The resurrection of Ascutney Mountain

I have said before on this forum that I love the idea of small community based ski areas with a focus on a more pure backcountry type experience that incorporate both lift served and hike to terrain and that's exactly what might happen for Ascutney ski area.

http://backcountrymagazine.com/stories/back-on-course-despite-a-funding-hurdle-vermonts-mount-ascutney-resort-is-successfully-conserved/

So what ya think, will it work?

You may like the concept of "small community based ski areas with an emphasis on backcountry", but it's rather impractical.  For any business to work, they need a customer base, and having a ski area with no snowmaking in the east, and most terrain inaccessible from lifts is not going to appeal to most skiers, and there will not be many skiers in the one town where it would draw it's customers.

While you may love the experience that you're advocating for, I can tell you that most people aren't the same, and want a place that's bigger with more reliable snow conditions and no hiking to reach the top.  There are few people looking for an experience other than that, and there's not going to be hardly any in a small town in the middle of nowhere.  With your plan, would there be snowmaking on the lift served terrain?  Mount Peter has a very powerful snowmaking system, so their most loyal customers know that with the right temps, there will be good snow, each and every time.  If conditions were always a crapshoot, their retention rate of customers would be much lower and they would not be as successful as they are now.

Who said anything about a plan? I have no involvement with this project at all.

What are you talking about?

You have one hell of an imagination kid.


That being said, the concept I like to promote is a community based area, like a city park. Do city parks have customers that spend money to be there? We have a bunch of them here in Flagstaff and I have never paid an entrance fee.

Skiing doesn't have to be about business Sno.

sno... If you want to actually learn something about small community based ski areas in the Northeast, read up about Corcoran's, Northeast Slopes, Lyndon Outing Club, Arrowhead, Storrs Hills, McIntyre, Living Memorial, Veterans Memorial, etc. And while you have no experience with BC skiing, you may be surprised to find out just how many people that ski in VT would pay to support a local earned turn community ski area that has very good vertical and steeps (check out the Catamount Trail for more info on local support in VT of non=-lift serviced skiing via a non-profit). Ascutney is not just talking downhill but nordic as well and MTB etc. Not to mention a small tow for local families with kids that want to learn and can't afford places like K and Bush, etc. Community areas are not businesses, they are not for profit and operated municipally for the benefit of the local community... not for people that care about snowmaking, lifts, vertical, whatever. But for families that want inexpensive local ski options and the crowd that appreciates a community run non-profit operation. I don't know if you can appreciate what a community area is or not but I hope you might try to think it through a bit more. You don't have to want to ski them to have appreciation for them... not my cup of tea but I'd be happy to throw Ascutney some money if I can ski there on a powder day. Ascutney's biggest issue is that they are in the Upper Valley Snow Hole... they almost always get skunked on the big storms and they don't get upslope like the Spline does.

I don't see how this resurrection of Ascutney will work out because of what was mentioned with the lack of natural snow.  It failed as a full blown lift served ski area for this reason as well.  Not enough natural snow, and not enough snowmaking to make up for it.  People who want to ski backcountry are going to do it in an area with good natural snow.  I'm sure most will not go out of their way to support a "community ski area" when northern Vermont got a foot and Ascutney got an inch from the last storm.  RA and Rivercoil, all factors aside, if you were faced with this decision, what would you do?  Support the "community ski area", or go to the place with better snow?

Every established ski area needs money to operate, no matter how small or old school.  I know that RA will say that they'll use volunteers to operate the lifts and do trail maintenance.  There's already a ski area that did that called Big Tupper.  Guess what it's current status is.  If you guessed "belly up" you guessed right.  People in a town with limited low paying jobs aren't going to be interested in working for no pay at the "community ski hill".  They want a real job that pays a decent wage.  The place will be held up entirely by rich outsiders who value the same kind of experience that RA does, and have money to burn that they're willing to donate to keep the ski area afloat.  I guarantee that no person in a small town that has limited funds will support taxpayer funding for a place that only a few people will use.

Now we have a discussion! Good points Sno and these are exactly why my post is asking....will it work?

I believe it could work if there was the snow! I think an area with no infrastructure might work for a place like Ascutney but once you add in lifts, maintenance, snowmaking (thats a big one) and keeping employees employed (this last one ties in with the snowmaking) I have my doubts.

