PDA

View Full Version : New On-Map Woods



Strat
06-14-2009, 04:58 PM
It's so darn quiet in here! Thought it'd be good to start something up. I know Win had mentioned that there would be more woods areas coming onto the trail map this year after some work this summer. Any word from those in the know on how that's going?

win
06-15-2009, 05:18 PM
We had a site visit with the Forest Service and I think we are making progress to add some more at both LP and ME by next season. We will post everyone as soon as we can.

One thing that is really important. There must be no unauthorized trimming or cutting on their land or they will end their permission to ski in the trees. We and they take this very seriously. You may have heard what happened at Jay. By working with our land lords properly we will continue to provide new and exciting opportunities for on map tree skiing.

Hawk
06-16-2009, 11:39 AM
I have to say something on this. I don't understand the value of putting additional woods areas on the map. Those that ski in the woods realy don't need a map. Right? And I am sure that the "new" areas will be areas that are already widely skied. All this will do is over-ski a certain section of woods and add less skilled skiers to the mix. The result is that the area gets skied down to the dirt much like Lews and Egans.

Just my opinion. I am sure there are others. :wink:

summitchallenger
06-16-2009, 01:06 PM
I have to say something on this. I don't understand the value of putting additional woods areas on the map. Those that ski in the woods realy don't need a map. Right? And I am sure that the "new" areas will be areas that are already widely skied. All this will do is over-ski a certain section of woods and add less skilled skiers to the mix. The result is that the area gets skied down to the dirt much like Lews and Egans.

Just my opinion. I am sure there are others. :wink:

Well, in my experience those two woods suck because they don't hold snow well because of pitch and terrain. Egan's requires a ton of snow to get onto Lower Birdland.

Personally I don't mind having the trees on the map. It's better to have it known so that most of the visitors (not locals) stick to defined areas, rather than popping into wormholes that might lead them to get over their heads and get into trouble. When you designate areas, you make it clear where folks need to go and reduce traffic in other areas. Locals are going to keep their stashes, but as we know, we don't talk about them. :wink:

vonski
06-16-2009, 01:11 PM
I would have to agree with Hawk. Unless the areas already marked are getting expanded why mark more areas. I would hate to see the orchard marked on the map. It is not marked and already is a hot spot. Let us Bushwackers have some stashes left!

ahm
06-16-2009, 01:58 PM
Having all those "less skilled skiers (we'll just call em' LSS's) and skiing it down to the dirt makes it all the more fun. Those LSS's create obstacles that the MSS's get to go over, around or through. It lends a skier cross aspect to woods skiing and promotes posts like the guy who was bummed when his line was poached after one of the dumps. Without those LSS's what would the MSS's have to talk and joke about. I mean the whole skimrv forum would become boring like K-zone or Alpinezone and bushzone :wink: just doesn't have the same ring. A bit of a summer cooler here from late May in CO
http://img4.imageshack.us/img4/9617/74683328.th.jpg (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=aVJt3yi)


http://img3.imageshack.us/img3/8017/40236299.th.jpg (http://www.postimage.org/image.php?v=PqRDkgr)

win
06-16-2009, 03:52 PM
Some things are better discussed in person, so look me up next time you are here.

Hawk
06-17-2009, 07:24 AM
I will. I am sure there is a master plan.

It's just a complete onslaught in the woods the last couple of years. I shouldn't complain. It is the direction that the mountain has taken with the programs.

I guess I will finally break down and get the AT gear. :wink:

Treeskier
06-17-2009, 05:54 PM
Tree skiing has in many ways kept Sugarbush a live. A few more well done bands in new places would no be all bad. Keeping most of them off the map like at Mad River would be a big plus. "Come and find them" Or "Take a advance lesson by our great staff and you may be shown them" Might be a better way of promoting them. You know us pass holders will know right a way were they are. It's part of being a pass holder and regular.

I personally would be happy to help the MT with them.

Any one else willing to help?

Lostone
06-17-2009, 05:58 PM
Split off the post season skiing topic from this one.


I'm along the lines of Hawk, where I doubt you can find anyplace to mark that hasn't already been being skied.

I love that, when asked where the woods skiing is, I point to Lower Snowball and Lower Pushover and saying, "Between them, and a little bit beyond. Oh... and then there is Mt Ellen. (If I'm not working, I say North. :lol: ) And there might be a few turns between.

Their jaws just drop! 8)

barkbiter
06-17-2009, 08:12 PM
Tree skiing has in many ways kept Sugarbush a live. A few more well done bands in new places would no be all bad. Keeping most of them off the map like at Mad River would be a big plus. "Come and find them" Or "Take a advance lesson by our great staff and you may be shown them" Might be a better way of promoting them. You know us pass holders will know right a way were they are. It's part of being a pass holder and regular.

