Plunge: The Catskill Beast?

You just got cut as the 3rd member of Scotty and Camps 3some.......too much drama

skimore wrote

You just got cut as the 3rd member of Scotty and Camps 3some.......too much drama

I'm not sad, It was never meant to last.

MikeK wrote

Sick Bird Rider wrote

ml242 wrote

... Off to mail Noah my apology now.

Funny you should say that. I have having similar thoughts.

Hahaha - the guy who called you creepy Santa Claus.  What have I ever said contrary to you?  Just jumping on a bandwagon with yer pals?

Enlighten me please.

Nothing to do with you, Mike. Many moons ago I tried to stand up for Snoloco against the wrath of NJ. Clearly Sno did not appreciate the effort. It is discouraging.

How did you come to that conclusion?

California's top selling vehicle for many years was the Toyota Prius.  It was recently outseated by the Honda Accord.  People didn't buy them because the government required it.  They did because gas prices were high, and that car gets like 50 mpg, so less $$$ spent on gas.  If someone wants to buy fuel efficient car, then auto manufacturers should make them.  If someone wants to buy a gas guzzling SUV that's way bigger than they need, then auto manufacturers should make those too.  The cost of gas being really high drove the move toward more fuel efficient cars.  If the government wants to get involved with that, they should raise the gas tax to keep prices high so people use less.  

Okay. I get where you're coming from. I have a different outlook but that shouldn't prevent us from being friends. Hope you can forgive my optimism for the future. Bottom line for me is if Plattekill is open for skiing, I'll be there.

Harvey,
I like Plunge as much as you do but I'm afraid loading it up with that much snow will widen it enough that the character of the trail will change. On a normal mid-winter day, I prefer it but, for this purpose, I think NorthFace is a more realistic candidate.

snoloco wrote

California's top selling vehicle for many years was the Toyota Prius.  It was recently outseated by the Honda Accord.  People didn't buy them because the government required it.  They did because gas prices were high, and that car gets like 50 mpg, so less $$$ spent on gas.  If someone wants to buy fuel efficient car, then auto manufacturers should make them.  If someone wants to buy a gas guzzling SUV that's way bigger than they need, then auto manufacturers should make those too.  The cost of gas being really high drove the move toward more fuel efficient cars.  If the government wants to get involved with that, they should raise the gas tax to keep prices high so people use less.

Holy mackerel.

Sno, you are about to get a wrath that NJ could not even serve up.  Do you know what CAFE is?  Do you understand that it's really not a free market in the auto world?

I asked you to email me if you need credibility and I'd give you more info than you could possibly imagine as I'm not going to post it here, but really, read about EPA regs and CAFE standards before you write something as idiotic as you just did.  I posted a link earlier in this thread to the 2025 regs.

Also, despite what anyone may think of me, I'm not a liar.  I really do work in R&D for a tier 1 in the auto industry.  Do you really think I would reference this if I didn't know what I was talking about?  And despite what else you may think of me, when I am wrong, and make a mistake, I own up to it.  I've not seen you take that responsibility on when you are incorrect.  Which for the record happens quite often.

Again you can fall back on what you said before that you are just only 17 and how I didn't know all this when I was 17.  I tried to tell you and you come back with an argument of absolute bullshit you don't understand.

Anyway, I just used it as an example of people's moral conscience needing to be regulated by the government because given the right, they'll just do what is in their own best interest, not necessarily what is best for everyone.

And one last thing, do you think anyone that is NOT a skier that had any idea about the industry and cared at all for our future of the environment would be in favor of this?

I don't think any average guy, who is not a skier, no matter the industry he works in, would give two shits about some little mountain in NY making snow in a 10'x50'x3000' area.

By the way, whats wrong with NJ?  NJ wrath---What the hell. I hear this stuff all the time living in upstate NY, but TBH, some of the best people I know are from NJ.

Ethan Snow wrote

I don't think any average guy, who is not a skier, no matter the industry he works in, would give two shits about some little mountain in NY making snow in a 10'x50'x3000' area.

No but they might care about, what is the number now, $40k extra electricity use?  Especially if you were to break out the fact that it could power a small neighborhood for a year.  Then they might look at your whole industry and be sickened by the amount of power being used to spin lifts and make snow.

People don't know what they don't know. Until they do.  Then maybe things change.

Ethan Snow wrote

By the way, whats wrong with NJ?  NJ wrath---What the hell. I hear this stuff all the time living in upstate NY, but TBH, some of the best people I know are from NJ.

NJ is not New Jersey.  It's Noah John, a former member of this forum.

