Backlash Against Vail Resorts

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

We, as Americans are to blame for this. Who couldn't see this coming? We have allowed the USFS to continue to lease land to private companies that are more real estate development firms and investment banks than they are ski area operators. What should have happened, 40 years ago, is the public demand that the USFS alter their entire philosophy on leasing the public's land for for-profit, recreational, purposes. Rather than play a hands off role, the USFS (as land steward) should have demanded they be more involved in the private company leasee's business model. And that model should focus on sustainability, not profits.

There is no reason this could not be accomplished today. We just need enough people to recognize this problem. This is not some anti-capatalism rant. It's just asking that that the landlord, who answers to all of us, start giving a fuck on how the tenant is using the property.

---

You are not wrong, but fighting lobbyists is not quick nor a sure thing. Vail alone is 11B in market cap and has over 1B in cash on hand. Who knows what KSL (Alterra) has as they are a private equity firm. Even "independent" mountains are owned by megacorps. A-Basin is owned by a multibillion dollar Canadian RE/resort firm, but they promote their plucky independent image (they are given a freer hand).

Would you rise up and storm Olympus? Trust busting is so 1901. Better bow before your corporate gods, peasant.

The public scrutinizes the USFS when they approve logging and mining on USFS land, but looks the other way for anything involving ski resorts. Vail will claim that if you demand sustainability over profits, that no private business will ever want to enter the industry. That may have been true 40 years ago, but not today. I want the public to look at ski resorts in the same vein as they do resource extracting industries on government land. I think this actually can garner bi-partisan support, in the same way left-leaning environmentalist and right-leaning hunters and fisherman both want healthy water and forests.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

We, as Americans are to blame for this. Who couldn't see this coming? We have allowed the USFS to continue to lease land to private companies that are more real estate development firms and investment banks than they are ski area operators. What should have happened, 40 years ago, is the public demand that the USFS alter their entire philosophy on leasing the public's land for for-profit, recreational, purposes. Rather than play a hands off role, the USFS (as land steward) should have demanded they be more involved in the private company leasee's business model. And that model should focus on sustainability, not profits.

There is no reason this could not be accomplished today. We just need enough people to recognize this problem. This is not some anti-capatalism rant. It's asking that that the landlord, who answers to all of us, start giving a fuck on how the tenant is using the property.

(note, all of the above only applies to ski areas on USFS land, which is the vast majority of large ski areas in the West).

---

This is exactly correct. I would add in the fact that the Forest Service has allowed the industry to turn into a 3-way monopoly. This is made worse because the Forest Service holds the key to any future competition, they lock it down therefore guaranteeing the limited supply. This limited supply and lack of competition is the antithesis of the free market and as with any industry dominated by a few mega corps, costs skyrocket and quality suffers.

This should never have happened on public land. The Forest Service should never have allowed these special use permits to be transferred to these conglomerates. They absolutely should have guaranteed competition and pushed for local ownership. This is on them. The desk jockeys at the Forest Service have no idea how detrimental this model is to the environment, the local communities, and the sport of skiing. Steer the complaints not to Vail, they won't listen anyways, I would steer them to the handmaids of this debacle, the Forest Service. The only way forward is to break these monopolies up and/or create more competition.

Summits Post is right on as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dunderhead

Steer the complaints not to Vail, they won't listen anyways, I would steer them to the handmaids of this debacle, the Forest Service. The only way forward is to break these monopolies up and/or create more competition.

---

And steer your complaints to your Senator and Congress representative, regardless of your political party. Make them aware that the overcrowding of the public's land is an important issue to you. They ultimately dictate policy on USFS land. It's one thing when summer trailheads get full, it's a whole different thing when a private company is encouraging and profiting off that crowding. I'm cautiously optimistic Vail and Alterra's bad PR will finally get the tide to turn.

While I agree with maybe 85%, can you square one discrepancy for me?

Big Sky and Park City are both suffering from the exact same maladies. Both are 100% private land operations.

