Taos Snowboard Ban
- Thread starter hamdog
- Start date
:evil: For those who are unhappy with TSV ski only position, give us some help. Get some economic guru who can complete a real honest economic impact study on the positives of allowing snowboarders and the negatives of not allowing them. I will gladly supply some data I have to such a research paper and spread the final study as far as I can. Most Taos area business folk will join us in the study disemination program.
Some of you who are well enough connected might even get several sponsors on board who could fund the research I'm suggesting. Although the family all lay the blame for ski only on Ernie, Ernie was very pro economic development for Northern NM. When considered from that aspect, I think Ernie would have changed his approach and openned at least part of TSV to boards.
In other words, I encourage the whiney "free taos" crowd to be proactive rather than reactive. Follow Steven Covey's leadership principles. Make something positive happen.
Some of you who are well enough connected might even get several sponsors on board who could fund the research I'm suggesting. Although the family all lay the blame for ski only on Ernie, Ernie was very pro economic development for Northern NM. When considered from that aspect, I think Ernie would have changed his approach and openned at least part of TSV to boards.
In other words, I encourage the whiney "free taos" crowd to be proactive rather than reactive. Follow Steven Covey's leadership principles. Make something positive happen.
I'm not surprised Taos would offer an early season discount. Few areas are more skewed toward favoring late season for the best skiing.
With regard to the snowboard ban, I believe Taos is the one that's most objectionable. It's hard to feel sorry about Alta with Snowbird next door, and similarly Deer Valley vs. Park City and The Canyons. And if you're going to have an area in Vermont with minimal snowmaking, MRG's policy of making low density and snow preservation the top priority makes sense. But Taos has virtually all the expert terrain in New Mexico, so it seems unfair to me to make advanced snowboarders in NM go to Colorado for challenge.
Taos does have a slow accumulating, very low water content and fragile snowpack. It also has a lot of runs requiring hiking or traversing, like Alta. Therefore I would expect some deterioration in surface conditions if snowboarding is allowed. It's not a 100% argument IMHO, but on balance I would vote to allow it and I suspect the economic analysis would agree.
With regard to the snowboard ban, I believe Taos is the one that's most objectionable. It's hard to feel sorry about Alta with Snowbird next door, and similarly Deer Valley vs. Park City and The Canyons. And if you're going to have an area in Vermont with minimal snowmaking, MRG's policy of making low density and snow preservation the top priority makes sense. But Taos has virtually all the expert terrain in New Mexico, so it seems unfair to me to make advanced snowboarders in NM go to Colorado for challenge.
Taos does have a slow accumulating, very low water content and fragile snowpack. It also has a lot of runs requiring hiking or traversing, like Alta. Therefore I would expect some deterioration in surface conditions if snowboarding is allowed. It's not a 100% argument IMHO, but on balance I would vote to allow it and I suspect the economic analysis would agree.
An argument that Taos' management makes against snowboarding is similar to that previously voiced by Aspen back when they were banned there. Except for a few precipitous mogulled drops like Al's Run, almost all of Taos' traffic at the end of the day funnels onto a single cat track that snakes it's way down the lower mountain face. Taos' management argues that to add a second traffic "pattern" to the mix as it were (i.e., a snowboarder aligned perpendicular to their path of travel and with a blind spot to one side, as opposed to a skier whose body is facing their direction of travel with the blind spot behind them) would significantly jeapordize safety on this cat track. I'm not drawing conclusions one way or the other here, nor am I advocating one position on the ban over another -- I'm merely advising what the official line is, as it was communicated to me.
And Tony, while Taos clearly does have the most challenging terrain in the state, there's no dearth of steep trees at Santa Fe.
And Tony, while Taos clearly does have the most challenging terrain in the state, there's no dearth of steep trees at Santa Fe.
