A fine convention
The setting was great, the meeting and exhibit areas were ideal, the speakers were excellent, the panels were timely and informative.
The non-scheduled evening demonstrations were revealing, well-rounded and pointed at the same time.
A tip of the hat to Cal Conniff and his talented staff.
A SAM Editorial
A parable for the times
We buy our gas from Jim Elliott, who, with his son “Spike,” operates a two-pump garage in North Salem. In fact, you wouldn’t even know you were in a town at all if it weren’t for the Balanced Rock Antique Store, a one-story white frame post office and Jimmy’s garage.
Why are we telling you this? Well, there may be a little bit of a message. You see, Jimmy’s gas costs a couple of cents more than what they charge down on the interstate. But most of us buy from Jimmy. It’s not charity. It’s not because we like Jimmy—which we do. It’s just because it makes a whole lot of sense to do so. Jimmy is important to the economy of the town we live in. (He happens also to be a selectman.) He and Spike are always there when you need them, and they are darned good mechanics.
The ski industry is small; the ski area industry is largely made up of small businesses. We are a small, inter-dependent community of areas and suppliers, and most of us pay our dues and pool our efforts in NSAA.
Last fall the NSAA Board passed a resolution that deplored the fact that some suppliers were attempting to build some business by developing the parks and recreation business. “You’re creating competition for us, your customers and fellow NSAA members,” the argument ran.
We think this is a two-way street, and we were glad when that same Board was persuaded to pass a resolution urging member areas to patronise the Associate members—the suppliers.
They are there, a part of the industry, committed to the industry. In many cases it is their special knowledge and their R & D which is making the difference for your area. The technical advances that will, for instance, result in better and more cost-efficient snowmaking will come from their R & D, not from some nameless pipe mill. And who do you think is going to care enough about your problems when your system breaks down and you need hhelp—fast? Someone in the industry who needs your business, or someone outside who doesn’t?
And that’s why we buy our gas from Jimmy Elliott, and why we think it is good business to do so.
A SAM Editorial
Free style—the moral issue
The following is excerpted and adapted from extemporaneous remarks made by Tom Corcoran, president of Waterville Valley, N.H., and a long-time enthusiastic supporter of the freestyle movement. He was addressing a meeting that had brought together leaders of the professional freestyle organizations, ski area insurance specialists, ski area executives and some others interested in the future of freestyle. (See article “Crossroads for Freestyle” elsewhere in this issue.)
It is not enough, I would maintain, that you people in professional freestyle can say that your skirts are clean. The accidents that have happened basically happened to uninformed people who are clearly turned on by what you people do.
You are catalysts, whether you like it or not. Because of what you do, because of what’s on TV, because of the attentin you get in the ski books, because of the attraction and the glamour and the excitement that you engender, you get a hell of a pile of kids doing a lot of things, and some of them are going to end up becoming quadriplegics or paraplegics. That’s what scares the shit out of me. It’s not just the financial thing—the insurance and legal aspect. It’s far deeper than that.
There’s a moral issue. There’s a hell of a lot of us who run ski areas who don’t want to see people get hurt. If we’re encouraging people to go and do things that risk their lives, or risk making them end up as vegetables for the rest of their lives, well, that’s not why we run ski areas. I can tell you that categorically!
Somehow, as an industry and as a sport, we’ve got to get a handle on this thing.
Tom Corcoran
GLM—Hurt or hindrance
GLM and short skis have been a boon to the ski industry in that they have made skiing easier for all levels of skiers. But the average recreational skier may take several years to progress even to a solid intermediate stage as he or she may ski only occasional weekends.
Skiing is falling behind as a growth sport and part of the reason is that GLM tends to discourage the purchase of equipment. Obviously, the skier hopes soon to be much better than he is at any given moment as a beginner or intermediate. Thus, he hesitates to buy equipment for it may not be appropriate the next time he goes skiing.
Furthermore, even in the best rental shops, he is going to be using equipment that does not fit as well as the equipment he would have if he had purchased boots and skis. Often he will be using boots that are quite uncomfortable.
When one learns how to drive, he doesn’t usually take out a different model each time. He learns the idiosyncrasies of one machine and succeeds well enough to pass his driving test and then after much experience is able to make some more or less sensible choices as to what he will purchase for himself.
We don’t give the skier the same consistency in learning equipment for something that is actually much more difficult to learn than learning to drive. This beyond the first lesson can cause all kinds of discouragement.
If we want to get more people skiing and keep them skiing longer, we must get potential skiers to purchase their own equipment, and we must make it easy for them to do so at a resonable price. Equipment ownership creates a commitment to participate in a sport.
We must give them some intelligent guidelines and I would propose the following: 160 cm skis for people who weigh up to 150 pounds and 180 cm skis for those over 150. Obviously, the 170 might be considered for the more athletic in the 130 to 150 pound range and might also be considered for the less athletic in the upper weight ranges.
The trick is to make it easy, and short skis do this. But there is a second part to the trick and that is to get people so hooked that they buy their own equipment. We need to suggest to the potential skier that there is an appropriate ski for him, not a multitude from which he has to risk a wrong choice. After he is an expert, he may want to try something longer or shorter or wider or thinner, but let’s ask each manufacturer to develop one line of great skis for the average recreational skier.
Let’s abandon GLM in favor of appropriate short skis for recreational skiers. Let’s make it as easy as possible for them to make sensible choices in buying equipment, for once they have their own, they’re hooked.
Georgia Hotton, Assistant Manager
Taos Ski Valley, N.M.
Declaration of Independents
The following from Don Lemos is in response to an “Issues” piece in Spring SAM on the independent instructor controversy.
On May 18, 1976, Senator Floyd Haskell introduced several amendments to his bill designed to re-structure the Forest Service Permit system regarding ski areas. Included in these amendments is one that will allow ski instructors to teach skiing independently of the area ski school. So, as the independent ski instructor marches one step closer to inevitable victory, let’s examine some of the ramifications.
Picture this, if you will: several highly qualified, intelligent young men and women, all fully certified ski instructors, opening up an office in downtown Aspen and advertising high quality ski instruction providing services not normally provided by the area ski schools. They would provide a total package of services such as flexibility of schedule, transportation, flexibility of area, selection of equipment, non-regimented techniques, and — at competitive prices. These independents would each have a special use permit from the Forest Service to conduct ski lessons at ski areas comprised of Forest Services land. They would pay a fee to the Forest Service and have adequate liability insurance to protect the public, the ski area, and themselves. (This writer currently has such a policy.)
The independent would not be permitted to solicit at the area. This system would spark competition, be an incentive to all instructors to keep up to date on their certification and professional association membership and all area ski schools to do a better job. To offer the public a choice will be good for skiing, and anything that is good for skiing will be ultimately good for the ones who are afraid to see the status quo change.
Who opposes such a change? The Spring 1976 issue of Ski Area Management cites “certain industry voices, among them Waterville Valley’s Tom Corcoran.” Mr. Corcoran gives various “reasons” defending his opposition position, and I shall go into some of those. I put the word “reason” in quotes, as I feel the “reasons” are truly a subterfuge of the underlying fear of loss of power and loss of money. One must create “reasons,” as it is not socially acceptable to be coming from a greed or fear point of view.
Mr. Corcoran really engages in mental gymnastics when he alludes to the fact that if independents are allowed to operate, class lessons may have to go up, thereby costing the public more. Is this what competition does? Should a ski school be profit oriented or service oriented? Might not an area ski school instructor be so fired up at the thought of the independent that he would have a greater incentive to seek private lessons and overtime work? Should he not be paid for his endeavors? Think about it!
Mr. Corcoran suggests that a choice of techniques is not desirable, but that “standardization of technique is an important element in achieving skiing progress. You learn best in a system that goes from A to Z in a consistent and logical progression.”
I have no argument with what Mr. Corcoran says. It’s what he doesn’t say. Of course a tehnique has to be put down on paper in a certain progression, and most ski instructors teach that progression, and are bound by it, even stuck by it. Teaching skiing, however, is an interpersonal thing, and the true teacher relates to each student as an individual, not as a piece of paper. There are as many approaches as there are students. Who, by the way, do you think developed that sequential technique? The instructor bound by it? No, the free teacher: the essence of the independent. Some students may prefer the regimentation of a ski school technique, and the independent is not out to undermine that. In fact, the independent may offer just such a technique. What I’m saying is, provide an alternative, an option; that’s healthy.
