starting a ski area on Forest Service land

[Bobcat Sig]

In the US total skier numbers (visits) have been mostly flat for two decades. You seem bummed that all the people who were athletic and cool relocated to where the athletic and cool are, so skier visits and more importantly runs skied are way up there, and dwindling in the uncool places.

Umm… not sure the need for condescending tone. I’m asking for info as it seems counter to what’s out there, or at post what I see. Really, just trying to make sense if it all.

[Conundrum]

Haven’t read every post so maybe I missed it. Do the small town locals want their economies “saved” by bringing new people to their town? For the towns with small mom and pop ski hills that I’m familiar with, I’ve seen many families displaced when they can no longer afford to buy nor rent during this migration to the west.

[dunderhead]

They did. In fact, I remember quite a bit of hand-wringing here about ten-ish years ago during the Great Recession. That prediction seems to have largely proven incorrect as skier numbers seem to be up, way up.

Though, to a point, new skiers into the market may actually be down. But in looking at all of my favorite places to ski in the west; things have never been busier.

Yeah, anyone with eyes can see way more skiers than before. This is as much a market trend as a demographic trend. I think skier number days are flat but what is occurring is more people are skiing fewer places at particular times. With the advent of fat skis and the mass marketing of powder skiing, the masses now flock to the best places at the right times. This inundates the few top shelf places during storm cycles and leaves the other ones bereft of skiers. Basically, the market is demanding more and better and it is nowhere near keeping up with this demand. This reality along with the onslaught from IKON and EPIC have rendered many places unskiable and communities broken. From housing to environmental concerns, infrastructure and traffic. Which brings us back to the original point, the industry needs to find a way to spread people out a bit.

The forest service and the ski industry have acted as handmaids to this whole debacle as they expand in areas that can't handle it and lack the foresight to bring new, more localized offerings to market. Ski local should have been the mantra, but instead, the industry sold us exotic, mass long distance travel, more expensive. As consumers, we all fell for it, convincing ourselves that if the snow was not 3 feet deep, if it was not happening in the Tetons, if we were not penetrating the biggest and badest spots then none of it was worthy. It is the same marketing model Starbucks used on their victims, convince the blind masses to spend $5 on a cup of coffee rather than $1. At the end of the day, the caffeine is the same for all but the finnickiest of consumers, and you didn't have to beclown yourself standing in an hour long line to get it.

[altasnob]

Sounds like it is all the fault of TGR and those who consume its products.

[DanoT]

The problem is that not enough American skiers are savvy enough to realize that there are more than a dozen ski resorts in western Canada not named Whistler that are uncrowded, not expensive, have very reliable conditions.

Time not spent in lift lines more than makes up for the extra travel time getting to B.C. and Alberta.

Edit: It's not my problem and I have no desire to see it solved, so US skiers please carry on overcrowding US resorts and Whistler which is essentially a US resort located in B.C.

[TAFKALVS]

Haven’t read every post so maybe I missed it. Do the small town locals want their economies “saved” by bringing new people to their town? For the towns with small mom and pop ski hills that I’m familiar with, I’ve seen many families displaced when they can no longer afford to buy nor rent during this migration to the west.

I guess my grand vision would be a community to mediumish (or multiple) ski hill(s) in every town that gets snow or snow nearby.

Simplistic econ 101 thinking:
Right now lift served skiing (and towns that offer easy access) are a resource with high demand and low availability. If there were 250 more Lost Trails, 50 more Bridger Bowls and 20 more Snowbirds spread across the west it would help reduce the crowding and also help spread pressure out across more towns... or maybe spur on the development of new towns which would help stabilize real estate pricing.

[Conundrum]

I guess my grand vision would be a community to mediumish (or multiple) ski hill(s) in every town that gets snow or snow nearby.

Simplistic econ 101 thinking:
Right now lift served skiing (and towns that offer easy access) are a resource with high demand and low availability. If there were 250 more Lost Trails, 50 more Bridger Bowls and 20 more Snowbirds spread across the west it would help reduce the crowding and also help spread pressure out across more towns... or maybe spur on the development of new towns which would help stabilize real estate pricing.

I haven’t read the build back better bill but maybe there’s some funding in there for 320 ski hills.

[dunfree]

I guess my grand vision would be a community to mediumish (or multiple) ski hill(s) in every town that gets snow or snow nearby.

Simplistic econ 101 thinking:
Right now lift served skiing (and towns that offer easy access) are a resource with high demand and low availability. If there were 250 more Lost Trails, 50 more Bridger Bowls and 20 more Snowbirds spread across the west it would help reduce the crowding and also help spread pressure out across more towns... or maybe spur on the development of new towns which would help stabilize real estate pricing.

theres plenty of ski hill availability. Just not the ski hills you want, where you want them, and there never will be, because geology and climate ain’t there.

