Tony Crocker":39igzf43 said:
With Shames in its current configuration I would only be tempted to visit in conjunction with a trip to one of the nearby heli companies, Last Frontier (I've been with TLH and like them a lot) or Northern Escape(?), a newer operation. Some of the regulars who put more of an emphasis on sidecountry (salida, JSpin?) may be more tempted than I.
I recently wandered into this thread and wasn’t planning to make any comments until I saw Tony’s inquiry above. I’ve been hearing about Shames for the past several seasons, and it sounds like the sort of small, snowy, locals place with fun backcountry that would be right up my alley. I certainly don’t have the wanderlust trait to the extent that some of the other forum members have it, and with the current ages of the boys and our own “small, snowy, locals place with fun backcountry” just a few minutes away, there’s not a ton of incentive to get me to travel too far in the immediate future. Still, this thread has at least been very informative in bringing up some of the practical issues about taking a trip to Shames – I had no idea that it was so far from anything else or that prices for flights would be so high. I would certainly like to go there at some point, but I still have a few questions.
First off, if I was to make a trip to Shames, I’m not sure how keen I’d be on constantly having to negotiate uncontrolled avalanche terrain to get to the amazing skiing that everyone speaks about. That concept already seems sketchy to me, so subjecting Erica and the boys to that environment seems impractical. Are there legitimate safe zones/routes in the Shames backcountry? Are people actually relegated to just the in-bounds terrain on storm days (which are presumably numerous in a place that gets a LOT of precipitation) or is there still safe storm skiing out of bounds? Based on the trail map, it looks like there could be plenty of tree skiing surrounding the ski area’s boundaries, but I’d want to get a good idea of whether or not that’s the case. Is the 252 acre-number actually just a fraction of the real in-bounds terrain (i.e. is there a lot more skiable terrain within the boundaries than just the trials that have been formally cut)? It’s great that Shames gets so much snowfall, but it’s located in the Coast Range (at elevations of 2,300’ – 3,900 according to the website) and I’ve already seen comments about the wet snow and a couple of rain events a season. I’d think that with the potential travel times and costs, there would be a little more incentive for people to question whether or not they’re getting the best possible snow.
I told Erica about the Shames setup so I could get her comments as well. It also seems like the sort of mountain that she would enjoy with regard to being snowy, low key, etc. But, the biggest turn off for her was the fact that it could cost us four grand to get the family there by air (hopefully Patrick can get back with actual flight costs from Montreal). Her other question was about transportation. Presumably there isn’t any slope-side lodging, so is there a shuttle, or does everyone have to stay in Terrace and rent a car?
I think it’s awesome that people are looking at the cooperative route to possibly keep Shames going, but like many, I’m somewhat skeptical about trying to get so many non-local or even non semi-local people to be a substantial basis for the cooperative. To soulskier and his peers, it may seem like Shames is a great fit for the skiing they want to do, but what percentage of the skiing population really has the required combination of travel time, finances, fitness, ski skills and avalanche training to not only choose Shames, but choose it over so many other viable options? I’m just not sure where the numbers are going to come from, but hopefully the economic incentives that were mentioned will help out a lot.
Admin":39igzf43 said:
Be careful, your arrogance may bite you. You're diminishing your cause to 50% of the people who will read this who are no less a member of "the ski community" than yourself. Worse than that, the people reading this website are precisely type of skier that your co-op will need to court to be in any way viable. Nice way to shoot yourself in the foot.