I figured Santa Fe (which I have not skied) might be the exception to my generalization. But I suspect it's a similar situation to SoCal. If one area (Baldy, Taos) has 80-90% of the high end terrain in the region, excluding snowboarding is going to draw a lot of resentment. I don't think it's coincidence that Taos' ban is more controversial than the other 3 areas, despite the legitimate layout/snow coverage concerns.
Ultimately the decision will be driven by economics. Baldy has at least as many layout/snow coverage issues as Taos, but in this market it would be suicidal to ban snowboarding. And this type of terrain will result in some self selection anyway. Baldy's clientele is about 1/3 boarders vs. 2/3 at the other SoCal areas. With regard to Aspen, management observed that it has the most loyal customer base of any U.S. ski resort, but that those customers are aging. I have no doubt that Susan Darch was brought in there from Whistler to broaden the demographic appeal. And the first change after her arrival was dropping the snowboard ban on Ajax.
Ultimately the decision will be driven by economics. Baldy has at least as many layout/snow coverage issues as Taos, but in this market it would be suicidal to ban snowboarding. And this type of terrain will result in some self selection anyway. Baldy's clientele is about 1/3 boarders vs. 2/3 at the other SoCal areas. With regard to Aspen, management observed that it has the most loyal customer base of any U.S. ski resort, but that those customers are aging. I have no doubt that Susan Darch was brought in there from Whistler to broaden the demographic appeal. And the first change after her arrival was dropping the snowboard ban on Ajax.
are you for real? that's whack yo! haha. is that how a snowboarder is suppossed to talk?
well, since they ride perpendicular to the direction of travel i suppose they look in that same direction too, huh? perpendicular.
and in reaction to jfslenes, be proactive, not reactive. sorry, i'm to much of a geak with school work, and don't have a huge concern of whether or not Taos allows snowboarders. cause even if they do, i'll never go there. they're already about 30yrs behind the rest of getting over differences on this topic. thier loss. in order to research this and actally become active in doing something about this is practically a full time job. that's why they hired someone such as that lady from Whistler to broaden the demographic appeal, and the first thing she requested was the obvious lift of the sb ban. it's a no brainer. they stand where they stand though, and the fact is that they're much to rigid with thier mechanistic structural ways, and that seems to "work" for them. FREE TAOS!
oh. here's a good point brought up on another board about the ban.
that's about all the time i have to address this topic. cheers.
A
Anonymous
Guest
snowboarders (like myself) do mess up the flow of the bumps which is why madriverglen doesn't allow them. but sugarbush is right next door.
A
Anonymous
Guest
It's time to retire the "snowboarders mess up the bumps" fallacy. It can be put on the shelf with all the other old predjudices: "snowboarders scrape off the snow", "shape skiis are for P***ies", etc. The fact is, intermediates (skiiers and snowboarders) are responsible for most of the trail damage. Same is probably true for on hill accidents. As an advanced skiier/snowborder and intermediate telemarker I speak from my own experience.
As for Taos:
Why bother doing a market analysis? It's a business, they'll figure it out on their own. As soon as they determine that they can make more money by including snowboarders vs. having a niche market for skiiers, they'll open it up. It's simple economics and no amount cat-track-traffic-mogul-wrecking-its-not-fair whining and excuses will make it any different. If you're a snowboarder and you want to make an econmic impact statement, buy a tivket at Sante Fe (they do have great steep tree runs). If you're a skiier and you don't like the Taos policy, don't go there!
As for Taos:
Why bother doing a market analysis? It's a business, they'll figure it out on their own. As soon as they determine that they can make more money by including snowboarders vs. having a niche market for skiiers, they'll open it up. It's simple economics and no amount cat-track-traffic-mogul-wrecking-its-not-fair whining and excuses will make it any different. If you're a snowboarder and you want to make an econmic impact statement, buy a tivket at Sante Fe (they do have great steep tree runs). If you're a skiier and you don't like the Taos policy, don't go there!
Anonymous":1quqldu5 said:
This seems to be the entire controversy in a nutshell.
A
Anonymous
Guest
I'd like to see the ban lifted.
