Mountain High: Saving $ or Drought Survival Mode?

[egieszl]

Mountain High still markets the mountains differently and east is still primarily not a terrain park. They're only attempting to build features on one run - Goldrush. I wish they wouldn't build them on the upper third of the run, but the majority who patronize this area are young snowboarders so its hard to argue that they shouldn't. Sadly, it's a fact that Mountain High does not have the water to keep both east and west open in a poor snow year. If they use too much water on East then they run the risk of not having enough for west and ending the season early.

I skied Mountain High last year on a weekday at the end of January (Jan 26 to be exact) and East was open. On that day west was busy and east had a healthy crowd, BUT there was a difference between now and then. Last year, snow conditions at that time were outstanding.

Unless the weather changes for the better no resort operator is going to go home with a pocket full of money. Also, I find it hard to believe that Karl is getting rich yet if he's been slowly increasing his ownership. He's obviously had to "purchase" the resort and I'm sure it wasn't given to him. It's took me years to eventually turn a profit on my personal business.

 

[egieszl]

Mike, some of you really don't understand what I said in an earlier reply about the inconsistency and unpredictability of the ski season in Southern California. Sugarbush is a lousy example. The design of the resort is not the point. My point is there is no consistency in the ski season in Southern California thanks to mother nature and a climate that in general doesn't support ski areas. Sugarbush receives an average of 262 inches of snow a year, Mountain High 144 inches. I'd also bet that the snowfall at Sugarbush is much more consistent year after year, where at Mountain High it is not. Mountain High has an average winter daytime temperature in the low 50s and Sugarbush is in the high 20s to low 30s.

If the ski season in Southern California were more consistent on an annual basis then operations would be more consistent as well. As a business owner you sometimes have to be on the defense to protect yourself when the business volume is inconsistent and unpredictable.

 

[Tom Moriarty]

Karl doesn't own the resort, he owns the operating company that manages the daily operations. Mt. High, like many other ski resorts around the country is owned by CNL Lifestyles and leased out.

 

[snowave]

Karl doesn't own the resort, he owns the operating company that manages the daily operations. Mt. High, like many other ski resorts around the country is owned by CNL Lifestyles and leased out.

Not sure about that, but I do know he has the largest individual financial stake in the resort.

 

[Admin]

Karl doesn't own the resort, he owns the operating company that manages the daily operations. Mt. High, like many other ski resorts around the country is owned by CNL Lifestyles and leased out.

Not sure about that, but I do know he has the largest individual financial stake in the resort.

Tom is correct.

 

[snowave]

Ok, fair enough.... but... as I said, and can confirm ... Karl still has the largest individual financial stake in the resort, which is what I think the premise of the argument is about (his influence on operations and his pocketbook).

 

[Tony Crocker]

Mike, some of you really don't understand what I said in an earlier reply about the inconsistency and unpredictability of the ski season in Southern California. Sugarbush is a lousy example. Sugarbush receives an average of 262 inches of snow a year, Mountain High 144 inches. I'd also bet that the snowfall at Sugarbush is much more consistent year after year, where at Mountain High it is not. Mountain High has an average winter daytime temperature in the low 50s and Sugarbush is in the high 20s to low 30s.

Not as bad an example as one might think. The SoCal mountain resorts do not get deluged with rain followed by hard freezes 10+ times a season either. The low humidity means nighttime snowmaking is quite consistently available even if it's warm during the day. Hunter and Snow Summit are quite close analogies in terms of low natural snowfall, huge snowmaking capacity. In terms of surface conditions and length of season in full operation I suspect Snow Summit is actually somewhat better than Hunter on average.

Mt. High does not have the water that Big Bear and Hunter do, but Mt. High gets more natural snow. My impression is that Mt. High was quite intelligently managed 5-10 years ago given their weather/water supply constraints, and evidently less so now.

The Sugarbush analogy was with respect to having 2 mountains, both larger than their Mt. High counterparts, and fewer skier visits. No question Sugarbush's natural snow often elevates it beyond the other areas in this discussion.

