New Whiteface Terrain

[Tony Crocker]

4. Higher up is only worse

From pics and even the trail map I do get the impression the trees are starting to thin out higher up. But given the relatively low snowfall and the severe wind reputation it would not surprise me if typical natural snowpack is not any better higher on the mountain.

I strongly suspect that Riverc0il's 40-inch natural base benchmark is a key factor in concentrating the best eastern tree skiing in the northern Vermont snowbelt. Given the severe snow preservation issues of the Northeast, it probably takes the 250+ average of the northern Vermont snowbelt to keep that base consistently above 40 inches for 2-3 months.

 

[Admin]

4. Higher up is only worse

From pics and even the trail map I do get the impression the trees are starting to thin out higher up.

To a certain point. Get solidly below treeline and it's an incredibly thick conifer forest. It's only lower down that the forest turns deciduous. From what I've seen that's the case in most of the High Peaks region of the Adirondacks.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

will they have any portion of it opened for this coming season?

The latest I've heard is the chair for sure, the long intermediate trail for sure, the expert trail cut last season will only be open when natural snow allows, the expert trail cut this season has a better then even chance of getting snowmaking and lastly I've heard different scenarios about the glades, but I will post here when I get a definitive answer.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Good thing that glades don't count against WF's trail mileage cap (is it 35 or 45 miles?).

Gotta make sure that Bicknell's Thrush has plenty of living space.
:x

I ain't a tree hugger, but the best part about the daks is that they don't develop the land too much. It is more untouched IMHO than Yellowstone. If the Bicknell's thrush keeps the mountain a bit smaller so be it. At least there isn't any on mountain lodging. The added advantage of being a bit smaller is it keeps skier numbers down.

I agree, for sheer beauty I don’t think it gets any better in the East then the High Peaks of the ADKs. I do understand why many people like on mountain lodging, and some resorts do it well, but at some they look like condo ghettos.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Looks interesting, the more I think about it should give WF another try. Spend a lot of time hiking/camping/road biking in the ADK’S mountains but haven’t been down in the ADK’S after October in years. Will check out the new trails this summer, hope they aren’t too wide.

yeah man summer is great here. I either hike, bike or kayak, or swim pretty much everyday.

I don't think you'll find them too wide at all.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

Those trees look very dense. How many of you could ski off-trail in an area like that?

I hiked up the intermediate trail last fall. We went off trail into where the new glades will be. In the small area we explored we where suprised that it was less dense then they appear when looking up at them from Wilmington.

That said, I have a feeling some thinning will be required.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

.....no one goes to Whiteface to ski trees

I like the tree skiing we already have, but I have to agree with the above statement. This new section may change that though. We'll see.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

I'm not trying to bust any chops here. I'm asking a specific question about those trees. They certainly don't look like MRG or Stowe. Some of that may be seasonal. Some of it may be your "brush line" because Whiteface gets much less snow than northern Vermont. But I'm presuming there are some eastern tree aficionados who have ventured between the trails at Whiteface over the years. So I would expect answers in this range:
1) No, they are too tight (unlikely from FTO regulars who love those rabbit warrens).
2) The locals might make it work with some unofficial summer maintenance.
3) There's enough spacing for experts but cover will be good only once in a blue moon.
4) They are rarely skiable that low on the mountain but higher up there are trees with better spacing/more snowpack.
5) Worth skiing for the elite but too tough for most.
6) Should be good whenever we get a decent dump, as in Vermont.

1. Yes
2. Only if that was done
3. Not enough spacing and yes cover is only good once in a blue moon.....so who cares
4. Higher up is only worse
5. Not worth skiing for anyone unless you are talking about area's that have had work...so we are not talking tree skiing
6. No

How many tree skiing trail report's have been posted about Whiteface......there is a reason

Even the cut glades they currently have are not anything to get excited about.... the 10th Mountain glades have a fall line line for a couple hundred feet at best...the rest is worthless

I don't know Skimore, he may be a WF regular, but if not I don't know how he could give some of the authoritative answers he has. For instance, I don’t know anyone who has gone over to the other side of Lookout where the glades will be that can answer the density question for sure. Like I said, I don’t know him maybe he has.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

4. Higher up is only worse

From pics and even the trail map I do get the impression the trees are starting to thin out higher up. But given the relatively low snowfall and the severe wind reputation it would not surprise me if typical natural snowpack is not any better higher on the mountain.

I strongly suspect that Riverc0il's 40-inch natural base benchmark is a key factor in concentrating the best eastern tree skiing in the northern Vermont snowbelt. Given the severe snow preservation issues of the Northeast, it probably takes the 250+ average of the northern Vermont snowbelt to keep that base consistently above 40 inches for 2-3 months.

Looks like you're a Western skier so relative is the key word here. I think we had around 235 inches last season and over 260 the year before. We can't ski our trees every day the mountain is open, but they're officially open alot and unoffically alot more.

 

[rfarren]

How many tree skiing trail report's have been posted about Whiteface......there is a reason

Even the cut glades they currently have are not anything to get excited about.... the 10th Mountain glades have a fall line line for a couple hundred feet at best...the rest is worthless

I don't think there have been a lot of posts about the whiteface's glades for two reasons. The first you already mentioned above: there aren't that many, and they aren't the most amazing glades due to their lack of vertical. The second reason might be that there aren't that many regulars who post about whiteface in the first place.

