# Mittersill snowmaking



## SIKSKIER (May 7, 2012)

I knew this would probably happen soon as the new lift only ran 5 days last year.Getting somebody else to pay for it is a bonus,,,I think.

By PAULA TRACY
New Hampshire Union Leader 

Published May 7, 2012 at 3:00 am (Updated May 6, 2012)


FRANCONIA — Plans are coming together to create an alpine ski racing and training venue at Cannon's Mittersill.

Skiers and snowboarders at the state-owned ski area would benefit from the trail enhancement project, which will allow the Mittersill slopes to be open more due to the addition of snowmaking.

The Franconia Ski Club, Holderness School and friends of Cannon Mountain are raising the funds necessary for snowmaking, a T-bar lift, trail enhancement and perhaps lighting on portions of Mittersill.

The plan, which would come as a gift to the state, would need permitting and to be accepted by the Governor and Executive Council.

Its value would be about $2.5 million.

General Manager John DeVivo said the proposal is part of a long-range plan to develop Mittersill. He said the earliest the project could come together would be the 2013-2014 season.

He called it a “win-win” for the public, the state operations and for the clubs interested in creating a new venue.

“The public gets a great mix of natural and man-made at Mittersill, the lift would run daily, and FSC would be off of the Front Five and have solid giant slalom and Super G venues,” he said last week.

DeVivo was describing the “front five” trails, where currently about 200 FSC and Holderness atheletes train.

The plan is to widen trails at Mittersill, which could be used for giant slalom, Super G and Slalom ski racing.

FSC and Holderness share coaching staff and use Ernie's Haus at the base of Rocket and Gary's runs at Cannon as their center.

The plan is to continue to be based there, “Although moving to Mittersill is the long-term plan” according to fundraising literature.

To be internationally certified for such racing, trails need certain length and slope grades.

Barron's Run would be an approved giant slalom and short Super G course and Mittersill's Taft Slope would be approved for slalom and giant slalom, with night lighting and a T-bar in the center of the mountain.

The quick turn-around, dedicated, surface lift would access the Taft Slope. Snowmaking equipment would be installed on both Barron's and Taft, which would be paid for through fundraising.

Grooming would be absorbed into the Cannon-Mittersill nightly maintenance effort, DeVivo said.

In 2011, the state installed a $2 million chairlift to the summit of Mittersill. But because of the poor snow year and that there currently is no snowmaking on Mittersill, the lift was operational for only about five days. In 2011, it was open about 70 days.
Snowmaking equipment would cost as much as $1 million.

Georg Capaul, head of snowsports at Holderness School and a former U.S. Ski Team coach, said Baron's Run has a vertical drop of 1,148 feet and a slope length of 4,152 feet, making it exceptionally good for Giant Slalom and Super G, while the Taft Slope would be widened to 90 meters and be capable of hosting multiple races at the same time.

The giant slalom course would have a vertical drop of 749 feet and a slope length of 2,448 feet, with an average gradient of 32 percent.

The slalom hill would have a vertical drop of 471 feet and a slope length of 1,703 feet, with an average gradient of 28.9 percent.
The plan is to raise as much as $2.5 million for the trail developments, snowmaking and surface lift, which could be used by the public, with limitations, during events.

Baron's will be dedicated to public use with limited allocation to racing/training. Other areas would be left alone and still would allow for the “back-country” elements that define the area.

DeVivo said the plan also accounts for the Bicknell's Thrush, a small songbird that ests above 2,500 feet on Mittersill. It is a species in decline and the conditions for reopening Mittersill were contingent on protecting its nesting area.

He said the ski group has met with officials related to the protection of the birds, including officials from Fish and Game, The NH Audubon Society and the Forest Service and the  and the initial response has been positive.


----------



## Puck it (May 7, 2012)

3 - 2 -1

Oh, Threecy!!!!!


----------



## deadheadskier (May 7, 2012)

If I were a pass holder at Cannon, I would want a guarantee that only 1 of the 2 trails can be closed for racing at a given time, not both.  I'd imagine it would be pretty frustrating to see the Mittersill lift spinning for racers only if the natural trails aren't skiable for the general public.