I don't think Taos's issue is an economic one. The-which-is-more-profitable explination, inviting snowboarders or caterring to the ski only crowd doesn't explain why they've refused to change over the past few years.
In the 94-95 season they had about 370K skier visits per year. In the 01-02 season they had about 200K skier visits. The spanning years of 96-97/97-98/98-99 each had between 250K and 300K skiers. After that it drops down to the 01-02 years value of 200K. Now I'm guessing Taos's management is fully aware of their drop in 'Market share' over the years. Their skier numbers have been almost cut in half over 7 years. It would be incredibly niave to think they haven't noticed this change. I'm guessing they explain these numbers away by stating they've had poor snow years, and when they had good snow years the numbers went up, like the 97-98 year. While true, the numbers still didn't go up so much that you'd think it was *just* a factor of snow quanitity. It's obvious that by not allowing boarders they're losing not only the 1/3 of snow users whom board, but the families with kids whom board as well.
So why not just Do The Right Thing and allow boarders?
My *guess* is that (In no particular order):
a) No one wants to touch the huge legacy of Ernie. Whether it was Ernie that 'decreed' the ban or not, people have come to associate that ban with him and to lift the ban would come across as trashing his legacy. Nothing anyone wants to do...on either side of the fence I'm guessing.
b) They also claim it's 'what their customers want'. Now that obviously doesn't include their possible boarding customers, or even families that think about going there until they find out about the ban and littile johnnie/susy boards so the family goes to XXXX instead. Personally I like a company that is loyal to it's customers, and doesn't sell out. But knowing that the Taos area economy is one of the worst in the US, some more business would go over well there. And it's not like allowing boarders would instantly turn Taos into Squallyworld or Asspen.
c) Pride. They're a prideful family. And they should be. Gotta love a ski area still owned by the founding family, especially in this day and age of mega-ski resorts. While they might know they would make more money by allowing boardres, they're not in it for the money. They want to provide a quiet, 'traditional', ski area with out the glitz. They don't need the money and enjoy providing their customers with a 'haven' from the mass market driven resorts. While that's all nice and everything it ignores their contract with the Forest Service to use the area for it's utmost profit potential. Or maybe I should say that the local forest service ignores this clause since they haven't called them on it when their special use permit is up each year, and if anything have come out saying that the ban is OK since it's a seperate-but-equal issue. Boarders can always just go to Angel Fire an hour away, or Wolf Creek, CO. Now anyone that's has ridden in NM knows Angel Fire is *nothing* like Taos so the whole seperate but equal rationalization is just that, a rationalization by the local old boys network in the FS down there. They're essentially running a private little ski resort, on public land, with the local Forest Services approval.
d) Change. Like most people/organizations, they fear change. They've aligned their identity so much with the board-ban that to change would leave them without an identity. Personally I find this to be the worst/sadest excuse. To me it seems that Taos has some weird inferiority complex and is afraid to compete on an 'even' basis. Why don't they market their incredible terrain? Dry snow? Cool Vibe? Why do they use a marketing idea based on hate/division when then can differentiate themselves from every other McSkiResort by way of their uniqueness, rather then some artificial, contrived thing such as the snowboard ban? Why can't they see all the boarders clamouring to get in as potential customers rather then barbarians at the gate? Do they still think boarding is a fad and it'll go away soon? Is it all just a bad dream that they'll suddenly wake up from?
Mostly I think they're not pressed to change beyond the usual pleabians that 'whine' about it (such as myself). They enjoy the free press of people whining about the ban since they feel it just tells people whom that sort of thing might appeal to that they exist. And we're all kidding our selves if we think that the ban isn't an appealing product to a certain segment of the skier population. It also seems to me that they are the big dog in the Taos economic circle. That other business's are some what afraid to stand up to them and come out as saying the ban hurts their business. I know some businesses have started doing it (Fetchin Inn), and have even formed a coalition to investigate the business impacts of the ban. Not sure what ever became of that though.