[altasnob]

Why do you think there is a demand for such an ambitious proposal? If Berthoud Pass can't manage to stay open with some of the best terrain and snow in Colorado and only an hour from Denver, how is there a market for more small ski areas? Particularly since most of the low hanging fruit places (summits of passes on existing highways) are already taken.

Japan has much more lax environmental laws than the US and a pro-real estate development government. Consequently, Japan has the most ski areas of any country on earth (over 500; US has 470). Japan also has seen 52 of their ski areas go bankrupt in the last 20 years. And once a ski area goes bankrupt the land is not exactly returned to its natural state (although touring at bankrupt ski areas can be fun).

[total_immortal]

I guess my grand vision would be a community to mediumish (or multiple) ski hill(s) in every town that gets snow or snow nearby.

Simplistic econ 101 thinking:
Right now lift served skiing (and towns that offer easy access) are a resource with high demand and low availability. If there were 250 more Lost Trails, 50 more Bridger Bowls and 20 more Snowbirds spread across the west it would help reduce the crowding and also help spread pressure out across more towns... or maybe spur on the development of new towns which would help stabilize real estate pricing.

I touched on this previously, but that vision is already there in most places. I mentioned all the places in Montana because that's what I know, but Colorado isn't too different. No one is mentioning Sunlight, Powderhorn, Purgatory, Monarch, et cetera, et cetera. This conversation is beginning to sound like people are upset that they don't have a Jackson Hole in every mountain town, or they're upset because they ski in Summit County or the Wasatch which serve million plus populations and are going to be crowded just by the fact that a major population center is nearby.

In my, non-dentist opinion, most markets that can be served by a small hill already have a small ski hill (the one glaring exception in my experience is Fort Collins). They just aren't the flashy resorts with good terrain like Jackson or Big Sky. For example, would a town like Craig or Paonia benefit from a ski hill being built nearby? What about Sheridan, WY? There are a million places that you could build a ski area, but if there isn't a nearby market to support the ski hill, it's not going to be sustainable. I will say, I don't know anything about the PNW and maybe there are markets that could be served by building new ski areas in the Cascades but I just don't know enough about the region.

[Meadow Skipper]

Why do you think there is a demand for such an ambitious proposal? If Berthoud Pass can't manage to stay open with some of the best terrain and snow in Colorado and only an hour from Denver, how is there a market for more small ski areas? Particularly since most of the low hanging fruit places (summits of passes on existing highways) are already taken.

Japan has much more lax environmental laws than the US and a pro-real estate development government. Consequently, Japan has the most ski areas of any country on earth (over 500; US has 470). Japan also has seen 52 of their ski areas go bankrupt in the last 20 years. And once a ski area goes bankrupt the land is not exactly returned to its natural state (although touring at bankrupt ski areas can be fun).

Basic economics don’t seem to play any part in dunderhead’s considerations.

[XXX-er]

I just wana point out Hankin never has a lift line cuz there is no lift eh

[dunderhead]

Sounds like it is all the fault of TGR and those who consume its products.

TGR is just one of many media organs for marketing the corporate ski industrial complex. What they sell is the flashiest new gear, exotic trips to distant places, heli skiing, and yes trips to these megalopicly consolidated corporate ski hills. They also sell a lifestyle, which is why car companies and real estate firms advertise on here. The end game being Jackson is now unrecognizable to what it was 30 years ago. Is that their fault? No, it was inevitable, and many were in on the profit. Same goes for other successfully marketed lifestyle destinations such as Truckee, Crested Butte, Bozeman, Big Sky, Leavenworth, Joshua Tree, Moab, and innumerable other locations.

All this was predicted and layed out by Hal Clifford in the late 90's book the Downhill Slide. "Why the corporate ski industry is bad for skiing, ski towns, and the environment" Even Hal probably did not see how bad it would get.

I did enjoy TGR's small hills movie they just released, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, I guess. The complete shit show, soullessness, and prohibitively expensive mega hill may or may not see people bail for alternate options? The original point is that it is well past time for more affordable local options for regular people to be able to just go skiing. The Forest Service holds the key to this. Everyone seems to be hung up on if there is a market for this, is it financially feasible? Sure, in the right spots with a minimalistic business model. If one lift opened up anywhere in the Cascades or Sierras with descent terrain, they would be inundated and have to immediately go to reservations. There is way more demand than supply and it does not get any more basic economics than that.

[TAFKALVS]

theres plenty of ski hill availability. Just not the ski hills you want, where you want them, and there never will be, because geology and climate ain’t there.

Well, yeah. I would only beg to differ on climate and geology and replace that with infrastructure costs and legal wilderness designation.

