WCAX: 45 Lost Skiers and Riders in the Last Two Weeks Concern Vermont Officials

http://www.wcax.com/story/20536799/vt-rescue-crews-swamped-with-calls-for-lost-skiers

Tis' the season for folks to go off-piste and get lost. We've had some threads on here about the folks at Killington and Pico a couple weeks ago, there was one guy at Bolton last week, but apparently 7 folks got lost the other day at Killington.

The VT State Police said that they have seen at least 45 rescues in the last two weeks alone!

Bolton's ski patrol says that folks aren't "backcountry skiing," but "irresponsible skiing" and urge folks to bring a buddy, have a plan, know the terrain, carry first aid supplies, and realize that if they get lost they are putting themselves and others at risk.

As the story outlines, apparently VT officials have not been charging for rescues as of late, despite budget cutbacks. I recall hearing about folks being charged a few years ago, but apparently they are not doing that much anymore. NH, on the other hand, is more aggressive.

Perhaps this spike (45) is pent-up demand for pow, especially after last season, but folks need to be prepared before they head out of bounds.

Lots of snow, combined with it being a holiday week where the average quality of the skiers out there is much lower.

millerm277 said:

Lots of snow, combined with it being a holiday week where the average quality of the skiers out there is much lower.

Click to expand...

Still, how dumb can people be ??? Going out of bound, having no idea where they are, with little to no ability to backtrack if needs be.

I wonder if one track leads to the next. In other words, someone sees a skin or ski track going under the rope our out of bounds, they think, "Let's see where that goes!"

People assume if others have traveled a certain way, it might be OK. That could be a part of it.

The problem is there is NO deterrent. They need to start charging but obviously not everyone should get charged.

I came up with an easy way to determine charge/no charge for rescue:

The State Police create a panel (Or group of specially trained officers) that is responsible for interviewing the rescuees immediately upon rescue. They have a standard checklist of questions that goes through some basic backcountry preparedness (I'm using "backcountry" loosely here).

Question 1: Describe you "backcountry skiing" plan.
1a. Where were you starting?
1b. What time were you starting?
1c. Where did you plan to exit the backcountry?
1d. What time did you plan to exit the backcountry?
1e. Did anyone else know what your plan was?

Question 2: Is anyone in your group familiar with this specific terrain and/or skied it before?
2a. Were they involved in creating the plan from Question 1?

Question 3: Do you have basic supplies to survive overnight in the backcountry (food, water, firestarter) and can you show them to me? (Must provide proof that a fire was started and food wrappers/containers if supplies were used prior to rescue.)

Question 4: Did you or a member of your group experience a major equipment failure or sustain an injury that made completing your plan from question 1 impossible?


The panel then works with the resort Ski Patrol to review the answers to question 1. If there is no plan or the plan does not make sense (e.g. you can’t get to point B from point A) = LARGE CHARGE. And end of analysis.

If they had a real plan and pass question 1, then the panel considers the answer to questions 2, 3, and 4.
If the interviewee answers “yes” to Question 2 and 3 they are not charged.

If they answer “no” to either 2 or 3 = SMALL CHARGE.

Answering “Yes” to question 4 wipes out any “no” answers for 2 and 3. This falls into “These guys had a plan. Although they could have been better prepared, they had some bad luck and needed help to get out.” = NO CHARGE

This solution does have a bit of bureaucracy to it. However it is expedited bureaucracy in that I feel the determination of financial charges can be decided in the lodge within an hour or two after the rescue is complete.

I'm not sure what the scale of financial charges that the State Police have but haven't been enforcing is.
However, I would set it at: Large Charge = $1000/person. Small Charge = $500/person. This likely wouldn't pay for the whole rescue process but it would help defray costs a bit and act as that much needed deterrent.

Nick said:

I wonder if one track leads to the next. In other words, someone sees a skin or ski track going under the rope our out of bounds, they think, "Let's see where that goes!"

People assume if others have traveled a certain way, it might be OK. That could be a part of it.

Click to expand...

That's very likely in many cases. That's also part of being dumb.

from_the_NEK said:

Question 1: Describe you "backcountry skiing" plan.
1a. Where were you starting?
1b. What time were you starting?
1c. Where did you plan to exit the backcountry?
1d. What time did you plan to exit the backcountry?
1e. Did anyone else know what your plan was?

