Print

Print


On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 12:01:48 -0400, Jonathan S. Shefftz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

>Exactly -- many ski areas require an uphilling daily ticket or season pass, typically priced somewhat similarly to a nordic trail >pass (or already existing snowshoe passes at some resorts).

That argument is kind of funny though.  It's not unlike horseback riders demanding access to mountain bike trails -- trails that were conceived of, designed, and maintained by bikers for bikes.  Trails that didn't exist until mtb'ers put them into place.  (This and similar debates are simmering on a bunch of select and zoning boards around chittco.)  The obvious difference is that rando-lappers ain't really damaging the trail (like horses do on mtb trails).   The similarity is that you think your emerging sport deserves access to a place designed and maintained for a specific use: namely downhill sliding.  

Nordic trails, OTOH, are designed for nordic skiers; same goes for snowshoe trails.  (Oh, isn't it fun to come tearing through fresh powder on a snowshoe trail, only to freak out a group of snowshoers coming up the trail?)  So no conflict there.  It's just inefficient to travel nordic w/skins.    

I'm not saying I don't enjoy hiking (daily) up ski area trails that were designed for one-way traffic -- but I do think it's a bit silly to claim that as a right or to even be indignant about it.  Personally, I prefer to reserve my righteous indignation for areas that are on National Forest Land, but prohibit off-hours uphill use.

As for MRG, you can head in on the LT, too -- or even come up the west side or up the snowshoe trail -- with your snowboard or snowblades, and no one is really going to care.  BUT, one of the reasons the policy -- which was already "in place" but not publicized is, again, increase in traffic.  No one cares that you tele mad river... but if 58 tele guys on slash all the pow before paying customers get to it, management is going to take notice.  

As you were,
justin

>On Tue, 23 Sep 2014 15:46:12 +0000, James Dugan <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>>what do you mean by route?  If it involves in any way anything serviced by lifts with the user either going up or down I say the user needs a lift ticket.  For instance, the Bruce Trail on Mansfield.  If someone climbs it and turns around and goes down it there should be no charge.  If they climb it and go down Stowe slopes they need pay.  Just my .02  Jimski
>>
>>     On Tuesday, September 23, 2014 10:54 AM, Iski Stowe <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>
>> On Mon, 22 Sep 2014 17:06:08 -0400, Jonathan S. Shefftz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>The really weird part is that a fit skier on race or near-race gear would get in more skiing on a crowded weekend at MRG by skinning than by lift riding.
>>>
>>>But yes, the demand for uphilling during operational hours is probably very limited at MRG.
>>>
>>>Which makes its blanket prohibition even more nonsensical.
>>>
>>
>>Assuming there was a route up that wouldn't cause interference with people skiing downhill,  should MRG (or any area for that matter) require that you buy a lift ticket? 
>>
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>>
>>To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
>>
>>
>>
>>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>>SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>>
>>To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html
>>
>
>- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
>SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.
>
>To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html