I just caught up on a lot of this thread. In keeping with the general feeling about skiing safety, I want to point out that cheaper lessons, if many took advantage, could lead to safer trails.
Plus enforcement.
I have paid for a few lessons and a few clinics. Do I need more? Absolutely, but after spending money on passes, skis, boots, and bringing lunch in my pocket (usually), I find the cost prohibitive. Last year, I joined the Hudson Valley Ski Club and, for $50/year, we have several free lessons (maybe 4-5 days/season). They are group lessons but they generally have only about 5-8 students. The instructor is great. I always take something away from those lessons.
Not happy with prices? Let the USFS or your congress rep know.
The standard Ski Area Term Special Use Permit states
"C. Regulating Services and Rates. The Forest Service shall have the authority to check and regulate the adequacy and type of
services provided the public and to require that such services conform to satisfactory standards. The holder may be required to
furnish a schedule of prices for sales and services authorized by the permit. Such prices and services may be regulated by the
Forest Service: Provided, that the holder shall not be required to charge prices significantly different than those charged by
comparable or competing enterprises."
Unfortunately, the industry has been long on monopoly and short on regulation for many years.
From Tom Quinn of the USFS-
"Among Mather and Albright’s most lasting contributions to national park policy was the
concept of the “regulated monopoly” concessioner. These businesses were, however,
often long on monopoly and short on regulation. The general theory for some years
prior to Mather had been that competition should be depended on to keep prices down
and the quality of services up."
"The competition versus monopoly issue was further highlighted by Representative
Jack Brooks of Texas:
Practically every sentence of this legislation is objectionable. . . . Park con-
cessioners, like any other businessmen, should be subjected to the rigors of
competition at least every 20 or 30 years. Most businessmen face competition
every day. We members of Congress must face election every two years. Is
it asking too much for a park concessioner to meet the competition on equal
ground every decade or so? Some of the park concessioners have lived in and
on the national parks since before I was born. . . . The whole purpose of this bill
is to remove all competition from park concessioner contracts and to enact into
law perpetual monopolies in our national parks. . . . In short, the entire bill is
solely in the interest of the concessioners and primarily at the expense of the
public (Congressional Record September 14, 1965: 23634)."
In 2002, Tom Quinn of the USFS concluded. "Given that private recreation operations on national forest land are largely indistinguishable from those in the national parks, the notion
of recreation enterprises as a form of public utility seems equally applicable to each
agency. Acknowledgment of the public utility paradigm brings to bear a series of
agency obligations with respect to private enterprise regulation. History indicates
that in many cases, these obligations have been neither acknowledged nor fulfilled.9
Future policies must be evaluated in light of this history."
The current instructor shortage and high ski school prices has been building for years thanks to what amounts to UNREGULATED MONOPOLIES.