February 13, 2011 Crystal Mountain

Complaining about the first tracks thing will get you nothing. Taking your business elsewhere might if done in large enough numbers, but based on all the complaining about what a zoo Crystal is on weekends, you'll be in a tiny minority. Want first tracks without paying? Hike. Am I missing something? You pay more, you get more. That's kind of how it works.

I kinda see your point but you are matching apples with oranges. Everyone who buys a ticket should have equal rights to lift privileges. Not have to go across the valley to hike for turns. So I don't see the similarity.
As for the attitude that complaining gets you nothing, well it seemed to overthrow a government on Egypt. You forgot to add that without action, complaining gets you nothing.
My letter to Crystal was promptly replied by John Kircher who, in short said that there were complications at the start Sunday that lead to the ultimate extra runs in Green Valley. So since Crystal blew it on getting people up the hill for breakfast, and by the time the patrol gave clearance they were still trying to get their breakfasts. He said that the runs will be limited to two in the future and that what happened Sunday will never happen again.
So Andy the right to voice opinion about a business does go somewhere, use of the Internet to spread it to like thinking minds can cause a change if they are pissed off enough and decide to create action. Families may ultimately decide to take their business elsewhere. I would think that if there is enough displeasure that Crystal would change their program even abandon it, but people need to draw a line in the snow if there is going to be any action. You can still make your numbers on the program, but lose in other aspects that are intangible. Trust me I was not the only person that marketing got a letter from on this matter, they just hope that goes away and becomes accepted.
So the comment to suggest rolling over and going to sleep is a flat out lame attitude, and just as bad as complaining without action. Glad our forefathers who took risks did not feel that way about change.

What led to the overthrow of the Egyptian government wasn't strongly-worded statements (that's being going on for DECADES though the Muslim Brotherhood and other groups to absolutely zero avail), it was days upon days of protestors filling squares and exposing themselves to arrest/physical harm. Your suggestion otherwise is rather demeaning to the true weight of that situation.

I completely agree with you that complaint without action isn't particularly powerful most of the time, it would just seem that we'd disagree on the potency of the suggested action. I don't think writing a letter is nearly as powerful as taking your business elsewhere, or other types of economic response.

I suggested not that you roll over, but that you vote with your wallet, a far more effective action in my experience than talk. If a letter-writing campaign finds success in this case, hat's off to you!

Also, our forefathers were pretty big on this thing called capitalism, so the argument that it's unfair or wrong to offer additional privledges for additional money might not have found much purchase with that group. That, of course, doesn't preclude you from voicing your opposition.

You're not paying as much as the people who opt for the breakfast are, so I don't understand your comment about equal right to lift privledges. To me, it's not much different than a 1/2 day vs. full day pass. You paid more for the full day, so you get to ski all day. You pay for the first tracks deal, you get first tracks. A screw-up that allows that first tracks privledge to go beyond what is promised is understandably frustrating to the masses, but based on the chatter on this board, dissatisfaction with Crystal lift operations appears to be legion, and yet every good Saturday the parking lot is full to the brim....

Also, our forefathers were pretty big on this thing called capitalism, so the argument that it's unfair or wrong to offer additional privledges for additional money might not have found much purchase with that group. That, of course, doesn't preclude you from voicing your opposition.

Is it really capitalism if the use of public land is subsidized through cheap leases? If it were private property I wouldn't care what a ski area did. The lease is for the concession to provide a service to the public, it's not like they(the corporation) own the land. Would you be upset if you showed up early and a group of 100 skinners had tracked everything out before opening? They would have obviously invested more than you.

I absolutely would NOT be upset if 100 skinners had tracked everything out... I'd be damned impressed. Actually, you've just described Paradise on a weekend. I had the option to do the same thing and chose to sleep in. Que sera. Sounds like a situation where you change plans, slap the skins on and head to Boullion.

Your lift ticket doesn't entitle you to a certain type of condition (powder in this case), you pay to have a lift take you there and have access to related facilities.

You'll also find the public/private argument in the "Jackson skinner arrested" discussion, i.e.: It's public land, so I should be able to go wherever I want. Is a private entity leasing/using public land pure capitalism? Of course not. Few legal things are.

Is your argument is that because Crystal is leasing public land, the public has more of a say about how that lease is administered? If so, shouldn't Joe be directing his letter campaign to the USFS and not Crystal's marketing department? Would you then suggest that the USFS should then be able to control things like lift/season pass prices, the cost of a burger and first tracks breakfasts?

I'd guess that the lease isn't a concession to "provide a service to the public," it's a concession to run a private enterprise, though I'm admittedly guessing. Anyone know?

Obviously, Crystal has to petition to the government to do things like put in gondolas and expand terrain, and the public can comment on that. But about the day-to-day conduct of business?

Your lift ticked doesn't entitle you to a certain type of condition (powder in this case), you pay to have a lift take you there and have access to related facilities.

You'll also find the public/private argument in the "Jackson skinner arrested" discussion, i.e.: It's public land, so I should be able to go wherever I want. Is a private entity leasing/using public land pure capitalism? Of course not. Few legal things are.

Is your argument is that because Crystal is leasing public land, the public has more of a say about how that lease is administered? If so, shouldn't Joe be directing his letter campaign to the USFS and not Crystal's marketing department? Would you then suggest that the USFS should then be able to control things like lift/season pass prices, the cost of a burger and first tracks breakfasts?

I'd guess that the lease isn't a concession to "provide a service to the public," it's a concession to run a private enterprise, though I'm admittedly guessing. Anyone know?

Obviously, Crystal has to petition to the government to do things like put in gondolas and expand terrain, and the public can comment on that. But about the day-to-day conduct of business?

I think that the Forest Supervisor generally leaves skis areas alone to operate on a day to day basis, but believe they can dictate practice that impacts our land. Public can comment on new lift and proposed expansion it part of the permitting process. Ski Areas have to get permission to even log or glade areas.

I saw John today and he understands how I feel on this topic. It's OK if I don't agree with Crystal. It's OK if Andy and I don't see eye to eye on this subject either. We could endlessly debate every misunderstood analogy. If others would like to follow suit and voice their opinion so be it. I have had a lot of success in the past by choosing this form of protest.
Realistically the way this program will die is that it costs more to do than the dollar it makes. And that depends on many factors other than taking my business elsewhere.


As Andy pointed out, if I upset any Egyptians' by using my analogy. I apologize.
The analogy was really supposed to correlate the power that our modern day communication offers us. It works both ways, by denouncing the program it promotes the program to those who are interested and pisses off the people who will be effected by it.
Fiscal Embargoes are so slow to create action, where the social network offers much quicker call to action. Maybe a combo of the two is better.