ChrisC":1w0nlogz said:
Overall, I do not believe our East Coast posters judge conditions to the some standards as West Coast threads so I do not participate in them.
I'm not sure I understand the point of the comment, and I can't speak for the East Coast posters, but I have taken great care to maintain the same standards for snow quality/ski conditions during my periods of living in Northern Vermont or the Northern Rockies, or wherever my ski travels take me. It doesn't matter if I'm posting in the East Coast Forum or the West Coast Forum, my standards for conditions remain the same. Lost Trail Powder Mountain, our local ski area in Montana, is well known for having some of the best snow surfaces in the state - in a Rocky Mountain region renowned for having very low skier density. Unless there was absolutely fresh snow at our destination, leaving Lost Trail for other more poplar destinations in the Western U.S and Canada (Utah, Wyoming, Colorado, B.C.) almost always meant a step down in the typical on piste conditions. Are the typical on-piste conditions here in Northern Vermont as reliably soft as what we found in Montana, absolutely not (especially on steep, groomed terrain), but that doesn't mean my standards are different when I'm skiing in this area. I would argue that my standards for snow quality are extremely high, as in, if skiing a groomed run means that one's skis make any noise other than the dull hiss of cutting through bottomless packed powder, it is not going to get a premium rating. If a groomed run requires any semblance of sharp ski edges or has more than a couple of token windswept spots where one can even hear their skis hitting a firm surface, it should not get a rating of excellent. Do such surfaces exist around here? Absolutely, although I only experience these conditions infrequently on the steepest groomed terrain (usually in the days after a substantial storm of dense snow) for those in the know, they can be had virtually all season on the appropriate moderate angle terrain. First off, any trail that has even seen snowmaking at any point in the season is vitrually out of the running for getting a premium rating, except for when it was first put down or the periods after storms that have added substantial water content in the form of real snow as I mentioned above. The snowmakers at some of the premium resorts can actually put down some very high quality snow that can be nice and quiet to ski on right away, but once that stuff is down, it's always going to be there... and let's just say it's not going to become any less dense over time. Even a thaw/rain event, aside from an extreme one that creates flowing water that turns to solid ice, doesn't seem to be as bad as having that snowmaking base. The typical rain or melt layer may penetrate into the snow, but it is of much less substance than a foot or two of man made snow, and the groomers can eventually till it back in. So, all one needs for premium groomed terrain is exclusively natural snow and low traffic, bolstered by either temperatures consistently below freezing and/or frequent snowfall for refreshment. A perfect example of this setup is Old Turnpike at Bolton Valley. It's certainly nothing too steep, but it has a consistent pitch for good mellow cruising, it's always 100% natural snow, and much of the season the snow quality is at a level that even I consider excellent for groomed snow. As for off piste conditions, nobody I know short of perhaps an avalanche forecaster analyzes the coverage, flake structure, snow depth, snow density, wind/sun affects, degree of float, subsurface composition, etc. more than I do with regard to skiing powder. Although I have heard talk of people that ski the Cottonwood Canyons who don't go out unless there is a foot or more of fresh snow, in all my years of visiting this forum, I have not seen evidence that anyone judges snow conditions at a higher standard than I do.
ChrisC":1w0nlogz said:
In the twenty years of skiing on the East Coast I have really never seen more than 20-30" ever accumulated reliably.
I know you alluded to Northern Vermont being a bit different, but come on, how can anyone even look at the snowpack data for the Mt. Mansfield stake and make that comment with a straight face? I know skiing around here has changed a lot in the past twenty plus years, but if you seriously went that long without seeing more than 20-30" accumulated reliably, you were clearly doing a different kind of skiing than what people are doing now.
I’ll make a final comment as well. The focus of this thread was initially about snowfall in parts of the Northeast, and based on Mike’s comment about tree skiing it branched (so to speak) into a discussion about the length of the tree skiing season around here. There’s nothing east/west about it short of a little aside prompted by Tony’s input, which is generally fact driven and objective to the best of his abilities. Honestly, it’s great to have your input here Chris, but to come in and start off with the “I’ve really only come here to tell you that I never stoop to coming here” line, and then finish off with what appears to be some sort of insult, really isn’t a way to ingratiate yourself to the people involved in the discussion or get your comments to be taken seriously. Both River and I contributed to the discussion with multiple documented trip reports, images, and/or hard data. You can come in and contribute with impressions and conjectures based on your personal experiences, but just know that they should not be given the same amount of weight as the more thoroughly-documented, empirical reports. There is an occasional trend here among folks who have spent at least some substantial amount of time skiing in the Northeastern U.S. to temper discussions about Northeast ski conditions. In general, this can be constructive to the process in that it provides different perspectives. However, in some cases it simply comes off in a “sour grapes” sort of format, with the typical “Those conditions are nothing like what I skied when
I was in the Northeast, there
has to be some sort of mistake here.” There must be some impetus for people who are not actively skiing in the Northeast or working to document/archive the conditions here to want to “correct” the reports and discussions with their (mostly unsolicited) comments. If the skiing really has no effect on them, and they don’t have any hard data or empirical evidence to contribute, what’s the point? Are they trying to save future skiers from dramatically misinterpreting the snow conditions data and ruining their lives by skiing substandard snow? Are they trying to prevent the mass influx of skiers into the Northeast that is inevitably going to happen because everyone thinks that the conditions are so much better than they actually are? Or is there something more personal in their history? It is often good to point out erroneous or misinterpreted data, but some of these comments don’t come off as constructive as that. Icelantic’s posts seem to be a common catalyst for these types of comments, since he skis a lot of very good snow, and is very exuberant in his reporting (and he brings it upon himself by frequently making jabs at ski conditions in other people/parts of the country). He clearly enjoys that sort of back and forth. But, just because someone has skied a region of the country, regardless of how long and how extensively they think they’ve done it, it does not mean that they have more than the faintest clue about what other people are experiencing. Icelantic is certainly an extreme example, but he can illustrate the point. I know of nobody that skis the Northeast U.S. the way Icelantic does, so for anyone to try to use their experience of skiing the Northeast in an effort to quantify of qualify what he is experiencing… it’s a big stretch.
-J
