Media Doom & Gloom on Skiing vs. Reality

There has never been a time when the Northeast did not have periodic rain and thaw in winter. From 1971-1974 at Princeton I never saw more than 4 inches of snow fall at one time. :icon-twisted: Those 4 years also averaged 130+% of normal rainfall in nearby NYC. So now you know how I acquired my strong dislike of US eastern weather.
Yea, Tony, I've lived in New England most of my life and there have been some lean winters over the last 60 years or so, in terms of snowfall and lack of consistently cold weather, and even during "heavy snow" winters, there are almost always thaws and rain events. But this year seems especially lean in terms of snowfall and cold weather (ignoring the -35 degree (F) wind chill day we had last Saturday and then, of course, it was in the 40's by Sunday). But the winters DO seem to be getting warmer and less snowy than I remember from my youth (although my memory may be faulty). A meteorologist at one of the local Albany, NY TV stations does a "climate change" update report once a month or so, and he has all sorts of graphs and charts showing that the number of days with above average temperatures is increasing; the number of days with below average temperature are decreasing and the number and total amount of snowfall days are decreasing too. His stats may be wrong, but, anecdotally, it seems more or less right to me.
 
While on the chair with the press attachée from Serre Chevalier, she mentioned a British tabloid reporter who asked for quotes about and photos of the snowless terrain there that he could combine with photos of other French ski areas that were in a similar situation. She replied that the French Southern Alps had better than average cover for that time of year and would he like photos of that? He said "no, that contradicts my end-of-the-skiing-industry-as-we-know-it storyline!"
I don't mean to quote Donald Trump, LOL, but might this fall under the category of "fake news"?
 
I often examine my Google Earth .kml file to look up the obscure places. The Alps are so dense with these areas. It has to be a competitive environment so that a streak of difficult snow years (with more anticipated at low altitude) will get some marginal places to fold. The French areas in that article were so obscure that they were not marked in the .kml file.
 
The Alps are so dense with these areas. It has to be a competitive environment so that a streak of difficult snow years (with more anticipated at low altitude) will get some marginal places to fold.
That was my point -- as Tony noted previously, most of these articles are "alarmist drivel." While certainly not discounting the global-warming trend and the need for many resorts to significantly beef up their snowmaking to survive, news sources are cherry picking small, obscure ski areas in the Alps that are closing. I refer back to my anecdote from Serre Chevalier last season.
 
The peak in the 1970's is often quoted in the 700's though some sources say over 1,000.
As NELSAP notes, NY State alone has approx. 350 lost ski areas with only a tenth of that number still in operation. While many were feeder molehills, it nonetheless shows how popular the sport was 40-50 years ago when long-distance destination trips were out of reach for all but the most well-off and passionate skiers. Amongst the reasons for the shakeout (skyrocketing insurance rates are often cited), insufficient natural precip certainly played a significant role, especially when ski hills were built in comparatively marginal locations outside of obvious snow belts, where a few bad years in a row were enough to kill off the business. Similar, I suppose, to the Alps areas mentioned in these alarmist articles.

It's a shame that the NELSAP webmaster stopped updating the site a while back. I would've liked to see more of the NYS content.
 
Last edited:
It's a shame that the NELSAP webmaster stopped updating the site a while back. I would've liked to see more of the NYS content.
I remember when I first visited my great aunt in Northfield, Vermont in the fall of 1970. I did not ski then but the town had a ~1,000 vertical chairlift.

I think the cost of installing a chairlift and operating it then was dirt cheap. With no snowmaking I'll bet these places had a lot of short seasons. But they weren't carrying a debt load or having high fixed expenses. The market was strictly locals who lived with their 1 month seasons in bad years and 3+ months in the good years. But Northfield is 37 minutes from Sugarbush. Once Sugarbush had big league snowmaking, I suspect even those locals moved on. Only MRG (with exceptional terrain quality in regional context) thrives under the retro operational model.

