Mt Waterman Foundation.

[jon1233]

If you don't want Waterman to be torn down, I have a unique proposal.
I am working with some friends to create the Waterman Foundation, which is a group dedicated to saving Mt Waterman. With enough donations, Waterman Foundation will buy Mt Waterman and will run Mt Waterman.

As far as making decisions regarding how Waterman will be ran, it would be a voting system between the members of the Waterman foundation. Who thinks starting Waterman Foundation would be a good idea?

 

[JimG.]

Sounds a little like the co-op at Mad River Glen.

It works there, why not at Waterman?

 

[Killclimbz]

Where is Waterman? I don't seem to be in the know on this one...

 

[Tony Crocker]

Background info discussed on FTO here: http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards ... c.php?t=77
and here:
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/boards ... php?t=1590

I live in the area of most convenient access and skied Mt. Waterman 13 days and 185K vertical between 1977 and 1995. My personal level of interest is not zero, but it's fairly small and would depend upon the details.

As detailed in the other threads, changing SoCal demographics, the dominance of snowboarding and terrain parks in the SoCal market, and competition from Baldy and Mammoth all work against Mt. Waterman's appeal and viability.

So the analogy with MRG is imperfect. The SoCal market is very different from the Northeast.

 

[JimG.]

So the analogy with MRG is imperfect. The SoCal market is very different from the Northeast.

It is, but it's the best I could find as a comparison.

MRG has no snowboarding or terrain parks either and does work well as a skiers only mountain, a niche nowadays to be sure. So I thought that might be a valid comparison.

I admit I don't know anything about the SoCal market though. Does it really differ that much from the East?

 

[Tony Crocker]

The younger generation here is at least 75% snowboarders, derived from the popularity of surfing and skateboarding, and the volume at Big Bear and Mt. High reflects that. Mammoth's visits are 40% snowboarders according to the marketing director. Mt. Baldy is only about 1/3 snowboarders due to the same snow/terrain issues as Mt. Waterman. Baldy's business is also reduced relative to 25 years ago, but it has about 4x as much terrain as Waterman and is a closer drive to at least 3/4 of the SoCal market.

So as I see it the market for an MRG-type area is drastically reduced vs. 25 years ago. SoCal natural snowfall is so erratic that these areas have even a good 2-month season only about 30% of the time. Given the infrequency of good conditions I personally have chosen to patronize Baldy at all such opportunities in the 1998 (7 days) and 2001 (4 days) seasons (also 2005 but Waterman was already closed to the public then). And if Baldy could only muster ~50,000 skier visits in 2004-05 what is Waterman's potential?

Many advanced SoCal skiers disdain the local areas completely and do all their weekend skiing at Mammoth. As I explained in the "where to live" thread Mammoth is in a completely different league from the SoCal locals, not at all comparable to the gradual improvement you get in New England by going farther north.

 

[snowave]

sounds nice, but unless someone comes up with a big chunk of change and a solid organization very soon.. its too little too late.

I would be willing to help the best I could as I live and work for the USFS in the local mtns down here minutes from Waterman itself, but i don't have any money to donate and am limited to my influence.

I have contacted 2 party's that have $$$ and tried to get them interested, but I haven't had much of a response.

I also heard the other nite that Lynn Newcomb is probably NOT going to put his bid in to buy after all.. He did haev interest, but his age and other factors apparently made him reconsider..

Let me know if you have any questions as I coudl put you in contact with the appropriate person.

 

[JimG.]

So as I see it the market for an MRG-type area is drastically reduced vs. 25 years ago. SoCal natural snowfall is so erratic that these areas have even a good 2-month season only about 30% of the time. Given the infrequency of good conditions I personally have chosen to patronize Baldy at all such opportunities in the 1998 (7 days) and 2001 (4 days) seasons (also 2005 but Waterman was already closed to the public then). And if Baldy could only muster ~50,000 skier visits in 2004-05 what is Waterman's potential?

I see your point about demographics, but this fact more than anything is the crux of the problem. I forgot to factor the more difficult weather situation in that area into my idea.