----------



## bobbutts (May 7, 2012)

So now that it's going to be snowmaking, grooming, night skiing, and widened they're probably going to be wishing they put in a higher capacity lift instead of that double.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 7, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> If I were a pass holder at Cannon, I would want a guarantee that only 1 of the 2 trails can be closed for racing at a given time, not both.  I'd imagine it would be pretty frustrating to see the Mittersill lift spinning for racers only if the natural trails aren't skiable for the general public.



+1.  They alluded to the fact that they are moving from the Front Five as if that is some kind of benefit.  Was there a problem with having them there?  

And last year they were thinking of reviving the old World Cup trail on the frontside.  We also heard of a plan to build a trail over near Skylight.  I guess this is the scenario that they want.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 7, 2012)

bobbutts said:


> So now that it's going to be snowmaking, grooming, night skiing, and widened they're probably going to be wishing they put in a higher capacity lift instead of that double.



Actually bob they couldn't have.The land swap was only allowed if the trails and liftline stayed the same demensions as when Mittersill was operating.That meant that the new lift could only be a double because the liftline could not be widened for a higher capacity lift than the old double.


----------



## snowmonster (May 7, 2012)

Ah, the summertime thread is here!

Need popcorn.


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 7, 2012)

whats the over/under for the number of pages?


----------



## gregnye (May 7, 2012)

Night Skiing? On the double, or only on the T-bar/Taft Slope??? 

Not really necessary in my opinion. Not many places to stay around there (besides the one Inn), so is there really that high of a demand??? Or is it for the racer's only?


----------



## deadheadskier (May 7, 2012)

I'd assume it would be to extend the training period.  The division that Holderness is in gets out of class on Tuesdays and Thursdays at 1 and trains on those days.  Races are Wednesdays and Saturdays. Best case scenario puts them at the mountain at 2 with bus travel.  I'd imagine the lights would be mainly for the racers, but I'm sure the public could enjoy it as well.


----------



## drjeff (May 7, 2012)

So it sounds like Bode Miller is interested in parting with some of his cash and wants to further the cause of ski racing at a place that he probably holds pretty near and dear to his heart


----------



## thetrailboss (May 7, 2012)

drjeff said:


> So it sounds like Bode Miller is interested in parting with some of his cash and wants to further the cause of ski racing at a place that he probably holds pretty near and dear to his heart



And, despite what Bretton Woods thinks, his home is really Cannon.


----------



## riverc0il (May 7, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> If I were a pass holder at Cannon, I would want a guarantee that only 1 of the 2 trails can be closed for racing at a given time, not both.  I'd imagine it would be pretty frustrating to see the Mittersill lift spinning for racers only if the natural trails aren't skiable for the general public.


You think any one actually cares? If anything, if you were a Cannon pass holder (or had Cannon for a home mountain) you would know that the current race training often closes trails at Cannon proper and can frequently be a source of frustration for racers and the public alike. Baron's Run wouldn't be "open" without snow making any ways. Even if the race trails are the only open trails at Mittersill and closed for racing, it is still a total win win. Especially when you consider that trail isn't open most days out of the year already. It isn't like Cannon skiers will be missing anything... except racers cluttering the main trails. 

I'm interested to see what happens to Ernie's House at the base of Gary's if they eventually move over to Mittersill. I wonder if Cannon will absorb that building and create a new access point (i.e. Zoomer Base Lodge). 

Not sure what they mean by the Taft Slope though I have a good guess. Never heard it referred to by that name. I've tried extensively to identify which current trails originally were part of the Taft. From everything I have gathered, no one seems to know any more.

One logistical issue is going to be getting back to Cannon proper from Mittersill during a race or training on Baron's. They'll probably need to station a spotter at the cut back so that returning skiers don't blow into a racer.


----------



## riverc0il (May 7, 2012)

drjeff said:


> So it sounds like Bode Miller is interested in parting with some of his cash and wants to further the cause of ski racing at a place that he probably holds pretty near and dear to his heart


That is some pretty wild speculation. Could be possible but it is still wild speculation.


----------



## gregnye (May 7, 2012)

SIKSKIER said:


> Actually bob they couldn't have.The land swap was only allowed if the trails and liftline stayed the same demensions as when Mittersill was operating.That meant that the new lift could only be a double because the liftline could not be widened for a higher capacity lift than the old double.