So in closing, while I think that Taos, of the areas still with bans, is the most hurtful to boarders, I also think they are the more complex with their issues of having/lifting the ban. What ever that means.
Hope folks are enjoying their seasons.
Free Taos.
I don't think Taos's issue is an economic one. The-which-is-more-profitable explination, inviting snowboarders or caterring to the ski only crowd doesn't explain why they've refused to change over the past few years.
In the 94-95 season they had about 370K skier visits per year. In the 01-02 season they had about 200K skier visits. The spanning years of 96-97/97-98/98-99 each had between 250K and 300K skiers. After that it drops down to the 01-02 years value of 200K. Now I'm guessing Taos's management is fully aware of their drop in 'Market share' over the years. Their skier numbers have been almost cut in half over 7 years. It would be incredibly niave to think they haven't noticed this change. I'm guessing they explain these numbers away by stating they've had poor snow years, and when they had good snow years the numbers went up, like the 97-98 year. While true, the numbers still didn't go up so much that you'd think it was *just* a factor of snow quanitity. It's obvious that by not allowing boarders they're losing not only the 1/3 of snow users whom board, but the families with kids whom board as well.
So why not just Do The Right Thing and allow boarders?
My *guess* is that (In no particular order):
a) No one wants to touch the huge legacy of Ernie. Whether it was Ernie that 'decreed' the ban or not, people have come to associate that ban with him and to lift the ban would come across as trashing his legacy. Nothing anyone wants to do...on either side of the fence I'm guessing.
b) They also claim it's 'what their customers want'. Now that obviously doesn't include their possible boarding customers, or even families that think about going there until they find out about the ban and littile johnnie/susy boards so the family goes to XXXX instead. Personally I like a company that is loyal to it's customers, and doesn't sell out. But knowing that the Taos area economy is one of the worst in the US, some more business would go over well there. And it's not like allowing boarders would instantly turn Taos into Squallyworld or Asspen.
c) Pride. They're a prideful family. And they should be. Gotta love a ski area still owned by the founding family, especially in this day and age of mega-ski resorts. While they might know they would make more money by allowing boardres, they're not in it for the money. They want to provide a quiet, 'traditional', ski area with out the glitz. They don't need the money and enjoy providing their customers with a 'haven' from the mass market driven resorts. While that's all nice and everything it ignores their contract with the Forest Service to use the area for it's utmost profit potential. Or maybe I should say that the local forest service ignores this clause since they haven't called them on it when their special use permit is up each year, and if anything have come out saying that the ban is OK since it's a seperate-but-equal issue. Boarders can always just go to Angel Fire an hour away, or Wolf Creek, CO. Now anyone that's has ridden in NM knows Angel Fire is *nothing* like Taos so the whole seperate but equal rationalization is just that, a rationalization by the local old boys network in the FS down there. They're essentially running a private little ski resort, on public land, with the local Forest Services approval.
d) Change. Like most people/organizations, they fear change. They've aligned their identity so much with the board-ban that to change would leave them without an identity. Personally I find this to be the worst/sadest excuse. To me it seems that Taos has some weird inferiority complex and is afraid to compete on an 'even' basis. Why don't they market their incredible terrain? Dry snow? Cool Vibe? Why do they use a marketing idea based on hate/division when then can differentiate themselves from every other McSkiResort by way of their uniqueness, rather then some artificial, contrived thing such as the snowboard ban? Why can't they see all the boarders clamouring to get in as potential customers rather then barbarians at the gate? Do they still think boarding is a fad and it'll go away soon? Is it all just a bad dream that they'll suddenly wake up from?
Mostly I think they're not pressed to change beyond the usual pleabians that 'whine' about it (such as myself). They enjoy the free press of people whining about the ban since they feel it just tells people whom that sort of thing might appeal to that they exist. And we're all kidding our selves if we think that the ban isn't an appealing product to a certain segment of the skier population. It also seems to me that they are the big dog in the Taos economic circle. That other business's are some what afraid to stand up to them and come out as saying the ban hurts their business. I know some businesses have started doing it (Fetchin Inn), and have even formed a coalition to investigate the business impacts of the ban. Not sure what ever became of that though.