I personally would be happy to help the MT with them.

Any one else willing to help?

OMG..............how about " a advanced" class in typing and spelling and sentence structure..................you sicken me.

Lostone
06-17-2009, 08:54 PM
Moderator note: Please refrain from personal attacks.

HowieT2
06-18-2009, 03:42 PM
Tree skiing has in many ways kept Sugarbush a live. A few more well done bands in new places would no be all bad. Keeping most of them off the map like at Mad River would be a big plus. "Come and find them" Or "Take a advance lesson by our great staff and you may be shown them" Might be a better way of promoting them. You know us pass holders will know right a way were they are. It's part of being a pass holder and regular.

I personally would be happy to help the MT with them.

Any one else willing to help?

OMG..............how about " a advanced" class in typing and spelling and sentence structure..................you sicken me.

Is there anything that doesn't bother you?

Brew Ski
06-18-2009, 05:52 PM
I agree with Treeskier. Having "new" lines that are not actually listed on the map would be a good thing. Some of my best days at Sugarbush have been spent in the woods, using marked trails as a way to get to the "goods."

I also agree that it makes good marketing for advanced ski programs like the Black Diamond Club or Bush Pilots. Also makes for a little group rivalry...as in "Who got the fresh tracks in Win's Woods?...Oh yeah, you can't get there before the Bush Pilots!"

Barkbiter is just angry because he has been hiding out in those lines. Have you seen the free cable TV he's been getting in there?



I'd be happy to spend a weekend or two helping the Mountain clean out lines. I'll even work for beer.

Strat
06-18-2009, 06:07 PM
I'd be happy to spend a weekend or two helping the Mountain clean out lines. I'll even work for beer.
I'm shocked, based on your screen name. :wink:

Thanks for the update, Win. Looking forward to checking out the new zones this winter.

Lostone
06-18-2009, 06:09 PM
What part of "refrain from personal attacks" are we having trouble understanding? :?

I don't want to lock a thread that has some intelligent responses, but I can, if needed. Please try to keep to the thread.




Thanx for your support.

Tin Woodsman
06-18-2009, 07:26 PM
Though I understand the motivation for doing so, from a tree skier's perspective, I am saddened to see this come to pass. The "new" lines will inevitably be relatively well-known ones that already exit off-map, be it Orchard, Bear Claw, Epstein's, etc... Maybe it will draw more traffic to those lines instead of other shots, but I doubt it. Those lines will become the tracked-out wastelands that are Lew's Line, Egan's Woods and Deeper Sleeper.

skiladi
06-19-2009, 10:51 AM
We had a site visit with the Forest Service and I think we are making progress to add some more at both LP and ME by next season. We will post everyone as soon as we can.

One thing that is really important. There must be no unauthorized trimming or cutting on their land or they will end their permission to ski in the trees. We and they take this very seriously. You may have heard what happened at Jay. By working with our land lords properly we will continue to provide new and exciting opportunities for on map tree skiing.

This doesn't sound like "thinning" existing stash and adding it to the map. This sounds like creating new areas. Places where skiers have not been able to access because of overgrowth. Please tell me I'm right. I don't want to advertise stashes. I'm still finding them. ; }

Hardbooter
06-19-2009, 12:21 PM
I'm pretty sure the mountain isn't going to add any of the well known but unofficial trails (Bear Claw, Orchard etc.) I think the plan is to cut new lines and as far as I know they plan to check with folks to be sure they aren't trashing someone's stash. Keep in mind who will be cutting. These are not flatlanders. They know the mountain and the skiers. I'm sure they'll ask if they have any doubts about sections of woods. (Right?)

Also, in my experience, I've never had a section of woods ruined by the mountain. On the other hand, there are lines that I enjoyed for years until some f*cknutz with a saw and loppers went and cut a big wide entrance or hacked a bunch of pine trees so that everyone and their brother can now slide right in regardless of skill level. Some people seem to think that there must be no way to get into a particular glade unless they cut one.

Tin Woodsman
06-19-2009, 01:26 PM
I'm pretty sure the mountain isn't going to add any of the well known but unofficial trails (Bear Claw, Orchard etc.) I think the plan is to cut new lines and as far as I know they plan to check with folks to be sure they aren't trashing someone's stash. Keep in mind who will be cutting. These are not flatlanders. They know the mountain and the skiers. I'm sure they'll ask if they have any doubts about sections of woods. (Right?)

