AT is a lot easier to learn than Telemark and much more stable on steep hard snow/ice. I have skied during the winter on huge icefields in the Canadian Rockies with some of the best Telemark skiers I know and could out ski them on the descent with my AT outfit. That being said, there is nothing more graceful than a good Telemark skier, it will come with a much longer learning curve though. Wish I had the patience to learn it. Both sports allow versatility for the boot you are looking for. Either way, you are on target with the intent to trade in the snowshoes for backcountry skies. Good Luck Fletch.

Also, skinning is way easier than hiking or slowshoeing. If done correctly, the ski never leaves the snow - just slide it forward.
Easier on the body when carrying a heavy pack.

You can take a lesson at some if not all of the Colorado Ski Areas. I took one at Eldora and it was actually about the same price to take the lesson (which included equipment and lift ticket) as buying just the lift ticket. Once you get it dialed in you can rent the equipment until you figure out exactly what you want to buy.

My present At setup is lighter than my partners Telemark setup and my boots have a regular vibram-like sole pattern as well as an adjustable walking hinge. I've never ice climbed with them but can't see why not. I think that being able to lock my heel gives me more side-slip and icey climbing and steep sloop control than free-heel ever did .I've also seen expert telemarkers ski very steep downhills and turn on a dime but that is not the norm. They use a modified turn not a clasic deep dip.

As I stated earlier, AT is ten times easier to learn and much better in harsh backcountry environs, i.e. hard pack snow/ice. On ascent, they take the same amount of effort.

Someone suggested taking a lesson. I would say take a whole bank of lessons. At our local area, you can get a 6 or 8 week progression, meeting once a week. My wife is a solid turner after one of those.
You can put crampons on tele boots with the extended toe (aka duckbill) but only some crampon models, and none very well. The new NTN boots do not have the extended toe, so use crampons much better. That, and some of these boots also have Dynafit dimples so you can use an AT binding if you decide that's more your bag.
As for the ol' tele vs. AT debate, I'm a believer in learning as many ski techniques as you can: tele, AT, touring, skating, classic, and even snowboarding. They're all fun. Just keep the curly ends up front.

Fletch wrote:Also would love to eventually incorporate a little climbing into the outing, so the boot would need to be crampon applicable (ideally the setup won't be used exclusively for walk/ski up/downs, but for approaches as well).

Ok, this is a little on the extreme fringe, but I've been working with Nordic skis with NNN BC cross country bindings and boots. Should point out that I am not really interested in downhill fun. Skis are just a mode of transportation for me to get to places faster and easier than with snowshoes. My NNN BC bindings are 1 pound per pair, and the boots I've been using are a tick over 3 pounds per pair (size 45) and they walk/look much like winter hiking boots. I also have another pair with plastic ankle-supports on the sides which weigh a pound more and walk more like mountaineering boots.

I never skied before and started with the NNN BC system last winter. Fumbled around in backcountry and visited resorts a couple of times. This winter I've been working on downhill skills seriously and spent 6 days in a resort so far. I can ski down blue runs doing stem christies if the snow is firm and hard. Can't do it if the snow is deep and cut up by those darn snowboarders. That's why I've also started working on tele turns. After a day of practice, I can make something that resembles tele turns on flat greens

I know a couple of very good (regular) tele skiers who also use NNN BC for light backcountry touring. They can't do tele turns on NNN BC. But it is possible as I've seen someone do it on regular cross country skis and from my one day of practice. But it is apparently pretty difficult and I expect to be spending next several seasons working on it.

As the others have stated- it's so much easier to get an AT setup than learn how to tele- unless you really want to learn how to tele. I've got some good friends that can tele any backcountry.

The nice thing about an AT set up, if you're only interested in the traveling aspect and not so much into control/good downhill- you can use a pair of plastic mountaineering boots and clip into the binding and ski with those. Might be cheaper if you already own. AT boots can get pretty pricey. heck, my whole set up is worth more than my car.

if you're just looking for an easier approach option (Vitaliy) and you're just getting into skiing vs. boarding, a decent telemark set-up is probably also a lot cheaper (and I can never find an AT set-up on CL) and easier to find, used, than AT . . . and yeah, the scarpa's are good boots. Hope you'e got size 12 feet.

Fletch wrote:
One question, what's the difference between Telemark and AT? What does AT stand for?

If my powers of deduction or correct, AT is where the heel of the boot does not come up on on the descent, right? So (at least on the way down) AT is more like regular skiing and telemark is more of a knee bending lunge dance down the slope?

Correct- AT stands for Alpine Touring. randonnee(with some little french accent thingee) stands for the same thing.

Although some people might tell you that Randonnee is French for 'can't tele'

AT is regular skiing going down hill. Just different boots/bindings so you can bring the heel of your foot up with skinning up.

If you are willing to go lift skiing regularly you can learn to tele pretty well in about 10 days. The real trick is to not do the big deep knee bend but to learn to keep your knees together on a short bend and apply power, especially to the rear ski. This will give you great control in almost all conditions. And if you can parallel then you can always do a few jump turns that way to escape the steep, narrow chutes.

Unrepentant AT skier here.

Fletch: Telemark is Norwegian for "slow hippie." Randonee is French for "can't tele."

Seriously, modern AT gear is lighter, more reliable, and easier to use than ever. Tele turns are very graceful, etc., but if your goal is anything other than being a graceful Tele skier, just go with AT gear. The only person I'd advise to do tele in the backcountry would be a person who already teles at a resort. On the climb, AT gear lets you rest on your skeleton as opposed to your muscles, and is easier on steep skinning. Although some modern Tele bindings release, their release isn't nearly as reliable as AT gear. In an avalanche, you're going to want your bindings to pull so your skis don't drag you down and twist your femurs into powder. Splitboards don't come off at all--think about that.

I view tele kind of like learning 10 languages fluently: I'd love to have the skill, but it's simply not worth the time to learn...

AT or rondenee is significantly easier to do then tele-skiing. I'm a decent tele-skier (doing double black diamonds in-bounds) but if the stuff is really technical, I'll do it with my AT set-up. The learning curve is pretty steep in the beginning. You can do it on your own, but working with someone who is proficient will cut down on that curve.

And Fletch you are correct, AT the bindings a rigidly mnounted in the heal, in down hill mode but when transferred to walking mode the heel will then come up.

In tele-skiing, you spend the whole day doing deep knee bends.

I find tele-skiing much more stimulating and more of a dance. If I am justy out skiing for the day, I'll tele. If I am using it to get somewhere (ie: to climbs and stuff), I'll AT.