Also, I just drove 5 1/2 hours each way this past weekend to ski at Cannon where conditions are marginal at best. I would certainly drive 5 hours each way to ski at Mammoth.

Your points are well taken.

 

[Tony Crocker]

From reading the Cannon reports over the years, I consider it a fairly decent analogy in average conditions to Baldy/Waterman. Rarely are all trails open, and surfaces are inconsistent. Average snowfall is in a similar 175 inch range.

SoCal is more volatile. In the good years like 1998, 2001, 2005 base depths at Baldy/Waterman reach 10 feet and skiing is consistently good over the entire mountain (including expansive tree skiing that makes the areas comparable to Jay or Stowe vs. Cannon) for 2+ months. But of course the bad years are nearly complete wipeouts, with only beginner if any runs open.

So the MRG model is the right one, in order to have no debt and minimal expenses to sit out the dry years. But compare a Waterman coop membership to a $450 Mammoth Value Pass and I think you can see the problem.

 

[Patrick]

So the MRG model is the right one, in order to have no debt and minimal expenses to sit out the dry years. But compare a Waterman coop membership to a $450 Mammoth Value Pass and I think you can see the problem.

If you take the MRG Coop example, I don't think that price comparaison was even an issue. Shareholders don't get to ski free and the price of a share was definately more than a price of a season pass anywhere.

The main motivation, I believe, was the preservation a type of skiing and experience that was in danger in the East.

I don't know anything about Waterman, but I would think that the most important thing for it's success is that the skiing experience is difference and worth it compare to it's competition. This said, I don't know anything about the SoCal areas, so I couldn't say if it's makes sense or not.

But mind you, some people said that a Coop at MRG wouldn't work...and the business model (ie. single, etc) and turning it's back to common industry knowledge wouldn't work. Well MRG has been running in the black since the Coop started 10 years ago.

Good luck.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Big Bear and Mt. High are SoCal's high volume, snowmaking-dependent "corporate" skiing, probably a good analogy to several of your eastern areas.

Mt. Baldy is already an excellent analogy to MRG. Baldy when it's good has more usable terrain IMHO, but MRG will give you at least a few decent days every season while bad seasons at Baldy are a total loss.

So how much demand is there for another area of that type in the region with maybe 1/3 the terrain? Keep in mind also Mt. Waterman's terrain split, I'd say 30% beginner, 10% intermediate, 60% advanced/expert. Is there a small area like that in the East? Maybe Frank's Alta QC?

And it's undeniable that a significant fraction of the advanced skier community here doesn't bother with any of these areas because of Mammoth. Since Patrick has seen Mammoth, I'm sure he can understand this sentiment even though he doesn't agree with it.

 

[Tom Moriarty]

I managed MW for Lynn for many years and talked to him today. He is working with a group interested in taking over Waterman/Kratka again but it sounds like the Forest Service would rather have it go away. Lynn said the FS would only give a 1 year permit at this time while they evaluate what will happen to the area. Obviously it would be hard to put up money to buy area and make necessary repairs at the risk of losing it in a year.

Those of us that are non Forest Service, but involved in the Angeles area have felt for years that the goal of the current ANF administration is to close down the forest and remove all public facilities. Supporting that claim is the closure of the road between Chilao and Little Rock, and now the Cooper Canyon area for frog protection. The closure of Hwy 2 to Wrightwood for over a year now for road work that should have been completed quite some time ago. Slowly bits of the Angeles are being closed to the Public and Waterman and Kratka will be the next pieces in the puzzle unless the public stands up and fights this trend. We need to write letters to our congressman, senators, and especially the Bush Administration that is not so enviromentally minded. We as skiers and boarders need to make our voice heard and get the word out that we need to save these fantastic little ski areas.

As more and more people move to SoCal and Bear, Summit, and Mt. High become even more crowded there is a niche for Baldy and Waterman.

 

[Tony Crocker]

Interesting points in the above post. If the Angeles National Forest bureaucrats have this type of agenda, perhaps our local congressman David Dreier would be interested in knowing about it. He's a House committee chairman, represents the Angeles Crest and San Gabriel foothill communities, and I suspect he would be inclined to support local ski areas over the agenda described above.

