Cannon Mountain...thoughts

[threecy]

no guarantee the ski experience will be better as a leased entity than what guests enjoy now. Depending on what the State asks for in payment, there could be much less snowmaking, inferior grooming as well as having more expensive lift tickets and food and beverage.

There's no guarantee that the government run operation will be as good next season as it was in the past four with significantly above-average snowfall.

 

[deadheadskier]

There's no guarantee that the government run operation will be as good next season as it was in the past four with significantly above-average snowfall.

interesting

most Cannon skiers I know, say that even with the above average snowfall, the mountain made more snow than they ever have before. Heck, I remember skiing there on a Superbowl Sunday after significant recent snowfall and they were still blasting away. In February.


But, I suppose you have an argument for how they will make less snow if there's less natural.

 

[thetrailboss]

Just heard on NHPR's "The Exchange" that Cannon is a war memorial and was bought by funds raised through fundraising from Vet groups. The Mountain was supposed to be a tribute to World War I vets and has a memorial for them at the top and has been the site of the spreading of Vet's ashes. Folks in Franconia are concerned about leasing out this "memorial" and rightfully so. It is the public's mountain. Leasing it out gives a private entity the right to control who accesses the land and when. So what is next? Privatizing the Vietnam War Memorial?

 

[threecy]

But, I suppose you have an argument for how they will make less snow if there's less natural.

Compared to other areas in the state, the Cannon snowmaking system is antiquated. Considering snowmaking ops become more limited and less productive in poor snow years, Cannon is not as nearly well prepared to cope as others.

The last time Cannon had 'average' snow fall (166 inches, vs. 160 advertised average annual snowfall), the area cost the state $1,057,235.

Just heard on NHPR's "The Exchange" that Cannon is a war memorial and was bought by funds raised through fundraising from Vet groups. The Mountain was supposed to be a tribute to World War I vets and has a memorial for them at the top and has been the site of the spreading of Vet's ashes. Folks in Franconia are concerned about leasing out this "memorial" and rightfully so.

The Franconia Notch Forest Reservation and Memorial Park was dedicated in September of 1928. There is a small monument to veterans on the north side of Profile Lake.

The Lonesome Lake Hut complex, also located in the park, has been leased out to the Appalachian Mountain Club since 1929.

Food and Beverage operations have been leased at Cannon Mountain for many years.

It is the public's mountain. Leasing it out gives a private entity the right to control who accesses the land and when. So what is next? Privatizing the Vietnam War Memorial?

There are 264 acres of commercial ski trails in the memorial park that are completely closed to the public 8 months of the year and only open for a fee ($67) during the other 4 months.

 

[thetrailboss]

There are 264 acres of commercial ski trails in the memorial park that are completely closed to the public 8 months of the year and only open for a fee ($67) during the other 4 months.

Again, single rides on the tram are available for a reasonable fee.

But the fee that is assessed is paid for the skiing infrastructure and to cover the expenses of the facility rather than being paid to a private entity for profit. You must admit that there is a fundamental difference there.

 

[threecy]

Again, single rides on the tram are available for a reasonable fee.

Are you suggesting that would stop under a private operator?

But the fee that is assessed is paid for the skiing infrastructure and to cover the expenses of the facility rather than being paid to a private entity for profit. You must admit that there is a fundamental difference there.

The fees assessed don't cover the expenses of the facility.

And again, 264 acres of the veteran's memorial park are completely closed to non-skiers under current government control. Compare to nearby Waterville Valley, which is also on public land - they do not restrict access.

 

[thetrailboss]

Are you suggesting that would stop under a private operator?

No, but the fee would be going to a private entity and towards profits. You are allowing a private entity to profit off of a public facility that was intended to remain public with pennies raised from vets back in the day.

The fees assessed don't cover the expenses of the facility.

Come on. :roll: Of COURSE the revenue is USED to cover the expenses and defray costs.

And again, 264 acres of the veteran's memorial park are completely closed to non-skiers under current government control. Compare to nearby Waterville Valley, which is also on public land - they do not restrict access.

Technically this is not true. As a private lessee of public land, WV and any other operator has the right to restrict access to the land that they are leasing. SB does this. And in the winter, these resorts restrict access to ski trails the same way Cannon does by requiring tickets.

 

[threecy]

No, but the fee would be going to a private entity and towards profits. You are allowing a private entity to profit off of a public facility that was intended to remain public with pennies raised from vets back in the day.

