Cannon Mountain...thoughts

[threecy]

Do you feel that NH should lease out all of it's State Parks?

Should the federal government lease out all National Parks?

The Federal government technically leases out some campgrounds to the AMC in the WMNF. Private companies already log in the WMNF.

For the state parks, not much else to lease other than the campgrounds, apart from the remaining unleased multi-million dollar alpine ski area.

 

[thetrailboss]

The Federal government technically leases out some campgrounds to the AMC in the WMNF. Private companies already log in the WMNF.

True, but the land is managed in the public interest and for the public benefit.

For the state parks, not much else to lease other than the campgrounds, apart from the remaining unleased multi-million dollar alpine ski area.

Gunstock is county owned and operated. Are you saying that needs to be leased as well?

And NY owns and operates a few ski areas. Are you saying that those should be dumped as well?

I think you are looking at this from a very short term perspective and a narrow point of view of dollars and cents. Even then the latter does not support your argument. You are ignoring the value of Cannon to the public and its role historically and culturally. Cannon was built in the Great Depression to put people to work and is an icon for the state. It has been operating for almost 80 years through many good and bad times. It is the public's mountain and is accessible for all. It is not an exclusive Bear Creek or Yellowstone Club. And yet there has been a recession, albeit a bad one, and it is turning a profit and you say that the state should just get rid of it? You need to understand the larger context.

 

[deadheadskier]

The Federal government technically leases out some campgrounds to the AMC in the WMNF. Private companies already log in the WMNF.

For the state parks, not much else to lease other than the campgrounds, apart from the remaining unleased multi-million dollar alpine ski area.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you feel the State of NH should lease out all of it's parks?

Do you feel the Federal Government should lease out all National parks?

 

[threecy]

Gunstock is county owned and operated. Are you saying that needs to be leased as well?

I don't live in Belknap County. Interestingly enough, Gunstock is trying to move forward with developing a hotel, etc.

And NY owns and operates a few ski areas. Are you saying that those should be dumped as well?

It's ridiculous that Hunter has to pay for Belleayre, yet has it undercut it, while the state prevents expansion projects whilst allowing Belleayre to expand.

I think you are looking at this from a very short term perspective and a narrow point of view of dollars and cents. Even then the latter does not support your argument. You are ignoring the value of Cannon to the public and its role historically and culturally. Cannon was built in the Great Depression to put people to work and is an icon for the state. It has been operating for almost 80 years through many good and bad times. It is the public's mountain and is accessible for all. It is not an exclusive Bear Creek or Yellowstone Club. And yet there has been a recession, albeit a bad one, and it is turning a profit and you say that the state should just get rid of it? You need to understand the larger context.

Firstly, Cannon is not accessible for all. The state run operation only allows paying alpine skiers and snowboarders on the ski area. If you try to set foot on the trails without a lift ticket, they can and will throw you out (including snowshoers, skinners, and hikers).

Secondly, I did not say the state needs to get rid of Cannon. Leasing Cannon will not make it Bear Creek ro the Yellowstone Club. In fact, leasing it will make it MORE accessible to the public.

Look at Sunapee - 110,000 skier visits during its last year of state control. 3 years later? 258,000 skier visits.

You didn't answer my question.

Do you feel the State of NH should lease out all of it's parks?

Do you feel the Federal Government should lease out all National parks?

Please re-read my answer.

 

[deadheadskier]

The Federal government technically leases out some campgrounds to the AMC in the WMNF. Private companies already log in the WMNF.

For the state parks, not much else to lease other than the campgrounds, apart from the remaining unleased multi-million dollar alpine ski area.

I did read it, and you didn't answer my question.

Hampton Beach State Park. Beach needs to be cleaned correct? State employees do it. Should we lease out the Park and have private companies care for the beach?

What about the trails at Pawtuckaway? Should we lease it and have a private company take care of the trails?

What about Acadia National Park? Should we lease it out? Have a private company take care of it?

 

[thetrailboss]

I don't live in Belknap County. Interestingly enough, Gunstock is trying to move forward with developing a hotel, etc.

That undercuts your argument.

