The loss of access to the Moosewoods ski trails has been difficult for the entire membership. Moosewoods, for a variety of reasons, was our most popular ski destination. The terrain was the most accessible of all of our then 3 systems. The large warming hut allowed skiers of different abilities to ski together without having to sit in a cold car waiting for one another. It also hosted many evening ski suppers, birthday parties, and family get togethers. It was truly a lovely place.
Many members have approached us to express the need to “replace” Moosewoods with another property. We have looked at the possibilities presented to us and found nothing that would fit the needs of a busy ski area. Here is a summary of the challenges of replacing a facility like Moosewoods.
Terrain: there is very little available land in the Haliburton Highlands that has the same gentle, rolling terrain as the Moosewoods property.
Trail infrastructure: Moosewoods came to us with 12.5 kms of roads and trails already developed. Most skiers wouldn’t know that there were over 20 drainage culverts on the trails, and many, many loads of fill to create wide, smooth trails that made for such great skiing. Recreating that kind of trail infrastructure from scratch could easily cost over $100,000, probably much more.
Parking lot: to host the number of skiers that frequented Moosewoods on a busy day, we need a cleared, level, hardened parking area of at least 1 acre, which would be another large expense and a sacrifice that few private landowners would be willing to make on our behalf.
Overall cost: recreating the kinds of trails we had a Moosewoods, along with a parking lot and a warming hut could easily cost $250,000. Not a huge sum, if we were investing on land that we owned and had stable access to. Unfortunately, we are not land owners.
Land Use Agreements (LUAs): as we have learned, sometimes painfully, LUAs are temporary and only apply to the current landowner. As an example, we had a 20-year LUA with the prior owner of Moosewoods. It felt good, looked good on paper, but became irrelevant as soon as the property changed hands. We have had to suspend operations twice at Twin Lakes because of LUA challenges. A LUA is not a legally binding agreement and does not transfer with the sale of land.
We do not consider it fiscally responsible to invest large sums of our members money on property that we do not have a stable, legal access to. Currently, we have that in Glebe Park where we have invested large sums of money in both trail improvement and warming hut construction. It is hilly, but it is currently “home”.
Thanks to all the members and other concerned folks that have offered us access to property. Hopefully, this explains why we have not moved forward on any of those offers. Does that mean we will never be interested? Absolutely not! If we could get long-term, legal access to an appropriate piece of land, we would consider the investment carefully.