And, speaking of options, what about the working ski instructor who wishes to remain in ski teaching and advance in his field? What opportunities are there for him? The only thing he can do is to become a ski school supervisor or director, and then he’s not even teaching skiing. Just when he reaches the peak of his experience, he’s removed from the very essence of what it’s all about, teaching people to ski. If he has the option of becoming an independent, it would encourage more experienced and well qualified instructors to stay in the field, thus upgrading the profession, benefiting the public, and, once again, ultimately benefiting the industry.
It is assumed that anytime a ski instructor is fired, it is he who is at fault, and Mr. Corcoran would not like to see this fired instructor working on his own. Tough! The lift company is basically just that, a lift company. If a qualified ski instructor has a student who wants to take a lesson from him on public land and they buy their tickets and wait in line like anyone else, they should be entitled to their pursuit of happiness. And, by the way, that ticket pays for all amenities provided for by the lift company, including its investment. I do, however, suggest that the independent negotiate with the lift company for certain considerations, and pay a fee or a percentage of his earnings for any extras such as a lift pass, lift line privileges, etc.
Mr. Corcoran’s analogy between someone opening up a discount rack inside of a businessman’s shoe store, and an independent ski instructor competing with an area ski school on public land, falls short because of the “public land” factor. That land is dedicated to the public, and not to a lift company. As a matter of fact, in order to obtain a use permit for any public lands, the ownership of private lands must be relinquished in a sense, as the permit is all inclusive. All the land, public and private, is subject to all Forest Service rules including public access clauses in the ski area use permits.
The last point I shall refer to is Mr. Corcoran’s “best argument,” wherein he says that the independent has not shown that there is a need for him. If there’s no need, why is Mr. Corcoran so worried? What’s the industry afraid of? How can the independent harm the industry if there’s no need?
I could go on and on with arguments such as “it is more probable that any revenue lost by area ski schools would be more than made up by increased lift ticket sales, as highly motivated independent instructors draw more people to the area.” I shall not do this, however, but state my basic premise, now that I’ve aired my “reasons.”
Basically, what I’m after is an American skiing picture where no fully certified ski instructor can be denied his right to earn a living teaching skiing on public land by helping members of the public to better enjoy that land. I have been open to negotiation and compromise, and I’ve proposed time and again that the industry itself set up such a system. If the industry would be responsive to this need, set up an objective system whereby a fully certified ski instructor who presented his credentials and his proof of insurance, would be allowed to teach his client, there’d be no need for lawsuits or legislation. The area could require the independent to wear special identification showing he is a permitted independent not employed by the area ski school, and the area could get a piece of the action.
The independent instructor is fighting for more than just the economics of the situation, but for a way of life. The mountains and skiing are a reflection of the inner person, true individualism.
Let it be!
Don Lemos
Aspen, Colorado
Tom Corcoran replies
I will stand on the reasons (and they are reasons, Don) that were contained in the testimony I gave at the Washington Haskell hearing in opposition to the concept of the independent ski instructor who seeks permission to teach autonomously at National Forest ski areas. Don is a bright fellow and I wish he would put his energies and intelligence to a more productive task; he could be a lot more productive working within the system than trying to destroy it, and I certainly hope he is not “one step closer to inevitable victory.” He obviously views himself in the tradition of the lonely, heroic individual battling unenlightened, imperialistic forces. Just like Don Quixote.
Ski area ski schools, according to the Book of Lemos, are “profit oriented,” and therefore censurable. It apparently doesn’t occur to him that profits are necessary in any business venture if it is going to be around a while, and that the independent instructor is probably the most profit-oriented concept of ski instruction to be offered yet: a super business deal with an infinite rate of return on investment, since there is none by the independent instructor. It is a system proposed by blithe spirits for blithe spirits, without any particular consideration for its consequences on the skiing public or the ski area companies that provided the original capital.
In Don’s rationalizations it is clear that his system is primarily designed to benefit the maverick instructor and that his arguments on how the public would be benefited are highly questionable at best and spurious at worst. The existing ski instruction system works. Would Lemos’ system? Who’s engaging in “mental gymnastics?”