So in closing, while I think that Taos, of the areas still with bans, is the most hurtful to boarders, I also think they are the more complex with their issues of having/lifting the ban. What ever that means.
Hope folks are enjoying their seasons.
Free Taos.
Nice analysis above. I'm sure the "family legacy" is a driving factor.
I can say with regard to snowfall that Taos has high volatility and somewhat independent weather patterns. From 1991-92 through 1994-95 Taos was the only ski area in North America with above average snowfall all 4 years. Recent history has been opposite. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-02 were all stinkers, and the last 2 seasons, while overall close to average, didn't see any big dumps until February. So if you're going to compare 1994-95 to 2001-02 I think it's the snow.
The Rockies are in general the lowest percentage snowboard region, at about 1/4 of visits according to Kottke surveys (vs. 1/3 overall and 45% in the Pacific states). When you consider self selection (expert oriented areas tend also to have lower snowboard percentages) I would guess that a "free Taos" would be about 15% boarders. When you consider that some fraction of the core repeat business is attracted by the ban, I'm not sure the economic argument is that clear-cut.
As I mentioned before, given New Mexico's overall ski terrain I'm in favor of lifting the ban for fairness reasons. But when you look at all the factors involved I wouldn't expect a change anytime soon.
I can say with regard to snowfall that Taos has high volatility and somewhat independent weather patterns. From 1991-92 through 1994-95 Taos was the only ski area in North America with above average snowfall all 4 years. Recent history has been opposite. 1998-99, 1999-2000 and 2001-02 were all stinkers, and the last 2 seasons, while overall close to average, didn't see any big dumps until February. So if you're going to compare 1994-95 to 2001-02 I think it's the snow.
The Rockies are in general the lowest percentage snowboard region, at about 1/4 of visits according to Kottke surveys (vs. 1/3 overall and 45% in the Pacific states). When you consider self selection (expert oriented areas tend also to have lower snowboard percentages) I would guess that a "free Taos" would be about 15% boarders. When you consider that some fraction of the core repeat business is attracted by the ban, I'm not sure the economic argument is that clear-cut.
As I mentioned before, given New Mexico's overall ski terrain I'm in favor of lifting the ban for fairness reasons. But when you look at all the factors involved I wouldn't expect a change anytime soon.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Tony Crocker":197eic4r said:
Interesting snow stats. I'm not comparing 94-95 to 01-02 directly, as much as the trend of over all number of skier across that time period.
94-95: 370K
95-96: 230K
96-97: 270K
97-98: 300K
98-99: 280K
99-00: 180K
00-01: 240K
01-02: 200K
The trend seems fairly obvious to me...I'm sure snow effects those numbers, especially WHEN the snow falls (if the hill is coverred for xmas for instance). But to disregard the emergence of snowboarding as a major customer base in the ski market, and look at that user trend across the years in comparison to how Taos's user stats have declined and not draw a corallary is ignoring the seemingly obvious truth that if Taos does want to make more money, they should allow boarders.
While I might agree with your analysis that a 'free taos' might have 15% boarders...I think it would grow over time. Taos has obviously shunned boarders for so long that the local boarders undoubtably have some bias against the place and opening it might not draw all the people in that they could since they've burnt some bridges in the local boarding community so to speak. But my guess is that with some time and a very little effort Taos could market the hill for what it is...a great expert mountain, with a very laid back vibe, and uncrowded slopes. I'm guessing there's plenty of boarders that would go for those reasons alone. I'd also wonder what percentage of their users are local vs. vacationers. I'm -guessing- that there's more vacationers there then locals compared to most hills...due to Taos's remoteness. So maybe instead of knowing the percentages of boarders in the rockies we need to know the percentage of boarders who vacation at ski areas, and families that do the same with a member that boards. Possibly bringing the number up into the 25-30% range??(Important note: Thats not the percentage of boarders...but the percentage of people on the hill who are boarding/in a group/family with a boarder and wouldn't be there with the ban in place.) Just a guess....
