Ski Area Acreage Reporting

[deadheadskier]

I recently got some literature from Smuggs in the mail. As they always do, they claim 1000 acreas of terrain. Border to border reporting. Sugarloaf is the only other eastern area I'm aware that does this with their claim of 1400 acres. While I don't think Sugarloaf needs to do anything to inflate their size and I'm unsure of they're reasoning, Smuggs is reasoning is obviously to make their resort come across as much larger than the competition.

Now, I'm going to assume that every resort out west does border to border acreage reporting, which makes sense due to all the above tree line skiing and the forested areas are natural less dense and more skiable, where as in the east, most places require a bit of a hand to open up the woods.

Do you think eastern resorts should only report trail and cut glade acreage or should they take the border to border approach that is applied out west?

Do you even care? :lol: Am I the only one who contemplates such vastly unimportant topics? :lol:

bring on the snow, appartently I'm getting a bit stir crazy

 

[Greg]

Pencil me in for the "don't care" group. If the mountain has good terrain, I'm happy. Most advanced skiers take all those stats - vert, trail count, acreage; even snow/conditions reporting, etc. with a grain of salt. It's the newbies that find those things important. Still, with that said, I guess acreage should be reported as "skiable acres" so if a mountain has a ski anywhere you like policy like MRG, and the terrain is actually skiable for the most part, I think the border to border stat is reasonable. Otherwise, it should be cut trails and on-map glades only. The problem is there no authority or anything that keeps ski areas honest so it's all really kind of moot.

 

[ski_resort_observer]

Several NE resorts have been doing the same thing as Smugg...my take is that there are trying to keep eastern skiers in the east rather than flying out west.

 

[deadheadskier]

Several NE resorts have been doing the same thing as Smugg...my take is that there are trying to keep eastern skiers in the east rather than flying out west.

Never thought about it that way. If it is even marginally effective, than I would rather see all northeastern ski areas employ such reporting. As Greg said, the 'veterans' don't care much for the stats, but if helps keep more dollars supporting our local mountains, I'm all for it.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

Sugarbush reports both. They say 508 skiable acres (trails), and 4000 total acres.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

I recently got some literature from Smuggs in the mail. As they always do, they claim 1000 acreas of terrain. Border to border reporting. Sugarloaf is the only other eastern area I'm aware that does this with their claim of 1400 acres. While I don't think Sugarloaf needs to do anything to inflate their size and I'm unsure of they're reasoning, Smuggs is reasoning is obviously to make their resort come across as much larger than the competition.

Now, I'm going to assume that every resort out west does border to border acreage reporting, which makes sense due to all the above tree line skiing and the forested areas are natural less dense and more skiable, where as in the east, most places require a bit of a hand to open up the woods.

Do you think eastern resorts should only report trail and cut glade acreage or should they take the border to border approach that is applied out west?

Do you even care? :lol: Am I the only one who contemplates such vastly unimportant topics? :lol:

bring on the snow, appartently I'm getting a bit stir crazy

I always liked miles of trails for the east...it's hard to believe that Smuggs is 1,000 acres when Jackson Hole inbounds is 2500 acres.,

 

[riverc0il]

Do you even care?

No. Out of all the useless statistics (in the Northeast), this is the mother... the absolute king of useless statistics. Especially when some areas advertise boarder to boarder while others only count trail acreage. Then many ski areas add in acres of gladed terrain but for many areas that gladed terrain rarely if ever opens. There are only a handful of areas that even come close to "boarder to boarder" in the Northeast. Even Jay Peak, which arguably has tree cuts in between almost every on map trail, can not completely claim full acreage on boarder to boarder.

Then you have the other consideration and that is the Mad River Glen factor... a case in which lower acreage might actually be preferable if the trails are nicer and have more to offer.

Out west, I am sure this is a good statistic to compare if you are looking for skiing expansive areas in which you never ski the same run twice. But in the Northeast, it is needless and tells nothing about the character or nature of the ski area. Especially when an area like Sugarloaf claims boarder to boarder. I am familiar with the dense trees of the White Mountains... not much chance you are going to find much at the Loaf below tree line that is skiable without some sort of human intervention.

 

[sledhaulingmedic]

Color me "apathetic". I really don't think it's a valid stat in the East.

 

[Mapnut]

A few numbers for your reference: A square mile is 640 acres. An acre is 43,560 square feet. One mile of ski trail 100 feet wide would be 12.1 acres. 508 acres, if it was all trails 100 feet wide, would be 42 miles of trails. That sounds about right for Sugarbush. Their 4000 acres total is 6.25 square miles, which must be the total property owned. Smuggs' 1000 acres is 1.56 square miles, which may be about the total area enclosed by trails.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Never thought about it that way. If it is even marginally effective, than I would rather see all northeastern ski areas employ such reporting. As Greg said, the 'veterans' don't care much for the stats, but if helps keep more dollars supporting our local mountains, I'm all for it.

I applaud your support for local areas, but what about truth in advertising? When I’m considering a purchase I don’t want to be tricked into it. If I feel I’ve been deceived I won’t buy it again.

