Tahoe area ski resorts adapting to climate change, trying to attract newbies
By Kathryn Reed
TRUCKEE – In spite of the challenges of climate change and a shrinking snowboarding clientele, the ski resort industry is going strong, according to those in the know.
“The market and demand is still out there,” Bob Roberts, president of the California Ski Industry Association, said at this week’s Truckee-Donner Chamber of Commerce breakfast meeting.
Lake Tahoe is a critical piece to the state’s overall ski market with half of the visits being to one of the local resorts and more than half of the revenue generated here.
California had been averaging 7.4 million skier visits a year until three years ago. Last season it plummeted to 5.3 million visits. Mother Nature didn’t cooperate so the skiers and riders found something else to do.
It’s hard to attract people when resorts like Mount Shasta were open four days and Dodge Ridge 33 days. Shasta bought goodwill by offering those who purchased a season pass last year to roll it over to this season.
Bob Roberts, California Ski Industry Association president, addresses industry concerns and goals Nov. 18. Photo/LTN
Roberts on Nov. 18 acknowledged that snowmaking might have to regularly augment what naturally falls.
Resorts are beefing up their snowmaking capability, putting them on more runs and constantly working to make what comes out of the guns as close to “real” snow as possible.
“We had passholders who skied more than 100 days last year. We know we can deliver that again this year,” Rachael Woods with Northstar said.
Jeff Monson with Sugar Bowl said his resort off Interstate 80 put in $500,000 worth of snowmaking equipment, which includes 25 guns that can provide top to bottom skiing. The goal is when Sugar Bowl opens for its 75th season on Nov. 26 there will be three lifts with 1,500 vertical feet.
“We are blowing more snow, more efficiently,” Monson told the packed room at Truckee Airport.
Heavenly Mountain Resort and Northstar have two of the largest snowmaking operations on the West Coast, which is allowing both resorts to open today.
When it comes to snowboarding it is hitting the Southern California market the hardest, Roberts said. The problem is younger people are not picking up the sport. It is an issue Roberts and his colleagues are trying to figure out how to remedy.
Ski resort officials who spoke at the meeting talked about various learn to ski-ride programs that make snowsports more affordable.
Paul Raymore with Homewood Mountain Resort said the West Shore resort is bringing back free lessons for intermediate and advanced skiers-riders.
Roberts said one benefit of the consolidation of resorts is season passes are getting people to ski beyond their one favorite resort. And resorts that aren’t owned by the same company are partnering to offer combined passes.
“Season pass sales are running ahead of last year,” Roberts said. “The indicators are the market is still strong.”
In the last five years more than $500 million has been spent by Tahoe area resorts on upgrading their product. Some of this is for summer fun as they evolve into year-round destinations.
Roberts said Reno-Tahoe International Airport landing direct flights from England and Mexico would also help the local industry. He said Californians tend to spend $175/day on an average ski day, whereas travelers from abroad spend $300 per day and tend to stay at least seven days.
There is no climate change you idiots
Sure, there’s climate change. There has always been climate change. The question is, is there anthropogenic climate change? I say not much. Science says not much. But politicians and lefties who seek to control the world say yes.
Glad to see snowboarding is on the decline. May the slopes be peaceful again.
Sure, there’s climate change. There has always been climate change. The question is, is there anthropogenic climate change? I say not much. Science says not much. But politicians and lefties who seek to control the world say yes.
NO THAT IS REALLY NOT THE QUESTION!!!! Because for anything that depends on water, if climate is changing that will have catastrophic impact that will need to be dealt with regardless of the ultimate cause – but on top of that, to say science doesn’t say much about the relationship of climate and man-made activities is total BS no matter how many times you want to repeat it. :)
Sure there is no man caused climate change…that is why the ski resorts are preparing for it, that is why the military is planning for it, that is why major corporations are planning for it, that is why cities are preparing for it and that is why insurance companies are preparing for it. Because all these organizations are liberal and susceptible to things that don’t exist. Got it.
Kits…as for the slopes being more peaceful without snowboarders…sorry but it is the function of the age and gender of those on the boards, not the boards themselves. If they are on skis, it will just be speeding young skiers you will need to watch out for.
Jason-
you are obviously what you accuse others of.
Quick, Dog-
define anthropogenic for us without looking it up.
My guess is this is a word you heard that sounded good to spout.
Ljames-
Right on!
Acid rain (remember that, all you scoffers?) has been much more controlled since it was identified a decades ago as caused by millions of tons of sulfur pumped into the air from coal burning.
Ergo, if we could identify and change this, it only follows that Carbon dioxide is not without effects on the global air.
Cranky Gerald, Yes, I confess! The first time I read the word anthropogenic here on LTN, I did look it up! I’m going to try and throw a few rarely used words that will make EVERYONE grab their dictionary.
Not at thIs time tho, as I’m distracted by the dicourse of this discombobulated diatribe of this discussion of climate change on ski areas.
I’ll write further on this topic at another time.
We do need snow as well as all the folks downhill from us need run off from here to fill their resevoirs and streams for drinking water and agriculture.
Climate change is real. Pray to the angry sky man for snow! OLS
Cranky Gerald, Yes, I confess! The first time I read the word anthropogenic here on LTN, I did look it up! I’m going to try and throw a few rarely used words that will make EVERYONE grab their dictionary.
