My question is why do they need to do this? An independent owner/operator can choose to run the mountain as he/she sees fit. Does Red need a cash inflow?
This is an area I've skied in several seasons. I totally get that Red is an area where the culture should stay the way it is. It doesn't need high speed lifts because the lifts climb steep terrain and give you good vertical for the ride time (Taos is another example of this). I also see little in the way of lift lines. I don't see major capital needs here. Snowmaking? It wouldn't help all that much in the type of terrain Red has.
I have Red at 115,000 skier visits per season, don't recall where I found that number. Hopefully that's enough to pay the bills. In terms of commercial appeal, Red has some strikes against it.
1) If you're not a strong skier, terrain is very limited.
2) Access is tough. For Canadians it's via Castelgar (nickname Cancelgar). Yes, Spokane is a cheap gateway less than 3 hours away, but the fact remains that most Americans won't cross the border for their ski trips, and when it dawns upon them that they can, they go to Whistler or Banff. I read somewhere that Americans comprise 6% of interior B.C. skier visits.
3) Snow conditions are average for a destination resort, but areas with that demanding terrain need to be well above average for consistency (see Taos, Crested Butte for similar challenges). Red's snow is distinctly inferior to competitors Whitewater and Fernie much of the time.
Despite caveat #3 above, I was already aware that Red had an excellent 2015-16 snow year relative to most of western North America (one of only 4 areas in my data more than one standard deviation above average). So I'm not surprised to hear of record skier visits. This provides reassurance that the current crowdsourcing outreach is not due to immediate financial distress.