It's ridiculous that Hunter has to pay for Belleayre, yet has it undercut it, while the state prevents expansion projects whilst allowing Belleayre to expand.

This seems to reveal more about your own ideology than anything else. Hunter does fairly well in the marketplace and has expanded a lot.

Firstly, Cannon is not accessible for all. The state run operation only allows paying alpine skiers and snowboarders on the ski area. If you try to set foot on the trails without a lift ticket, they can and will throw you out (including snowshoers, skinners, and hikers).

That is true for about any private ski area as well. Folks can access the hiking trails though 24/7 for free. Folks can also ride the tram as a foot passenger for a relatively nominal fee. Much like the WMNF parking passes, it is reasonable to expect people to pay something to help with overhead. The argument is not that Cannon is free, but that it is kept at a rate that makes it affordable for many people.

Look at Sunapee - 110,000 skier visits during its last year of state control. 3 years later? 258,000 skier visits.

The increase is indeed due to Triple Peak's improvements, which they paid for themselves, and their increased marketing. However, it has come at a cost with increased season pass rates (a dramatic increase), expensive weekend and holiday pass prices, and increases in prices. Many complained when I skied there in 2005-2006. Many of the locals complained. And before you say that they offer NH deals, remember that they are few and far between when they were offered and in fact they do not have them anymore.

The bottom line is that you are getting upset about one ski area in New Hampshire that is publicly owned and operated. If the industry was as bad as you suggest than places would be closing left and right. Instead it is one option in a marketplace that has seen the rise of at least 2 if not 3 ski areas from the NELSAP list and the expansion of several other areas. The marketplace seems to be doing just fine.

 

[threecy]

I did read it, and you didn't answer my question.

Your question was if all state parks should be leased. How in the world would Wade State Forest be leased? It's a ridiculous question.

What about the trails at Pawtuckaway? Should we lease it and have a private company take care of the trails?

I'm not sure about Pawtuckaway specifically, but many of the hiking trails in New Hampshire are taken care of by volunteer trail adopters.

That undercuts your argument.

How so? One of the false arguments against a Cannon lease is that condos and/or a hotel could be developed. Interestingly enough, the county wants to do that at Gunstock.

This seems to reveal more about your own ideology than anything else. Hunter does fairly well in the marketplace and has expanded a lot.

I invite you to talk to the Slutskys or perhaps the former owners of now-defunct Scotch Valley and see what they think about having to compete with areas they're paying for.

That is true for about any private ski area as well.

No, it is not. Aside from some quasi-urban, small scale ski areas with fences and security, Cannon has perhaps the most aggressive anti-use policy on their ski trails, on or off season, in all of New England.

The increase is indeed due to Peak's improvements, which they paid for themselves, and their increased marketing.

I don't believe Peak had any involvement in the Sunapee improvements.

Instead it is one option in a marketplace that has seen the rise of at least 2 if not 3 ski areas from the NELSAP list and the expansion of several other areas. The marketplace seems to be doing just fine.

The most advanced NELSAP ski areas fell within the government run ski area triangle market in New Hampshire.

The marketplace appears to be doing fine right now, but we're coming off a string of decent snow years. If you look a bit more closely, you'll see there's been a lot of reshuffling of debt, etc. going on behind the scenes. If energy prices continue the trend they've been on the past few months, a number of private ski areas may be in jeopardy.

 

[deadheadskier]

My question is not ridiculous.

You want to lease Cannon, which would result in all expenses related to it being passed on to a private company. Logically I assume you would want to lease all State Parks such as all of the expenses related to the other State Parks gets passed onto a private company.

If you only want this to happen at Cannon and not at other parks around the state, explain why.

 

[threecy]

My question is not ridiculous.

You want to lease Cannon, which would result in all expenses related to it being passed on to a private company. Logically I assume you would want to lease all State Parks such as all of the expenses related to the other State Parks gets passed onto a private company.

If you only want this to happen at Cannon and not at other parks around the state, explain why.

Most state parks in the state are free to use and cost the state little to no money. Many state parks are wooded lots with no facilities.

Cannon Mountain is a major ski area with millions of dollars in assets and millions of dollars in annual expenses.