Also, in my experience, I've never had a section of woods ruined by the mountain. On the other hand, there are lines that I enjoyed for years until some f*cknutz with a saw and loppers went and cut a big wide entrance or hacked a bunch of pine trees so that everyone and their brother can now slide right in regardless of skill level. Some people seem to think that there must be no way to get into a particular glade unless they cut one.
As a practical matter, where would they go? In my experience, there aren't many places with pitch that don't already have a line or three threading through them. While I have all the faith in the world in the people who will be doing the cutting, their hands will be somewhat tied, no? If you are going to thin out the woods, you are certainly going to mention//market it to your customers. That means that there must be a reasonable level of access (i.e. we're not talking about the backside or something silly like Bradley Brook). anything that's reasonably accessible within the confines of SB's permit area/land holdings has already been thinned. I'm not optimistic.

Also, on your second point, I would beg to differ somewhat. Many of the woods shots at North used to get a LOT less traffic before they were thinned and brought onto the map a few years back.

summitchallenger
06-19-2009, 01:44 PM
Alright, I'm going to stir the pot :wink: by saying that cut or not cut, on the map or not, by and large the woods I have skied at SB are way more tracked out than at other places where I have skied woods. There have been a couple exceptions, but by and large there is just a lot more traffic. LP is the only place I have ever skied where the trails are already skied out on a powder day by 845am. Unreal.

Hardbooter
06-19-2009, 01:49 PM
OK, you're right about those woods at north. They did a nice job of cutting them though. I guess I just don't go in there much anymore since they get hammered. At the same time they cut a bunch of lines that were new to me (at least I never bothered to ski semi-tough woods until they cut it.)

I understand your point about trying to fit new lines into places that we all ski but there are some places that are such a mess that we only ski them with lots of snow anyhow. These places could use some cutting. Have you ever skied murphy's law? A little cutting would be fine with me. Also, there are places where there is room for more bands in between the existing ones. People might ski that stuff now but it's not good skiing. It's just ski-able.

I guess you're right that there is a lot of room for error with new cutting. If they don't check with people, or the right people then a lot could go wrong. Hey wait, maybe they should just read down the list on treeskier's shirt and if it's not on there then it's ok to cut. Boy, that was close. It's a good thing someone made a list.

Hardbooter
06-19-2009, 02:50 PM
LP is the only place I have ever skied where the trails are already skied out on a powder day by 845am.

This is why we ski the woods. There are plenty of spots that will still be untracked a few days after a storm. Although, these spots are a lot harder to find than they were just a few years ago.

mattlucas
06-19-2009, 07:17 PM
Alright, I'm going to stir the pot :wink: by saying that cut or not cut, on the map or not, by and large the woods I have skied at SB are way more tracked out than at other places where I have skied woods. There have been a couple exceptions, but by and large there is just a lot more traffic. LP is the only place I have ever skied where the trails are already skied out on a powder day by 845am. Unreal.

We're lucky, try finding powder at 8:45am at Stowe. They get the lifts rolling at 7/7:30 so by 9 people are already getting OFF the hill because it's tracked out.
Personally I would have to give up coffee for the winter if I ever wanted to ski pow there, at least on the trails.

teleo
06-19-2009, 08:50 PM
LP is the only place I have ever skied where the trails are already skied out on a powder day by 845am. Unreal.
Aw, come on summit, I thought you skied k-mart once :wink: (ok, never want to admit that publicly)

For those of us that ski the woods, more woods on the map stinks :evil: No getting around that.
But I understand why the resort does it. If it's on the map they can market it to general public that wouldn't otherwise realize it's there. It is a business. Still a bummer for all of us here through :cry:

Lostone
06-19-2009, 08:51 PM
I guess this is where I should apologize for tracking out freshies as soon as they let me, but...



Nope! . . . . . . . . . http://forums.skimrv.com/albums/album38/icon_spread.gif . . . . . . . . . . . . :wink:

teleo
06-19-2009, 08:56 PM
I guess this is where I should apologize for tracking out freshies as soon as they let me, but...



Nope!

Never think of apologizing for getting first tracks - thats the goal :lol: :lol: :lol:

P.S. I thought I was bad posting at 9:50 on a Fri :!:

Lostone
06-20-2009, 10:23 AM
Are you saying that I don't... :cry: have a life? :cry:

Well, you're probably right, but so far, I'm feeling ok about it. :wink:

Benski
06-20-2009, 03:20 PM
8:45??? seems to me with the CR and HG lifts not even running until 9, there b plenty of freshies way past then.

as for the on map woods. not good for us folk who ski there anyway but similar to the mtn getting more popular in general. It would be great to keep it to ourselves, but I think everyone understands that increased skier visits are necessary for the good of the resort, the people who work there and the entire valley communityas long as it's done in a way that is sustainable in the long term.

