Has Sugarbush Hired Killington's PR Dept?

[BushMogulMaster]

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

The red area on the Mt. Ellen side is a bit off, I think, SRO. Most of that area is SVNE privately held property, and the only thing affecting use is the long trail easement.

If you look at the composite map of assets, or at a current infrastructure map, the property line extends to the peak where Glen Ellen was supposed to expand.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

In fact, the red area you drew on the far North side of Mt. Ellen, above Inverness and beside Exterm, is actually part of the same parcel that most of the developed trails are on (3c).

 

[ski_resort_observer]

The red area on the Mt. Ellen side is a bit off, I think, SRO. Most of that area is SVNE privately held property, and the only thing affecting use is the long trail easement.

If you look at the map of composite assets, or at a current infrastructure map, the property line extends to the peak where Glen Ellen was supposed to expand.

Correct but it is still not skied...I took the info from the infrastructure map we have hanging in the shop. I'm not pointing out property ownership but what is regularly skied.

n fact, the red area you drew on the far North side of Mt. Ellen, above Inverness and beside Exterm, is actually part of the same parcel that most of the developed trails are on (3c).

Your right in that the left side of that section near Exterminator is skied but the area above and to the right of Inverness is not skied on a regular basis.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

Correct but it is still not skied...I took the info from the infrastructure map hanging in the shop.

What exactly do you mean by "not skied?" The area is within the ski area boundary, according to the current "existing conditions" map. Of course, according to the trail map, anything outside the trails/marked tree areas is outside the boundary.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

Your right in that the left side of that section near Exterminator is skied but the area above and to the right of Inverness is not skied on a regular basis.

Ok, gotcha. You're right, it's not considered "ski terrain" by the ski area right now. But it is within the company's property and ski area boundary.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Another view of that liftline (?):

That gully to the lookers right of Inverness looks sa weet..

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

yup. Now called Mt. Ellen (@ Sugarbush)

When I first skied Sugarbush..It was either Sugarbush South or North..not Mount Ellen and Lincoln Peak..I first skied there during the 95-96 season when there were lots of new high speed quads including the Slidebrook..for a total of 28 million dollars..ASC sure put alot of money into the place..back then there were ads on all the lift towers for various Peaks of Excitement promotions like the magnificant 7 tickets and perfect turn clinics..their signature snow was great..especially after operation Blizzard..lol..not as steezy as Nivis the mascot from Killington..

 

[BushMogulMaster]

That gully to the lookers right of Inverness looks sa weet..

Yeah, it runs pretty good in the winter. You really don't want to get stuck in there!

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Most of the red areas I drew, forgetting about Slidebrook since it is regularly skied, are outside the resort's boundary.

 

[Highway Star]

I figured that they probably weren't. Especially the area off the ridge above Slidebrook.

Tin Woodsman, are you reading this....?

 

[BushMogulMaster]

Most of the red areas I drew, forgetting about Slidebrook since it is regularly skied, are outside the resort's boundary.

Right, according to the trail map. I guess I just want to make sure everyone understands that the boundary on the trail map is not necessarily static. If there were to be some sort of an on-mountain expansion, be it lift served or otherwise, those boundaries can change because the actual "Ski Area Boundary" according to permitting and property status is well outside the range on the trailmap. But as of now, those (on the trail map) are the "official" boundaries.

 

[andyzee]

Another view of that liftline (?):

Great shot!

 

[eastcoastpowderhound]

Whoa, mascara mtn has 4000 acres...holy crap that's almost as big as vail...don't tell the texans!

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

bump for Stoke!!!

 

[riverc0il]

The issue Andyzee raised is, however, a complete red herring. It says the resort is 4000 acres, which is quite frankly true on a boundary to boundary basis. It says right next door that this includes 508 skiable acres. I really don't see any intent to deceive here, as it's pretty clear what the relevant numbers are for anyone paying attention. Now if you just want to stir shit up, then you come in and squawk about how misleading it is and the injustice of it all.

Not sure I want to jump into this one... but.... what the heck

Boundary to boundary acres can be both a relevant and irrelevant number. The further north in Vermont you travel to ski, the more relevant it becomes, IMO. At a place like Jay, where this is skiing (of some sort) in between every marked trail... then it is an extremely relevant number. But if you are including one or two thousand acres of unskiable woods, that number becomes a lot less relevant. I am pretty sure the topic has been hashed through before, but in general, there are only a hand full of eastern ski areas that have any business claiming boundary to boundary acres in their stats as anything more than hyperbole and boasting of complete irrelevance. You might as well include the total acres of real estate and slopeside housing. It is a non-sense number dressed to impress. It does not mean the number is inaccurate or over the top. But rather that there are only a small handful of ski areas at which that number means anything in New England. Bush is not one of them though they do have more off map tree skiing than most other ski areas they certainly don't have anything close to 4000 acres of skiing. So to me it is a non-sense stat that doesn't mean much.

Essentially, I am not questioning the marketing departments use of the number but rather calling into the question the use of that number at almost any New England ski area as a number that doesn't have much mean except to impress people that don't know any better.

 

[deadheadskier]

I don't care what the stats are. When I think Sugarbush, I think 'one big ass ski area' :lol:

next to Killington and maybe SR, nothing 'seems' bigger to me in the east.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I don't care what the stats are. When I think Sugarbush, I think 'one big ass ski area' :lol:

next to Killington and maybe SR, nothing 'seems' bigger to me in the east.

true true...Gadd Peak, Lincoln Peak, Nancy Hanks(Castlerock), Lynx, Mount Ellen, Inverness..but I still like Stowe better for the top to bottom nature of the mountain and all the snow..but Sugarbush is a close second..

 

[win]

I enjoyed reading all the comments. Actually, it wasn't marketing that pushed the 4,000 acres. It was me, because that is how I think of the place and ski it! The real message is that the East has some stuff that isn't well discussed and understood by a lot of people who skied here decades ago and think of us as only icy trails. Whomever you like best, spread the word that Sugarbush and others in the East have great terrain variety and vertical and you don't have to fly to enjoy!

 

[deadheadskier]

If you wouldn't mind addressing my previous question win, any chance of re-visiting the abandoned lift above Inverness at North? Post 152 has the most recent photo of it.

 

[win]

Could be some great Cat skiing terrain! Needs some permitting, so can't do this winter but hopefully next year!