 

[deadheadskier]

but if it continues to turn a profit, that's a good thing yes? Then it can help pay for all the other free parks.

or is it inconceivable that Cannon could ever bring in more profit to the state than a lease could?

I have a feeling that even if Cannon was wildly more profitable being state run than being leased, you'd still be for a lease.

 

[thetrailboss]

How so? One of the false arguments against a Cannon lease is that condos and/or a hotel could be developed. Interestingly enough, the county wants to do that at Gunstock.

Gunstock proves that a government ski area can make money and in fact is an asset to the community while IIRC your point is that Cannon is losing money.

I invite you to talk to the Slutskys or perhaps the former owners of now-defunct Scotch Valley and see what they think about having to compete with areas they're paying for.

Again, Hunter is doing well. I looked on NELSAP for info on Scotch Valley and I don't know the story with that mountain. And all residents of a state pay for services and facilities. That is a political/public policy decision that was made long ago.

No, it is not. Aside from some quasi-urban, small scale ski areas with fences and security, Cannon has perhaps the most aggressive anti-use policy on their ski trails, on or off season, in all of New England.

Sugarbush as well as other areas do not allow people to earn turns after they are closed. IIRC Cannon's concern is erosion.

I don't believe Peak had any involvement in the Sunapee improvements.

Correct. It was Muellers/Triple Peaks. I have corrected my statement.

The most advanced NELSAP ski areas fell within the government run ski area triangle market in New Hampshire.

Whatever that means.

 

[threecy]

but if it continues to turn a profit, that's a good thing yes? Then it can help pay for all the other free parks.

or is it inconceivable that Cannon could ever bring in more profit to the state than a lease could?

I have a feeling that even if Cannon was wildly more profitable being state run than being leased, you'd still be for a lease.

It appears to be a recurring theme in Cannon's past - after investment and a few good snow years, the ski area has 'turned the corner' - only to run into a deficit shortly thereafter. Again, it's taken how many good snow years in a row now to cover previous deficits?

Gunstock proves that a government ski area can make money and in fact is an asset to the community while IIRC your point is that Cannon is losing money.

Gunstock actually was a drain on the county as well and there were some serious debates before a recent round of bond investments. The good snow years have helped, however their skier visits still appear to be down from the early 1990s.

I looked on NELSAP for info on Scotch Valley and I don't know the story with that mountain.

Not sure what I can sharre in regard to Scotch due to NDA at the moment.

IIRC Cannon's concern is erosion.

That's the party line, but it's ridiculous. Wildcat has traditionally mowed the Polecat for foot traffic. Waterville has an active hiking trail that empties on to the ski area (as do Cranmore and Loon).

It was Muellers/Triple Peaks.

Most of the investments were made prior to the assets moving to Triple Peaks.

Whatever that means.

King Ridge, Temple, Highlands, Tenney, Crotched...

 

[riverc0il]

If there are really that many people who care about Cannon and are willing to put their money where their mouths are, they could form a co-op and take the lease.

It is already owned by us through the state, my money is going where my mouth is. I see no reason to pay a few thousand in coop ownership if the ski area is self sustaining. Even if it were to cost the state in the future, I am okay with a few of my tax dollars going to keeping Cannon in the State Park system. You are obviously not okay with it, what is with beating the dead horse?

:beer:

While we are at it... you are quite the hiker and take advantage of trails on public land (you even seem to hold a grudge against this right being taken away from you in regards to certain specific lands). Would you like to see all public land sold off? Certainly many high value mountains with good hiking trails could end up closed. Are you pro-leasing simply for that matter, that you enjoy public lands but do not enjoy the thought of paying for them? I have a hard time seeing someone pro-hiking on public land being anti-public land. :-?

 

[deadheadskier]

It appears to be a recurring theme in Cannon's past - after investment and a few good snow years, the ski area has 'turned the corner' - only to run into a deficit shortly thereafter. Again, it's taken how many good snow years in a row now to cover previous deficits?

last year was a below average snow year for NH actually. Not only that, but we were right in the middle of a deep recession. Did they lose money last year?