I agree Brownski. NorthFace is better if that's going to be the only trail they have open. As a small GM myself, I am also looking at it from a accommodation point of view. For example, my dad is not an aggressive skier. He is not totally confident on Plunge, but can ski NorthFace several times in a row with no problem. This goes for several intermediate skiers I know. It may be the difference between 90, and 100 tickets sold.  But I also agree with Harvey that Plunge has more character. Heck, if the first year goes well, do Plunge and NorthFace the second year.

I talked to Laz yesterday, and he told me 20K in electricity for 10' of snow. I am not entirely sure where the 50K came from, but I know that includes employee labor and grooming among other things.

I bet the average automotive manufacturing plant uses more than 20K worth of electricity in one week. FYI, the compressor that Plattekill is currently using to power the snowmaking came used from an OSB manufacturing plant. I know for a fact that Bassett Hospital where my dad works spends close to 100k in energy per month. That's 25K every effin week!  So 20K for a mountain to have some fun once a year, and grow its business doesn't seem all that bad to me. You just need realize that there are Businesses, and "industries" and even Non-profit organizations using a shit load of energy every day.

MikeK wrote

Ethan Snow wrote

I don't think any average guy, who is not a skier, no matter the industry he works in, would give two shits about some little mountain in NY making snow in a 10'x50'x3000' area.

No but they might care about, what is the number now, $40k extra electricity use?  Especially if you were to break out the fact that it could power a small neighborhood for a year.  Then they might look at your whole industry and be sickened by the amount of power being used to spin lifts and make snow.

People don't know what they don't know. Until they do.  Then maybe things change.

Yes, the ski industry uses a lot of energy, but what about other similar recreation industries?  How much energy does an amusement park use to power all their rides, or a waterpark, that exactly like a ski area, pumps water up a hill all day?  They don't have to make snow, but they still use a lot of energy.

Are you saying that everyone should just go live in teepees in the woods like they did 10,000 years ago?  You said that ski areas were greedy when they started using snowmaking to compete with other areas.  Guess what, it's a capitalist nation and businesses need to compete with each other. That benefits the consumer in the form of lower prices, better quality, and new innovations.  That's why skiing has progressed so much since the 1930's.  I don't see how it's hard for one to think for 5 minutes and realize this.

I stick to my idea that we have to address energy issues regardless of current supply or price and that those issues are critical.  Nothing I have read here changes my thinking on that. The ski industry did make some advancements and these were driven IMO by the high price of energy, before fracking.

I wasn't thinking that the depth of snow on Plunge would hasten the demise of it's character, although that makes complete sense so I relent. There is nothing that says you have to blow it wide I my guess is if this was ever to happen it would be that deep wall to wall. Even superstar isn't wall to wall yooge.

I'd glacier North Face, not Plunge.  It's already wide and more snowmaking won't widen it further.

I've made my case.  You can rationalize anything you want.  You can point the finger back and say we aren't the real problem.  But guess what, that's how these thing become problems.  Whatever.  I need to go to work and figure out how meet those 2025 regs so you assholes can drive to your ski hill in May.



Simple solution.  GTFO out of NY.  If you really, truly loved skiing and wanted to ski a longer season, why would you be here?  Especially the two youngest goofballs.  You could go to college anywhere.  But I believe there was like a million page thread on that.

Look, my parents both work in the Northeast, so that's where I'm staying for the foreseeable future.  I picked Clarkson because they have a program where you can go a year early.

You have no respect for those who don't think the same way as you.  If you say that those who truly love skiing don't live in NY, then why do you live in NY?  You must not truly love skiing then.

Why does it matter to you if one ski area blows a ribbon of snow?  Why would anyone care unless they want to ski it.  You're obviously biased and don't care about lift served skiing, but you don't just not care about it, you're vehemently opposed to it.  You can try walk it back and say you're not, but it's not hard to see through it.  Most people don't really care about lift served skiing except for those who do it, and radical environmentalists who protest everything that's going to result in a single tree being cut down.

I'm admit I am part the problem. I could certainly do more.  I could give up my most wasteful enjoyment in life, skiing.  I could go farther and use everything I have to advocate for change.

We all could do more. The US is a huge part of the problem. We are 5% of the world using 35% of the worlds resources.  Even our working poor use more than their share. I try to have a small(er) footprint (relatively small house, walk to work, walking and biking as primary form of exercise in the offseason) but on a relative scale I am using way more than my share. You are too.

I love NY and I'm not moving west. If lift served skiing was my primary driver in life I probably would. For me it's more about the woods, mountains, wilderness and people in the state.

I guess we are going to have to agree to agree on this one.