There was no commercial ski area when the park was created. There also doesn't appear to be an issue with the AMC making money off the Lonesome Lake Hut, located at the southern foot of Cannon Mountain, nor does there seem to be an issue with a private operator making money off concessions at Cannon Mountain. I'm pretty sure my father fought Communists during the Cold War because, in part, the US believed profit wasn't a bad thing (as compared to the opponents).

Come on. :roll: Of COURSE the revenue is USED to cover the expenses and defray costs.

There is a big difference between 'covering' and 'defraying' costs.

Technically this is not true. As a private lessee of public land, WV and any other operator has the right to restrict access to the land that they are leasing.

Technically your statement is not true. The USFS ensures free foot access on ski areas in the WMNF.

 

[thetrailboss]

There was no commercial ski area when the park was created.

It is still public.

There also doesn't appear to be an issue with the AMC making money off the Lonesome Lake Hut, located at the southern foot of Cannon Mountain, nor does there seem to be an issue with a private operator making money off concessions at Cannon Mountain.

If LL is like most AMC huts, they are operating with a special use permit from the WMNF. They are not charging fees for people to access the public land!

Likewise, in many public parks/areas allow private vendors to sell food based on a special license. But not to run the entire park!

I'm pretty sure my father fought Communists during the Cold War because, in part, the US believed profit wasn't a bad thing (as compared to the opponents).

Political statement. Nobody asserted that profit was bad. Nor private enterprise.

Technically your statement is not true. The USFS ensures free foot access on ski areas in the WMNF.

Can you show me the proof? That is not the case with areas operating in the GMNF. It is a liability issue since the operators maintain operations on the land.

 

[threecy]

If LL is like most AMC huts, they are operating with a special use permit from the WMNF. They are not charging fees for people to access the public land!

The Lonesome Lake Hut is not located in the WMNF, it is located in the Franconia Notch State Park, as is Cannon.

Likewise, in many public parks/areas allow private vendors to sell food based on a special license. But not to run the entire park!

The lease proposal is not to run the entire Franconia Notch State Park, but rather just the ski area.

Political statement. Nobody asserted that profit was bad. Nor private enterprise.

It's being implied that profit is bad and that a private operator would somehow restrict access. As it stands today, the government restricts non-skiers from accessing 264 acres of the park.

Can you show me the proof? That is not the case with areas operating in the GMNF. It is a liability issue since the operators maintain operations on the land.

Different forests have different forest plans, so I don't know how the GMNF ski area leases were set up. For the WMNF, you may contact Susan Matheison of the USFS. As paraphrased from a January 2011 inquiry, "those who snowshoe up and down a ski trail should be able to do so at no charge. They should use the side of the trail. She said this should be well understood by management. If anyone is told otherwise by ski area personnel they should clearly state they are not going to ski down and that they have the right to use USFS land. If that fails they should get the name of the person or persons from the ski area that are telling them otherwise and pass them on to her. Those who snowshoe up, or use ski skins to get up, and then ski down on the trails, may be required to get a $15 trail pass. This is apparently due to liability issues. A lift ticket is not required."

 

[thetrailboss]

The Lonesome Lake Hut is not located in the WMNF, it is located in the Franconia Notch State Park, as is Cannon.

Fair enough. But again they are a non-profit operation running a single building in the middle of the park. Not controlling access to the land.

The lease proposal is not to run the entire Franconia Notch State Park, but rather just the ski area.

Correct, but it is not allowing someone to run a hot-dog stand in the park...it is to allow someone to control and operate a significant portion of the land in the park.

It's being implied that profit is bad and that a private operator would somehow restrict access. As it stands today, the government restricts non-skiers from accessing 264 acres of the park.

From what I have seen, you are the only one making that implication and it is to support your ideology.

Different forests have different forest plans, so I don't know how the GMNF ski area leases were set up. For the WMNF, you may contact Susan Matheison of the USFS. As paraphrased from a January 2011 inquiry, "those who snowshoe up and down a ski trail should be able to do so at no charge. They should use the side of the trail. She said this should be well understood by management. If anyone is told otherwise by ski area personnel they should clearly state they are not going to ski down and that they have the right to use USFS land. If that fails they should get the name of the person or persons from the ski area that are telling them otherwise and pass them on to her. Those who snowshoe up, or use ski skins to get up, and then ski down on the trails, may be required to get a $15 trail pass. This is apparently due to liability issues. A lift ticket is not required."