 

[Mike Bernstein]

Mike, some of you really don't understand what I said in an earlier reply about the inconsistency and unpredictability of the ski season in Southern California. Sugarbush is a lousy example. The design of the resort is not the point. My point is there is no consistency in the ski season in Southern California thanks to mother nature and a climate that in general doesn't support ski areas. Sugarbush receives an average of 262 inches of snow a year, Mountain High 144 inches. I'd also bet that the snowfall at Sugarbush is much more consistent year after year, where at Mountain High it is not. Mountain High has an average winter daytime temperature in the low 50s and Sugarbush is in the high 20s to low 30s.

If the ski season in Southern California were more consistent on an annual basis then operations would be more consistent as well. As a business owner you sometimes have to be on the defense to protect yourself when the business volume is inconsistent and unpredictable.

I find these points unconvincing for two reasons.

1) The design of the resort DOES matter. The only reason we're discussing this is that Mt High consists of two formerly separate ski areas, close to each other but not physically linked with trails. These two resorts also have a closely aligned pattern where one of the two sides is considered the main base, consequently getting far more skier visits. In both situations, the inability of the lesser visited resort to operate profitably on its own lead to its being absorbed by its larger neighbor.

2) You need to spend a bit more time skiing in, or at least understanding the typical ski season in, the Northeast before you make sweeping pronouncements based upon annual snowfall figures. The Northeast and SoCal are actually quite analagous to each other in terms of variability and unpredictability. Just like SoCal, your avg season in Northern VT sees a good handful of rain events throughout the course of the season. Getting 262" is irrelevant if the last 2" of precip before you arrived was liquid. Several times per season, New England ski areas have to spend considerable sums resurfacing trails and building back base depths in order to recover what they lost in the rain and then cover up the bulletproof crust that formed in the subsequent hard freeze. This is especially challenging in the Northeast where you may have cold temps, but significantly higher RH than out here. In terms of total hours of optimal snowmaking windows as defined by Wet Bulb temps, I don't think you are looking at much of a difference at all. Consequently, places like SB have to make difficult decisions every year about how, where and when to draw down their snowmaking budget (both in terms of available water and $).

Somehow, they find a way to keep Mt Ellen open despite the significantly lower skier density at SB vs. MH.

 

[Tony Crocker]

In terms of having a good overall good climate for skiing, I do think Vermont Killington and north at 250+ inches natural snow is better overall than the SoCal mountains. This is reflected in the grades on my http://bestsnow.net/vrmthist.htm page. However I believe SoCal's climate is much better for a ski resort than southern New England, MASH, NH south of Franconia Notch, the Laurentians. IMHO SoCal is close in overall reliability to southern Vermont, lift-served upper NH and Maine, Quebec City, maybe Gore/Whiteface.

Mike's point about relative humidity is quite important. Snow preservation is better in the SoCal mountains than even Vermont IMHO.

 

[rfarren]

IMHO SoCal is close in overall reliability to southern Vermont, lift-served upper NH and Maine, Quebec City, maybe Gore/Whiteface.

Based on the reports I read here that isn't true at all. Gore/Whiteface don't have the opening issues. All of those areas listed hardly have any trouble staying open to at least the first week of April. All of those places average 150+ (if not more in some cases) inches of snow a year. It is extremely rare that any of those places get less than 100 inches of snow, which happens frequently in SoCal. Those places may get more rain, but they also get more snow. They also make more snow, and don't have to worry about blowing by their water allotment. IMHO, based on the reports I've seen the SoCal resorts are equivalent to the Catskills and quite a bit worse than SoVt. Also, remember the sun doesn't do nearly the damage that it does in SoCal. Once SoCal reaches mid feb it's season is assaulted by the sun. IMHO, unless it's a spectacular season SoCal doesn't touch places like Whiteface/Gore, Quebec, Upper NH and Maine.

 

[SoCal Rider]

For what it's worth, I rode at Mt Baldy on May 8 last season - wasn't a season for the ages (although I don't know the claimed season snowfall). I think you are selling "us" a little short. The resorts routinely make it into April, if not at 100 percent open.

 

[rfarren]

For what it's worth, I rode at Mt Baldy on May 8 last season - wasn't a season for the ages (although I don't know the claimed season snowfall). I think you are selling "us" a little short. The resorts routinely make it into April, if not at 100 percent open.

You almost never hear in January or February that half of a mountain is closed in SoVt. It seems like every other year half of Baldy is closed from February to the close of season. How is that even remotely considered equivalent of a Mountain like Stratton? Granted we can get rain and it may close parts of the mountain for 1 week, there is almost always a storm within a week, and if not, the snow guns take care of that problem. Even a mountain like Magic Mountain, which doesn't make snow, doesn't have an issue of half of the mountain closing like that. Furthermore, the odds of you getting powder is higher in SoVt compared to SoCal.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Baldy is like Mad River Glen with minimal snowmaking. You do see MRG trail counts collapse after rain/freeze events.

You almost never hear in January or February that half of a mountain is closed in SoVt

.
You almost never hear in January or February that the Big Bear areas are less than 80% open. And they are usually still 80=% going into April. The only areas in SoCal that have snowmaking water capacity comparable to the leading Eastern resorts have a more consistent track record of staying in full operation once they get that way, which on average is by New Year's in recent seasons. Care to review the track record of percents open at eastern ski areas during the holidays the last decade? Here's Snow Summit's percent open average for the past 11 seasons, same seasons as my Vermont chart:
Dec. 15 42%
Jan. 1 77%
Jan. 15 87%
Feb. 1 92%
Feb. 15 94%
Mar. 1 97%
Mar.15 95%
Apr. 1 84%
Apr. 15 53%

Okemo, past 7 seasons, as long as I've been keeping this detail for the East.
Dec. 15 55%
Jan. 1 73%
Jan. 15 84%
Feb. 1 90%
Feb. 15 94%
Mar. 1 99%
Mar.15 91%
Apr. 1 80%
Okemo and Snow Summit are very similar in topography and snowmaking power. Those percents open are essentially identical, Okemo is falling slightly behind by mid-March and is usually closed by mid-April.

Sugarloaf, past 7 seasons:
Dec. 15 42%
Jan. 1 51%
Jan. 15 62%
Feb. 1 73%
Feb. 15 83%
Mar. 1 93%
Mar.15 87%
Apr. 1 81%
Apr. 15 77%
Sugarloaf is noticeably less reliable than Big Bear before March 1 and only better at the very end of the season. I have only a few years for Whiteface, but I'll bet the numbers are similar to Sugarloaf's.

In fairness, here's 35 years for Mt. Baldy:
Dec. 15 8%
Jan. 1 26%
Jan. 15 35%
Feb. 1 46%
Feb. 15 56%
Mar. 1 59%
Mar.15 57%
Apr. 1 42%
Apr. 15 24%
We all know this is a blend of seasons when they are close to full operation for 2-3 months and other where they barely get open. I have no data for a comparable natural snow dependent area in the East.

the odds of you getting powder is higher in SoVt compared to SoCal.

That's a close call.
Stratton 191, Mt. Snow 173, Okemo 173
Baldy/Waterman are about 175
While we're at it, Sugarloaf 176, Whiteface 178

It is extremely rare that any of those places get less than 100 inches of snow, which happens frequently in SoCal.

It is equally rare that any of those places exceed 250 inches, the up and down extremes being both about 25% of SoCal seasons. That volatility is a plus from a powder perspective, so we can probably conclude that Baldy has more deep powder days (especially the 12+ variety) than Eastern areas with a similar 175 average.

Gore/Whiteface don't have the opening issues.

No, but they routinely drag along deep into the season at 50-60% open (see Sugarloaf above) when Big Bear is consistently 90+%.

Also, remember the sun doesn't do nearly the damage that it does in SoCal.

Sun is only part of the equation in snow preservation. The other issues, rain and relative humidity, are decisively in SoCal's favor. Thus

For what it's worth, I rode at Mt Baldy on May 8 last season

which was a good but not great ~70th percentile season. When the East has an epic season like 2001 or an off-the-charts April like 2007, the natural snow is still gone from lift served terrain a week or two into May. With the same amount of season snowfall there is little doubt in my mind that it lasts longer into spring in SoCal.

The sun issue in SoCal has resulted in a very high percentage of north facing terrain. Some of these eastern areas, Stratton, Mt. Ste. Anne, Le Massif have a lot of south facing terrain which swiftly burns off in April.

