Intermediate Glades?

[Black Phantom]

But were they on a map? That's what I mean by sanctioned.

ASC areas had glades on the maps in the form of "Fusion Zones" going back more than 10 years.

 

[Geoff]

ASC areas had glades on the maps in the form of "Fusion Zones" going back more than 10 years.

Downdraft, Big Dipper, East Fall, West Glade, and East Glade were all on-the-map tree runs before Preston Smith went chainsaw happy. I used to drive down from Burlington to ski Downdraft in the spring after Stowe closed. IMO, it was the best glade trail in the east.

 

[JimG.]

I suppose the glade rating system would be something like "Black Diamond, and We Really Mean It This Time"?

This unfortunately only encourages the yahoos who should not be skiing in trees.

I'm not a big fan of actually marking glades; it's OK to show them on a map, but making it manditory to hunt around a bit to find them often discourages the too brave of heart.

 

[ceo]

My 6-year-old discovered the two little glades in the Tuckerbrook family area at Cannon this past season, and absolutely loved them despite getting stuck a bunch of times.

 

[oakapple]

I'm not a big fan of actually marking glades; it's OK to show them on a map, but making it manditory to hunt around a bit to find them often discourages the too brave of heart.

There's a legitimate difference between a real ski run that happens to have trees, and something off the map, where you literally have no idea what you are getting into.

The truly expert skiers generally prefer that these areas remain off the map, because they know they can handle anything, and would rather not have their stash spoiled by those less skilled.

But experts had to get that way somehow, a process that inevitably requires trying things that are just a bit more difficult than they are quite comfortable with. Having tree runs accurately marked facilitates that process, by giving the skier fair notice of what to expect.

There is not much to be done about yahoos who insist on skiing where they don't belong. They will always find new ways to get into trouble.

 

[Geoff]

I'm not a big fan of actually marking glades; it's OK to show them on a map, but making it manditory to hunt around a bit to find them often discourages the too brave of heart.

What's the big deal? It's not like it's tough to find them. They're, err, between the cut trails. With a snowboard or modern short & super-wide shaped skis, it's not like the old days when I had to coax 207 cm slalom boards around in the woods. Swapping a wool hat for a helmet also makes it much less of a big deal to accidentally stray into the bushes.

 

[JimG.]

There's a legitimate difference between a real ski run that happens to have trees, and something off the map, where you literally have no idea what you are getting into.

The truly expert skiers generally prefer that these areas remain off the map, because they know they can handle anything, and would rather not have their stash spoiled by those less skilled.

But experts had to get that way somehow, a process that inevitably requires trying things that are just a bit more difficult than they are quite comfortable with. Having tree runs accurately marked facilitates that process, by giving the skier fair notice of what to expect.

There is not much to be done about yahoos who insist on skiing where they don't belong. They will always find new ways to get into trouble.

Well, we were discussing intermediate glades, not out of bounds stashes.

And I'm guessing that most folks who want to learn to ski trees do so because the unmarked and out of the way places are attractive to them.

I doubt most intermediate trees are hard to find; my only point is that making folks poke around a bit by just putting it on a map (if that's even necessary) and not marking it should be considered good practice for those skiers.

I think many ski areas promote trees but then see the potential liabilities involved, so they mark and patrol those glades to lower the risk factors. To me, it makes more sense to keep things rustic and unmarked to better simulate the intended outcome. It makes for safer and more experienced tree skiers who had to evaluate some level of personal risk instead of just bombing onto a marked tree run.

It doesn't matter how many trees are there, it only takes one.

 

[JimG.]

What's the big deal? It's not like it's tough to find them. They're, err, between the cut trails. With a snowboard or modern short & super-wide shaped skis, it's not like the old days when I had to coax 207 cm slalom boards around in the woods. Swapping a wool hat for a helmet also makes it much less of a big deal to accidentally stray into the bushes.

I said the same in my reply to the oak man.

 

[Geoff]

It doesn't matter how many trees are there, it only takes one.

I'm going to take this completely out of context....

Killington's Upper East Glade (now called Reason) has exactly one tree on it. You are totally correct!

 

[JPTracker]

Biggest danger in the unmarked glades are not the standing trees but the trees that have fallen down and are now covered by all that fresh powder you are skiing. The tree is completely buried, all you see is nice fresh powder then your skis go under the tree and you go over it. Don't have to say what happens if you are going to fast.

 

[thetrailboss]

But were they on a map? That's what I mean by sanctioned.

Yes.

 

[thetrailboss]

One thing I've learned about being in the mountains is that you should never underestimate the terrain. At the very least, you shouldn't even talk about it lest you upset the mountain gods. Some of the worst wipe outs I've seen were on green trails when advanced skiers clip an edge because they're not paying attention. Ice patches in unusual places or exposed stumps can turn a tame glade into a mine field. Never underestimate the terrain. You don't want the mountain to teach you humility.

If you can run a groomer through it or basically can straight-line it because the trees are so wide apart, that's not a proper glade regardless of what the resort marketing department says.

+ 1.

 

[JimG.]

I'm going to take this completely out of context....

Killington's Upper East Glade (now called Reason) has exactly one tree on it. You are totally correct!

Heh...the question is, has anyone ever hit that tree?

 

[thetrailboss]

I'm going to take this completely out of context....

Killington's Upper East Glade (now called Reason) has exactly one tree on it. You are totally correct!

Yes, that is sad. So is Murphy's Glade at Sugarbush, which has a handful of trees on it and loses one every few years or so.

What was really sad was an article I saw last year in a ski newspaper outlining the "best glades" in the east. Whoever wrote it did not know what a glade was, let alone ski or ride the items mentioned and probably just looked at a trail map and made up stuff. They named "Murphy's Glade" as one of the best glades at Sugarbush :blink: