Has Sugarbush Hired Killington's PR Dept?

[kcyanks1]

Take it easy.....I wasn't attributing any words to anyone, just making comments on the words on Sugarbush's website.

I apologize; I'm not trying to go on the attack. The quotes without a disclaimer made me think that someone (Win or whomever) was being quoted, which wasn't true, and the rest of your post followed from that quotation. Sorry for misinterpreting. I think the fact that the quote was made up takes away most of your point, though.

As far as whether giving acreage from boundary to boundary is meaningless PR "drivel" or not is a matter of opinion. You think it means something, I don't.

Do you think a boundary-to-boundary number is just meaningless? What about at an area like MRG that doesn't have a "Slide Brook" equivalent? What about at Jay? People ski lots of woods at Sugarbush. I also realize that it is somewhat different in that Slide Brook is SO vast compared to the main mountains. I just want to find out whether in your view, the problem is the vastness of Slide Brook, or whether you just don't find a boundary-to-boundary number informative at all.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Do you think a boundary-to-boundary number is just meaningless? What about at an area like MRG that doesn't have a "Slide Brook" equivalent? What about at Jay? People ski lots of woods at Sugarbush. I also realize that it is somewhat different in that Slide Brook is SO vast compared to the main mountains. I just want to find out whether in your view, the problem is the vastness of Slide Brook, or whether you just don't find a boundary-to-boundary number informative at all.

It's pretty meaningless without knowing the boundary policy and the quality of the unmarked terrain (is it skiable? would you end up in the middle of nowhere if you went there? policy for retrieval if lost/hurt? etc.).

Plus, I doubt even 5% of customers care about the extent of completely unmarked and unpatrolled terrain exists at an area. The 4,000 number is meant to sound huge, but does it really ski bigger for most customers? I think the skiable acres figure is way more informative, and the 4,000 number is the new version of inflated trail counts from last decade.

The people who care a lot about unmarked terrain know which areas have it and which don't, IMO....For average Joe New Yorker, it's all about the trails and lifts. And there's nothing wrong with that.

About Jay, should Jay include Big Jay in its terrain? People are allowed to ski it from the top, so why not? But, then, where do you draw the line? That's why I made the "absurd" comment about WF and the 'dax.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

What about the land above Inverness and then along the ridge across towards Exterminator? What are the ownership / development rights for this area? I seem to recall seeing an old Glen Ellen either trail map or proposed map where it looked like another lift and trails were planned for this area.

If memory serves the liftline for this new pod was started but was quickly halted as, unrealized by Glen Ellen, the land is owned by Betsy Pratt, a Sugarbush supporter, despite what you might hear about her.

 

[ComeBackMudPuddles]

Another view of that liftline (?):

 

[deadheadskier]

Another view of that liftline (?):

man, would it be killer if they were able to find a way to put in another castle rock esque pod in that area.

 

[Geoff]

If you could somehow get past the Vermont eco-Nazis and the NIMBY people, a few surface lifts in strategic spots could let you ski anywhere from MRG to LP with very low impact.

 

[billski]

If you could somehow get past the Vermont eco-Nazis and the NIMBY people, a few surface lifts in strategic spots could let you ski anywhere from MRG to LP with very low impact.

It seems like a near certainty that we will never see a new resort in the east in our lifetimes. That's why it's such a shame to see an area go belly-up. Even with grandfathering, it takes decades (sans Loon West) to get anything done.:argue:


The other problem with Geoff's suggestion is that watery thing in between LP and MRG
(or is LP "lincoln peak"?)

 

[kcyanks1]

It's pretty meaningless without knowing the boundary policy and the quality of the unmarked terrain (is it skiable? would you end up in the middle of nowhere if you went there? policy for retrieval if lost/hurt? etc.).

Of course, I agree that you need to know that info. Sugarbush lets you ski boundary-to-boundary (policy is found on their trail map and is posted at most if not all lifts), and as for the quality of the unmarked terrain, I know many places at SB that are good, but am far, far from the expert as to all 4,000 acres. Knowing that, and of course the boundary itself, which is on SB's trail map, is important.

Plus, I doubt even 5% of customers care about the extent of completely unmarked and unpatrolled terrain exists at an area. The 4,000 number is meant to sound huge, but does it really ski bigger for most customers? I think the skiable acres figure is way more informative, and the 4,000 number is the new version of inflated trail counts from last decade.

I agree that most people don't care. But for those 5%, they have the 500-acre figure. I certainly am not arguing that the 4,000-acre figure should be given without the other number. But there are others who do care, like many on this message board. For those people, both numbers are informative. In the case of Sugarbush and Slide Brook's unique nature, I think that it would be informative to even have a third number that excludes Slide Brook / states how much of the acreage is Slide Brook. This number actually is avaialble on Sugarbush's website, I just discovered. At http://www.sugarbush.com/snow-trails-conditions, it mentions "the 2,000 acre Slide Brook Wilderness area."

