I've just returned from an annual two week trip to the Alps, and thought it might be fun to draw some comparisons between our beloved local area and the "big mountains" in France and Switzerland. Background: for the past 22 years, six friends (two US, 4 UK) have gone to the Alps for guided backcountry skiing. It started in Grindelwald, migrated for a few years to Klosters, and finally settled on alternating years between Val d'Isere in Francew and Verbier in Switzerland, with occasional detours to Chamonix. For the last 12 or so years, we've used pretty much the same guide in each area, so we have a very cohesive team. We've done some hut-to-hut stuff, but in our middle age, settled on staying in a hotel or flat in town, and making day trips out to the backcountry.
Almost every year, I get the question "So why do you go all the way over there to ski?" Well, the long and short answer is "scale" with vote for charm along the way.
Great as our local hills are, there is just nothing to compare with the height and breadth of Alpine landscape. I once did a calculation based on trail maps between Squaw and Val d'Isere/Tignes (l'Espace Killy). Put one Squaw on top of another, then multiply the acreage by about 7 times, and that's just the inbounds, lift served terrain available on one ticket. Example: this year, we got a heli lift to the 3800 meter Pinge d'Arolla (that's 12500'). From the summit, we descended (carefully, harnessed) over 6000 vertical feet of untracked powder, with multiple pitches of up to 100 turns. That's three AMs stacked one on top of the other, with a few extra turns to spare. The year before, at Val d'Isere, we skied (well, slide slipped down) an icy Couloir 3500 which, despite it's name, is only about 700 meters (2100') long, before it spills out onto a long rolling valley for a two hour skin back to the lifts. We side-slipped because by the time we got into the damn thing, and found out it was pure ice, there was turning back. Again, to compare, that would be something like 7 or 8 Counterweights or Sherwood Cliffs, non-stop, a little wider than either of those, but every bit as steep all the way down.
But that little misadventure points to one of the advantages we have over the Alps: snow and weather. In 22 years, we've had everything from fog to rain to ice to powder, often all on the same trip. And when the powder is good, it can be really good, especially at the high altitudes. But it can also be nasty stuff, making the worst of our Sierra Cement look like pretty fluffy stuff. More to the point, coverage in the Alps is often thin, and I usually come back needing major edge and bottom work on my slats. While we get used to 100" bases and 2-3" snowfalls, a good dump in the Alps is 5-10". Not that larger storms don't happen, but not like here. Also, annual snowfalls in many Alpine ski areas has been falling for years. Indeed, we had to reschedule our annual trip from late January to early March because too many years, we found ourselves skiing on rock and ice. If Verbier has an annual snowfall of 250"-300" per year, that's a good year. Compare that to the Sierras with up to double that.
A note on charm: ski touring in the Alps, especially Switzerland, is full of surprises. Frequently, we ski through abandoned little villages (mayenne) where farmers stay with their herds in the summer; sometimes we end a day's tour in a remote village, and catch a train or bus back home. Lunch can often be in an old farmhouse serving awesome stews, locally made sausages, and cured meats and cheese.
All in all, our sweet little ski area is a great place to prep for an Alpine adventure, with its in- and out of bounds ungroomed terrain, many cliffs, bowls, chutes and trees, and best of all, it's open boundaries policy. Heck, it's just a great place to ski. Am I going back to the Alps next year? You bet! Am I going to have a great time skiing AM today and tomorrow? You bet.