Sadly enough I don't think I'll ever be invited though. I guess I'll have to be satisfied by spending my vacation dollars at other more friendly resorts....with more snow.
(Don't they realize it's karma that's keeping it from snowing there? :lol: )
Free Taos.
I still think the Taos skier numbers are snow driven. Look at 1995-96, another under 200 inch year. And 63 of 1998-99's 215 inches fell in November, possibly bumping up Christmas ticket sales.
94-95: 370K, 337 inches
95-96: 230K, 196 inches
96-97: 270K, 371 inches
97-98: 300K, 311 inches
98-99: 280K, 215 inches
99-00: 180K, 153 inches
00-01: 240K, 312 inches
01-02: 200K, 147 inches
The above numbers are 73% correlated. That's about the same as Loon/Cannon snowfall in the East or Steamboat/Winter Park in the West.
I do think 15% is a realistic estimate of long term snowboard participation at Taos, assuming the overall 1/3 national and 1/4 Rockies numbers are stable. Taos has a layout (lots of traversing/hiking to reach many of the best stashes) that will appeal to only a small minority of boarders, probably the ones that patronize FTO.
The family issue is a good point though. In Utah the boarders can ski a comparable area when the skiers are at Alta or Deer Valley.
94-95: 370K, 337 inches
95-96: 230K, 196 inches
96-97: 270K, 371 inches
97-98: 300K, 311 inches
98-99: 280K, 215 inches
99-00: 180K, 153 inches
00-01: 240K, 312 inches
01-02: 200K, 147 inches
The above numbers are 73% correlated. That's about the same as Loon/Cannon snowfall in the East or Steamboat/Winter Park in the West.
I do think 15% is a realistic estimate of long term snowboard participation at Taos, assuming the overall 1/3 national and 1/4 Rockies numbers are stable. Taos has a layout (lots of traversing/hiking to reach many of the best stashes) that will appeal to only a small minority of boarders, probably the ones that patronize FTO.
The family issue is a good point though. In Utah the boarders can ski a comparable area when the skiers are at Alta or Deer Valley.
A
Anonymous
Guest
Tony Crocker":2yw8vhbd said:
Some interesting numbers. Thanks for 'digesting' them. I wish I had access to the skier visit numbers pre 94-95...and the last few years as well. It should be public knowledge...but I have trouble finding the info. I'd guess most ski areas numbers are snow driven to a large extent. I'm also sure there's a market for 'ski' only ski areas. Which undoubtably helps moderate the numbers showing at Taos vs the declining number of skiers nation wide (while the number of boarders increases). To me it still seems to logicall follow that their ban discourages their numbers from increasing, rather then treading water. It's one thing for boarders to be banned...but that ban also effects families and groups of people that have boarders who's needs need to be considered. Of course they don't seem like they want their numbers to increase dramtically.
And I'd still respectfully disagree with the 15%. I'm just not sure why you'd think only 15% of the population would be boarders when we can both agree on the 1/3 (33%) nation wide and 1/4 (25%) in the Rockies.
Are you saying that it's layout would discourage boarders from long term use? Which I'd say they'd just learn to deal...so they could access some of the great terrain. I could see bad blood holding some back (as I stated above) but I don't see that grudge being held for very long...especially since folks have been clamouring to get in for so long. NM boarders are used to that 4-6 hr drive to Wolf Creek at this point....a little extra hiking won't kill them.
And we haven't even touched on the topic of whether or not a 'ski' only resort should be allowed on public forest service land.
