I just use jive next time?  Maybe just use texting short hand?

For the umpteenth time, Gore is a great mountain with a huge variety of terrain and aspects.  Given its size and lift lay-out, crowds are almost never a problem if you take a moment to think about where you want to go and when.  It has almost unlimited snowmaking capacity.  But for a significant deficiency in the natural snowfall department, it would be among the elite resorts in the East.  Those people who don't recognize it has a snowfall deficiency, or are convinced that all the other mountains are simply lying about their snowfall totals despite empirical NWS evidence, need to wake up and get a clue.  If they have a problem with me pointing this deficiency out, then I can't help them.  Grow up.


----------



## campgottagopee (Oct 9, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> If you took a moment to read from the beginning, you'd notice that I had a lot of nice things to say about Gore, but simply took exception to one poster's comment that "they get the snow".
> 
> They don't.
> 
> ...



I just can't get over how smart you are---thank you for sharing such knowledge---what a wordsmith


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 9, 2009)

If you're going to use SAT words at least use the right ones. Stating a mountain "empirically" doesn't get snow doesn't exactly help your cause. That word means that your conclusion is based on experimentation or even observation to form a conclusion. A better word is perhaps evidence or proof - aka SNOW totals don't lie.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 9, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> I just can't get over how smart you are---thank you for sharing such knowledge---what a wordsmith



Yes - let us make an assault on knowledge, vocabulary and proper grammar!


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 9, 2009)

Newpylong said:


> If you're going to use SAT words at least use the right ones. Stating a mountain "empirically" doesn't get snow doesn't exactly help your cause. That word means that your conclusion is based on experimentation or even observation to form a conclusion. A better word is perhaps evidence or proof - aka SNOW totals don't lie.



Wait - I'm genuinely confused.  I don't get why the use of "empirically" in that instance would be incorrect.  The snowfall at Gore and other ski areas HAS been measured and observed over a statistically significant period of time, no? 

Even if one doesn't believe the snowfall totals claimed by the ski areas themselves, then surely the maps posted by Harvey44 which were produced by the scientists at the NWS office in Albany meet the relevant tests.  What am I missing?


----------



## campgottagopee (Oct 9, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Yes - let us make an assault on knowledge, vocabulary and proper grammar!



Oh hells bells no---such a scholar as yourself should know that was a compliment not an assault. I deeply appologize ifin it was taken the wrong way. Anyone who can use the word "buthurt" in a sentance and make it work is da man in my book.


----------



## Dr Skimeister (Oct 9, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> Oh hells bells no---such a scholar as yourself should know that was a compliment not an assault. I deeply appologize ifin it was taken the wrong way. Anyone who can use the word "buthurt" in a sentance and make it work is da man in my book.



The day after I went to the Thai restaurant and had that spicy food, my buthurt.


----------



## campgottagopee (Oct 9, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> The day after I went to the Thai restaurant and had that spicy food, my buthurt.



 I have a new hero!!!!


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 9, 2009)

Funny how one thread can stimulate the synapses, buthurt the cerebral cortex.


----------



## catskills (Oct 9, 2009)

This thread has some great segways 

Urban dictionary has some interesting sentences that use butthurt.  This is all new to me.  I thought I would share since I doubt Urban dictionary uses SAT words  :beer:

Examples of butthurt in sentence:
Adam got butthurt when Mike stole his bitch. 
He got all butt hurt when she wouldnt give him a ride. 

Note the Urban dictionary spelled wouldnt wrong.  

This thread rules.  Is it snowing yet?


----------



## wintersyndrome (Oct 9, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> You suck at the Internet.  Keep lurking.



Dude, relax...your the one continuing to argue others on the internet...Which is like the special Olympics for couch potatoes.


----------



## wintersyndrome (Oct 9, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> I have a new hero!!!!



+1


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 10, 2009)

Dr Skimeister said:


> The day after I went to the Thai restaurant and had that spicy food, my buthurt.



You know what they say about a good curry.

It burns on the way in and on the way out.


----------



## Newpylong (Oct 10, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Wait - I'm genuinely confused.  I don't get why the use of "empirically" in that instance would be incorrect.  The snowfall at Gore and other ski areas HAS been measured and observed over a statistically significant period of time, no?
> 
> Even if one doesn't believe the snowfall totals claimed by the ski areas themselves, then surely the maps posted by Harvey44 which were produced by the scientists at the NWS office in Albany meet the relevant tests.  What am I missing?



Yes, it has been measured, and Gore doesn't get anymore than Mount Snow in Southern, VT.  But that would be truth through evidence. Empirically assumes truth through observation or theory  So you don't want to use that one!


----------



## highpeaksdrifter (Oct 10, 2009)

Here’s the thing with Tin, he pisses a lot of people off cause he is relentless and won’t give an inch. So people end up arguing against him because of his delivery not because of the facts he presents.  Gore averages 150 inches of snow, he didn’t make that up, and it’s not a statistical anomaly over a season or 2. It’s a long term fact. 

He said basically that Gore is a great mountain, but doesn’t get the same natural snow as many of its competitors that are further north and northeast. He’s right and I can’t see how anyone can fairly argue against it.


----------



## campgottagopee (Oct 10, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Here’s the thing with Tin, he pisses a lot of people off cause he is relentless and won’t give an inch. So people end up arguing against him because of his delivery not because of the facts he presents.  Gore averages 150 inches of snow, he didn’t make that up, and it’s not a statistical anomaly over a season or 2. It’s a long term fact.
> 
> He said basically that Gore is a great mountain, but doesn’t get the same natural snow as many of its competitors that are further north and northeast. He’s right and I can’t see how anyone can fairly argue against it.



I don't see where anyone is arguing with Tin on his stat's, but more his delivery. Presentation is everything and (to me) he comes off as a total ass and I have a hard time with that.


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 10, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Here’s the thing with Tin, he pisses a lot of people off cause he is relentless and won’t give an inch. So people end up arguing against him because of his delivery not because of the facts he presents.  Gore averages 150 inches of snow, he didn’t make that up, and it’s not a statistical anomaly over a season or 2. It’s a long term fact.
> 
> He said basically that Gore is a great mountain, but doesn’t get the same natural snow as many of its competitors that are further north and northeast. He’s right and I can’t see how anyone can fairly argue against it.




It started with my statement they get the snow.  I am sticking with that.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 10, 2009)

highpeaksdrifter said:


> Here’s the thing with Tin, he pisses a lot of people off cause he is relentless and won’t give an inch. So people end up arguing against him because of his delivery not because of the facts he presents.  Gore averages 150 inches of snow, he didn’t make that up, and it’s not a statistical anomaly over a season or 2. It’s a long term fact.
> 
> He said basically that Gore is a great mountain, but doesn’t get the same natural snow as many of its competitors that are further north and northeast. He’s right and I can’t see how anyone can fairly argue against it.


Yes.  That's exactly it.  Thank you.



campgottagopee said:


> I don't see where anyone is arguing with Tin on his stat's, but more his delivery. Presentation is everything and (to me) he comes off as a total ass and I have a hard time with that.


Sorry - that's not fair.  I said "they don't get the snow".  That's what started this entire conversation.  That is irrefutable fact as compared to its peers in northern NE.  What I received in return were posts exhorting me to "stay in VT" or some such, which was never even remotely my point.  If people are going to get all pissy with me, bring up strawmen, invent fantastic conspiracies (e.g. AIG mgmt fiddling with Stowe snow totals while Gore remains true) and other such nonsense, I'm going to defend my position until a) the BS clears up and B) I'm proven wrong.  I honestly don't see what's so controversial about saying "they don't get the snow"  The facts are there for all to see.



tjf67 said:


> It started with my statement they get the snow.  I am sticking with that.



And you're still wrong.


----------



## campgottagopee (Oct 10, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Yes.  That's exactly it.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> Sorry - that's not fair.  I said "they don't get the snow".  That's what started this entire conversation.  That is irrefutable fact as compared to its peers in northern NE.  What I received in return were posts exhorting me to "stay in VT" or some such, which was never even remotely my point.  If people are going to get all pissy with me, bring up strawmen, invent fantastic conspiracies (e.g. AIG mgmt fiddling with Stowe snow totals while Gore remains true) and other such nonsense, I'm going to defend my position until a) the BS clears up and B) I'm proven wrong.  I honestly don't see what's so controversial about saying "they don't get the snow"  The facts are there for all to see.
> ...



I think you know what I mean---again NOBODY was arguing your facts because they are true. Telling people to "grow up" if they can't take the truth, in my book, is a real ass move. That's all I'm saying. Seems you enjoy tossing big words around and belittling people. Ifin that's your gig, good for you, but I think a different tone would be better excepted. just sayin'


----------



## tjf67 (Oct 10, 2009)

Tin Woodsman said:


> Yes.  That's exactly it.  Thank you.
> 
> 
> Sorry - that's not fair.  I said "they don't get the snow".  That's what started this entire conversation.  That is irrefutable fact as compared to its peers in northern NE.  What I received in return were posts exhorting me to "stay in VT" or some such, which was never even remotely my point.  If people are going to get all pissy with me, bring up strawmen, invent fantastic conspiracies (e.g. AIG mgmt fiddling with Stowe snow totals while Gore remains true) and other such nonsense, I'm going to defend my position until a) the BS clears up and B) I'm proven wrong.  I honestly don't see what's so controversial about saying "they don't get the snow"  The facts are there for all to see.
> ...




If I made the statement "they get the snow"  wouldn't you have to ask me my definition of that before you start disputing it?  I keep going with it to tool you around


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 10, 2009)

campgottagopee said:


> I think you know what I mean---again NOBODY was arguing your facts because they are true. Telling people to "grow up" if they can't take the truth, in my book, is a real ass move. That's all I'm saying. Seems you enjoy tossing big words around and belittling people. Ifin that's your gig, good for you, but I think a different tone would be better excepted. just sayin'



The problem is, that was about 15 responses into the conversation.  AFTER people told me to "stay in Southern VT" and other nonsense to defend Gore when it wasn't being being attacked.  If I started out like that, then I could see you point.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Oct 10, 2009)

tjf67 said:


> If I made the statement "they get the snow"  wouldn't you have to ask me my definition of that before you start disputing it?  I keep going with it to tool you around



Wheeeee... what a fun game.

Meh.


----------



## witch hobble (Oct 11, 2009)

a) They get the snow.  Just like Mt. Mansfield, only closer to NYC!

b) They get the snow that just doesn't build up in Connecticut.

c) Their trails and glades are often surprisingly skiable earlier in the season than ours up here at Whiteface.

a - patently false

b - true

c - pretty much true and I think this was the point he was trying to make.

Good to see Gore getting some love even from cross Champlain adversaries.

Attn: Em Stanton
After "More Gore" runs its course, consider "Gore.  They get the snow!"  It obviously gets people talkin.


----------



## Harvey (Jul 13, 2010)

*New Terrain at Gore*

I had a chance to tour the new terrain with the GM at Gore this weekend. 

One of the big highlights, to me, as a tree skier is Barkeater.  

Lots of line options and 1000+ feet of verticle through some sweet hardwoods.

Check out  pics and a "TR" of sorts ....a tour of new *Gore Mountain Interconnect Terrain*.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 13, 2010)

harvey44 said:


> I had a chance to tour the new terrain with the GM at Gore this weekend.
> 
> One of the big highlights, to me, as a tree skier is Barkeater.
> 
> ...



Harv - 

Great stuff as usual.  Based on your experience, how often are the glades at that elevation likely to be skiable?


----------



## ta&idaho (Jul 13, 2010)

Awesome pics and report.  Really want to make it to Gore next year.  Random question, but does anyone know the best way to drive there from the Syracuse area, and how long it takes?


----------



## Harvey (Jul 13, 2010)

Thanks guys.

TA ... we've done a few items on driving at Harvey Road.  This one called Drive Times to Ski Country ... has some information in the comments from a guy from Syracuse that may be helpful.

Tin Woodsman - as usual - a question right at the heart of the matter. I'm going to assume you mean - how many days can it be skied with lift service. 

There are things that limit the number of days it will be open for sure. 

Lower elevation - especially at the bottom of the run - makes snow harder to come by.

And ... access to Burnt Ridge is limited by a few different things. 

Racing on Twister for one.  I have asked Mike the same question nine ways to sunday.  

"How can we access Burnt Ridge and Little Gore when there is racing on Twister?"  You just can't.  And racing is very important to Gore. It's not going away. (FYI I am 100% in favor of racing at Gore.)

Access to BR is also limited by the fact that the order of snowmaking is not going to change. Topridge, Ruby Run, to Sunway. The East Side, then the Summit, including the Dark Side, then the North Side.  Burnt Ridge and Little Gore will come after all that is done.

So ... to answer the question ...  I'm going to say in an above average, but not awesome year - like a B+ year - you could get 25+ days. Even that may be optimistic when you consider that midweek days get fewer lifts.

I had a great talk with Mike.  He takes a lot of crapola from a lot of people. One constant criticism he gets .... how could you open more terrain when snowmaking is so precious?  

Basically he said ... hey if someone offered you Burnt Ridge, would you turn it down? It's not like he had a choice between snowmaking and terrain.

And even if he did .... in the Adks getting access to that land is huge. With the river there, and a big 12" pipe connecting the mountain to it ... the budget crisis will pass, and Gore could be in a sweet position.

Sorry to digress.

Again thanks for the support.


----------



## Tin Woodsman (Jul 14, 2010)

harvey44 said:


> Thanks guys.
> 
> TA ... we've done a few items on driving at Harvey Road.  This one called Drive Times to Ski Country ... has some information in the comments from a guy from Syracuse that may be helpful.
> 
> ...



Great response.  I hadn't even considered the other impediments to opening/accessing that terrain.  That really stacks the deck against any sort of consistent access.  

While I would definitely agree with the remainder of your post regarding having to take the extra terrain if it's available in the ADKs, one would think they would then make compromises around things like racing in order to maximize access to their shiny new toy when the conditions warrant it.   Not necessarily eliminating racing, but rather moving it to another location in light of the new reality of their layout.  The snowmaking will eventually catch up (at least on the trails - glades will always be an issue at that elevation for Gore) but you've got to try and mitigate other issues within your control.  Not that I have an alternative location for racing mind you - just throwing it out there.


----------



## Harvey (Jul 14, 2010)

With regard to Twister...

I asked Mike that question in our *Gore Summer Update*.   It's in about the sixth section down from the top:

*Harvey:* _We’ve heard that the requirements for racing dictate the use of Twister or Echo. Is it possible to use other trails for racing?_

*Mike:* _Topridge is certified for upper level Slalom. Twister is certified for Slalom, Giant Slalom, Super G, and entry level Downhill. Echo satisfies the standards for Slalom and Giant Slalom. We'd need to widen and modify other trails for them to use them for racing._

The answer is that Twister is very specifically configured to meet racing specs.  Echo could be used for some of that racing but it also blocks the best routes to Burnt Ridge.

As Mike said above, other options would require significant trail widening, and still wouldn't totally resolve the issue.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jul 14, 2010)

are there options for cutting new trails to get around the racing trail to the terrain it blocks?


----------



## Harvey (Jul 14, 2010)

deadheadskier said:


> are there options for cutting new trails to get around the racing trail to the terrain it blocks?



I have also pressed Mike on this.  Is there any way to keep racing high enough on Twister so that the general public could cross below the race?

And once across Twister, does the topography of the area that encorporates the Sagamore and/or Cirque glades allow for a catwalk to make the trek to Burnt Ridge?

No and no.

I should clarify - you can head to the other side on Cedars, but it's not ideal. There no way to carry speed, and it's quite flat.

And there is Pipeline. It's a back way to get from the North Chair to BR or Little Gore. It's pretty flat in parts. I'm told. I've never done it. It's only an official trail as of this year.

These issues can be considered vexing, or part of the romance of Gore.  To me, when I look at that birthmark on lip of Cindy Crawford ... it's all part of a beautiful package.  8)


----------