I wasn’t going to say anything about this debacle since it looks like it took place a while ago, but I figured I’d make some comments to confirm that it’s more than just some hypothetical situation. As Admin alluded to, I will say that a good chunk of whatever enthusiasm I had for a future visit to Shames, or thoughts of making a contribution to the potential Shames Mountain cooperative, were severely tempered by the obtuse Mad River Glen/”east coast” comments. While we’re not taking about “no fall zone” Chamonix terrain, MRG is known by skiers around the world as a technically demanding mountain, with 2,000+ vertical feet of steep, sustained, arguably “WORLD CLASS!” tree skiing, or at least “WORLD CLASS!” mixed/hardwoods skiing for those that can handle it. I wouldn’t even call myself a huge MRG aficionado, but most appropriately-skilled skiers who have tackled MRG with halfway decent snow know the level of challenge and enjoyment that the mountain offers. The way in which the Shames/MRG comparison was dismissed as not simply imprecise, but absurd, from halfway around the globe, by someone who hasn’t even skied (as crazy as it sounds) either mountain, was shocking. How much irony is there in a “spokesperson” of a fledging ski cooperative flat out disrespecting an actual working ski cooperative, a potential ally and possible source of pertinent financial/operations information, with comments like
“I personally wouldn't ski at MRG if you paid for my trip, sharpened my edges and included daily massages.”? The back-handed conciliatory statement of
“For others, MRG is a great spot to ski.” was an “interesting” elitist touch. Just to sprinkle a little more irony on the dish, there’s the added fact that with regard to the actual in-bounds terrain of the ski areas themselves, Mad River Glen would appear to have more vertical drop, more skiable area, and steeper terrain than Shames. Regardless of one’s personal tastes in skiing, it’s just not a sign of good business acumen to burn bridges like that. The comments resonated at least two disconcerting messages in my mind: 1) The potential Shames leadership has questionable business/PR skills, and 2) By its very nature, a global ski cooperative is going to attract similarly elitist skiers that are going to dictate, or at least affect, the character of the ski area.
I’m also confused by some incongruities in soulskier’s message about the terrain at Shames. In one message, soulskier specifically states
“One of the great things about Shames Mountain is there is a copious amount of tree skiing for bad weather days.” and then in another quote says
“…steep, technical rowdy lines, terrain features such as spines and cliffs (thanks to a big maritime snowpack) are a favorite in my crowd. Since it is clear nothing on the east coast remotely resembles that, I am not interested.” Despite the fact that the statement in the last sentence is clearly false, one thing of which there is a plethora in the Northeastern U.S., is great tree skiing. So on those days when it’s storming at Shames and one is left with mostly tree skiing, does that imply that the skiing is uninteresting for soulskier and his crowd? What if it storms for several days to a week and all one can ski is trees, trees, trees? What prospects does that hold for a ski trip to Shames that occurs during an extended storm cycle?
Having the audacity to spew off the entirely uninformed and false statement that not only are there not any steep, technical, rowdy lines on the “east coast”, there’s nothing that even remotely resembles that… when there are pictures of that terrain on this very site and TGR’s… was the coup de grace. The statements came across as extremely provincial and out of touch, and not what one would expect from someone trying to organize a world-wide ski cooperative. So anyway, Admin wasn’t kidding about getting bitten and shooting oneself in the foot.
I would also suggest that statements from soulskier such as…
“All I am saying is myself and many of my peers like to get in the BIG mountains, with a fat and stable snowpack and get it done.”
“As I have stated numerous times, myself and my peers like big mtns, where we can get up to 5th gear, and stay there for awhile.”
…combined with some of the other attitude above nets a feeling that is much more “bro” than “soul”. While that sort of attitude may interest the TGR types, I’d argue that a significant percentage of potential Shames skiers would be turned off by it. It certainly doesn’t inspire me to want to head to the Shames of the future to be part of an environment where skiing is about “getting it done”. I may be in the minority, but I was interested in visiting a Shames similar to the one I’d heard about in reports over the past several seasons, a ski area which came across as a fun, low-key place. Visiting the latest destination for jet-setting skiers looking for easy access to the next round of “rad”, undiscovered slopes is not as appealing.
With all that said, I think it’s great that things are finally moving forward for Shames at the local level, and clearly soulskier has stepped up to the plate by actually making a trip to Terrace. I remain uneasy with the prospects of what Shames might become if what we caught here were some glimpses of soulskier’s true colors, but this movement seems to at least be getting Shames some attention, and hopefully it can set it up for a viable future.
-J
here on FTO is because we have quite a few knowledgeable people here who can smell 
from miles away.