Discussion about this post

User's avatar
Trip Cave's avatar

Enjoyed the article, and I’m happy to see Loon opening up more terrain. My concern is that this ends up being more of a marketing tagline, “New Hampshire’s Largest Ski Area,” than truly sustainable ski terrain given the weather challenges you mentioned.

My contrarian view is that they would have been better off cutting a few more traditional trails out there and adding another lift to help pull traffic away from the rest of the mountain. As it stands, Loon has added more acreage that will probably appeal to a relatively small group of stronger skiers, while also giving them a great headline to market.

But I’m not sure it does much to solve Loon’s bigger problem, by 10:30 on a busy day, the mountain can feel incredibly crowded. More skiable acres are great, but I’d rather see expansion that helps spread people out and improves the experience across the whole mountain.

Bruce's avatar

I think all ski areas should have to list any terrain acreage that requires hiking or excessive poling with an asterisk. Loon is joining Sugarloaf with a ridiculously inflated total acreage that about 2% of their guests will ever use. If I wanted to hike and ski I would not be going to a lift served ski area.

What’s the over/under on the number of days this hike to terrain will be open per year? 15 days probably, and for anyone using anything but rock skis it will probably be single digit days open.

3 more comments...

No posts

Ready for more?