4 Responses

  1. avatar
    Philippe at |

    Based in the Quebec ski region , I can tell you this. Those in power on this side of the border should take a close , hard look at the New England approach. Here in Quebec , we reserve our most lofty hills for parks with almost no ski or tourism development. If there is a ski operation , it’s hounded by the eco crowd who fail to realize that mountains provide JOBS and revenue. Both in short supply here.Case in point: Quebec has a pop. of 7’6 million yet has trouble keeping a dwindling number of hills alive. We’re not paupers but the operations are not a government priority.
    One wonders how long it will take before governments on both sides of the border realize that ski operations ,like agriculture, are vulnerable to the whims of mother nature . …and so deserves a policy adjusted to this industry.

    Reply
    1. avatar
      Tim Jones at |

      Philippe,

      Thanks for taking the time to post your comments. Both Quebec and New England have, I think, done a pretty good job of balancing ski area development and the protection of wild and scenic areas. We now have both places to ride up hills and slide down and places where you have to climb under your own power and earn your turns. Having experienced Quebec’s vibrant ski scene (think Bromont or Stoneham on a Saturday night), I can’t fully agree with you that Quebec’s ski areas are in decline. Certainly the base areas around Tremblant are being developed, though they haven’t found a way to make the mountain any bigger. Orford is a National Park with a wonderful ski hill. Mont Ste Anne and LeMassif are very much alive and well as are Owl’s Head and Sutton. All in all, it seems to me that the East has good skiing on both sides of the border, and all looks good for the future.

      Reply
  2. avatar
    Steve at |

    I am glad I am not in business with him because the author doesn’t understand basic economics. Skier-visits were up, but for the mountains and those of us who work on them it’s not about the numbers of people if the management is giving away tickets. $399 for a season pass (for some, purchased early)and we can’t make money at the ‘Loaf.

    We just hope people buy a lot of hot chocolate, because it’s the side-businesses that make or break these mountains.

    Stick to what you know and don’t talk “business”.

    Reply
    1. avatar
      Tim Jones at |

      Actually, Steve, the resort owners and managers we’ve talked to–and we’ve talked to many at various industry events –are delighted that their season pass sales are up in a “down” economy. First, those early season pass sales provide start-up capital for the season, the money comes in at a time when cash flow is down but expenses are increasing. Second, people who buy a pass are skiing at their area, not somewhere else, and most are buying coffee and disposable handwarmers, getting their skis tuned, and perhaps most important, telling their friends and co-workers where they ski and how much fun they are having, which is the best marketing any business can have.

      Would a ski hill rather sell full-price day tickets? Absolutely! But those low-price early season passes are an important part of the overall cash-flow picture for most ski hills. And, incidentally, a wonderful excuse for the rest of us to get out and ski more often.

      Reply

Leave a Reply