HowieT2
06-21-2009, 06:21 PM
8:45??? seems to me with the CR and HG lifts not even running until 9, there b plenty of freshies way past then.

as for the on map woods. not good for us folk who ski there anyway but similar to the mtn getting more popular in general. It would be great to keep it to ourselves, but I think everyone understands that increased skier visits are necessary for the good of the resort, the people who work there and the entire valley communityas long as it's done in a way that is sustainable in the long term.

Just noticed that I posted the above under my son's screen name. sorry.

Hawk
06-23-2009, 10:22 AM
I guess I am in wait and see mode. I will get the real scoop in a couple of weeks when I start downhilling in ernest.

The bottom line is that it is what it is. :wink:

mattlucas
07-07-2009, 11:50 PM
I remember arguing about the state of the forest this year and many people seemed perplexed that I considered some areas to be rapidly deforesting. I didn't see everything last week covering the mountain on foot, but the midmountain section from egan's to domino looked like it took a hit. However, If you walk around the areas that are now "on map" woods, those areas without buddy trees around them looked worse off.

I know the mountain takes the environment seriously, but one of these years there will HAVE to be regeneration zones to prevent skier traffic from killing off new growth. Without taking conservation seriously, the areas that make Sugarbush the best tree skiing in the northeast really won't be as special. If anyone thinks this is gloom-and-doom, please refer to murphy's glades circa 1980 compared to present. I know that fate is many years off, and I am not a scientist or fortune teller but cutting and maintenance should be given thoughtful consideration.

Hawk
07-08-2009, 06:42 AM
I hear what you are saying and agree that in some areas need some work to fix the damage. I think that Murphy's is a bad example. The damage there was not from skier traffic. Snow making was the culprit. Continuously blowing ice on the trees and overloading the branches is what happen there. That is the case with any snow making trails. They eventually get wider and thinner on the edges from the over spray.

Tin Woodsman
07-08-2009, 03:47 PM
I hear what you are saying and agree that in some areas need some work to fix the damage. I think that Murphy's is a bad example. The damage there was not from skier traffic. Snow making was the culprit. Continuously blowing ice on the trees and overloading the branches is what happen there. That is the case with any snow making trails. They eventually get wider and thinner on the edges from the over spray.

You're both right. The forest at Sugarbush is facing multiple threats. One of those is snowmaking on trails like Glades, Ripcord, FIS, and Sleeper. Another is overcutting or skier traffic in the woods. A perfect example is Paradise Woods/Bear Claw, which, IMHO, should be partially or completely off-limits for a period of time. The final culprit is neglect or ignorance. The remaining trees/tree islands on runs like Lower Moonshine and Lower Domino will be eliminated if the mountain doesn't take a proactive stance and start planting buffer trees that can protect and eventually replace the aging incumbents.

The current policies, or lack thereof, are pretty startling, IMO. Unauthorized cutting is but a single piece of the puzzle, and the mountain (and the USFS) really need to look in the mirror.

summitchallenger
07-09-2009, 05:35 AM
The current policies, or lack thereof, are pretty startling, IMO. Unauthorized cutting is but a single piece of the puzzle, and the mountain (and the USFS) really need to look in the mirror.

Couldn't resist. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9lq8oaK5Mw)

Tin Woodsman
07-09-2009, 12:41 PM
The current policies, or lack thereof, are pretty startling, IMO. Unauthorized cutting is but a single piece of the puzzle, and the mountain (and the USFS) really need to look in the mirror.

Couldn't resist. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l9lq8oaK5Mw)
Shamon!

win
07-09-2009, 09:51 PM
Couldn't resist, Tin. You don't have the total picture, and I am not able to post it here, so if you want to sit down and visit with me one day, I would be pleased to discuss!

Tin Woodsman
07-10-2009, 12:02 PM
Couldn't resist, Tin. You don't have the total picture, and I am not able to post it here, so if you want to sit down and visit with me one day, I would be pleased to discuss!

I'm sure I'm missing few pieces, chief of which is the status of discussions with your landlord, and I'll gladly take you up on that offer next time I'm in town. That said, it seems to me that there are some steps you could be taking where the USFS has no jurisdiction. For example, what would stop you from instituting a policy whereby you don't use the snowmaking hydrants directly adjacent to the tree islands on Murphy's Glade or Sleeper? You've got the groomers to push the snow around. What prevents the mountain from roping off skiers left of Ripcord or Paradise, or putting some bamboo/rope around certain trees/islands to protect them? Is that not within the operator's perogative? In the absence of any visible steps taken by the mountain, the pleas to stop unauthorized cutting simply appear as an attempt to shift the blame to others. IOW, it's hard not to be skeptical of Jay Peak's professed outrage at Jailhouse Chute when Jay Peak itself was a key enabling force due to their bulldozing of a path out to Big Jay.

Given your past track record, you hands must really be tied by the USFS with respect to what you can not only do, but even say.