Maybe it's my experience observing boarders here in SoCal, but the focus of the more skilled boarders seems to be upon the terrain parks. Whenever I ski steep terrain (Baldy, top of Mammoth, Snowbird, etc.) the snowboard proportion drops dramatically. I think it takes more skill to be balanced on one edge than two on a 40 degree slope. Not to say that there aren't snowboarders who can leave me in the dust up there, but there sure seem to be a whole lot more skiers.
The next time I run laps on Chair 23 at Mammoth, I think I'll do a head count. But it's not necessary to do that to notice the dramatic difference between Baldy and the other SoCal areas. Baldy has an expansive 800 vertical natural glade that requires a 1/4 mile traverse at the end to return to the lift (3rd pic at http://216.250.243.13/discus2/messages/ ... 1078296771). There are still almost no boarders out there, presumably because of the traverse. So my best estimate is that Taos' snowboard proportion would run half of whatever is normal for its region.
I originally attributed this phenomenon to snowboarding being a new sport while there were a lot of skiers with 10-20 years experience. In the early 1990's there were virtually no snowboarders doing the top of Mammoth. But now half the 25-year-olds are boarders (Kottke survey) and a lot of them should have 10+ years experience and be at close to the peak of their ability.
The next time I run laps on Chair 23 at Mammoth, I think I'll do a head count. But it's not necessary to do that to notice the dramatic difference between Baldy and the other SoCal areas. Baldy has an expansive 800 vertical natural glade that requires a 1/4 mile traverse at the end to return to the lift (3rd pic at http://216.250.243.13/discus2/messages/ ... 1078296771). There are still almost no boarders out there, presumably because of the traverse. So my best estimate is that Taos' snowboard proportion would run half of whatever is normal for its region.
I originally attributed this phenomenon to snowboarding being a new sport while there were a lot of skiers with 10-20 years experience. In the early 1990's there were virtually no snowboarders doing the top of Mammoth. But now half the 25-year-olds are boarders (Kottke survey) and a lot of them should have 10+ years experience and be at close to the peak of their ability.
Cannonball
New member
Interesting. I actually feel like I've seen the opposite. So far I've only seen snowborders on Tramline and Kinsman Glade at Cannon (although I'm sure skiers have been doing it). I ride and ski with a fairly large contigent of snowboarders and skiers, and while all of them are advanced/experts I tend to notice that the skiers start backing off first as the terrain starts getting more gnarly. I recently did a heli trip in AK on some serious steeps. Even though the average age was ~35, snowboarders outnumbered skiers 2-1. On the other hand, all of the guides were on skis as they said they just wouldn't be able to do all of the neccessary work on a board.
Personally, I'm equally comfortable on the steeps on a board or skis although they each offer something different. The board handles variable conditions better but you are in much bigger trouble if you fall. Skis handle steep traverses and side slipping better but watch out if that sweet untouched POW turns out to be breakable crust.
Back to Taos..... I disagree that the terrain (long traverses, long run-outs) has anything to do with the snowboard ban. Other mountains (A-basin) have similar layouts but welcome boarders. There are so many mountains that are better as a destination resort that you aren't really missing anything one way or the other. The only ones who really feel the pain are the local snowboarders. When the economics hit them hard enough they'll change their ways...until then who really cares?
Side story (brief version): I was in Sante Fe for work a few years back. I decided to hitch-hike to Taos. Took me half the day to get there. Rented skis, bought a pricey ticket. Had a great time skiing. Met a guy on the lift who said he'd give me a ride back if I bought him a beer in the lodge at the end of the day. He never showed up, it got dark, I couldn't get a ride. I ended up in the Taos post office lobby, when people came into to check their PO boxes I'd offer money to give me I ride. Finally got a ride at about 11PM. Ended up being one of the best/worst/most expensive ski days I've ever had.
Personally, I'm equally comfortable on the steeps on a board or skis although they each offer something different. The board handles variable conditions better but you are in much bigger trouble if you fall. Skis handle steep traverses and side slipping better but watch out if that sweet untouched POW turns out to be breakable crust.