In both areas there were 2 independently operated ski areas that merged. In this particular case lack of competition plays a greater role than USFS lack of involvement, or so it would seem.

Hoping Alterra will raise Ikon prices astronomically and put more restrictions on lower-tiered pass products. They have 6 weeks give or take before they start peddling 22/23 passes on us.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bunion 2020

Big Sky and Park City are both suffering from the exact same maladies. Both are 100% private land operations..

---

What happens on private land is of zero concern to me. They will do what they do and there is nothing I, or the US Government, can do about it.

I am not so naive to think that the USFS can send us back in time where passes are cheap and the ski areas are empty. My vision is ski areas on USFS should be required to be operated as not for profits. That way, the books would be open. Their mission statement should be to offer recreation opportunities to as many people as possible, but in a sustainable fashion that doesn't overwhelm the resources. And they must take into consideration ALL users of the public's land, factoring in changes in circumstances. So for instance, at Crystal, every year, there are more and more backcountry skiers that want to ski from the parking lot. But parking is limited so this pits backcountry skiers directly against the for profit ski area. This same phenomenon is occurring throughout the west. The non-profit ski areas could decide how many skiers the resort can handle per day, and make some hard decisions to accomplish that. That might mean selling season passes for a specific day of the week, or month. Capping passes and lift sales. Maybe requiring reservations if absolutely necessary. Doing this may make it so I cannot ski as much at the ski are of my choosing, but my overall experience will be better. It will also make the experience less of a shopping mall, and more of traveling through the forests with skis on my feet, which is what skiing really is all about. And while no one would be thrilled with these restrictions, it would be a lot easier pill to swallow when the books are open, and everyone can transparently see the ski area's bottom line.

Do you also think timber companies should operate as non-profits? If a business meets the requirements for their Special Use Permit, the Forest Service can't dictate how they run their business, they can't discriminate based on whether the resort owners are local or not, so you are just asking the USFS to get into an expensive legal quagmire with your ideas. The way you are posting makes it sound like you want government run ski areas. I'll probably get flamed by you and chunderhead, but there is not a "duopoly" in the ski industry. Hell, there are at least 81 independent ski areas on the Indy Pass, and that doesn't even capture indy's or other resorts not affiliated with the "mega-passes". So the claim that Vail has a "monopoly" in the ski industry is just hogwash.

Here's a solution that doesn't require you to whine about the government. Don't go. It's that simple. Go ski tour in the thousands of acres of undeveloped forest, go ski Mission Ridge or 49 North. Just because you are pissed that Alterra oversold their passes this year, doesn't mean that the forest service should go force Alterra to sell to locals. Even if they wanted to, they legally cannot do that, this isn't China or Russia. Or start doing the hard, expensive process of developing a ski area. By the way, I'm a long-time pass holder your guy's shining beacon of ski area operations, Bridger and even as a non-profit we have crowding issues. Deal with it or go do something else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by total_immortal

DIf a business meets the requirements for their Special Use Permit, the Forest Service can't dictate how they run their business

---

The Special Use Permit is just a contract. Think of it as a lease agreement. And like any lease agreement, no the USFS can't break it without facing financial penalties. But each Special Use Permit is not in perpetuity. They all have end dates, most in just a few years down the road. Then they can renewed, or not renewed, or renewed with whatever conditions the USFS wants to place on it. Ski resorts have no legal ability to force the USFS to renew to them.

I never said governments should run ski areas. I said not for profits should run ski areas on USFS lands. Non-profits can still sell beer, have lodges, groom runs, and have high speed quads. They just are required to reinvest the profits back into the ski area rather than pad the pocket books of shareholders. And yes, switching to non-profit doesn't make the crowds go away. But it can lead to a more sustainable management of the crowds. Same way Washington manages crowds backcountry camping in the national parks here, and places like the Enchantments with permits. Personally, I hate permits and try to avoid them when I can, but I also see them as a necessary evil.

Your suggestion to just "not go" doesn't really work in places like Seattle and other major metro areas. In the Cascades, the main places to backcountry ski happen to be the parking lot of the ski area. We are veering towards a critical mass. As backcountry skiers gain more numbers, and strength, they are going to wonder why ski resorts get a monopoly on access points to the mountains. What makes resort skiers' right to access USFS land any greater than backcountry skiers and snow shoers?

I understand how SUPs work, but as I previously posted, even when renewing the SUP, the government legally cannot discriminate against the business model or the owners. SUPs generally specify what the permit holder can/can't do to the physical land and resources, but not how the business is operated. For example, the SUP may allow a new lift to be installed according to the operator's master plan, which is included in the SUP application, but the SUP cannot require that lift be operated a minimum number of days, because it is private infrastructure on leased land. The reason I implied you are wanting government run ski areas is the fact you keep harping on the Forest Service to fix the problem. As long as the ski resort adheres to the master plan submitted when applying for the SUP and doesn't start illegally cutting runs or diverting creeks or building un-approved lifts, the Forest Service doesn't care if the lift line is 8 hours long. And resorts may not be able to force the Forest Service to renew the SUP, but as long as the resort hasn't had any major transgressions, the operator can take the forest service to court if the renewed SUP is too restrictive for no good reason.

How does a non-profit have better tools to manage crowds than a private firm? The non-profit I ski at multiple times a week doesn't seem to have any different tools from the private ski areas I have been to, either on public or private land. If anything, the private resorts have faster lifts to move the lines more quickly. Non-profits can issue permits to their ski area, but a private firm can't? Weren't the reservations last year this exact thing?

It's a business issue, not a government issue.

I'll admit I am extremely uninformed on the Seattle ski scene, but a quick google search of the Seattle area shows something like 7 ski areas between White Pass and Stevens Pass, so I'm not convinced Crustal is the only option. It may be the biggest and have the best terrain, but again, the Forest Service doesn't give a fuck. The public land access issues are another argument and I guarantee the PNW is not the only area with access issues in the winter. I will say you have far more logging roads and less wilderness than where I live, so go buy a sled instead of continuing to support something that is ruining your ski experience.

Owned a sled. Not for me. Thanks. And all my bitching and whining isn't for me, but for my kids 30 years down the road.

Anyway, I am not aware of any law that prevents Congress from passing new legislation that would require ski areas on USFS to be operated as not for profits. So they wouldn't be discriminating. They would just be following the law, passed by Congress. We have other quasi public/private entities like utilities and water. I would agree that the non-profit doesn't have any additional tools to handle crowds, but it is an easier pill to swallow if it is coming from a non-profit. People would be assured that profits are going back to that specific ski area and not to far away lands. Right now my local mountain, Crystal, is owned by a private equity company from Denver who is managed by some shmuck from West Virginia who had never spent any time in Washington before being crowned manager of the ski area.

For every other recreational activity one does on USFS like hiking, climbing, biking, motocross, sledding, hunting, fishing, one has to have some general awareness of being in the mountains. That was the case for skiing back in the day, but not anymore. Like I said before, it's too much of a shopping mall, Costco on Saturday morning experience. It's not just the crowds. It has just grown way too corporate. It amazes me we have let it go this far without more pushback from the public.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

it's too much of a shopping mall, Costco on Saturday morning experience. It's not just the crowds. It has just grown way too corporate.

---

I 100% agree with you there and I don't think Vail is doing the sport any favors. I can't even remember the last time I skied a vail owned property. I grew up in the RFV, so I've never liked vail.

I don't have any answers to the problem, but I don't think the Forest Service is who will solve the problem.

Went to the mothership for a couple hours of leg day.

It was windy, completely flat light, late in the day, with shitty old refrozen snow ....

And there was bumper to bumper parking on the frontage road, on a Thursday.