 

[rfarren]

BIg Bear doesn't have half the trails of one side of Mount Snow. It averages a whopping 100 Inches inches a year. Granted it doesn't get rain, but it doesn't get enough snow to ski anything that isn't a trail. As far as trails, there just aren't that many out there. Stratton on the other hand gets plenty of snow to make the trees skiable. Quebec and Maine get enough snow to make the trees skiable.

the odds of you getting powder is higher in SoVt compared to SoCal.

That's a close call.
Stratton 191, Mt. Snow 173, Okemo 173
Baldy/Waterman are about 175
While we're at it, Sugarloaf 176, Whiteface 178

Big Bear averages 100 inches... Baldy may get more, but there are seasons where Baldy doesn't even open...If we counted up the number of storms that drop snow per year I'm almost positive that the resorts listed above average many more than those in SoCal. The reason they don't get as much snow as the NoVt mountains is not because the NoVt gets more storms, but because NoVt gets more snow per storm due to topographical advantages. There are a few storms that result rain down south compared to the north, but I don't think that happens as often as one would think.

It is extremely rare that any of those places get less than 100 inches of snow, which happens frequently in SoCal.

It is equally rare that any of those places exceed 250 inches, the up and down extremes being both about 25% of SoCal seasons. That volatility is a plus from a powder perspective, so we can probably conclude that Baldy has more deep powder days (especially the 12+ variety) than Eastern areas with a similar 175 average.

If you're using 12+, you may be right, but it has to be a good season for that to match up. This year has been a good year for Whiteface. So far it has already gotten 155 inches. Remember that it hardly snowed at all in December, so if you want to match up the best years against best years it may be a wash. But we're talking averages. Personally I would rather have 25 storms at 6 inches than 5 storms with 20 inches. Secondly, Baldy has a horrible track record of keeping the whole mountain open, often the best terrain is closed.

With the same amount of season snowfall there is little doubt in my mind that it lasts longer into spring in SoCal.

Ok, I think that's fair. So the next time is snows only 100 inches in SoVt I think we should have a reasonable comparison. The only problem with that is: it doesn't do that...if ever. So perhaps a better comparison is Mountain Creek in NJ. And then I would say most definitely SoCal is better.

You almost never hear in January or February that the Big Bear areas are less than 80% open. And they are usually still 80=% going into April. The only areas in SoCal that have snowmaking water capacity comparable to the leading Eastern resorts have a more consistent track record of staying in full operation once they get that way, which on average is by New Year's in recent seasons. Care to review the track record of percents open at eastern ski areas during the holidays the last decade? Here's Snow Summit's percent open average for the past 11 seasons, same seasons as my Vermont chart:
Dec. 15 42%
Jan. 1 77%
Jan. 15 87%
Feb. 1 92%
Feb. 15 94%
Mar. 1 97%
Mar.15 95%
Apr. 1 84%
Apr. 15 53%

Okemo, past 7 seasons, as long as I've been keeping this detail for the East.
Dec. 15 55%
Jan. 1 73%
Jan. 15 84%
Feb. 1 90%
Feb. 15 94%
Mar. 1 99%
Mar.15 91%
Apr. 1 80%
Okemo and Snow Summit are very similar in topography and snowmaking power. Those percents open are essentially identical, Okemo is falling slightly behind by mid-March and is usually closed by mid-April.

Sugarloaf, past 7 seasons:
Dec. 15 42%
Jan. 1 51%
Jan. 15 62%
Feb. 1 73%
Feb. 15 83%
Mar. 1 93%
Mar.15 87%
Apr. 1 81%
Apr. 15 77%
Sugarloaf is noticeably less reliable than Big Bear before March 1 and only better at the very end of the season. I have only a few years for Whiteface, but I'll bet the numbers are similar to Sugarloaf's.

In fairness, here's 35 years for Mt. Baldy:
Dec. 15 8%
Jan. 1 26%
Jan. 15 35%
Feb. 1 46%
Feb. 15 56%
Mar. 1 59%
Mar.15 57%
Apr. 1 42%
Apr. 15 24%
We all know this is a blend of seasons when they are close to full operation for 2-3 months and other where they barely get open. I have no data for a comparable natural snow dependent area in the East.

