Canaan Glades question
4 posts
4 users
1k+ views
mook21
28 days ago
Member since 12/30/2013 🔗
52 posts
When the snow if good, it is hard to beat Canaan, especially in the trees! I am pretty familiar with the glades over, and even beyond Dark Side, but am curious if there are unofficial glades runs between Gravity and Timber? Looks like the terrain could be very similar to Cherry Bowl at T Line. This weekend maybe a good one up there in the trees!
JohnL - DCSki Supporter 
27 days ago
Member since 01/6/2000 🔗
3,602 posts

mook21 wrote:

When the snow if good, it is hard to beat Canaan, especially in the trees! I am pretty familiar with the glades over, and even beyond Dark Side, but am curious if there are unofficial glades runs between Gravity and Timber? Looks like the terrain could be very similar to Cherry Bowl at T Line. This weekend maybe a good one up there in the trees!

 As of about 7 years or so, no. Despite some bushwhacking and hunting. You can find a drainage or two below the top headwall. It is pretty rugged terrain, tight, lots of rocks and deadfall. Likely need a 2-3 foot base. So, much better options to choose from. 

teleman
26 days ago
Member since 07/8/2005 🔗
215 posts
You are better off skiing the spoon out to the road.
snowsmith - DCSki Supporter 
26 days ago (edited 26 days ago)
Member since 03/15/2004 🔗
1,656 posts
I skied Canaan over the weekend. I watched some skiers attempting the “glades” .  There was plenty of snow around. Many trails with excellent natural snow cover. Some of the best conditions I’ve ever skied at Canaan. However glades appeared to be snow covered ice, watching people crash.  Good conditions in glades areas is rare in this latitude. I think Canaan can be better than Timberline when there’s a lot of snow cover since many of their trails seem to have no snowmaking and they are not groomed. Thus I experienced some great natural snow conditions and never a lift line. 

Ski and Tell

Speak truth to powder.

Join the conversation by logging in.

Don't have an account? Create one here.

0.15 seconds