One thing I did just check, though, is that Slide Brook is considered out of bounds based on the boundary line on the trail map. I wasn't sure of this. This does, IMO, make the third number even more important, since the 4,000 includes not only boundary-to-boundary skiing, but out of bounds skiing.

The people who care a lot about unmarked terrain know which areas have it and which don't, IMO....For average Joe New Yorker, it's all about the trails and lifts. And there's nothing wrong with that.

No, there isn't. But there is nothing wrong with loving the trees either and wanting a measurement of how much off-trail terrain is available. The "average" skier might not care, but there are other skiers too.

About Jay, should Jay include Big Jay in its terrain? People are allowed to ski it from the top, so why not? But, then, where do you draw the line? That's why I made the "absurd" comment about WF and the 'dax.

I don't think so, but I do see where you are going as far as trying to pin me down as to where I would draw the line. Slide Brook is accessible by tour, without a hike, and transportation is provided back to the lifts even for those who go on their own without a tour. Big Jay is more of a "real" backcountry experience and the ski area doesn't take you back. So I can see a difference between the two, but where exactly between the two I would draw a line is tough to say. I would not mind if Jay had an aside comment about "and access to Big Jay, where a ___ minute hike can lead you to ___ acres of a true, backcountry powder experience [+ disclaimer]" or something like that .

As I conceded above, though, the fact that Slide Brook is not technically within bounds does make me feel that the third number (Slide Brook being 2,000 acres) is an important addition, since it is really 2,000 acres in bounds (I presume other out-of-bounds terrain is not included), plus 2,000 Slide Brook.

 

[tjf67]

I suppose I'll be looked at as a kiss ass now because of that post... :roll:





:lol:

Nope, cum guzzler:flag: easy big guy its a joke

 

[SkiDork]

Glen Ellen - that rings a belll.... Is that now part of Surgarbush?

 

[from_the_NEK]

After a quick analysis, 4000 acres covers the general area encompassed by the highlighted area in the attached image. Roughly boundary to boundary including EVERYTHING off of the ridge between LP and Ellen.

 

[kcyanks1]

After a quick analysis, 4000 acres covers the general area encompassed by the highlighted area in the attached image. Roughly boundary to boundary including EVERYTHING off of the ridge between LP and Ellen.

Thanks! Pretty much what I figured, except for the coverage of what seems to be the pod above Inverness or at least things way, way to the skier's left of Exterminator. I wasn't thinking that would get mixed in, but maybe people traverse over there from the top of the North Ridge Express or something and I just don't know about it.

 

[djspookman]

Glen Ellen - that rings a belll.... Is that now part of Surgarbush?

yup. Now called Mt. Ellen (@ Sugarbush)

 

[djspookman]

man, would it be killer if they were able to find a way to put in another castle rock esque pod in that area.

It would be nice.. but its a little flat up in there (from the bushwhacking I did up there a few years ago.)

You can hike up in the woods nearby and get some decent turns in the hardwoods though.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Thanks! Pretty much what I figured, except for the coverage of what seems to be the pod above Inverness or at least things way, way to the skier's left of Exterminator. I wasn't thinking that would get mixed in, but maybe people traverse over there from the top of the North Ridge Express or something and I just don't know about it.

Note: The map I provided is not a property map or anything. It is simply a polygon I drew over the general Sugabush resort area that got me a 4000 acre result. I tried to include areas the would be steep enough to ski. I ended up having to stretch into the the area above Inverness lift to achieve 4000 acres.

 

[kcyanks1]

Note: The map I provided is not a property map or anything. It is simply a polygon I drew over the general Sugabush resort area that got me a 4000 acre result. I tried to include areas the would be steep enough to ski. I ended up having to stretch into the the area above Inverness lift to achieve 4000 acres.

Got it, thanks.

 

[from_the_NEK]

For comparison sake -
I've never skied Killington so some of my assumptions on "skiable terrain" may be off here. I've tried to include everything "downhill" from a "peak" of the resort that generally leads to a road (no long flat bottom area). The resulting polygons are as follows:

green = 4100 acres
pink = 1700 acres

total = 5800 acres

Again this may be a bit far fetched to be a publishable number. However, Sugarbush's 4000 acre number definitely includes some non-skiable terrain that are merely cliffs along the ridgeline.

 

[deadheadskier]

It would be nice.. but its a little flat up in there (from the bushwhacking I did up there a few years ago.)

You can hike up in the woods nearby and get some decent turns in the hardwoods though.

I guess the area between Inverness and Exterminator is kinda flat, but the stuff up to lookers right in the direction of where the lift line was going to go looks killer.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Not disputing your analysis but the areas within the red areas are not skied or in the resort's designated boundary.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Not disputing your analysis but the areas within the red areas are not skied.

I figured that they probably weren't. Especially the area off the ridge above Slidebrook. However, since these areas aren't skied and that removes roughly 1000 acres from my polygon, where can another 1000 acres of "skiable" terrain be added to my polygon to reach the 4000 acre mark?

Is there terrain off of the West side of the ridge or south of Lincoln Peak that I should include?