I couldn't really understand it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

Owned a sled. Not for me. Thanks. And all my bitching and whining isn't for me, but for my kids 30 years down the road.

Anyway, I am not aware of any law that prevents Congress from passing new legislation that would require ski areas on USFS to be operated as not for profits. So they wouldn't be discriminating. They would just be following the law, passed by Congress. We have other quasi public/private entities like utilities and water. I would agree that the non-profit doesn't have any additional tools to handle crowds, but it is an easier pill to swallow if it is coming from a non-profit. People would be assured that profits are going back to that specific ski area and not to far away lands. Right now my local mountain, Crystal, is owned by a private equity company from Denver who is managed by some shmuck from West Virginia who had never spent any time in Washington before being crowned manager of the ski area.

For every other recreational activity one does on USFS like hiking, climbing, biking, motocross, sledding, hunting, fishing, one has to have some general awareness of being in the mountains. That was the case for skiing back in the day, but not anymore. Like I said before, it's too much of a shopping mall, Costco on Saturday morning experience. It's not just the crowds. It has just grown way too corporate. It amazes me we have let it go this far without more pushback from the public.

---

You apparently don’t know how your own political system works. No way in hell republicans are going to force tax paying (and political contributing) corporations to become non profits, or to give up their assets to a non profit. Nor would you be likely to find enough support for that idea within the democrats to override the republicans. Especially when they are just trying to survive politically and get enough support within their own party for their own priority’s.

So no matter what you think of for profit corporations running facilities on ‘public’ land, there is no political willpower to change that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

Went to the mothership for a couple hours of leg day.

It was windy, completely flat light, late in the day, with shitty old refrozen snow ....

And there was bumper to bumper parking on the frontage road, on a Thursday.

I couldn't really understand it.

---

Do they ever charge for the frontage road parking?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SKIP IN7RO

Do they ever charge for the frontage road parking?

---

South frontage road parking is only legal when the garages are completely full, and it is free. North frontage road parking is free everyday.

There is supposed to be a limit agreed to between TOV and CDOT on how many days S. frontage can be used for overflow, but over the last couple of years, that has been blatantly ignored and unenforced.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

Went to the mothership for a couple hours of leg day.

It was windy, completely flat light, late in the day, with shitty old refrozen snow ....

And there was bumper to bumper parking on the frontage road, on a Thursday.

I couldn't really understand it.

---

Never skip leg day...

It is Thursday. Remember how Saturday used to be, back when people had real 5-day-a-week jobs, like back in the 90's? Well, eventually, Friday turned into the new Saturday, because, you know, people started taking Fridays off. Well now Thursday is the new Friday, which was the new Saturday. Luckily, those dumb fucks need to leave early get back home to get a head start on Monday now because they blew off Thursday and Friday. So Sundays are the new Mondays, like pretty rad huh? Basically, Wednesdays are still where it is at...for now anyway, but there's still a lot fo WFHers on the hill chillin on their laptops in the lodge acting like they are being productive. I know, it is hard to keep up.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MakersTeleMark

South frontage road parking is only legal when the garages are completely full, and it is free. North frontage road parking is free everyday.

There is supposed to be a limit agreed to between TOV and CDOT on how many days S. frontage can be used for overflow, but over the last couple of years, that has been blatantly ignored and unenforced.

---

Seeing that video from a Saturday with 450 cars parked on the frontage road surprised me. It's hard to believe the town, cdot, or Vail aren't trying to capitalize on that.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by altasnob

\ It amazes me we have let it go this far without more pushback from the public.