So maybe a no infrastructure area would be the best. Something that only had an access road for skinning and glades/trails maintained by an enthusiastic local crew and a few local city tax dollars to keep the place safe and the parking lot clear. Maybe even a warming hut also run by volunteers but anything beyond that it seems as though you create a more complicated and difficult to sustain operation.

I was bummed that no one commented or found interest in the Silverton idea I posted up in that thread a while back. I even added in a google earth image so people could see what I was getting at. It might be the perfect spot for this sort of thing.

Now for your thoughts on the folks in a small town not wanting to use tax dollars for something that only a few use I think that depends on the community. There are small towns where people really value this sort of recreation and I think would love to have a maintained hiking/skinning area out their back yard. I know I would.

snoloco wrote

RA and Rivercoil, all factors aside, if you were faced with this decision, what would you do?  Support the "community ski area", or go to the place with better snow?

This isn't about me... because I live in Plymouth, NH and I am not part of that COMMUNITY. But even though I am not part of that community, I can see and respect why that is important to that community...

If you go for minimal infrastructure, then you don't create very many jobs, if any at all.  Giving locals a place to work would definitely help get any approvals done that are needed.  Hunter and Windham are the two largest employers in Greene County, and I'm sure the community supported much of the recent developments at both mountains for that reason.

The issue with the ski industry is that the market is pretty much saturated.  There's not much room, if any for a new ski area to be built, and if one goes belly up and gets liquidated (like Ascutney), it's not really likely that it's coming back.  Some did come back in a new incarnation, like Haystack, which became The Hermitage Club.  Not sure if bringing Ascutney back in a way that relies heavily on natural snow would be sustainable if there's any truth in climate change.

I think that this town should do whatever they think is best, but I don't see this place drawing many, if any visitors from further away.

Again, it's not about creating jobs or bringing in large amounts of tourist dollars. Not every community wants to do that.

If there were a small town with a few mom and pop b&b's or small hotels and a couple restaurants and bars that had access to a well maintained bc area and maybe a 1 surface lift it won't make anyone rich but it might fill a few beds during the slow months and bring in a little $ for local families. More importantly it would provide the local residents a place to recreate. an affordable option to teach their kids skiing and have that time together as families. This all seems like a win win imo , especially if there is virtually no over head. Why not make it happen?

I think you underestimate the potential market for this kind of experience and confuse your opinions with what others might enjoy. The interest is growing, the industry knows that. It's why a mountain like Sugarloaf has developed zones like Bracket Basin instead of your ideal vision for more lift served runs with snowmaking. Seriously, if I lived out there and this kind experience was an option and it was snowing I would head for the small town with the anti-resort over the Killingtons, Strattons, and Okemos every time.

Sometimes I wonder Sno, do you love skiing or just the business side of ski resorts?

raisingarizona wrote

If there were a small town with a few mom and pop b&b's or small hotels and a couple restaurants and bars that had access to a well maintained bc area and maybe a 1 surface lift it won't make anyone rich but it might fill a few beds during the slow months and bring in a little $ for local families. More importantly it would provide the local residents a place to recreate. an affordable option to teach their kids skiing and have that time together as families. This all seems like a win win imo , especially if there is virtually no over head. Why not make it happen?

Your 2nd to last statement is most definitely incorrect.  It would cost a lot less than keeping a ski area with snowmaking, grooming, high speed lifts, fancy lodges, etc. open, but there are going to be large costs involved.  Any lift, if open to the public has to pass state inspection standards, and some rope tow thrown together by a few guys isn't going to pass.  Getting something that will pass costs a lot of money.  Trail maintenance needs to be done every year, especially since there'd be no snowmaking to cover up overgrowth.  That's not free by any means.  I know in your perfect world it would all be done by volunteers, but in a small community with a limited customer base, that isn't going to happen.  You also have to pay to keep the necessary equipment in working order, which is not free either.

