Killington backside potential

[Ski_killington]

Do you guys think it would be feasible for Killington to develop the back of the mountain? I don't know much about it, having never skied back there, but I'm sure some of you have. I'm just curious, because as of recently, everyone has been talking about the interconnect, and potential new lifts on the south ridge. For me though, I think skiing the backside of Killington would interest me a lot more. What do you guys think?

[Ragged#1]

So much expansion. Such little time.

[steamboat1]

Pretty sure they can't develop back there. Bear habitat & all.

[rogman]

While it is a habitat, feel free to come on back there. We don't actually hibernate as much as you might expect. We wake up. We get peckish. We'd love to have you for dinner. Be a luv and bring some wine. Red. We'll be serving meat.

WTF?

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Do you guys think it would be feasible for Killington to develop the back of the mountain? I don't know much about it, having never skied back there, but I'm sure some of you have. I'm just curious, because as of recently, everyone has been talking about the interconnect, and potential new lifts on the south ridge. For me though, I think skiing the backside of Killington would interest me a lot more. What do you guys think?

I'm guessing this thread will soon devolve into jokes about backsides but.....

Not sure where I read this but all the land on the backside is restricted from development for downhill skiing. There were early efforts at trail development back there but they seem to have been before the current restrictions were put in place. Most of it is like the Julio / Anarchy slope. Quite steep. Not the modest slopes expansions North of Ramshead or off the current South Ridge trails might give. That expansion will not happen.

[Richard Simmons]

Do you guys think it would be feasible for Killington to develop the back of the mountain? I don't know much about it, having never skied back there, but I'm sure some of you have. I'm just curious, because as of recently, everyone has been talking about the interconnect, and potential new lifts on the south ridge. For me though, I think skiing the backside of Killington would interest me a lot more. What do you guys think?

I'm guessing this thread will soon devolve into jokes about backsides but.....

Not sure where I read this but all the land on the backside is restricted from development for downhill skiing. There were early efforts at trail development back there but they seem to have been before the current restrictions were put in place. Most of it is like the Julio / Anarchy slope. Quite steep. Not the modest slopes expansions North of Ramshead or off the current South Ridge trails might give. That expansion will not happen.

Killington backside? Ooooohw! Dick Simmons' curiosity has been piqued. This is a conversation I need to be included in. Whose backside(s) are we talking about here?



Call me!

[Devils Fiddle]

I think they should focus on the interconnect first. The interconnect would be a nice addition to the Killington/Pico region.

The backside has short vert and steep pitches. Lots of bears and moose too. Scary stuff

[ski]

Skiing sucks back there . . . trees, overgrowth, rocks... ugh !

[Powderputz]

They were trying to develop Parker's Gore (Between Falls Brook and spread over the North and South forks of Madden Brook), but that somehow got killed.

Are you suggesting the development occur just west of Shrewsbury Peak, on way down toward Sargent Brook and the Calvin Coolidge State Forest?

Remember that snow on south-facing slopes get killed by sunshine melting snow. Additionally, anywhere new terrain is developed, almost assuredly machine-made snow is essential. That necessitates a wider trail, all the pipes, the compressor pad somewhere, which means additional supportive trail(s). If the area is protected environmentally, you can essentially forget anyone spending three seconds planning such an expansion. The environmental impact statement alone (zillions of pages of paper reports, etc.) would deforest a large section of Vermont.

[iRock]

Do you guys think it would be feasible for Killington to develop the back of the mountain? I don't know much about it, having never skied back there, but I'm sure some of you have. I'm just curious, because as of recently, everyone has been talking about the interconnect, and potential new lifts on the south ridge. For me though, I think skiing the backside of Killington would interest me a lot more. What do you guys think?

Give it 50 years... oh wait, that's just the timeline for the interconnect.

[Sgt Eddy Brewers]

Do you guys think it would be feasible for Killington to develop the back of the mountain? I don't know much about it, having never skied back there, but I'm sure some of you have. I'm just curious, because as of recently, everyone has been talking about the interconnect, and potential new lifts on the south ridge. For me though, I think skiing the backside of Killington would interest me a lot more. What do you guys think?

Here is a key document to look at: pdf is too big to attach so go to this website and click on "Long-range Management Plan" to get a pdf that describes legal constraints on what can happen on that land, Parkers Gore West, which is part of the Coolidge State Forest lands

http://www.vtfpr.org/lands/coolwmu.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

Long read but interesting!