However, Gore, gets a lot of posting time about trees, and gets less snow than whiteface. Their trees in places are a bit more widely spaced, but for the most part are pretty much similar to Whiteface's. I had heard from a ski patroller that the new trees would be more widely spaced than the 10th Mountain glades, and also quite a bit more extensive. I think it should give a nice option for experts on powder days and corn days. It might possibly be the best place to hang out on a rain day too! :wink:

 

[icelanticskier]

maybe it's a good thing that tree skiing at wf isn't talked about. i've never been so i'm certainly not gonna make guesses but as rivercoil and i discussed while skiing at tucks on july 6th, it's often the places never discussed on the forums regarding good tree skiing that have some of the best tree skiing which i had the chance to sample with amazement on many occasions this winter.
rog

 

[jamesdeluxe]

The second time was this past year with Patrick and James. It was tougher. Coverage was sketchy and conditions were faster.

Sketchy is in the eyes of the sketcher (and these didn't deserve a black-diamond rating). I thought conditions were nice for the most part -- they must have been; it almost looks like I know what I'm doing.

 

[highpeaksdrifter]

The second time was this past year with Patrick and James. It was tougher. Coverage was sketchy and conditions were faster.

Sketchy is in the eyes of the sketcher (and these didn't deserve a black-diamond rating). I thought conditions were nice for the most part -- they must have been; it almost looks like I know what I'm doing.

I agree with you that they are pretty easy glades relatively speaking, but if you don’t rate them black then they have to be blue. IMO a true blue skier would find those glades difficult.

When trees and rocks are involved you pretty much have to up the rating a notch out of safety concerns for lower level skiers.

How many times have you seen a skier on a blue that really belongs on a green? When those skiers start crashing into trees it isn’t pretty. The black rating scares them off.

 

[jamesdeluxe]

The black rating scares them off.

If it keeps people out, including hackers like yours truly, sign me up.

 

[J.Spin]

We can't ski our trees every day the mountain is open, but they're officially open alot and unoffically alot more.

As I've been reading this discussion I've been very curious about Whiteface's tree skiing policy, because nobody has mentioned it yet. I thought many of the New York State ski areas had weird rules that didn't allow off-piste/tree skiing, or even made it illegal and treated it as some sort of crime. The last time I was at Whiteface, which was in the mid 90s, I skied in one of their glades, but never checked out any tree skiing. I think we were more than satisfied with exploring the trails and glades at the time, but I do remember reading something rather intimidating that made me feel like we would get in big trouble if we tried to head off into the trees. What's the policy now?

J.Spin

 

[Tony Crocker]

I think we had around 235 inches last season and over 260 the year before.

Yes, but the long term average is 174. I think Whiteface is another situation like Cannon or Baldy: great terrain, so you want to hit it when it's good, but you wouldn't want to depend on it for good conditions on a consistent basis.

 

[Patrick]

As someone that places Whiteface in my top 5 in the East, I normally don't ski any glades when I'm there. I prefer skiing the non-glades trails at Whiteface. Other trails are definitely more to my liking. Get you're skis prepped and go.

 

[Harvey]

J.Spin's post make me think .... what do you call lift serviced, treed runs that are:

-On the map, with approved, legal thinning
-Off the map, in-bounds runs, with unofficial "improvements"
-Out of bound runs, with unofficial and/or illegal "improvements"
-Out of bound runs with no "improvements" since the last logging/clear cut
-Anthing else

("improvements" in quotes to head off a discussion of whether or not tree cutting is good or bad.)

For me, on the map it's a glade. Lift serviced with improvements is trees. Anything else is backcountry.

 

[J.Spin]

J.Spin's post make me think .... what do you call lift serviced, treed runs that are:

-On the map, with approved, legal thinning
-Off the map, in-bounds runs, with unofficial "improvements"
-Out of bound runs, with unofficial and/or illegal "improvements"
-Out of bound runs with no "improvements" since the last logging/clear cut
-Anthing else

It's just semantics of course, but around here the usual terminology is that the "trees" or "woods" at a resort are the stuff between the marked runs (gladed or otherwise). I've also talked about the terminology I'm familiar with in a post in the Big Jay thread. The terminology can certainly be blurred however, as in some of the examples you mentioned, or another type that I don't think you covered: Off the map, in-bounds runs, with official "improvements". Along with their various "named glades", Bolton Valley has several large areas that are thinned so extensively that they are obviously maintained by the resort in some capacity, but they are not listed at all on the trail map. It's a pretty neat feature of Bolton Valley, although there are probably other resorts that do this sort of thing and we don't hear much about it because the areas just aren't on the map. I'm not sure exactly how these types of areas fit into my usual nomenclature, but apparently I consider them glades because that's what I seem to call them in the captions on my pictures. A couple of these areas that I frequent at Bolton Valley are in the Timberline area, so I added a few photos below from outings that I remembered. They certainly seem like "glades" to me; the images below should give you the feel of what a couple of them are like:

J.Spin

 

[icelanticskier]

wow! the glades pictured at wf and bolton sure do look inviting and friendly. i'll have to get some pics of saddlebacks many tree areas, talk about keepin out the riff raff. ya gotta be thinkin 7 turns ahead in the trees there but, talk about complete untracked preservation-all day. there are many, wheee! glades there as well.
rog