 

[snowave]

I can't comment on the information regarding a one year permit as I don't know specifics of this information, but I have heard some rumors.

I'm not defending the USFS on this issue, but I can tell you one thing.. I have knowledge of Waterman having MANY years of significant violations of their use permit. That could very well be one of the reasons why a long term permit may not be in the interest of the USFS at this time since they have reservations about the intentions and realistic operation chances of a new owner. The place just doesn't have a proven track record to successfully operated , due in large part to the climate of southern California. I really don't know for sure and don't speak for them(USFS). That being said, I really hope something is worked out as I would hate to see the area closed for good...(as I have said before.)


But I can add some information on a few of the other things that you brought up.


1. The endangered species frog habitat area is protected by federal law. The USFS is required by federal law abide by specific guidlines to help protect this area for a determined period of time, or until an evaluation is done to determine the significance of the impact on the species.. thats whats happening to Cooper Canyon this Spring.

I don't know specifically who or how the determination of this species in these areas existed, and this you have every right to question.

2. Regarding the closure of HWY 2...

STATE Highway 2 is a state highway. It is not owned or controlled by the Forest Service. The road suffered substantial infrastructural damage last year, the second wettest year on record for southern CA. If you want picture and docmentations, I can point you in the right direction.

Since this is a state highway, construction costs are footed by the state (unless disaster or other emergency funds are appropriated by the federal/state governement, which in this case, I don't think they were/are for hwy 2 ).

The state works on a fiscal budget.. the fiscal year starts/ends on October 1st. The road damage occured over the winter and spring of 2005. Hence, the money for repair was not to be allocated until October 1st for repairs..(which was around an estimated 6 million last I heard.
After this time, some reconstruction work began on Hwy 2, but halted after cold temperatures at elevations above 7,000 ft (where most of the damages ocurred). Road "infrastructure" reconstruction and resurfacing can apparently not take place to the extent that is needed with consistently cold temperatures (this is what I was told by Cal-trans as I really have no clue otherwise)... so in other words, they can't do much until it warms up and dries out for the season. The last estimate by Cal-trans (if everything goes as planned) is that the road may re-open in September of this year.

I'll leave the other stuff alone as it is getting more political than I think I want to get on a ski forum.

Bottom line regarding the ski area.. I wish you luck with any efforts to save the area, and I would try to do anything I could to help out. I have met and talked to Lynn myself several times and can imagine he would not like to see the area fade into only a memory.

 

[Tom Moriarty]

I would have to respectfully disagree with Snowave, Mt. Waterman has 50 plus years of a track record under Lynn Newcomb and if he is interested in or is involved with a group wanting to restore Mt. Waterman and Kratka he deserves more of a commitment from the Forest Service than 1 year to make it happen.

I agree, Angeles Crest Resorts under Barry Stubblefield was a headache to the Forest Service as he did what he wanted up there and that unfortunatly led to his death. I will say that Chuck Ojala has tried his hardest to keep Waterman headed in the right direction, but kept running into barriers from the Stubblefields.

So with that said, the Forest Service should not pull the plug on these areas because of 5 years or so of a bad management, but work with a possible new group of permitees if it be Lynn or someone else with experience in the ski industry.

 

[Tom Moriarty]

Additionally, as to the idea of a Foundation several years ago Mt. Asland in Oregon faced a similar situation where lifts were about to be pulled and a Foundation was formed by the community as a non profit. I not exactly sure how it worked, but it was something like they raised so much money and the City of Ashland matched it or something like that. I don't remember all the details but it is on their website if anyone wants to check it out. Here is the link!

http://mtashland.com/Page.asp?ID=51

 

[snowave]

I would have to respectfully disagree with Snowave, Mt. Waterman has 50 plus years of a track record under Lynn Newcomb and if he is interested in or is involved with a group wanting to restore Mt. Waterman and Kratka he deserves more of a commitment from the Forest Service than 1 year to make it happen.