 

[Greg]

I applaud your support for local areas, but what about truth in advertising? When I’m considering a purchase I don’t want to be tricked into it. If I feel I’ve been deceived I won’t buy it again.

Come on HPD. Nobody is concerned about you feeling deceived. I'm sure you don't buy into the "packed powder" on the snow reports all the time either.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Come on HPD. Nobody is concerned about you feeling deceived. I'm sure you don't buy into the "packed powder" on the snow reports all the time either.

Dang, I wouldn't buy a used car from you that's for sure.

 

[Greg]

Dang, I wouldn't buy a used car from you that's for sure.

:lol: My point is veterans like yourself already know to look beyond stats like acreage and vert. I agree, there should be some sort of standardization for newbies, but there is no authority to oversee these things.

 

[SpinmasterK]

This is a topic that causes a ton of marketing confusion among resorts every season. I must admit that mileage reporting in the east was new to me when I arrived here at Killington. Growing up in Colorado where resorts measure their amount of open terrain by acres was the norm. However, with most western resorts on public land, they use acreage in marketing copy because the U.S. Forrest Service bases lease payments to the government by the amount of acreage a resort leases. Think of it this way: If the Forrest Service says Vail leases 5,000 acres (of which lease holdings are a matter of public record) and they tout 7,500 acres in marketing copy, they need to come clean on where the other 2,500 acres come from.
In the east, pretty much every resort measures terrain by mileage. However, most eastern resorts are on private land. Is it misleading to promote XX acres and XX miles of terrain? Can you ski all 4,000 acres at Sugarbush or all 7,000 acres at Killington? No! But then again, you can’t ski all 7,500 acres at Vail either!
I believe that mileage is a more accurate reflection of skiable terrain. However, bear in mind that at Killington the Juggernaut trail is more than 6 miles long, which greatly increases our amount of open terrain on both a percentage and mileage basis. When Juggernaut opens, its big news if you’re a beginner skier, but who cares if you’re an expert - right!
Bottom line is, as a skier/rider you not only have to look at the amount of open terrain, but what terrain is actually open to make an educated decision.

 

[Greg]

This is a topic that causes a ton of marketing confusion among resorts every season. I must admit that mileage reporting in the east was new to me when I arrived here at Killington. Growing up in Colorado where resorts measure their amount of open terrain by acres was the norm. However, with most western resorts on public land, they use acreage in marketing copy because the U.S. Forrest Service bases lease payments to the government by the amount of acreage a resort leases. Think of it this way: If the Forrest Service says Vail leases 5,000 acres (of which lease holdings are a matter of public record) and they tout 7,500 acres in marketing copy, they need to come clean on where the other 2,500 acres come from.
In the east, pretty much every resort measures terrain by mileage. However, most eastern resorts are on private land. Is it misleading to promote XX acres and XX miles of terrain? Can you ski all 4,000 acres at Sugarbush or all 7,000 acres at Killington? No! But then again, you can’t ski all 7,500 acres at Vail either!
I believe that mileage is a more accurate reflection of skiable terrain. However, bear in mind that at Killington the Juggernaut trail is more than 6 miles long, which greatly increases our amount of open terrain on both a percentage and mileage basis. When Juggernaut opens, its big news if you’re a beginner skier, but who cares if you’re an expert - right!
Bottom line is, as a skier/rider you not only have to look at the amount of open terrain, but what terrain is actually open to make an educated decision.

Thanks for the insider observation, Tom. I agree, mileage is a better measure for defined trails anyway. And hell, if Juggernaut 6+ miles long, it should be included. Again, the beginners are the ones that put any real value in these stats. I guess if your percentage open is based on mileage though, and Juggernaut is closed, that's not a favorable approach....riiiiiight...?

Just kidding.

 

[Mapnut]

I've only ever seen "percentage open" given in terms of numbers of trails. In other words, number open/total number always equals the quoted percentage. Same with per cent easier, more difficult and most difficult.

 

[GrilledSteezeSandwich]

Juggernaut is 10 miles long..I think 10.2 miles..

 

[millerm277]

Juggernaut is 10 miles long..I think 10.2 miles..

In other words, it's not a trail to take unless you like X-C type stuff or enjoy the solitude. And, never, ever attempt it on a snowboard, or on a powder day, both will wind up with you very unhappy.

 

[BushMogulMaster]

I believe that mileage is a more accurate reflection of skiable terrain. However, bear in mind that at Killington the Juggernaut trail is more than 6 miles long, which greatly increases our amount of open terrain on both a percentage and mileage basis. When Juggernaut opens, its big news if you’re a beginner skier, but who cares if you’re an expert - right!
Bottom line is, as a skier/rider you not only have to look at the amount of open terrain, but what terrain is actually open to make an educated decision.

Seems like the same general rule applies to vertical at K... if all 3100' are open, it's big news if you're a beginner, but if you're an expert, you can still only enjoy 1700'!

:wink: I'm sorry... I simply couldn't help myself. :wink:

 

[2knees]

Juggernaut is 10 miles long..I think 10.2 miles..

It used to be 10 miles long. I did the whole 10 miles once.