Based on percentage of terrain open they may be similiar. Okemo boast 600 acres of terrain with a vertical drop of 1200 feet. Snow Summit has 200 acres at 1200 ft of vert. I don't think they are truly comparable on a terrain level, let alone a snow level. Snow Summit doesn't get enough natural snow to make the trees skiable except on banner years. Granted Okemo doesn't have great tree skiing, but it's there and it's doable. If snow Summit is 100% open it offers 200 acres of skiing. If Okemo is 33.3% open it offers 200 acres of skiing. Personally, I would take Okemo with its many days of 6 inch storms over Snow Summit or Baldy, with its few and far between storms, and its less than comparable terrain. I would much rather take Whiteface or Gore over those mountains in SoCal anyday...Even when we compare the best years with the best years.

BTW, your baldy numbers speaks volumes.

 

[ShiftyRider]

If somebody'd rather ski Vermont than Baldy, either they've never been to Baldy or they need lessons LOL.

 

[rfarren]

If somebody'd rather ski Vermont than Baldy, either they've never been to Baldy or they need lessons LOL.

:shock: :lol:
I've never been to Baldy but based on the reports I've seen here, well... um... I would take Stowe, MRG, Killington, Bolton, Jay or Sugarbush over Baldy every year. IMHO most serious skiers would take those areas over baldy too. Let's not be too much of a homer here.

Personally, I would be peeved beyond belief if every other year the best terrain was closed due to poor exposure and lack of snow. I'm not saying the terrain isn't good, from what I've seen it's fine, but the inconsistency of the snow there doesn't make it worth it. Clearly the other areas that are man-made dependent don't have that issue, but don't get enough snow or have enough terrain to be talked about in the same discussion as the SoVt, Daks, Maine, and Quebec areas.

 

[socal]

Tony probably has numbers that tell you exactly how often the good stuff is open but the % open probably is somewhat misleading. A lot of terrain that is not open regularly is chair 1 (low elevation but good steeps) and chair 4 (south facing intermediate terrain). In my 4 years living out here Chair 3 (best terrain and highest elevation) is open quite a bit and is really great skiing. Just thinking off the top of my head it kind of reminds me of the area off Wildcat at Alta but with a few groomers mixed in. All that said, I'd tend to agree I'd rather have the VT areas you listed than Baldy for the whole season. Although if I lived in the NYC (or south) I'd rather be an hour from Baldy than 6hrs from VT.

 

[ShiftyRider]

 

[rfarren]

Tony probably has numbers that tell you exactly how often the good stuff is open but the % open probably is somewhat misleading. A lot of terrain that is not open regularly is chair 1 (low elevation but good steeps) and chair 4 (south facing intermediate terrain). In my 4 years living out here Chair 3 (best terrain and highest elevation) is open quite a bit and is really great skiing. Just thinking off the top of my head it kind of reminds me of the area off Wildcat at Alta but with a few groomers mixed in. All that said, I'd tend to agree I'd rather have the VT areas you listed than Baldy for the whole season. Although if I lived in the NYC (or south) I'd rather be an hour from Baldy than 6hrs from VT.

It's about 4 hours to killington but only 3 hours and 15 minutes to Gore. Personally, I think Gore is one of the most underated mountain in the EC. It has some of the best tree skiing in the east, great terrain, and gets plenty of snow. Being an hour away from Baldy I'm sure is nice... that is until there is a season where it barely opens. Anyhow, my point was that crocker wants to cherry pick his stats. He says that the quality of skiing in SoCal is equivalent to Maine, SoVt, Daks, and Quebec, when in fact it's not. The only mountain with comprable terrain is Baldy, and it has issues with snow and exposure. So then Tony says that the snow is very reliable at the Big Bear resorts, which is true, except that it's mostly man-made with very little natural snow, certainly not enough to allow tree skiing. The terrain at those areas don't compare well to the areas in Maine, SoVt, Daks and Quebec. It is therefore my argument that the SoCal areas don't compare favourably with the regions that Tony cited.