Question 2: Is anyone in your group familiar with this specific terrain and/or skied it before?
2a. Were they involved in creating the plan from Question 1?

Question 3: Do you have basic supplies to survive overnight in the backcountry (food, water, firestarter) and can you show them to me? (Must provide proof that a fire was started and food wrappers/containers if supplies were used prior to rescue.)

Question 4: Did you or a member of your group experience a major equipment failure or sustain an injury that made completing your plan from question 1 impossible?

Click to expand...

Anyone having satisfactory answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 will normally not need to be rescued. In the unlikely event of a crippling injury, I don't see why they should not get charged. If I was stuck in the backcountry with a broken leg, I would fully expect to be charged for my rescue, even if i was fully prepared.

When our car goes dead on the side of the road, we fully expect to pay for a tow. I fail to see why this should be any different when lost in the backcountry.

from_the_NEK said:

The problem is there is NO deterrent. They need to start charging but obviously not everyone should get charged.

I came up with an easy way to determine charge/no charge for rescue:

The State Police create a panel (Or group of specially trained officers) that is responsible for interviewing the rescuees immediately upon rescue. They have a standard checklist of questions that goes through some basic backcountry preparedness (I'm using "backcountry" loosely here).

Question 1: Describe you "backcountry skiing" plan.
1a. Where were you starting?
1b. What time were you starting?
1c. Where did you plan to exit the backcountry?
1d. What time did you plan to exit the backcountry?
1e. Did anyone else know what your plan was?

Question 2: Is anyone in your group familiar with this specific terrain and/or skied it before?
2a. Were they involved in creating the plan from Question 1?

Question 3: Do you have basic supplies to survive overnight in the backcountry (food, water, firestarter) and can you show them to me? (Must provide proof that a fire was started and food wrappers/containers if supplies were used prior to rescue.)

Question 4: Did you or a member of your group experience a major equipment failure or sustain an injury that made completing your plan from question 1 impossible?


The panel then works with the resort Ski Patrol to review the answers to question 1. If there is no plan or the plan does not make sense (e.g. you can’t get to point B from point A) = LARGE CHARGE. And end of analysis.

If they had a real plan and pass question 1, then the panel considers the answer to questions 2, 3, and 4.
If the interviewee answers “yes” to Question 2 and 3 they are not charged.

If they answer “no” to either 2 or 3 = SMALL CHARGE.

Answering “Yes” to question 4 wipes out any “no” answers for 2 and 3. This falls into “These guys had a plan. Although they could have been better prepared, they had some bad luck and needed help to get out.” = NO CHARGE

This solution does have a bit of bureaucracy to it. However it is expedited bureaucracy in that I feel the determination of financial charges can be decided in the lodge within an hour or two after the rescue is complete.

I'm not sure what the scale of financial charges that the State Police have but haven't been enforcing is.
However, I would set it at: Large Charge = $1000/person. Small Charge = $500/person. This likely wouldn't pay for the whole rescue process but it would help defray costs a bit and act as that much needed deterrent.

Click to expand...

With the exception of question 3 all of those questions can be easily answered with lies.

fbrissette said:

Anyone having satisfactory answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 will normally not need to be rescued. In the unlikely event of a crippling injury, I don't see why they should not get charged. If I was stuck in the backcountry with a broken leg, I would fully expect to be charged for my rescue, even if i was fully prepared.

When our car goes dead on the side of the road, we fully expect to pay for a tow. I fail to see why this should be any different when lost in the backcountry.

Click to expand...

You are exactly right that "Anyone having satisfactory answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 will normally not need to be rescued."

Question 4 is the bonus for those that would normally not need to be rescued but ended up needing help. Those people aren't the problem and the rescuers are usually more than happy to help out someone that had their plans foiled by injury or equipment failure. I the person that is rescued wants to give a donation to their local rescue agency then good on them (I would) but I don't think they should expect to get charged.
escuing idiots that have no plan is annoying to the responders and a drain on resources.

My plan is focused on being a deterrent for those that have no plan and are completely irresponsible in their decision making.

MadMadWorld said:

With the exception of question 3 all of those questions can be easily answered with lies.

Click to expand...

That is why you have to pass all three to not get charged.
IMO Question 1 would be very hard to fake. That is why it carries so much weight and has multiple sub questions. I highly doubt most of these jokers that are skiing out of bounds would be able to just come up with a "fake" plan on the spot that would pass the review by the panel and ski patrol.