I agree, Angeles Crest Resorts under Barry Stubblefield was a headache to the Forest Service as he did what he wanted up there and that unfortunatly led to his death. I will say that Chuck Ojala has tried his hardest to keep Waterman headed in the right direction, but kept running into barriers from the Stubblefields.

So with that said, the Forest Service should not pull the plug on these areas because of 5 years or so of a bad management, but work with a possible new group of permitees if it be Lynn or someone else with experience in the ski industry.

I guess I should have reitered more clearly my time frame.. I was not referring to 50 years of track record, but it was indeed the last 5 or so is what I saw and heard of documented violations. Sorry. I will see if I can find out some solid information regarding only issuing a possible one year permit offer.

Also, I did talk to some people today regarding the cooper canyon area.. Apparently, the US Dept of Fish and Wildlife (not CA fish and game) are the ones responsible for escalating the yellow legged frog issue. They have apparently been riding the USFS for a few years regarding protecting more of the little rock creek watershed (which cooper canyon is a part of). It got to the point that the USFS could have faced fines and legal action if it did not comply with the proposed regulations..so there you have it with that issue.

 

[swanny]

Hi all,
I'm new to the board and have followed the "soap opera" of Waterman/Kratka for years. I have been a loyal Waterman die hard sense moving to Socal from Tahoe in 85'. Six years ago Lynn offered the place to me and a friend and we declined the offer. With no ski area management experience we felt that others would do better(boy were we wrong!). When another group (Stubblefields, Chuck Ojala and Jim Newcomb) baught both Kratka and Waterman to form Angeles Crest Resort. I thought they had no idea what they were doing. They got their chance and they blew it!

Hear are some of their blunders. Every pow day is anticipated by die hards. If you get up the mountain early you could get first tracks down the face. Not with the new management. Now you have to be a member of their "click". The click would operate the lifts under the premise of performing work on the mountain and then just ride the mountain(this is the senario that was taking place the day Barry Subblefield died). So the next day when the paying customers would show up for freshies, they would arive to find the face allready cut up. They SAY that the Kratka lodge fire was an accident. But I have herd that it was an insurance job. Following the fire Berry Stubblefield performed an extensive remodel of his Home. Supposedly with the one millon dollar insurance money. It has been said that he got what he deserved for not reinvesting that insurance money into the mountain.

Without Lynns leadership on the mountain the forest service, mountain and the road crews operations went into a tail spin. On mountain supplies were inconsistent and the services were sub par even for Waterman standards. Long established parking areas were suddenly tow away zones? The road crews who allways kept HWY 2 open were now unable to? Backcountry access was even made illegal one day and then the next week legal again. The very same ranger that threated me with arrest for hiking towards out of bound one week, we came accross the next week(after it was legal again) in the out of bound avalanche chutes WITHOUT a buddy, shovel, probe or transiver!

What happend is the worst sinario for Waterman. The forest service is pissed. The road crews are pissed. The paying die hards are pissed. The situation to me seems like the blind leading the blind. WE NEED LYNN NEWCOMB BACK!!! If Lynn is willing to lead this I'm all in. If not, good luck to anyone else.

I would like to suggest to anyone that is interested in this co-op idea to get a hold of Buckhorn ski club. They have a nice lodge and rope tow they operate between Kratka and Waterman. If your group included the people from Buckhorn it might add a little more clout.

Another suggestion for a commercial operation at Waterman is to add mountain biking. Last year Big Bear axed downhill mountain biking and racing from their mountain. If the forest service permitted new trails(Baldy just got permits) and a mountain bike "park". This could be a niche that would be more year round and solve the "no snow, no money" dilemma.

I think the future of skiing/riding in Angeles Crest is reverting back to "earn your turns"

Swanny

 

[Tom Moriarty]

I have contacted a lawyer that was an avid Mt. waterman skier about forming a 501C non-profit organization to start the Mt. Waterman Foundation similar to what they did at Mt. Ashland.

I will keep this board updated as to progress!

Tom Moriarty
TomMoriarty@HomeSmart-Inland.com