---

It got this way because of our individual and societal flaws as well as a deeply flawed economic model. Some sold out to the corporations, some made money on the periphery, some were just too stupid to see it happening, some were in denial and ignored it, some were just frogs in the pot of boiling water. Lack of collectivism in favor of hyper individualism. A society wide, near religious belief in the free market. The selling out of the commons to Mega corps. Short term profits over sustainability, complete lack of planning at the community level. Total lack of care for the environment, the sport, the renters, the workers. Nihilism and nay saying, acceptance of our powerlessness, and giving up from the peanut gallery. That can't do attitude, the bend of the knee to the powerful. Amongst all this tumult, neary even the slightest resisatnce or collective activism to change the trajectory. You can see it all on the individual level with the people in this forum.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Benny Profane

Vail loses Vail. Or forgot the annual "presents" to the right people.

https://www.vaildaily.com/news/eagle...ts-at-retreat/

---

Entertaining article. They are eating their young. Lol... How many people in the "small town" actually 1) live there year-round, and 2) haven't somehow benefited from the resort at large and are sitting on MILLIONS in real estate? Trying to separate the town from the resort? When 95% of the population doesn't even realize that there is a town, and that it's not just one big resort? The crocodile tears are really welling up in my eyes right now... I get that the town wants that separation now, but I'm thinking that may have been a very different story just a few short months ago...

Wouldn’t it be nice if Vail (the actual ski hill) put a lift between Inner and Outer Mongolia? People who knew would just spend their entire day out there avoiding the lines. But vail doesn’t think about the actual skiers.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by dunderhead

It got this way because of our individual and societal flaws as well as a deeply flawed economic model. Some sold out to the corporations, some made money on the periphery, some were just too stupid to see it happening, some were in denial and ignored it, some were just frogs in the pot of boiling water. Lack of collectivism in favor of hyper individualism. A society wide, near religious belief in the free market. The selling out of the commons to Mega corps. Short term profits over sustainability, complete lack of planning at the community level. Total lack of care for the environment, the sport, the renters, the workers. Nihilism and nay saying, acceptance of our powerlessness, and giving up from the peanut gallery. That can't do attitude, the bend of the knee to the powerful. Amongst all this tumult, neary even the slightest resisatnce or collective activism to change the trajectory. You can see it all on the individual level with the people in this forum.

---

This is a Good Post

Also yeah the thing that really gets me is how vail in particular seems to not even really care about the actual ski experience at all, since they put all their effort behind catering to the folks whose idea of a ski vacation is going out and doing a couple groomed runs and then hanging out in the bar or restaurant. In my anecdotal experience most of the people I know who buy epic passes these days definitely fall into that category of skier, too. You're seeing a bit of this with like powdrcorp and alterra but Vail seems to make it their goal to cater ONLY to this type of clientele. Shit would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by boardtodeath

This is a Good Post

Also yeah the thing that really gets me is how vail in particular seems to not even really care about the actual ski experience at all, since they put all their effort behind catering to the folks whose idea of a ski vacation is going out and doing a couple groomed runs and then hanging out in the bar or restaurant. In my anecdotal experience most of the people I know who buy epic passes these days definitely fall into that category of skier, too. You're seeing a bit of this with like powdrcorp and alterra but Vail seems to make it their goal to cater ONLY to this type of clientele. Shit would be hilarious if it wasn't so depressing.

---

Listen to the Katz interview in that podcast. That's definitely something I took away. The man has zero passion for skiing. Yeah, he probably skis a little, but, more out of obligation than anything. And he's top dog at that company, still, even if there's a new CEO, who should have been interviewed. That's her job, after all. And he sets the tone with his hires and promotions, too. Listen to a few other Vail higher ups that the Storm Skiing Journal interviewed, and it's the same vacuous corporate babble. Alterra isn't perfect, of course, but at least when Stuart interviews them, I hear a VP or hill manager talk about their history starting as a liftie or instructor more than once, and their love of skiing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by This End Up

Wouldn’t it be nice if Vail (the actual ski hill) put a lift between Inner and Outer Mongolia? People who knew would just spend their entire day out there avoiding the lines. But vail doesn’t think about the actual skiers.

---

If there going to add a lift and new terrain, I think Mushroom Bowl or Earl’s Bowl would be better. Mongolia gets so baked.

Stop. Buying. The. Passes.