It's basically impossible to put a kid on skis and immediately send them into the backcountry.  Best to learn on a short and relatively flat slope that's groomed, and then progress from there.  Families teaching their kids for the first time likely do not have equipment, so now a rental business would need to be maintainted and operated, which means even more money.  It takes a much larger ski area to drive enough business to open a ski shop, so these families would likely be stuck driving many miles to a big resort to go to the overpriced ski shop there.

raisingarizona wrote

I think you underestimate the potential market for this kind of experience and confuse your opinions with what others might enjoy. The interest is growing, the industry knows that. It's why a mountain like Sugarloaf has developed zones like Bracket Basin instead of your ideal vision for more lift served runs with snowmaking. Seriously, if I lived out there and this kind experience was an option and it was snowing I would head for the small town with the anti-resort over the Killingtons, Strattons, and Okemos every time.

How can this sector of the industry be growing when climate change is reducing the practicality of skiing on natural snow on the ec?  I never went off the trail once at Mountain Creek this year, not because I was too scared, but because there was zero snow off the trails and you'd be better off on a bike if you went in there.  The only reason Sugarloaf made Brackett Basin was to cheat on their advertised acreage and beat Killington.  Purely a profit based decision, nothing to do with wanting to bring in backcountry skiers.  I'm sure the "too good for a resort" crowd like Mikey would still never go.

raisingarizona wrote

Sometimes I wonder Sno, do you love skiing or just the business side of ski resorts?

Both.  Love to ski, and love following the business side of the industry, as well as the engineering side of it.

Hey Sno
I assigned you some reading on ski history a couple months ago. Have you gotten through any on that yet? I think a little time in the way-back machine would help you.

snoloco wrote

 

"Your 2nd to last statement is most definitely incorrect.  It would cost a lot less than keeping a ski area with snowmaking, grooming, high speed lifts, fancy lodges, etc. open, but there are going to be large costs involved.  Any lift, if open to the public has to pass state inspection standards, and some rope tow thrown together by a few guys isn't going to pass.  Getting something that will pass costs a lot of money.  Trail maintenance needs to be done every year, especially since there'd be no snowmaking to cover up overgrowth.  That's not free by any means.  I know in your perfect world it would all be done by volunteers, but in a small community with a limited customer base, that isn't going to happen.  You also have to pay to keep the necessary equipment in working order, which is not free either."

-One lift or none wouldn't be an astronomical number for a community. And I completely disagree, a small passionate community could indeed maintain the trimming necessary for having skiable ski lines.

"It's basically impossible to put a kid on skis and immediately send them into the backcountry.  Best to learn on a short and relatively flat slope that's groomed, and then progress from there.  Families teaching their kids for the first time likely do not have equipment, so now a rental business would need to be maintainted and operated, which means even more money.  It takes a much larger ski area to drive enough business to open a ski shop, so these families would likely be stuck driving many miles to a big resort to go to the overpriced ski shop there."

-Oh this is complete bullshit. People have been skiing for thousands of years, well before grooming and snowmaking. They even did it in leather boots on 7 foot long wooden skis without edges and rope for bindings. Take 10 people after a storm and they can side step a 100 foot by 50 foot slope to "groom" it so their kids can learn to ski. I used to hike hundreds of vertical feet in a day as a kid to go sledding, why does anything else need to be done to teach someone else how to slide down a hillside? I think your perception is a little off on this. You need to read up on the history of skiing, I think you have become to used to having it so damn easy. Kids aren't incompetent of learning to ski on less than the most perfectly groomed slopes. What you are saying here is silly and is telling of a your personal pampered experiences.


"How can this sector of the industry be growing when climate change is reducing the practicality of skiing on natural snow on the ec?  I never went off the trail once at Mountain Creek this year, not because I was too scared, but because there was zero snow off the trails and you'd be better off on a bike if you went in there.  The only reason Sugarloaf made Brackett Basin was to cheat on their advertised acreage and beat Killington.  Purely a profit based decision, nothing to do with wanting to bring in backcountry skiers.  I'm sure the "too good for a resort" crowd like Mikey would still never go."

-Because it is. Not all of is think we are entitled to the recreational pursuit that is sown hill skiing when there isn't snow to slide on. We except the fact that maybe the current business model of ski resorts isn't a good idea environmentally speaking. We go to the mountains to escape the modern world and everything that comes with the day to day existence we are forced to be part of to connect with a mountainous, outdoor, and more natural environment. It's soul candy and we become better people because of making that connection. Mountain town people know this and in a lot of small mountain town communities people actually value this stuff.