 

[riverc0il]

One is price. I know that you say it's not the great value it was, but it is still 12% cheaper than Sunapee,

Really? You are comparing pricing to Okemo run Sunapee? The fact that Cannon is cheaper than Sunapee says a LOT more about Sunapee than Cannon. Cannon is on the second tier right under the top big resorts and except for resident and twofer days, discounts are really crumby compared to VT resorts that offer a lot of deals.

Back to grooming: yes Cannon grooms more than they did, but they still leave the powder alone and they usually leave it alone a day or two after a dump (which is awesome considering the overnight wind they sometimes get). This may or may not change depending on the operator's outlook.

Cannon doesn't groom any more or less than they used to. They groom better though. Leave the powder alone for two days? Really? C'mon. I've been skiing Cannon pretty regularly for ten years now. Anything not designated as bumps gets the groom day after the powder day. Day after powder day is all about the trees. Hell, day of powder day is all about the trees. It ain't like they are leaving a ton ungroomed even on a powder day (compared to Jay, for example).

Finally, the places you mentioned, Jay and Smuggs, are very far from civilization.

A potential leaser is going to treat Cannon differently than Smuggs or Jay because of how far they are from civilization? Really? Have you been to Smuggs or Jay? Both very large resorts. Smuggs especially caters to families and non-core skiers. I use them specifically as examples because they are large resorts with substantial bed base and a large non-core customer base and both private owners that still keep it real with the die hards. Distance to civilization ain't got anything to do with how those two places operate. Keep in mind Smuggs is the closest big mountain to Burlington and Jay is just as close as Stowe to folks coming up I-91.

 

[riverc0il]

If you try to set foot on the trails without a lift ticket, they can and will throw you out (including snowshoers, skinners, and hikers).

100% incorrect in regards to skinners. I have ever talked to ski area employees at the base before skinning up regarding hazards on the trails. Signs are posted not to hike the mountain and I think you would get resistance and in trouble if you tried hiking when the mountain is free of snow or skinning or shoeshoeing while the ski area is open. But it is not the case during the winter when the resort is closed. I frequently skin Cannon and consider it one of the more friendly mountains to skin.

 

[riverc0il]

last year was a below average snow year for NH actually. Not only that, but we were right in the middle of a deep recession. Did they lose money last year?

Cannon was above average last year. Quite a bit, as I recall. Cannon has had several great years in a row under the direction of JD. As I suggested before, it will be interesting to see what happens financially when JD has to helm a below average season.

 

[riverc0il]

King Ridge, Temple, Highlands, Tenney, Crotched...

All put out of business by state run ski areas.

How about all those NELSAP areas in VT and Maine? Those Cannon's fault, too?

I think a point made above was really good. DHS had already posed the question before I jumped on it this evening. Why not lease all public parks and management of forests. Why have any public land at all. Threecy's response is that it is ridiculous to lease certain public segments (likely many of those that he enjoys as a hiker, no less). The pretense there seems to be why lease lands when they don't cost anything to run. So DHS's comment stands that if Cannon doesn't loose money, what is the difference.

Leading back to my point.... so how Cannon does with the new management and new area structure in a long enough time line, including a few bad years, before jumping ship.

 

[deadheadskier]

Cannon was above average last year. Quite a bit, as I recall. Cannon has had several great years in a row under the direction of JD. As I suggested before, it will be interesting to see what happens financially when JD has to helm a below average season.

I tried finding the data, but I know Ragged got about 80 last year, when they average a bit over 100. This year it was probably 150+.

IIRC, last year was the winter that ended in February. There was basically no meaningful snow at all until the freak storm at the end of April.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Permit me to summarize....everyone wants Cannon, as a state park, at least pay it's own expenses or maybe make some profit for future improvements whether it's state run or leased out to someone.

Here's a suggestion....how about offering naming rights to Cannon and other state parks, like stadiums have done. LL Bean pays NH 2m bucks to name it LL Bean /Cannon Mountain. You get coupons for 10% off at the Bean retail stores when you buy a season pass or maybe a free pair of wicked awesome slippers. Who else would be a corporate sponsor of Cannon? Maybe Cannon the towel company....lol