They could have put in a high-speed detachable double like the one in Aspen!! :razz:

...Though, I am quite glad they didn't. It wouldn't be Cannon with these "crazy high speed chairs" I am glad the plan calls for a T-bar. A throwback to old school!


----------



## deadheadskier (May 7, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> You think any one actually cares? If anything, if you were a Cannon pass holder (or had Cannon for a home mountain) you would know that the current race training often closes trails at Cannon proper and can frequently be a source of frustration for racers and the public alike..



I'm aware, and this is not unique to Cannon.  Even at Gunstock it's not uncommon to have two of the better trails closed for race operations.

There's a difference between having a couple Front Five trails closed for race operations where the general public can still ski the other trails off the lift versus having the only open trails at Mittersill closed for racing.  That's closing an entire mountain pod, which would frustrate day ticket and season pass holders a lot more than closing a couple of Front Five trails.

All I'm suggesting is that if they have snowmaking on both Baron's and the Taft Slope and they are open frequently, only allocate 1 to racing at a time.  I think that's a fairly reasonable request.


----------



## AdironRider (May 7, 2012)

gregnye said:


> They could have put in a high-speed detachable double like the one in Aspen!! :razz:
> 
> ...Though, I am quite glad they didn't. It wouldn't be Cannon with these "crazy high speed chairs" I am glad the plan calls for a T-bar. A throwback to old school!



More like standard ops for any serious race venue. I doubt the tbar will be open to the public very often, if at all. Will most likely be operated for race events and night practices and thats it. 

This is in no way a bad thing for Cannon. Trail widening and snowmaking as a gift is pretty easy and all the mountain has to do is groom two extra trails a night? If your a GM you make that deal, every time. 

Having enjoyed excellent skier per acre for the past 5 years racers are really a drag in close quarters. They actually do mandatory GS turns.... well, mandatory in their own heads.

Mittersill needs to be utilized to its fullest. Anything that brings more Mitt to the table is a good thing.


----------



## riverc0il (May 7, 2012)

Given how often that double runs, I don't think any one is going to care. The article says they are going to keep it open for the public as often as possible.


----------



## drjeff (May 8, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> That is some pretty wild speculation. Could be possible but it is still wild speculation.



I know it's out there a bit, but even these last few years as Bode has seemed to mature a bit,  I still wouldn't put it past him to do something like that, especially given his ties to the region and all that ski racing has given him over the years


----------



## Smellytele (May 8, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> One logistical issue is going to be getting back to Cannon proper from Mittersill during a race or training on Baron's. They'll probably need to station a spotter at the cut back so that returning skiers don't blow into a racer.



 I know they can't put in anything new that wasn't there before but I thought that had to do with the top part that was Federal land. Could they put in another t-bar near the base of the double back toward Tuckerbrook area to alleviate this issue ?


----------



## witch hobble (May 8, 2012)

..........................simple request before the debate goes any further...................................PLEASE don't use the phrase "win-win"!!!!!!!.....................  it implies that there are only two ways to think about tough questions.  It is an annoying rhetorical device and pet peeve.....................................



I tried to needle threecy on his opinion of this in a snowjournal thread over the winter.  He basically said that if FSC can raise this amount of money so quickly, why can't they lease the whole durn place???

Carry on.  I'm not so sure this thread will have the endurance of some of the other Cannon ones though.


----------



## SIKSKIER (May 8, 2012)

*And more from Bode*

WH won't like this but DeVivo uses the win-win.




FRANCONIA — Olympic gold medalist and World Cup Champion Bode Miller of Easton was among the skiers and tourism officials expressing hope that private fundraising campaign now being launched will create new opportunities at state-owned Mittersill and Cannon.

Calling it a “game-changer” for ski racing and public access to Mittersill, Miller of Easton said Sunday night that the new training venue planned at Mittersill will offer athletes from across the East and the United States a superb new venue.

“It will also provide excellent free skiing for the public on a mountain that has not been open for 30 years, until recently,” Miller said.

The Franconia Ski Club and Holderness School officials confirmed they are working to raise an estimated $2.5 million for snowmaking, a T-bar surface lift, and trail improvements for Mittersill.

Mittersill, adjacent to state-operated Cannon Mountain, has been in mothballs since the 1980s after private operations there ceased.

It was recently merged with state operations, and in 2011 a $2 million chairlift was installed.

