On the mark.Cuppa said:I think you would find that if you surveyed a random 100 people they would say that the sport of skiing is an expensive rich man's sport.teckel said:People who go to Lake Mountain are not rich, Cuppa. It's the average mum and dad and kids. I see them every weekend. One of my jobs is to convince them that even if they can't afford to hire gear for themselves, they must hire it for their kids. Most gloves I sell are the $15 variety, and $5 beanies. And most prefer to hire gloves at $5 rather than purchase them at $15. And the general public regard LM as their mountain, their place to see the snow. Trying to convince them to hire skis instead of toboggans can be difficult - until I tell them the price and the fact that trail fees are $10/adult per day. Then they have to figure out if they can afford that. LM is not a rich person's mountain at all. I wish it were - I would make much more if it were.
So, I assume, what Hunter is saying that a general view amongst the population would be "why are the ski resorts been subsidised by my tax dollars?"
That is not to say that per head it may be more economical to fund a ski resort, than run a local swimming pool. It is just the general perception of it. I think that people would be more accepting of the costs of their local swimming pool than some ski resort they may vist once a year.
Last edited by a moderator: