Killington backside potential
Moderators: SkiDork, spanky, Bubba
-
- Beginner On Rentals
- Posts: 10
- Joined: Nov 2nd, '14, 18:50
Killington backside potential
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?
-
- Post Office
- Posts: 4540
- Joined: Sep 12th, '11, 21:53
- Location: Brooklyn, NY/Pittsford,VT
Re: Killington backside potential
Pretty sure they can't develop back there. Bear habitat & all.
-
- Postinator
- Posts: 7037
- Joined: Mar 27th, '06, 13:33
- Location: In a maze of twisty little passages, all alike
Re: Killington backside potential
WTF?A bear wrote: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.
-
- Slalom Racer
- Posts: 1145
- Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57
Re: Killington backside potential
I'm guessing this thread will soon devolve into jokes about backsides but.....Ski_killington wrote: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?
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.
Ski the edges!
-
- Blue Chatterbox
- Posts: 222
- Joined: Nov 20th, '04, 00:40
- Location: In through the back door.
- Contact:
Re: Killington backside potential
Sgt Eddy Brewers wrote:I'm guessing this thread will soon devolve into jokes about backsides but.....Ski_killington wrote: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?
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!
That's one big rope between my legs. Who wants to go for a swing?
-
- Black Carver
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Nov 19th, '08, 14:43
- Location: Killington
Re: Killington backside potential
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
The backside has short vert and steep pitches. Lots of bears and moose too. Scary stuff
- ski
- Wanted Poster
- Posts: 3320
- Joined: Nov 13th, '08, 17:30
- Location: In front of you on a POWDER DAY ! . . .
Re: Killington backside potential
Skiing sucks back there . . . trees, overgrowth, rocks... ugh !
"Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell"
I love you more than words can tell"
-
- Bumper
- Posts: 653
- Joined: Sep 1st, '05, 11:53
- Location: "On The Edge" & New York, NY
Re: Killington backside potential
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.
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.
Re: Killington backside potential
Give it 50 years... oh wait, that's just the timeline for the interconnect.Ski_killington wrote: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?
trees, steeps, and yan lifts
that's why I ski DA BEAST
that's why I ski DA BEAST
-
- Slalom Racer
- Posts: 1145
- Joined: Aug 24th, '11, 14:57
Re: Killington backside potential
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 landsSki_killington wrote: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?
http://www.vtfpr.org/lands/coolwmu.cfm" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;
Long read but interesting!
Ski the edges!