While there was plentiful natural snowfall in 2011 and the lift operated, the lack of snowmaking this year meant it was used about a half dozen days.

When complete, Mittersill's Baron's Run trail would be re-contoured and equipped with new snowmaking equipment and become an internationally certified Giant Slalom and Super G race course, while the Taft Slope on the center of Mittersill would become a slalom and GS hill with a dedicated surface lift and potentially lighting.

When not being used for races, the trails with snowmaking would be open for public use. Other trails on the mountain would still remain “natural” for back country ski enthusiasts, but the lift would run more than it did last year.

Karl Stone, marketing director for Ski NH, the statewide organization representing the ski industry, said “the past winter reinforces how vital a powerful snowmaking infrastructure is. This improvement would be another step forward for Cannon Mountain and New Hampshire skiing in general,” he said.

Stone added that opportunities to expand available ski terrain in New England are very limited.

“This improvement would help to ensure recently re-opened Mittersill would be regularly available to guests. This is an exciting prospect for Cannon Mountain and New Hampshire skiing in general,” he said.

John DeVivo, general manager at Cannon, called it a potentially positive public-private partnership that would be a “win-win” for everyone.

He noted it would still need to be approved likely by the Governor and Executive Council as a gift to the state and there would be a number of other permits required.

Officials at both FSC and Holderness said they are going forward with fundraising and exploring what would need to be done, cautioning the plan is in the early stages.

Miller's family is still involved in FSC and his Turtle Ridge Foundation annually hosts a sell-out fundraiser fun race at Cannon, which this year had to be cancelled for lack of snow.

Miller is considered one of the best ski racers in the world. He got his start at Cannon, where his mother Jo, worked. He still lives and calls home Franconia and the Easton Valley on the Western edge of the White Mountains.


----------



## Johnskiismore (May 8, 2012)

So, before Mittersill 'opened' I told a buddy that snowmaking would be installed within five years.  He said no way they're going to keep it natural, blah, blah, blah.  And we bet.  Mind you I said I would NEVER ride the Mittersill double....... that proclamation collapsed first POW day in 2011 and I now love that chair.

So, Keith, you owe me $100!!  Sully was witness at the bar!  Oh, alcohol and betting:beer:


----------



## riverc0il (May 8, 2012)

witch hobble said:


> ..........................simple request before the debate goes any further...................................PLEASE don't use the phrase "win-win"!!!!!!!.....................  it implies that there are only two ways to think about tough questions.  It is an annoying rhetorical device and pet peeve.....................................


Sorry that phrase offends your rhetorical sensibilities. I don't see how it could imply there are only two ways of thinking about something. There could be many possibilities that satisfy two parties. It just means that a given solution does not have to negatively effect one party to satisfy the other party. I presented the argument as a counter to DHS proposing that this would be a negative for skiers to Cannon not being able to access a trail closed to racing, theoretically an entire "pod" of Baron's is the only thing available off the double.


----------



## riverc0il (May 8, 2012)

Personally, I can't wait until snow making goes in. Then they will be forced to retract the "backcountry area" wording. 

Oh wait, that didn't work when the double went in. Probably won't happen with snow making either. Cannon may have the only lift serviced, snow making, and grooming backcountry in the world.

:beer:


----------



## witch hobble (May 8, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Sorry that phrase offends your rhetorical sensibilities.



They are quite fragile. :beer:

I would prefer "everybody wins", which I think is what is being implied.  But that is far easier to call bullshit on.  "win-win" means what?  That any two (or the two most vocal or powerful) interested parties both win?  And all else can just deal with it?  I find it is most often used to soften a hard sell.

But, hair splitting digressions aside, this surface lift would be going parallel to the current double?  But shorter?  To access the race training?  Not up Taft like up the saddle?


----------



## thetrailboss (May 8, 2012)

I would think that the T-Bar would follow the route of the former T-Bar(s).


----------



## riverc0il (May 8, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> I would think that the T-Bar would follow the route of the former T-Bar(s).


I think that would be the best overall idea but it doesn't sound like it based on the article. It sounds like they want to run the T-bar up either the open slope to the left or right of the existing double. Given that its purpose is night racing, it makes logistic sense to build the t-bar right next to the race trail for lighting purposes. Building it up the former T-bar line would work well for the overall mountain but wouldn't work at all from an evening racing perspective.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 8, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> . I presented the argument as a counter to DHS proposing that this would be a negative for skiers to Cannon not being able to access a trail closed to racing, theoretically an entire "pod" of Baron's is the only thing available off the double.



