Socal Mt. Waterman info..

Status
Not open for further replies.
Tony Crocker":3k2zcp91 said:
The potential revenue for the much smaller and less convenient (to most of SoCal) Waterman is not great.

I would like to see Waterman open again, but unless I'm missing something here I don't think its prospects are very good.
Click to expand...

I came to appreciate Tony's point when I drove to Waterman yesterday to hike. It was 157 miles from my place in north San Diego County, few miles from the 15. Even after tweaking my route to save 10 miles, it will still be about 40 miles farther than Baldy. After the "gotta go at least once" trip to Waterman, what is going to compel me to drive 45 minutes or more to ride far less terrain? Of course, I assume that Waterman -- at 100 acres, right? -- won't need the San Diego skiier/rider to break even. I sure hope not.

After walking around the mtn, that place is a trip.
 
Drive time to Waterman is about the same as Baldy for San Fernando and San Gabriel Valley skiers. There are more miles of mountain driving involved at Waterman, which also means that the road is often closed longer to clear after a big dump.

Drive time is a little more for L.A. County below Santa Monica mountains, and much more for Orange and San Diego. So I agree that the latter are not much of a factor for Waterman.

I'm in an ideal location from Waterman's perspective, so my proportion of time at these areas (5 x as much at Baldy through Waterman's last normal year in 2001) is somewhat indicative. Given a choice I do tend to prefer the larger area if other factors (snow and terrain) are similar.
 
SoCal Rider":24az5245 said:
Tony Crocker":24az5245 said:
The potential revenue for the much smaller and less convenient (to most of SoCal) Waterman is not great.

I would like to see Waterman open again, but unless I'm missing something here I don't think its prospects are very good.
Click to expand...

I came to appreciate Tony's point when I drove to Waterman yesterday to hike. It was 157 miles from my place in north San Diego County, few miles from the 15. Even after tweaking my route to save 10 miles, it will still be about 40 miles farther than Baldy. After the "gotta go at least once" trip to Waterman, what is going to compel me to drive 45 minutes or more to ride far less terrain? Of course, I assume that Waterman -- at 100 acres, right? -- won't need the San Diego skiier/rider to break even. I sure hope not.

After walking around the mtn, that place is a trip.
Click to expand...

Once you go to Waterman on a weekday, after a dump..driving up the empty highway with no sound but snow under your tires, and then up the slow double chairlift with nothing but white coating the trees and the sound of the rope above you rolling over the lift tower, you might feel differently.. :wink:

Of course, coming all the way from SD cnty maybe not.. :lol:
 
A list of my top lifetime powder days features several from Baldy. Baldy has twice the lift capacity of Waterman but at least 5x the acreage so I would contend that Baldy is still best on the first day after a storm. For next day leftovers Waterman's Avalanche/Winston runs down to the Angeles Crest Hwy would likely be the best shot for untracked. Assuming there are no CHP hassles as in 1998.
 
Tony Crocker":27iy7ubz said:
A list of my top lifetime powder days features several from Baldy. Baldy has twice the lift capacity of Waterman but at least 5x the acreage so I would contend that Baldy is still best on the first day after a storm. For next day leftovers Waterman's Avalanche/Winston runs down to the Angeles Crest Hwy would likely be the best shot for untracked. Assuming there are no CHP hassles as in 1998.
Click to expand...

I'm not doubting Baldy is usually better after a big dump, snow and terrain-wise.. however, IMO, baldy needs more base and the snow gets crappy alot faster. (more so due to exposure than skiier traffic).

My main point being is that Waterman is a totally different experience than any other place you'll go to. It almost feels like your own private resort with good friends.. and there's something about the peacefulness of the north slope of the San gabriels.. of course some of that could have something to do with me living and working up here everyday. :wink:
 
<<<My main point being is that Waterman is a totally different experience than any other place you'll go to. It almost feels like your own private resort with good friends.. and there's something about the peacefulness of the north slope of the San gabriels>>>

Yeah, but Mt High West is 113 miles from my house, so what's your point, really? :lol: (Unfortunately we added 30 minutes to our snowboarding commute when we moved in June.)

Tony, are those Waterman trails in bounds? What CHP hassles in 1998? Forget Waterman, I'm hiking Kratka.
 
SoCal Rider":xeg4hhff said:
<<<My main point being is that Waterman is a totally different experience than any other place you'll go to. It almost feels like your own private resort with good friends.. and there's something about the peacefulness of the north slope of the San gabriels>>>

Yeah, but Mt High West is 113 miles from my house, so what's your point, really? :lol: (Unfortunately we added 30 minutes to our snowboarding commute when we moved in June.)

Tony, are those Waterman trails in bounds? What CHP hassles in 1998? Forget Waterman, I'm hiking Kratka.
Click to expand...

if you'd rather deal wiht the traffic and clientel of Mt. high, go for it..more peacefulness for me along the upper crest.. :D

btw, it is still technically illegal to hike/ski on the Kratka property as that area is still closed to public entry under the current use permit. That may change this winter.
 