-Basically, there is a rapidly growing market that wants these kinds of experiences and is desiring places to go to have them. East coast, west coast, whatever. The numbers don't lie kid. I have a hard time understanding how you claim to like following the business but continuously ignore the market trends and interests.

snoloco wrote

If you go for minimal infrastructure, then you don't create very many jobs, if any at all.  Giving locals a place to work would definitely help get any approvals done that are needed.  Hunter and Windham are the two largest employers in Greene County, and I'm sure the community supported much of the recent developments at both mountains for that reason.

The issue with the ski industry is that the market is pretty much saturated.  There's not much room, if any for a new ski area to be built, and if one goes belly up and gets liquidated (like Ascutney), it's not really likely that it's coming back.  Some did come back in a new incarnation, like Haystack, which became The Hermitage Club.  Not sure if bringing Ascutney back in a way that relies heavily on natural snow would be sustainable IF THERE'S ANY TRUTH IN CLIMATE CHANGE.

I think that this town should do whatever they think is best, but I don't see this place drawing many, if any visitors from further away.

Credibility card forever revoked based on the above statement. Please clear your place at the table and return dishes to the skullery.

Where are the numbers you're referencing?

Also, you failed to address the issue regarding the lack of equipment that families teaching their kids how to ski are going to face.  How is there going to be enough of a customer base to run a ski shop in the middle of nowhere with a so called ski area that doesn't bring in anyone from outside the small town it's in?  

snoloco wrote

  Trail maintenance needs to be done every year, especially since there'd be no snowmaking to cover up overgrowth.  That's not free by any means.  I know in your perfect world it would all be done by volunteers, but in a small community with a limited customer base, that isn't going to happen.  

That already happened per the article linked


It was a tremendous partnership with the town and the Upper Valley Land Trust. I have never before worked with a community that wanted it so badly. They spent a lot of time and effort on the initial acquisition and then transferred all of that that energy over to Ascutney Outdoors and into clearing the trails. Most of the trails were really overgrown, and so they spent a lot of time over the last six months mowing and getting out there with loppers and chopping down the little maples that have grown up [since the close of the resort] to get it skiable again. So thousands of volunteer hours from the community made that happen

snoloco wrote

Also, you failed to address the issue regarding the lack of equipment that families teaching their kids how to ski are going to face.  How is there going to be enough of a customer base to run a ski shop in the middle of nowhere with a so called ski area that doesn't bring in anyone from outside the small town it's in?

What part of this community thing can't you grasp? These people are already going to have their own shit. Families that give little Suzy little Johnny's old stuff. No need for this mamsy-pamsy shit you require

Clearly they want their ski area back open again, but if they want it that badly, then how did it close in the first place?

All but one of the lifts were auctioned.  The HSQ went to Crotched, and the CTEC triples were sold to Pat's Peak where they were likely broken up and sold off for parts.  The Hall double still stands, but hasn't operated in 6 years, so it's not likely operable now.  Since the place went bankrupt, all the lifts would've been very poorly maintained before the closure and reactivating one would not be easy.  

I know that I'll be flamed saying that they never planned to have a chairlift and wanted a rope tow instead.  However, getting a chair running would help put the place on the map.  People see "rope tow" and think "What?!  A frickin rope tow?! What is this 1930"?!

snoloco wrote

 then how did it close in the first place?

Because of the mamby-pambly land experience you desire.

Seems like its fine right now just being a mostly self-powered recreational area with minimal costs. It doesn't appear they are looking for the mobs of people you keep referencing

Oh yeah there are plenty of little places with  rope tows for kids and they have a blast. We have more than one in the Syr area. Not every kid is a pansy requiring heated lifts

http://www.camillusskihill.com/

snoloco wrote

 

   People see "rope tow" and think "What?!  A frickin rope tow?! What is this 1930"?!

Lil dude, sorry but you are so wrong. Rope tow makes me want to go there --- High Speed anything can kiss my ass --- some of my most memorable moments skiing have been on old slow lifts at old skewl ski areas ----- someday, i hope, you'll understand this. If not that's ok too cause you'll simply blend in with the rest of the crowd and at that point just be sure and get out of the way.

I don't require heated lifts and never will.  I do require actually being able to ski throughout the season and not having to wait for it to snow, which means snowmaking, which always comes with lifts too.