No, I said it would be a negative if BOTH snowmaking trails were closed for racing and there wasn't enough natural to open any of the other terrain.  The only thing remotely close to an entire trail pod being shut down for racing that I can think of in New England is Pico with the Little Pico Triple and B slope. The difference being they don't have snowmaking on A slope. 

Overall, I think having a couple trails over on Mittersill with snowmaking is a good thing for Cannon.  Now that the lift is there, might as well put it to good use.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 8, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> No, I said it would be a negative if BOTH snowmaking trails were closed for racing and there wasn't enough natural to open any of the other terrain.  The only thing remotely close to an entire trail pod being shut down for racing that I can think of in New England is Pico with the Little Pico Triple and B slope. The difference being they don't have snowmaking on A slope.
> 
> Overall, I think having a couple trails over on Mittersill with snowmaking is a good thing for Cannon.  Now that the lift is there, might as well put it to good use.



Well iirc A Slope does have snowmaking but they haven't used it in, oh, 15 years or so. Now that I think of it, that's pretty much the same as no snowmaking at all.


----------



## Cannonball (May 9, 2012)

Slightly tangential....
At some point as this moves forward, it would be good to hear from the leasing proponents on how they would view these privately raised funds.  Will they say "see, Cannon can't be profitable because they need someone else to raise the money for them and they don't account for it properly" or will they say "great job Cannon management for figuring out a way to avoid further state spending."?  It would just be good to know up front instead of arguing over it after the fact and having it potentially add fuel and confusion to leasing proposals.  Could FSC or other funders stipulate conditions about lease/no-lease in the terms of their contribution?


----------



## riverc0il (May 9, 2012)

I can't see the pro-lease argument making an example out of this. There aren't many areas out there that would invest millions into regrading two trails, new snow making, and a new lift just for a race group to have better training access (Le Massif is the only one I can think of). Some areas have widened trails for racing. But a multi-million dollar investment for very negative ROI? Private for profit areas would never do that. But they would surely take a gift in exchange for some exclusive practice time which is what Cannon is doing. I can't see this being used as a pro-lease argument. If anything, this is a sound business decision by Cannon. It makes an unreliable lift pod part of Cannon's opening strategy with no infrastructure investment.


----------



## Puck it (May 9, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> I would think that the T-Bar would follow the route of the former T-Bar(s).


 

Taft Slope is to the right of the chair lift in this map and looks like it ends at the top of the old longer T-bar.  I would think this would wher it will be located since it will a GS training trail.  It can't be lower.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 9, 2012)

Re: ski areas investing in trail, snowmaking, and lift infrastructure for racing.  

One example is Burke.  In 1994, before going under, ownership extended Warren's Way and extended the Poma for BMA.  They also added more snowmaking to the top of it.  

The Northern Star group built the Dippers and graded them for racing.  That trail has snowmaking on it.  Honestly though that trail was a dual purpose project because that is a main route on the east side and a racing trail.  

So not quite the same, but along similar lines.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 10, 2012)

witch hobble said:


> I'm not so sure this thread will have the endurance of some of the other Cannon ones though.



want me to kick it up a notch?  According to facebook, the lease language in Cannon's Master Plan has been removed.  

:lol:

https://www.facebook.com/savecannonmountain


----------



## skiberg (May 10, 2012)

Well, I was wondering when this would hit the Forum. I have a lot of info about this project and I am happy to answer as many Q's about it as I can. It's still on the works but its coming together. A lot of various and interesting groups really want to make this happen. At this point I can probably tell you as much as I know without spilling the beans.


----------



## witch hobble (May 10, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> want me to kick it up a notch?  According to facebook, the lease language in Cannon's Master Plan has been removed.
> 
> :lol:
> 
> https://www.facebook.com/savecannonmountain



Ha!  JD is picking up what I'm laying down.  He is now using win-win-win!!!  Otherwise, he has a thoughtful response to one of the previous posts on the facebook page.  I'm trying to figure out if he is putting me down by lumping me in as a "non competitive guest".

Ski-off??? :flame:

TFC facebook page: oddly empty.