The Waterman backcountry is not in-bounds. It's thickly forested all the way to the top and it's easy to ski into the West Fork San Gabriel River drainage by mistake. I did this in 1992 (guiding 2 friends yet!) and had a 2-hour hike out. Through the early 1990's when Waterman was popular you would read in nearly every good year about an incident where somebody had to be rescued out of there. So supposedly in 1998 the CHP started issuing citations to anyone who emerged on the Angeles Crest Hwy with a Waterman lift ticket.

You end up 500 vertical and a mile of road below Waterman's base. I actually prefer to be there on a weekend as there's more traffic for hitching rides back to the base. My best day there was in late April 1983. 5 runs of corn perfection. I actually followed two patrollers out there the first time. I also had a couple of good powder runs there in February 1985.

Mt. High is a totally different type of area. Baldy is the competition. I agree lots of Baldy has bad exposure, but the part with good exposure is still bigger than Waterman and once you know Baldy the sunny exposures can be hit with the right timing. I'd still be nervous about trying to market Waterman knowing that Baldy drew only 50,000 visits in the long 2004-05 season.

For close to 20 years I've been cherry-picking my local ski days. With freedom to ski local anytime in a good year I'd probably do one at Waterman for every 3 or 4 at Baldy just for variety. If next year is decent I'm sure to check Waterman out though.
 
Always appreciate the detail, Tony, thanks. I was kidding about High, of course.I'm a three-time Mountain High passholder, but I'm forgoing a pass this year to force myself to ride other areas; it costs more to do that but variety is the, uh, spice of life or something, right?
 
SoCal Rider":2hek8ek6 said:
Always appreciate the detail, Tony, thanks. I was kidding about High, of course.I'm a three-time Mountain High passholder, but I'm forgoing a pass this year to force myself to ride other areas; it costs more to do that but variety is the, uh, spice of life or something, right?
Click to expand...

I had a pass to high for 2 years back about 6 years ago.. told myself never again.. so I got a pass to Bear/Summit for 2 years.. MUCH better for local consistent good conditions.. not to mention, BBMR is much bigger and less idiots.. of course, I only ride weekdays.. problem was, it takes 2 hours to get to BBMR, and I have to stay overnight.. (I'm not real big on driving and riding all day and driving home then).. that got old and I was barely paying my pass off.. this past year I moved up into the San gabriels, and am now only 55 minutes from HIgh.. so last season I got a pass to High again.. went 3 times.. I'm over that place. It's jut not worth all the BS you have to deal with the punks that ride there. I think I "fell" 5 times this year.. 4 were at mtn high, 2 getting off the lift.. If East were open more consistently, I 'd maybe consider it again, but that side is a crapshoot, and treated like West's retarded little sister. SO.. no local pass this year, just the Mammoth pass. I will liekly try to hit Baldy, Waterman and maybe a day or two at BBMR.
 
With regard to Mt. High I have a simple rule. If East isn't open I'm not going. If they have enough snow for East to be open the peripheral trails at West and some of the tree skiing will be open also. This spreads people out and minimizes the runs on the human pinball machine of Chisholm, where I have always seen the meat wagon in action at least once a day.

This is not a criticism of management. Mt. High doesn't have as much water as Big Bear so they have to concentrate the snowmaking efforts on the core area of West. They are maintaining a viable snow surface on a few runs and a terrain park to satisfy their regular customers. But the inevitable result is extremely high skier density.
 
Tony Crocker":1gjayuu5 said:
With regard to Mt. High I have a simple rule. If East isn't open I'm not going. If they have enough snow for East to be open the peripheral trails at West and some of the tree skiing will be open also. This spreads people out and minimizes the runs on the human pinball machine of Chisholm, where I have always seen the meat wagon in action at least once a day.

This is not a criticism of management. Mt. High doesn't have as much water as Big Bear so they have to concentrate the snowmaking efforts on the core area of West. They are maintaining a viable snow surface on a few runs and a terrain park to satisfy their regular customers. But the inevitable result is extremely high skier density.
Click to expand...

All very true points. When East is open with good coverage, it can be the best long groomer in socal. That's about the only thing I think about when Mtn high comes to mind are those late afternoon empty speed runs.
 
I was involved in the failed purchase of Mt. Waterman last spring. The investor $$ fell through due to a very risky EIS that would likely yeild a decision by the Forest Service not to allow the use of snowmaking. Man made snow is essential in this climate and business, so without it there is no way for Mt. Waterman to be profitable. I would like for everyone to know that Lynn Newcomb is very passionate about the mountain that he and his father built. He would like nothing more than to see it run again. However, it would take a tremendous visionary with dollars to burn to make it work. I would love for everyone that has ever spent a great day at Waterman to voice their love of this place and come together to find that special investor.
 
El Dog":1mhwvswk said:
What other waterman thread? Is there more recent info on the fate of Mt. Waterman? Please share.
Click to expand...

There are quite a few SoCal threads. Use the search utility near the top of this page.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top