The climate and geology are there in Washington, Idaho and Montana... but a lift up Glacier Peak or something isn't going to happen.

[TAFKALVS]

I haven’t read the build back better bill but maybe there’s some funding in there for 320 ski hills.

I'd be all in... sign me up. Let's turn the mountain west in to Switzerland.

[2FUNKY]

I'd be all in... sign me up. Let's turn the mountain west in to Switzerland.

Yes please.

[abraham]

I'd be all in... sign me up. Let's turn the mountain west in to Switzerland.

It would help to have an additional 500 people/square mile. But for scale that's only an extra Billion people in the western US.

Maybe we need to define ourselves as a nation building lifts, then structure the laws to make them more placeable. I'd like to see more winter road access in more places before getting to lifts, I got a copy of Written in the Snows for Christmas and it's been interesting to read about the various ski areas and lodges that existed in Washington.

[raisingarizona13]

TGR is just one of many media organs for marketing the corporate ski industrial complex. What they sell is the flashiest new gear, exotic trips to distant places, heli skiing, and yes trips to these megalopicly consolidated corporate ski hills. They also sell a lifestyle, which is why car companies and real estate firms advertise on here. The end game being Jackson is now unrecognizable to what it was 30 years ago. Is that their fault? No, it was inevitable, and many were in on the profit. Same goes for other successfully marketed lifestyle destinations such as Truckee, Crested Butte, Bozeman, Big Sky, Leavenworth, Joshua Tree, Moab, and innumerable other locations.

All this was predicted and layed out by Hal Clifford in the late 90's book the Downhill Slide. "Why the corporate ski industry is bad for skiing, ski towns, and the environment" Even Hal probably did not see how bad it would get.

I did enjoy TGR's small hills movie they just released, every action has an equal and opposite reaction, I guess. The complete shit show, soullessness, and prohibitively expensive mega hill may or may not see people bail for alternate options? The original point is that it is well past time for more affordable local options for regular people to be able to just go skiing. The Forest Service holds the key to this. Everyone seems to be hung up on if there is a market for this, is it financially feasible? Sure, in the right spots with a minimalistic business model. If one lift opened up anywhere in the Cascades or Sierras with descent terrain, they would be inundated and have to immediately go to reservations. There is way more demand than supply and it does not get any more basic economics than that.

I don't really know much but at this point, I do know that if there is a car named after a town I probably don't want to go to that town any longer.

[raisingarizona13]

I'd be all in... sign me up. Let's turn the mountain west in to Switzerland.

When I had been working for Pink Jeeps down in Sedona (I barely go down there anymore, pretty sure there's a car named Sedona) I always heard from the Euros how much they loved, appreciated and were envious of how much open space and undeveloped lands we have here.

[raisingarizona13]

It would help to have an additional 500 people/square mile. But for scale that's only an extra Billion people in the western US.

Maybe we need to define ourselves as a nation building lifts, then structure the laws to make them more placeable. I'd like to see more winter road access in more places before getting to lifts, I got a copy of Written in the Snows for Christmas and it's been interesting to read about the various ski areas and lodges that existed in Washington.

Yes! When I'm boon docking and working out in the middle of nowhere Nevada I often think to myself how much better it would be with the California crowds.

[abraham]

Yes! When I'm boon docking and working out in the middle of nowhere Nevada I often think to myself how much better it would be with the California crowds.

I hope you're still going this year! It's really cool.

But America very much still has the frontier as an undercurrent, it's different from a place that's been continuously settled for a couple thousand years and surrounded by neighbors.

And I know comparing the population density numbers isn't quite fair since so many people live in the broad valleys outside the mountains in Switzerland. And I accidentally included Alaska in the western us density, but still. The lower 48 has 110 people/square mile and CH has 550.

[Buster Highmen]

I hope you're still going this year! It's really cool.

But America very much still has the frontier as an undercurrent, it's different from a place that's been continuously settled for a couple thousand years and surrounded by neighbors.

And I know comparing the population density numbers isn't quite fair since so many people live in the broad valleys outside the mountains in Switzerland. And I accidentally included Alaska in the western us density, but still. The lower 48 has 110 people/square mile and CH has 550.

What's the West Coast population density within 100 miles of the Pacific?

[TAFKALVS]

What's the West Coast population density within 100 miles of the Pacific?

Bingo.

[Buster Highmen]

Bingo.

Do I get a kewpie doll?

fwiw, I found out some very interesting information with regard to new ski areas in the PNW. Real people are doing real work and not just whinging away (like I do lots) about this.

[SirHeady]

I’d love to see a ski resort in the Uintas NE of Kamas (see pic) or on the West Side of the Uintas around Tabiona

Additionally Manti Skyline area may be interesting




Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums