Resort Skier vs. Backcountry Skier, ROI

It seems that for many of us, lift days are part of the investment in BC days and the cost should be added to the BC total.

Exactly. And worth every penny to feel comfortable in the BC . . .

Great thread, interesting comments!  It's pretty amazing to read how much some folks have invested in this game; that must take an incredible amount of passion, dedication, and hard work.

Many times, backcountry 'runs' are shorter than those at ski areas; sometimes, they can be much longer.  I like Travertine's suggestion of cost per day, but perhaps such a comparison should be more rigorous, such as cost per thousand feet descended?  Otherwise, it's apples & oranges.  I'd agree with those who consider the 'return' as more abstract than just the amount of vertical achieved.  That part of the equation seems pretty subjective; who's to say the meadow skipper is having less fun than the peak-slayer or resort ripper?  My annual number of days and cumulative vertical have been steadily dropping the past few years due to age & injuries, but the thrill is definitely not gone.  One of the main attractions of the backcountry experience for me is that it's my game, my rules. My goal is not to rip or gain status or impress anybody, but to get myself (& companions) back safely while hopefully having a good time. 

There's no doubt that those who noted that the most technically proficient skiers come from a strong resort background are correct.  Over the past four decades, I've watched the BC ski 'philosphy' change from 'What will the snow let us do today?' to basically imposing one's will on the winter environment.  As one of those "not very strong skiers" that offpiste mentions, I must point out that a backcountry-only skier such as myself is not necessarily concerned about "purity" or "being...cool".  It's 'purely' a matter of financial necessity for some of us.  In my Golden Years, I can't even afford to drive to the nearest resort (3X the nearest BC), let alone buy a lift ticket or a lesson.  My current cost breakdown would look something like:  Gas (Ashford-Paradise), about $6/day; Fees, a few cents per day with a NP 'Golden Geezer' Pass; Equipment, maybe $100/year ($1-2/day), mostly gloves, sunscreen & sunglasses... 

I'm curious about how many lift-days (and thousands of dollars) it might take a person of average coordination to learn the ski skills necessary to travel the backcountry efficiently and safely?  I have several thousands of lifetime days skiing in the backcountry, but only a few dozen lifetime days on lifts.  I've tried downhill & AT gear about fifteen times at resorts and never even came close to performing at the level I can on leathers & skinny skis.  Despite a couple lessons, my resort skills stalled at a crude stem-christie and I couldn't hack even six inches of new snow on alpine gear.  Even if I could afford it, it's never seemed cost-effective, let alone fun, to spend dozens or hundreds of days to re-attain the level of competence I already have.  I might only have dozens of days left in this lifetime, eh?   

Of course, the above paragraph is just theoretical.  Becoming a better skier is not realistic for me; the best a geezer can hope for is to hang on to some fraction of former skills for as long as possible.  I hope to enjoy the 'return' even when the day comes that I can only do the Valley Road...     

^^^^
Like I said before, skiing should be skiing and if you love it in leathers and skinny skis that's exactly what you should be doing.

I will disagree that you can't hope to improve. I know a number of folks well into middle-age and beyond who consistently work on their technical skills. The more practice the better of course.

^^^^
Like I said before, skiing should be skiing and if you love it in leathers and skinny skis that's exactly what you should be doing.

I will disagree that you can't hope to improve. I know a number of folks well into middle-age and beyond who consistently work on their technical skills. The more practice the better of course.

Agreed. Many of us get better every year. I think there's a point where you start to get worse just based on losing muscle strength, balance and aggresiveness (also injuries). This is why there are few top level (ie paid) big mountain skiers above 35 (see Powder article on Micah Black last month for example). But up until probably 35 +/- 5 years I think you can get better in all aspects of skiing, and after that you can still get better technically.


I love the BC and uncrowded days IB. There is NO substitute for vertical skied. And skiing groomers doesn't count. I don't care what the conditions are. Groomers are dumb. Hell is a mountain with all groomers!

Agreed.  Many of us get better every year.  I think there's a point where you start to get worse just based on losing muscle strength, balance and aggresiveness (also injuries).  This is why there are few top level (ie paid) big mountain skiers above 35 (see Powder article on Micah Black last month for example).   But up until probably 35 +/- 5 years I think you can get better in all aspects of skiing, and after that you can still get better technically. 


I love the BC and uncrowded days IB.  There is NO substitute for vertical skied.  And skiing groomers doesn't count.  I don't care what the conditions are.  Groomers are dumb.  Hell is a mountain with all groomers!

Ahem. I'm damn well (very well) past 35+/- and am pretty sure I'm improving still. It's slow progress, and I'm not as consistently aggressive or strong as I'd like to be or maybe once was, but I think I'm still getting better.

Groomers do count when you're learning, especially if you're a kid. My earlier point was that vert is vert, and you're right there's no substitute. Not that I prefer groomers (and you're right about hell), but there's plenty you can work on when skiing them if there aren't better options.

My best memories are of backcountry trips are when the sense of place were as strong as any of the few turns I actually made. But I would argue that that sensation made those wobbly turns feel much better than they actually were! Hundreds of thousands of vertical at the local ski areas do not set in my memory nearly as well. Kind of like fast food compared to home cookin'.

However, with a 14 year old son having to be brought up to speed on skis and now an 8 year old daughter, we have tied ourselves to a ski area with lessons, ski team and season passes. It all adds up. However, I would have to say that as time has gone on and we have learned more about the local area, it has been possible to fully explore within the legal boundaries of the area to spots lightly traveled, where hiking is necessary and the feeling of discovery could be introduced to the kids. Also, we have used the local area as a launch location for tours, some lift served (properly equipped and therefore not violating area rules) that also have been nice.

For me exploration and sense of place are priceless. I do like the downhill sliding, and I often choose trips where I expect the downhill part to be quality, but mostly I like to go places with spectacular views and situations. To do that with family is great and worth so much more than a day lift served but we try to be creative even then.

In any case, cost per run for me is not really measurable compared to quality per run. Objectively, backcountry would be much more expensive. I have been on a Stevens season pass and the kids programs have more or less meant that we are at the hill often enough to make the lift per day cost probably below $20 day. I only ski on my backcountry gear (except poles). Gas to the local area at 1.5 hrs per way, who knows, but a lot cheaper than driving the 3+ hours to Washington Pass, Marblemount or Baker. If I only did BC skiing, the costs per run would be very high indeed. But worth every second.

Alan