Not at thIs time tho, as I’m distracted by the dicourse of this discombobulated diatribe of this discussion of climate change on ski areas.
I’ll write further on this topic at another time.
We do need snow as well as all the folks downhill from us who need the run off from here to fill their resevoirs and streams for drinking water and agriculture.
Climate change is real. Pray to the angry sky man for snow! OLS
” There has always been climate change.”
Intellectually lazy argument.
“Science says not much.”
No one is taking your word for that. Post a source.
Let’s all agree on two things:
1. Climate change is real and documented over many years, by many facts and many researchers.
We just don’t have the reasons for the change pinned down completely.
2. The only argument, really, is if human activity, for instance fossil fuel burning since the industrial revolution, has anything significant to do with it.
The argument(s) is more politico-economic than anything. This truth is clearly shown by the inability of commenters on many forums to stay on point.
The far right wingers are believers in no man caused climate change. They have to believe this publically because of their aversion to regulation of much of anything. This group wants to make more money by avoiding costs of regulation. They are stewards only of their bank accounts. Oh yeah, they also tend to be stewards of their own form of religion and want everyone to follow it. Kind of like fundamental Islamists. This group wants government intervention of only the things they differ on with everyone else, despite their call for small government. This group supports making war on the other side of the earth to get their way and make a lot of money. They support using the lower economic classes to fight the battles, and fight very hard to reduce the size of any developing middle class.
The far left wingers are believers in (at least the possibility of) man caused climate change and often believe they are, or think they are, stewards of the earth, and believe in taking care of earth if possible. This group will, sometimes unreasonably, tolerate significant costs/taxes and restrictions to support their beliefs. This group tends to support government intervention of many things, including a probable reduction in their standard of living in order to slow down human effects of fossil fuel burning among many other activities.
This group believes you should be entitled to worship in your own way, or no way, as long as you do not interfere with anyone else’s religion.
Of course both the groups described think they are right and both slow down a lot of good things just because they need to keep anyone else from “winning”. Cooperation is rare to a fault.
Oddly enough, both sides described above each seem to have factions of obscenely wealthy people who truly put their money where their thoughts are. Neither of these factions really give a rat’s fanny about anyone outside their mutually shared, tremendous affinity for stockpiles of money and collection of the trappings of wealth.
Both sides think that along with money they inherited brains and intellect, not realizing that no matter how stupid you are, sufficient money makes it possible to buy what you want, be it power and influence or virtually anything else a normal or a deranged human can want.
What a great system we have built.
Cranky Gerald, you know what is really stupid?
Your attempt to portray this debate as if there is some sort of scientific equality of opinion.
The only debates we should be having now is what to do about this problem, which is undoubtedtably the biggest threat to our existence as a species that we have ever faced.
Kevin-
Cool your jets…
Please re-read my writing and tell me where I took an opinion on which side is right, or that there is no equality of scientific opinion.
I did, perhaps poorly, attempt to characterize the argument as it is played out on the pages and screens of our insane media, For the purpose of characterizing the nutcases who have their heads in the sand.
I am an earth scientist…..
I understand perfectly what the issue is, but have no more idea how to control it than anyone else. I am sure both you and I drive cars, and live in the energy intensive Lake Tahoe area so in effect we are part of the problem.
Our idiot government negotiates deals where we cut back on this and that, damaging parts of out own economy, and we agree to let other countries, i.e. China pollute and burn all the coal they can or want.
Maybe evolution, self generated by humans will ultimately eliminate the problem, which is us.
I don’t know about you, but my cynical side, after looking out at all that humans have done to the earth, and to each other in the last 3000 or so years, says maybe it is time to let humanity go.
Kevin-
Cool your jets…
Please re-read my writing and tell me where I took an opinion on which side is right, or that there is no equality of scientific opinion.
I did, perhaps poorly, attempt to characterize the argument as it is played out on the pages and screens of our insane media, For the purpose of characterizing the nutcases who have their heads in the sand.
I am an earth scientist…..
I understand perfectly what the issue is, but have no more idea how to control it than anyone else. I am sure both you and I drive cars, and live in the energy intensive Lake Tahoe area so in effect we are part of the problem.
Our idiot government negotiates deals where we cut back on this and that, damaging parts of out own economy, and we agree to let other countries, i.e. China pollute and burn all the coal they can or want.
Maybe evolution, self generated by humans will ultimately eliminate the problem, which is us.
I don’t know about you, but my cynical side, after looking out at all that humans have done to the earth, and to each other in the last 3000 or so years, says maybe it is time to let humanity go.
Cranky, you seem (though I may be wrong) to be saying this is a national problem. It really isn’t there are many nations that have huge pollution issues and none or very little pollution controls. Our pollution has been steadily decreasing. Growing up in LA we would have 3rd stage smog alerts often now it hardly ever happens. We have smog controls on our autos and filters on our commercial smoke stacks. Countries like China, India, Russia, mexico, south america, ect are the ones that have to speed up their controls. But I believe many of them are more interested in feeding and raising the standard of living in their countries first and foremost. Which as far as they are concerned is not a conservative or liberal thing at all.