Here in SoCal the same thing happened when Snow Summit built its snowmaking pipe into the lake with the profits from the huge 1978-79 season. The 600 vertical nearby Snow Forest area closed in 1992 and 700 vertical Kratka Ridge was never rebuilt after a 2001 fire. Similar sized Green Valley and Ski Sunrise have been converted to snowplay/tubing parks. Big Bear has also taken significant market share from the surviving SoCal areas, all of which have much lower water supplies. Waterman hangs by a thread after opening in only 8 of the past 17 seasons and Baldy prioritizes its tubing park for its limited snowmaking.

I revisited my great aunt to ski Killington in October 1988 and November 1993 and most memorably Tuckerman Ravine in April 1990.
 
Last edited:
While many were feeder molehills, it nonetheless shows how popular the sport was 40-50 years ago when long-distance destination trips were out of reach for all but the most well-off and passionate skiers.
Discussed here.

Further illumination on this subject has come this summer after Liz, Patrick and I visited the California Ski Library in June. I bought the Pray for Snow book by library curator Ingrid Wicken. Before the Interstate Highway system accessibility was a huge factor in who skied. SoCal had a lot of activity even before WW2 and certainly in the 1950's and 1960's. SoCal's mountains were much more accessible to a large local population base than even the Sierra due to shorter travel distance and fewer road restricting snowfalls. When I first skied Mammoth in 1978 about 125 miles of the 320 mile drive was two lane. In the 1960's nearly all of it was. Now it's only 25 miles of two lane from L.A. (sadly much more from the Cajon Pass side serving Inland Empire, Orange County and San Diego).

The above fits with the earlier discussion stat that in the 1970's 44% of US skier visits were in the Northeast. Whether you skied then was strongly related to whether you lived within daytrip distance of a ski area. And suffering through bad snow years was probably an accepted fact of life. I look at L.A. rainfall stats from 1945-1964 and there were a LOT of years in that pre snowmaking era that had to be marginal at best.
lacvprcp2023.gif

So there's no surprise with the title of Wicken's book about the history of skiing in Southern California.
 
Last edited:
I remember when I first visited my great aunt in Northfield, Vermont in the fall of 1970. I did not ski then but the town had a ~1,000 vertical chairlift.
Norwich University, in operation for more than 50 years. NELSAP notes that the three reasons for its closure are the classics noted above: rising insurance costs, no snowmaking, and a few bad seasons.
 
Last edited:
I guess Mother Nature will sort out the issue somehow.

Mother Nature and Insurance.

You guys who fly to mountains above 10,000 feet will get more skiing then those of us skiing the east.

I suspect the cost will go up everywhere.

Hey @Tony Crocker do you want your signature to be a link?
 
You guys who fly to mountains above 10,000 feet will get more skiing then those of us skiing the east.
It's mostly those of us who can drive to mountains above 10,000 feet, because the biggest gap between East and West in terms of climate is in spring. It rains a $#!&load in the East in spring, and that rain vs. snow incidence is surely rising with the temperatures. Ski areas are not motivated to extend their spring seasons, especially if attendance is low and cost (stockpiling manmade snow in advance) is high. November rain incidence in the East is likely rising too, but the ski areas will fight like hell to get enough open to attract Christmas customers.
Hey @Tony Crocker do you want your signature to be a link?
I'll display my tech ignorance and ask, "Link to what?" E-mail?
 
Last edited:
It's mostly those of us who can drive to mountains above 10,000 feet, because the biggest gap between East and West in terms of climate is in spring. It rains a $#!&load in the East in spring, and that rain vs. snow incidence is surely rising with the temperatures. Ski areas are not motivated to extend their spring seasons, especially if attendance is low and cost (stockpiling manmade snow in advance) is high. November rain incidence in the East is likely rising too, but the ski areas will fight like hell to get enough open to attract Christmas customers.

I'll display my tech ignorance and ask, "Link to what?" E-mail?
I think he means link to bestsnow.net
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Back
Top