At killington people ski off the back side of coops and get lost every year. There is some decent skiing down to wheelerville rd but if you dont know your way you can get stuck in the flats and have to spend a very cold night out there. The appalachian trail is back there as is the long trail and many other hiking trails so people see them and follow them then when they go uphill people continue downhill and get lost. If you have no idea where your going than stay inbounds.

from_the_NEK said:

That is why you have to pass all three to not get charged.
IMO Question 1 would be very hard to fake. That is why it carries so much weight and has multiple sub questions. I highly doubt most of these jokers that are skiing out of bounds would be able to just come up with a "fake" plan on the spot that would pass the review by the panel and ski patrol.

Click to expand...

Just playing devil's advocate....but it seems very easy to lie...

Question 1: Describe you "backcountry skiing" plan.
1a. Where were you starting? Skiers left of the top of Joe Schmo
1b. What time were you starting? 2pm
1c. Where did you plan to exit the backcountry? the bottom of Joe Schmo
1d. What time did you plan to exit the backcountry? 2:30pm
1e. Did anyone else know what your plan was? yes my good friends on the alpinezone forum

Were those answers true? Whose to say. Maybe you can't exit at the bottom of Joe Schmo but that is what I thought. It's very hard to prove intent with questions like this.

skiur said:

At killington people ski off the back side of coops and get lost every year. There is some decent skiing down to wheelerville rd but if you dont know your way you can get stuck in the flats and have to spend a very cold night out there. The appalachian trail is back there as is the long trail and many other hiking trails so people see them and follow them then when they go uphill people continue downhill and get lost. If you have no idea where your going than stay inbounds.

Click to expand...

I agree here. Coops is a popular spot to hang out and many people don't realize that if you don't traverse right back into the resort it leads you into a valley or down a ridge far, far from the slopes. Wheelerville rd isn't exactly close and the terrain gets flat for a long way before you hit the rd.

In the last couple seasons I have been carrying first aid, matches/lighter, rolled up, dry newspaper, radio, skins, etc. I think people under estimate the trouble you can get into out there.

45 in a couple weeks is crazy.

MadMadWorld said:

Maybe you can't exit at the bottom of Joe Schmo but that is what I thought.

Click to expand...

If you thought you could exit back to Joe Schmo trail and you really can't (the review panel will know if this is true)= Large Charge.

You have to KNOW you can exit back to Joe Schmo trail before you start.

For a real world example:
If you duck the rope at the bottom of the Poma Woods glade trail at Pico and tell the interviewer that you "Planned" on skiing back to Giant Killer or the top of Golder Express or Outpost. The panel would know they are full of crap since once you duck that rope you can't get back to the resort without going up hill since you are in a drainage that dumps you into the wilderness on the Southwest side of the mountain.

Im pretty against being charged for rescue. Shit happens, whether by stupidity or dumb luck.

I think the comparison to having your car break down is weak. Thats not a life or death situation and most likely your fault to begin with due to neglected maintenance or what have you.

A more proper comparison would be if you are in danger. My house caught fire when I was in college. We werent charged as it was a public service.

Also, keep in mind you already do pay for rescues already, through taxes and the like. This is no different than having a police force, public hospital, or fire department. Most likely, its members from these organizations that will be assisting with your rescue to begin with.

from_the_NEK said:

That is why you have to pass all three to not get charged.
IMO Question 1 would be very hard to fake. That is why it carries so much weight and has multiple sub questions. I highly doubt most of these jokers that are skiing out of bounds would be able to just come up with a "fake" plan on the spot that would pass the review by the panel and ski patrol.

Click to expand...

Creating qualifications for being charged isn't a bad idea but in practice it's not going to be so easy. Once the people are rescued they would then go in front of a panel of reviewers? This is going to cost money to have people reviewing as well. So it creates a cost associated with the fact they are trying to determine if the should be a cost for rescue.

The review then basically becomes a legal hearing. You can't just sit someone in front of a couple ski patrol, sheriff or GM of a resort and let them dictate if you have to pay or not. That is too unofficial when trying to determine if someone or a group must be legally be required to pay. It becomes too messy and opens itself up for a big legal battle.

I agree in some cases lost skiers may not DESERVE to pay for the rescue but picking and choosing who pays and who doesn't is a nightmare.

If you require rescue, no matter how experienced of a skier you are and how well prepared you are, there is still a cost. How many patrol and police had to go out looking? How much fuel was spent driving cars/trucks and snowmobiles to reach the person? If those patrollers and police are out looking for a skier then who taking care of their normal duties in their absence?

Just because a skier had a plan of where he/she was going and have skied in the back country for XX number of years doesn't change the cost associated with a rescue. Those dollars don't go away because you and your buddies are "sick" skiers with a "plan".

AdironRider said:

Also, keep in mind you already do pay for rescues already, through taxes and the like. This is no different than having a police force, public hospital, or fire department. Most likely, its members from these organizations that will be assisting with your rescue to begin with.

Click to expand...

Despite my last post I think this is a very good point.

from_the_NEK said:

The State Police create a panel (Or group of specially trained officers) that is responsible for interviewing the rescuees immediately upon rescue. They have a standard checklist of questions that goes through some basic backcountry preparedness (I'm using "backcountry" loosely here).

Click to expand...

The State Police or other agents of the State can ask me questions all day. There's no need to lie however. You are under no requirements to answer any of their questions, regardless of the circumstances.

Charge them for their rescue. This should be done because it is the fair thing to do and it deters others from being reckless.

I thought it was SOP that they charged for every backcountry rescue. Stowe and Jay have all these signs (especially in places used as access points) that warn you that you are entering into a backcountry area and that you will be billed for rescue. I think it's only fair to the rescuers (and the people who pay their salaries) that any backcountry rescue should be borne by the rescued skier. Whenever I cross the rope and enter the backcountry, I know I'm taking my life into my own hands and that I am assuming any cost of rescue. But, that's me. Personal responsibility is high on my list of values.

Huck_It_Baby said:

Creating qualifications for being charged isn't a bad idea but in practice it's not going to be so easy. Once the people are rescued they would then go in front of a panel of reviewers? This is going to cost money to have people reviewing as well. So it creates a cost associated with the fact they are trying to determine if the should be a cost for rescue.

The review then basically becomes a legal hearing. You can't just sit someone in front of a couple ski patrol, sheriff or GM of a resort and let them dictate if you have to pay or not. That is too unofficial when trying to determine if someone or a group must be legally be required to pay. It becomes too messy and opens itself up for a big legal battle.

Click to expand...

The rescuees never actually go before the "panel".
A member of the State Police (with extra training for this task) interviews the rescuee(s) immediately after their rescue. The short list of questions above should take no more than 5 minutes per person to complete. Most likely the State Police are already asking followup questions to file with thier reports.
The answers are then taken before the panel (consisting of the specially trained officer and 2 or three high ranking members of the resort's ski patrol). They review the answers and make a determination of Large, Small, or no charge. Of course there will be inconsistancy in anwsers between members of a group but the more inconsistant the answers the more likely they are to get charged. The panel process should take no more than 2 hours. I figure the "No Charge" cases would be pretty easy to determine and therefore the panel would only deliberate for a short amount of time. The cases were charges are applied would pay for the extra work.

I don't see grounds for a legal battle here. If someone challenges the panel ruling, the State Police can invoke the fact that they can be legally charging full price for these rescues and if the rescuees really want to pay for what the rescue REALLY cost, then they are more than welcome to argue about the relatively tiny $1000 or $500 charges. 8)

The tough part is actually having some sort of incentive to actually pay the $1000 or $500 fines.

I agree in some cases lost skiers may not DESERVE to pay for the rescue but picking and choosing who pays and who doesn't is a nightmare.

If you require rescue, no matter how experienced of a skier you are and how well prepared you are, there is still a cost. How many patrol and police had to go out looking? How much fuel was spent driving cars/trucks and snowmobiles to reach the person? If those patrollers and police are out looking for a skier then who taking care of their normal duties in their absence?

Just because a skier had a plan of where he/she was going and have skied in the back country for XX number of years doesn't change the cost associated with a rescue. Those dollars don't go away because you and your buddies are "sick" skiers with a "plan".

Click to expand...

Of course there is still a cost for events where prepared skiers and riders need rescue. However, those events are few and far between. We are taking about trying to create a deterrent for the huge numbers of idiots that are just skiing off out of bounds with no regard for anyones safety.