AZ Challenge 2009: Win Smith, Sugarbush Resort

[Tin Woodsman]

Win -

Thanks again for participating.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[kcyanks1]

Win -

Thanks again for participating.
. . .

Lots of great questions!

 

[JD]

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

 

[Tin Woodsman]

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

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

 

[JD]

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

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

 

[thetrailboss]

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

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

 

[JD]

Ah. So the usfs lease specifies no ski touring?

 

[thetrailboss]

Ah. So the usfs lease specifies no ski touring?

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

 

[JD]

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

 

[Riverskier]

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

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

 

[thetrailboss]

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

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

 

[deadheadskier]

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

 

[JD]

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

 

[JD]

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

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

 

[win]

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

 

[thetrailboss]

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

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

 

[Tin Woodsman]

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

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

 

[JD]

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

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

 

[Tin Woodsman]

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

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

 

[mattlucas]

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

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

Whatever.