----------



## Boardguy (May 11, 2012)

If the project at Mittersill moves some race days from Burke I'm all for it. That would be a win win.


----------



## Abubob (May 14, 2012)

Johnskiismore said:


> So, before Mittersill 'opened' I told a buddy that snowmaking would be installed within five years.  He said no way they're going to keep it natural, blah, blah, blah.  And we bet.  Mind you I said I would NEVER ride the Mittersill double....... that proclamation collapsed first POW day in 2011 and I now love that chair.
> 
> So, Keith, you owe me $100!!  Sully was witness at the bar!  Oh, alcohol and betting:beer:



Snowmaking in Mittersill was part of the master plan to reopen there from the beginning - before the chair was even installed - and before the land swap was even completed.


----------



## skiberg (May 14, 2012)

I dont think its accurate to say it was part of any of Cannon's immediate plans. that would mean that FSC was involved in negotiating the land swap and had contact with Cannon to agree to place the snowmaking infrastructure at Mit. prior to the swap. That is not the case.  Maybe it was a potential they considered, but Cannon had no short term plan to place snowmaking at Mit. without the assistance of FSC. Certainly after the past few years its evident that there needs to be some type of consistent snow cover on a few select areas of the h ill. Even though the snow was great in 10-11, Mit. was skied off in a day. I think last year even with the great snow they realized they had a problem based primarily on the shear increase in the number of skiers on Mit.


----------



## riverc0il (May 14, 2012)

I recall it being in a budget proposal for two or three years out... and that was before the FSC thing.


----------



## Cannonball (May 15, 2012)

skiberg said:


> Certainly after the past few years its evident that there needs to be some type of consistent snow cover on a few select areas of the h ill. Even though the snow was great in 10-11, Mit. was skied off in a day. I think last year even with the great snow they realized they had a problem based primarily on the shear increase in the number of skiers on Mit.



Cannon management, cannon skiers. and state planners all knew that snow making would be needed.  It wasn't like they put the lift in and were shocked to find out that natural snowfall wouldn't cut it.  (If anyone thought that, they don't know the Mtn or aren't very observant). Snowmaking was in the plans with or without FSC.  Sometimes, due to budgets, things have to happen one at a time.  Obviously the lift can somewhat function without snowmaking...but snowmaking is pointless without a lift....so the lift came first.  The FSC deal allows snowmaking to come in sooner, and it offers FSC some leverage to ask for something special for themselves over there.   

With respect to Witch Hobble, it's win-win....lose-win-lose-lose-win-win-tie-lose..... depending how many interests you consider.


----------



## Puck it (May 15, 2012)

Found this on the SaveCannonMountain blog site.  I find it pretty funny, since the upper mountain glades on Cannon proper were all cut without permission by locals and now they are on the map.


*'Whistleblowers' Find Long-Established Glade at Mittersill *



If you emailed Sen. Jeb Bradley about his Cannon lease bill, you probably got a reply last week that concluded, "whistleblowers have recently brought to my attention significant tree cutting for glade skiing high on the mountain. I brought this presumably unauthorized cutting to the attention of the Division of Parks, which is currently investigating."

The senator was concerned because the area in question is above 2,500 feet on former Forest Service land that's habitat for the Bicknell's thrush, a small songbird.

It turns out that the senator discovered the glade known as Bunny Slope Direct or Pony Slope Direct, which has been around for about two decades.


----------



## Abubob (May 15, 2012)

skiberg said:


> I dont think its accurate to say it was part of any of Cannon's immediate plans. that would mean that FSC was involved in negotiating the land swap and had contact with Cannon to agree to place the snowmaking infrastructure at Mit. prior to the swap. That is not the case.  Maybe it was a potential they considered, but Cannon had no short term plan to place snowmaking at Mit. without the assistance of FSC. Certainly after the past few years its evident that there needs to be some type of consistent snow cover on a few select areas of the h ill. Even though the snow was great in 10-11, Mit. was skied off in a day. I think last year even with the great snow they realized they had a problem based primarily on the shear increase in the number of skiers on Mit.





riverc0il said:


> I recall it being in a budget proposal for two or three years out... and that was before the FSC thing.



For what it worth - This is from a pdf entitled, "February 21, 2008 Proposed Revision Cannon Mountain Master Development Plan"



> Vision Statement
> The vision for the development of the Mittersill Area including the lands acquired through exchange with the White Mountain National Forest is;
> The Mittersill Area will be incorporated into the day to day management and operations of the Cannon Mountain Ski Area. The area will be of lesser development than the Tramway and Peabody Areas with limited skier services offered. Trail and skiing conditions will be managed and promoted as intermediate to advanced terrain with a backcountry feel. No new lift, trail, glade development or expansion of terrain will occur above the 2,500 foot elevation beyond the 1989 developed footprint. Existing trail and lift alignments and their widths shall be considered the maximum allowed.
> 
> ...


----------



## skiberg (May 15, 2012)

Well, I have never seen that . However, i stil dont think they had any conrete short term plans for snowmaking installation. By short term i mean within 3-5 years out.


----------



## Cannonball (May 15, 2012)

skiberg said:


> Well, I have never seen that . However, i stil dont think they had any conrete short term plans for snowmaking installation. By short term i mean within 3-5 years out.



Actually you brought it up in these forums 2 years ago. (I don't want to link to that thread because it was one of those brutal devolving Cannon threads).  And it's been reported in various places since '08 at least.  It's really not a surprise or news at this point.  Was there anyone who thought a lift could work there without snowmaking?  Not anybody who ever skied there.


----------



## Puck it (May 15, 2012)

Cannonball said:


> Actually you brought it up in these forums 2 years ago. (I don't want to link to that thread because it was one of those brutal devolving Cannon threads). And it's been reported in various places since '08 at least. It's really not a surprise or news at this point. Was there anyone who thought a lift could work there without snowmaking? Not anybody who ever skied there.


 
Snowmaking = Environmental Damage. Right?

Just keep it out of Fischer Cat!!!!!:beer:


----------



## skiberg (May 15, 2012)

I did bring it up a few years back and then i shut my mouth because people started suggesting i had no idea what i was talking about after i said this was goign to happen. In any event, those were the FSC plans back then. I was aware of those discussion and plans quite a while ago, but never did i hear that Cannon had plans themselves to install. I think JD knew it had to be done, but figured he would piggy back on the FSC offer as its a good deal for the state. Had FSC not come along it was probably only a matter of time and money before it happened. I know people are shooting to make this happen this off season, but that may be a bit too optimistic. Contractual language still has to be worked out with the State to protect FSC if the Mountain ever gets privatized. One big concern of FSC is privitization and then the new manager denying access to the trails after they dontate a couple million dollars of equipment to the State.


----------



## Puck it (May 15, 2012)

BTW Threecy is all over it!!

http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/news.php


----------



## thetrailboss (May 15, 2012)

And BOOM!  We have our Cannon thread!  :lol:


----------



## skiberg (May 15, 2012)

It doesn't take much does it


----------



## Puck it (May 15, 2012)

No one was doing, but I did it.  He has been quiet lately.  Must be in the woods, cleaning up environmental damage that he created.


----------



## witch hobble (May 15, 2012)

I particularly like this camouflage portal to the TFC website too.


http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/savecannonmountain/


----------



## Puck it (May 15, 2012)

witch hobble said:


> I particularly like this camouflage portal to the TFC website too.
> 
> 
> http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/savecannonmountain/



All I see is Mt Lafayette.


----------



## witch hobble (May 15, 2012)

It is a great photo.


----------



## riverc0il (May 15, 2012)

skiberg said:


> Well, I have never seen that . However, i stil dont think they had any conrete short term plans for snowmaking installation. By short term i mean within 3-5 years out.


Someone just posted a plan stating it was in the works for 2013. How can you still stand by your incorrect recollection?


----------



## Puck it (May 15, 2012)

riverc0il said:


> Someone just posted a plan stating it was in the works for 2013. How can you still stand by your incorrect recollection?



Short memory loss, possibly!


----------



## deadheadskier (May 16, 2012)

Puck it said:


> BTW Threecy is all over it!!
> 
> http://www.taxpayersforcannon.com/news.php



"After operating Mittersill for 5.5 days last season, Cannon is requesting additional funding, both in terms of capital from the Franconia Ski Club, as well as new snowmaking, grooming, and lift operating costs to be paid by state taxpayers."

How genuine is this claim?  I haven't seen a single piece of literature that says Cannon went to FSC looking for money.  This statement certainly infers that Cannon went to FSC, Holderness etc., asking for money.  Nothing I've read has made such a suggestion.  It's always the opposite; FSC, Holderness offering the funding because they want better race facilities at Cannon.

Even if Cannon did get on their knees and beg for money from FSC, why would a taxpayer care?  I would think a fiscally conservative taxpayer would applaud Cannon seeking funds from private sources.


----------



## bigbob (May 16, 2012)

deadheadskier said:


> "After operating Mittersill for 5.5 days last season, Cannon is requesting additional funding, both in terms of capital from the Franconia Ski Club, as well as new snowmaking, grooming, and lift operating costs to be paid by state taxpayers."
> 
> How genuine is this claim?  I haven't seen a single piece of literature that says Cannon went to FSC looking for money.  This statement certainly infers that Cannon went to FSC, Holderness etc., asking for money.  Nothing I've read has made such a suggestion.  It's always the opposite; FSC, Holderness offering the funding because they want better race facilities at Cannon.
> 
> Even if Cannon did get on their knees and beg for money from FSC, why would a taxpayer care?  I would think a fiscally conservative taxpayer would applaud Cannon seeking funds from private sources.



In  Threece's eyes, anything Cannon does other than leasing out to a private concern would be wrong!


----------



## Abubob (May 17, 2012)

bigbob said:


> In  Threece's eyes, anything Cannon does other than leasing out to a private concern would be wrong!



This gets rather tedious after a while. Even if threecy doesn't make a comment now it gets done in his behalf? :roll:

If Cannon wants to reconfigure the trails for racing - so what? If they want to put in snowmaking - I've think we've established that idea has always been on the table. If they want to put lights up for night skiing - whoopee! So really its back to the way it was before it went belly up. Will you pay more for a ticket? Well duh! You want backcountry skiing? I think there's plenty still to go around. Can we just move along? :???:


----------



## Puck it (May 17, 2012)

What else do we have to do all f-ing summer?


----------



## Abubob (May 17, 2012)

Heck - I don't know. I didn't *really* expect people to stop talking about Mittersill. This *is* a ski forum after all.

Lets talk about whether it'll be cooler to ski at Mittersill at night as opposed to Gunstock.


----------



## deadheadskier (May 17, 2012)

Well, I guess I should lock the thread.  The potential for it to go epcot is over.

No lease

"The House yesterday passed SB217, the amended bill that does NOT call for leasing Cannon Mountain or developing a master plan for Cannon and Franconia Notch State Park. It does, however, call for creation of a hiking trail up and over Mittersill and on to the summit of Cannon. And it includes unrelated legislation that was attached last week."


----------



## Puck it (May 17, 2012)

Fat lady sings!  No wonder threecy is out in the woods screaming!  You think anyone will hear him?


----------



## Rikka (May 17, 2012)

This fella may hear the screams.


----------



## thetrailboss (May 18, 2012)

And to think that a few years ago Mittersill was abandoned and had rusting lifts on it and now it is going to be getting snowmaking and nightskiing.  The Baron would be proud!


----------



## jimmywilson69 (May 18, 2012)

thetrailboss said:


> And to think that a few years ago Mittersill was abandoned and had rusting lifts on it and now it is going to be getting snowmaking and nightskiing.



Yeah resurecting ski resorts is a cool thing.


----------



## bobbutts (May 18, 2012)

Puck it said:


> What else do we have to do all f-ing summer?





:lol:


----------



## AdironRider (May 18, 2012)

I personally love Threecy's relative lack of understanding of how accounting works, notably with non-cash expenses.


----------



## J'Hams (Aug 28, 2012)

can't they just run a hose from Cannon and put a diesel compressor thingy over there on the slope where they want snow on and just move it down the trail as winter gets colder?


----------



## bobbutts (Aug 28, 2012)

J'Hams said:


> can't they just run a hose from Cannon and put a diesel compressor thingy over there on the slope where they want snow on and just move it down the trail as winter gets colder?


There's a bunch of fixed infrastructure with snowmaking.  They can't just throw portable stuff for that great a distance, they need to plan, permit, purchase, install, etc..


----------



## SIKSKIER (Aug 28, 2012)

1 gun sounds like a great plan.


----------