Just think of it this way:
Those regions support:
a. For the most part superior terrain
b. More natural snow
c. Extensive snowmaking capabilities.
d. Decent tree skiing
E. Consistent storms, less season to season variability

SoCal:
a. Decent preservation and snow making on mountains where the terrain is suspect
b. Decent terrain on one mountain where snow is suspect or to say the least inconsistent
c. Less rain than those regions listed above with the exception of quebec and possibly maine.
d. Huge variability from season to season

 

[Tony Crocker]

Terrain quality:
Mt. Baldy blows Gore away, also Whiteface unless the Slides are open. Here's some concrete evidence if you don't believe the hometown source:

There is no eastern area, even the elite of Northern Vermont, that compares in steepness to Baldy.

But I wasn't comparing Baldy to those. The eastern sectors I was comparing, SoVt, NH, Maine, upstate NY, Quebec City, have only 2 areas, Cannon and Sugarloaf, that even belong in a conversation with Baldy in terrain quality. And how far are those from NYC or Boston metro vs. Baldy's easy daytrip distance from L.A.? I've been listening to you guys for years tell me how much more important daytrip areas are vs. those where you need to stay overnight.

Baldy has a horrible track record of keeping the whole mountain open, often the best terrain is closed.

Chair 1's terrain is great, but it's not any better than Thunder's. Having chair 1/Eric's open increases the mostly advanced expert terrain at Baldy from 400 acres up to 800. The Slides are Whiteface's best terrain, and they are open once in a blue moon.

Based on percentage of terrain open they may be similar. Okemo boast 600 acres of terrain with a vertical drop of 1200 feet. Snow Summit has 200 acres at 1200 ft of vert.

I should have clarified. I have a lot of data for Snow Summit. They bought next door neighbor Bear Mt. in 2002 and upgraded the snowmaking to similar quality. Both are skiable on the same ticket but you must take a shuttle between them. Trail acreage I've seen is 240 for Summit and 200 for Bear. Bear also has ~400 acres of off-piste that as one might imagine, are seldom open (but more often than the Slides I'm sure). Everything I've ever read about Okemo is "Slowkemo," or how flat it is, or how black runs there would be blue at most places.

I am not buying that Okemo is a viable powder/tree skiing destination. I've never even read a report of a powder day there. I have no doubt that Summit/Bear combined are at least comparable to Okemo in terrain, and probably in the ballpark with Stratton, err.. Flatton (not my nickname there either), and Mt. Snow. I think Southern Vermont is in fact the closest analogy to Big Bear on all fronts. Upstate NY and NH/Maine are better for terrain but worse for conditions.

Those regions support:
a. For the most part superior terrain

Baldy's terrain is better for experts than any area in those 4 regions. Mt. High and Big Bear would be average to below average.

b. More natural snow

I deliberately picked ~175 averages in the East to make that comparison.

c. Extensive snowmaking capabilities.

Agree, as noted below. One area in SoCal vs. many in the East.

d. Decent tree skiing

SoCal tree skiing is far, far superior to those in the 4 regions under discussion. And worse than Northern Vermont due only to snow not topography.

E. Consistent storms, less season to season variability

The SoCal snow volatility is a positive for powder and the occasional extended spring, otherwise negative. The East's temperature volatility (read rain) can be more damaging than SoCal's precipitation volatility.

One point I will concede before someone brings it up, is that SoCal has basically 3 ski areas that are relevant to discussion. I view Waterman as 99% overshadowed by Baldy and similarly Snow Valley vs. Big Bear. Each of the 4 regions in the East I've mentioned has multiple areas, and the 4 regions themselves are quite far apart. Thus there are situations where one of the 4 regions might be good when the others are not, and having the multiple areas give skiers good options for crowd avoidance on peak days that we do not have in SoCal. Riverc0il best articulated this argument in one of the East/West threads, and I think it has much validity.

The point I am making here is that the natural attributes of the SoCal mountains are at least as good as those in the 4 eastern regions mentioned. Another point rfarren touched upon in the East's favor is that only one SoCal area has the snowmaking water resources that numerous eastern areas do. That area can put out a more consistent ski product due to altitude/climate advantages, but again it's one area vs. many in the East.