Hi
I don't want to take anything away from the 2fr Cannon thread, but I thought that since the privatiztion issue was, or became, an element that drew some interest perhaps starting a new thread on the privatization issue could be a constructive way for people to weigh in on the issue. My advance apologies to lft gully if it is still too touchy a subject, but I suspect that supporters of the bill to privatize need some perspective from the other side.
Here's my opinion for what it is worth:
I have always maintained that I oppose the privatization knowing full well that it is mainly for selfish reasons.IE. I like few crowds, I like cheap mid week tickets (lets be honest if the area is loosing money these tickets are subsidized by the other non-skiers/state park system), and I don't represent the mass market that needs snowmaking on 90% of the terrain and treats bare spots with disdain- heck I never even maintain my skiis, I get them used, use them hard until they are unskiiable (edge pulls and the like) and then get a new set of used skis. In the past few years however, I would say that I feel a bit more comfortable with my opposition to privatisation. Here is why:
Cannon does represent a different skiing experience that can help diversify the skiing appeal of the state of NH. If I want the LOON experience I can have that at MOST of the ski areas in the state- why try to compete with the other well endowed sharks in the pool when Cannon can be in a niche (the old cliche' of "yea a nich for dirtbags who spend little money" is less and less accurate). I have a seasons pass at LOON and I regularly drive right by LOON to go to Cannon. I buy a full day ticket at Cannon and usually utilize only 4-6 chair lift rides during the day. By skiing the unmaintained stuff over at Mittersill for 75% of my day I occupy a lesser service demand and footprint on overall skier density (both up and down the hill). Granted I may not represent the average Cannon user, but I notice that as this back to the basics type of skiing grows more scarce, more people are selecting Cannon to fill this need. one only needs to see the traffic of 6- 66 year olds hiking over to that portion of the mountain.
People complain that the state hasn't kept up with capital infrastructure improvements. Perhaps, but the modest improvements they have made have been in the right places. I can't get over how good the learning area is now at Cannon. I took my 3 yr old daughter there on Presidents Day weekend and we had a blast. It is perfect terrain for learning. Cannon has long had a reputation for being difficult and windy. Cannon does not need new "bling, bling" infrastructure, it needs (ARE YOU LISTENING DRED, GOV. LYNCH, SKI 93, AND REP. MCLEOD) to do a better job selling itself as now having an absolutely remarkable beginner terrain. I taught skiing for 10 years and it is where I will go with any new skier. The staff was friendly (the staff at other corporate mtn.s tend to be bitter shortimers) and helpfull, and the beginner area didn't seem to affected by the wind.
Last major point: ski areas today do not seem to make enought money on their own to satisfy the corporate stockholders demands for double digit profit. The simple fact is that almost all are involved in the ski areas to boost the value of the surounding real estate (same hold true for golf courses by the way). That is where they make thier money, but land is limited and once the lowest hanging fruit is gone I supect they will move on to some other real estate venture du jour. The ski area may be better for it or worse. Only time will tell.
I don't want to take anything away from the 2fr Cannon thread, but I thought that since the privatiztion issue was, or became, an element that drew some interest perhaps starting a new thread on the privatization issue could be a constructive way for people to weigh in on the issue. My advance apologies to lft gully if it is still too touchy a subject, but I suspect that supporters of the bill to privatize need some perspective from the other side.
Here's my opinion for what it is worth:
I have always maintained that I oppose the privatization knowing full well that it is mainly for selfish reasons.IE. I like few crowds, I like cheap mid week tickets (lets be honest if the area is loosing money these tickets are subsidized by the other non-skiers/state park system), and I don't represent the mass market that needs snowmaking on 90% of the terrain and treats bare spots with disdain- heck I never even maintain my skiis, I get them used, use them hard until they are unskiiable (edge pulls and the like) and then get a new set of used skis. In the past few years however, I would say that I feel a bit more comfortable with my opposition to privatisation. Here is why:
Cannon does represent a different skiing experience that can help diversify the skiing appeal of the state of NH. If I want the LOON experience I can have that at MOST of the ski areas in the state- why try to compete with the other well endowed sharks in the pool when Cannon can be in a niche (the old cliche' of "yea a nich for dirtbags who spend little money" is less and less accurate). I have a seasons pass at LOON and I regularly drive right by LOON to go to Cannon. I buy a full day ticket at Cannon and usually utilize only 4-6 chair lift rides during the day. By skiing the unmaintained stuff over at Mittersill for 75% of my day I occupy a lesser service demand and footprint on overall skier density (both up and down the hill). Granted I may not represent the average Cannon user, but I notice that as this back to the basics type of skiing grows more scarce, more people are selecting Cannon to fill this need. one only needs to see the traffic of 6- 66 year olds hiking over to that portion of the mountain.
People complain that the state hasn't kept up with capital infrastructure improvements. Perhaps, but the modest improvements they have made have been in the right places. I can't get over how good the learning area is now at Cannon. I took my 3 yr old daughter there on Presidents Day weekend and we had a blast. It is perfect terrain for learning. Cannon has long had a reputation for being difficult and windy. Cannon does not need new "bling, bling" infrastructure, it needs (ARE YOU LISTENING DRED, GOV. LYNCH, SKI 93, AND REP. MCLEOD) to do a better job selling itself as now having an absolutely remarkable beginner terrain. I taught skiing for 10 years and it is where I will go with any new skier. The staff was friendly (the staff at other corporate mtn.s tend to be bitter shortimers) and helpfull, and the beginner area didn't seem to affected by the wind.
Last major point: ski areas today do not seem to make enought money on their own to satisfy the corporate stockholders demands for double digit profit. The simple fact is that almost all are involved in the ski areas to boost the value of the surounding real estate (same hold true for golf courses by the way). That is where they make thier money, but land is limited and once the lowest hanging fruit is gone I supect they will move on to some other real estate venture du jour. The ski area may be better for it or worse. Only time will tell.