Back to Taos..... I disagree that the terrain (long traverses, long run-outs) has anything to do with the snowboard ban. Other mountains (A-basin) have similar layouts but welcome boarders. There are so many mountains that are better as a destination resort that you aren't really missing anything one way or the other. The only ones who really feel the pain are the local snowboarders. When the economics hit them hard enough they'll change their ways...until then who really cares?
Side story (brief version): I was in Sante Fe for work a few years back. I decided to hitch-hike to Taos. Took me half the day to get there. Rented skis, bought a pricey ticket. Had a great time skiing. Met a guy on the lift who said he'd give me a ride back if I bought him a beer in the lodge at the end of the day. He never showed up, it got dark, I couldn't get a ride. I ended up in the Taos post office lobby, when people came into to check their PO boxes I'd offer money to give me I ride. Finally got a ride at about 11PM. Ended up being one of the best/worst/most expensive ski days I've ever had.
The decision to continue the Taos ban is mostly family legacy. The terrain/traverse/long runouts are a deterrent to snowboarders patronizing an area as evidenced by Baldy (I'll bet it's true at A-Basin also). Thus the economic argument is not clear cut and the family legacy prevails.
To me the interesting thing about snowboarding is how it gave a swift kick to stagnating ski design in the 1990's. Upon observing that boards handled crust and heavy snow better, fat skis were developed. Similarly carving and shaped skis, terrain parks and twin tips. There seem to be technology fixes to close the gap in aspects where snowboards first showed an advantage. Not so the other way around, except the split boards for backcountry ascents.
Interesting about Alaska. My cat and heli trips (23 days so far) have been at least 80% skiers. And note the explicit warnings and requirements for snowboarders at Mt. Bailey Snowcat: http://www.mountbailey.com/pages/abilit ... ments.html
To me the interesting thing about snowboarding is how it gave a swift kick to stagnating ski design in the 1990's. Upon observing that boards handled crust and heavy snow better, fat skis were developed. Similarly carving and shaped skis, terrain parks and twin tips. There seem to be technology fixes to close the gap in aspects where snowboards first showed an advantage. Not so the other way around, except the split boards for backcountry ascents.
Interesting about Alaska. My cat and heli trips (23 days so far) have been at least 80% skiers. And note the explicit warnings and requirements for snowboarders at Mt. Bailey Snowcat: http://www.mountbailey.com/pages/abilit ... ments.html
Cannonball
New member
You're right, the snowboard inspired technology really has done wonders for skiing. I think it goes beyond the gear too. Skiers have learned new ways to see the mountain and terrain from watching snowboarders, and vice versa. And its been to everyone's benefit.
In addition to split-boards, hard boots and step-in bindings are a few of the snowboard technology improvements. But I tottally agree, the ski industry has done a great job of closing the gaps exposed by the introduction of snowboarding.
As the technology and social gaps close between the styles, the only thing mountains like Taos have to cling to is family legacy. That's why I get tired of the FREE TAOS discussions. They will come around on their own and it will happen soon. It won't be the result of ad campaigns, nasty letters, or on-line forums. It will be simple economics.
Until then we can all rip it somewhere else.
In addition to split-boards, hard boots and step-in bindings are a few of the snowboard technology improvements. But I tottally agree, the ski industry has done a great job of closing the gaps exposed by the introduction of snowboarding.
As the technology and social gaps close between the styles, the only thing mountains like Taos have to cling to is family legacy. That's why I get tired of the FREE TAOS discussions. They will come around on their own and it will happen soon. It won't be the result of ad campaigns, nasty letters, or on-line forums. It will be simple economics.
Until then we can all rip it somewhere else.
hardboots? they still make those things? i never did get to try those out. don't really care to anyways, but maybe when i grow old and fragile i might need that support. step-ins? no thanks!
snowboard steez is getting adopted by the jib nation of two plankers everywhere. bring your steez!
snowboard steez is getting adopted by the jib nation of two plankers everywhere. bring your steez!