Although they claim they've proven a business model their closure seems to indicate that they haven't. What's the real story? Insufficient paying customers? Land lease getting out of control?
Fair point and I accept your nuance. Not a diss intended as at least they tried something. But as you identify it's probably a very niche niche to find the sweetspot where it can be economically viable. Essentially big drive up market providing the bunny hill of backcountry on a constantly renewing userbase.They didn't claim they've proven a business model -- they claimed they proved there is demand for backcountry lite-type offerings.
Though in that case you get the "earn" part of "earn your turns", but you don't get any of the actual BC turns part of it.
Sorry to see it go, as I thought maybe that's the kind of place that would get me to try/learn about BC skiing. I suppose resorts that allow uphill are another "lite" way to try it too. Though in that case you get the "earn" part of "earn your turns", but you don't get any of the actual BC turns part of it.
While I can sympathise with this view on a human level isn't it the essence of having a market economy? The successes make money and thrive/ grow while the weaker models are winnowed out? Hardware companies, resorts, shops etc.It never feels to to hear that someone in the ski industry goes belly up
I'd love to see Copper Mountain hire these guys to implement a similar model on the large expansion area within Copper's existing permit boundary.
Some useful discussion/background here:Maybe they should try to run a bc operation like this off Berthoud Pass. As long as they could keep people from setting off slides onto US 40. Concept at Bluebird seemed good especially training people how to go bc safely. Berthoud is obviously much closer to civilization