In your attempt to bob and weave, you proved my point:

Leasing it out gives a private entity the right to control who accesses the land and when.

This happens in lease arrangements because of, (1) theft of services concerns, and (2) liability, private operators can restrict access to public land that they lease from the national forest system by charging a fee or requiring people to do certain things. Cannon is no different.

Granted a lease can stipulate what kind of public access can be allowed, but it is not going to demand that the private operator pay to operate the resort and then (1) be on the hook for those who enter on their own, and (2) force the operator to allow people to access the areas it pays to operate for free. If anything, it goes against your pro-business ways to have such a restrictive lease in the first place!

 

[threecy]

Fair enough. But again they are a non-profit operation running a single building in the middle of the park. Not controlling access to the land.

Firstly, this "non profit" pays its Executive Director over $300,000 a year.

Secondly, the AMC indeed controls access to the facilities.

Correct, but it is not allowing someone to run a hot-dog stand in the park...it is to allow someone to control and operate a significant portion of the land in the park.

Again, 264 acres are closed to non-skiers, under government control. A lease could actually *open* the land to free public use.

From what I have seen, you are the only one making that implication and it is to support your ideology.

You just tried to defend AMC as a non-profit.

In your attempt to bob and weave, you proved my point: Leasing it out gives a private entity the right to control who accesses the land and when.

Bob and weave? Your premise is based upon a government operation that restricts the use of 264 acres. A simple requirement can (and likely would) be written into the lease that would open the land to free use to non-skiers and snowboarders.

 

[witch hobble]

Alright, it is too hot to work outside. Guess I'll sit at the computer and jump back into the fray. Wouldn't want that Bellayre/ORDA thread to catch up to this one in post counts.

Threecy, you down play how significant the acreage of Cannon is in relation to the whole park in one post, then throw around the same 264 acre figure in umbrage at the thought of the public not having access to the whole park later on the page.

I know you said about 40 pages ago that some prominent hikers had been shooed away or something. Obviously your issue with Cannon as currently operated goes deeper than this, but let's slow down and take baby steps here. Aside from signage, do we have any real documented evidence of hikers/snowshoers being harrassed by Cannon or FSP employees? You have obviously worked in the ski indutry before, it is not all that uncommon for ski areas to restrict access to ski slopes, both in winter and the off season. It would not be unreasonable for the operator or the "lessee" to require people traveling on foot to sign a liability release/acknowledgement of inherent risk. Those trails cost money to mow and maintain. How much are you willing to pay to use them? (and yeah, I know......it can be written into "the lease")

How much access can be granted or denied? Can I have the keys to the lift shacks and the snack bar?

 

[threecy]

A
I know you said about 40 pages ago that some prominent hikers had been shooed away or something. Obviously your issue with Cannon as currently operated goes deeper than this, but let's slow down and take baby steps here. Aside from signage, do we have any real documented evidence of hikers/snowshoers being harrassed by Cannon or FSP employees?

One example, ironically, is that a Vietnam veteran who doesn't ski, was told he could not walk/snowshoe on the ski slopes contained in the veterans memorial park. He chooses not to participate in this forum, so I will not post his name.

 

[thetrailboss]

One example, ironically, is that a Vietnam veteran who doesn't ski, was told he could not walk/snowshoe on the ski slopes contained in the veterans memorial park. He chooses not to participate in this forum, so I will not post his name.

Veteran's Memorial Park, in Webster (I presume you are referring to), is not FNSP.

 

[tjf67]

I think they should just blow cannon off the map if it would help end this thread.

 

[WWF-VT]

I think they should just blow cannon off the map if it would help end this thread.

All of Cannon - or just the 264 acres of commercial ski trails?

 

[witch hobble]

One example, ironically, is that a Vietnam veteran who doesn't ski, was told he could not walk/snowshoe on the ski slopes contained in the veterans memorial park. He chooses not to participate in this forum, so I will not post his name.

That sounds particularly terrible. And, if true, would certainly warrant a push for an official apology and a clarification of the rules. And I say that as a freedom loving, anti-lease New Hampshirite.

 

[witch hobble]

I think they should just blow cannon off the map if it would help end this thread.

It would be interesting to see where it would land.

 

[witch hobble]

Threecy, would you be willing to pay a special use fee for ski trail hiking?

Would you be willing to wear a "day use" ticket with the legal jargon on the back?