Three Lost Sugarloaf Skiers Lose Ski Privileges

thetrailboss · Jan 29, 2019

I don't think that anyone has posted this...

https://www.pressherald.com/2019/01...eges-at-sugarloaf-after-skiing-out-of-bounds/

Looks like they made the same mistake as many before and went over the "backside" and got lost.

Thoughts on the penalty?

AdironRider · Jan 29, 2019

I don't really see the point of having a search and rescue team if they are just going to villify whoever they have to save.

By banning these three dudes, they are just providing incentive for people NOT to call for help when they probably should.

thetrailboss · Jan 29, 2019

AdironRider said:
I don't really see the point of having a search and rescue team if they are just going to villify whoever they have to save.

By banning these three dudes, they are just providing incentive for people NOT to call for help when they probably should.

Yeah, I am wondering if there are some particular facts here that justified that decision that we just don't know about. Repeat offenders? Admitted that they knew what they were doing and were unprepared? Sugarloaf said that they must have knowingly crossed a boundary rope.

And the article is not clear if they were temporarily or permanently banned.

Jully · Jan 29, 2019

Article says temporary restriction. I assume it will not be permanent.

Tough conundrum here. The backside at Sugarloaf makes it easy to be (what seems) like a little bit dumb and get into MASSIVE trouble. While I'm all for mountains punishing and making people accountable for their own stupidity, losing privileges on the mountain itself seems like a hefty price for first time offenders. If they were repeat offenders or otherwise obnoxious or incredulous about their actions (which the article specifically says they were humble) that is another story though.

thetrailboss · Jan 29, 2019

Jully said:
Article says temporary restriction. I assume it will not be permanent.

Tough conundrum here. The backside at Sugarloaf makes it easy to be (what seems) like a little bit dumb and get into MASSIVE trouble. While I'm all for mountains punishing and making people accountable for their own stupidity, losing privileges on the mountain itself seems like a hefty price for first time offenders. If they were repeat offenders or otherwise obnoxious or incredulous about their actions (which the article specifically says they were humble) that is another story though.

Right. That's why I don't get the disconnect with the penalty.

tumbler · Jan 29, 2019

AdironRider said:
I don't really see the point of having a search and rescue team if they are just going to villify whoever they have to save.

By banning these three dudes, they are just providing incentive for people NOT to call for help when they probably should.

Agreed. Just make them reimburse the costs for the search and rescue. I believe that is what VT does now.

cdskier · Jan 29, 2019

thetrailboss said:
Right. That's why I don't get the disconnect with the penalty.

But we don't actually know what the penalty is. "Temporary" could mean 1 day, 1 week, 1 month, 1 year... Or it could not be a finite period and dependent instead on them doing something else to have the passes reinstated (i.e. having a serious chat with ski patrol and what they did wrong, etc).

crazy · Jan 29, 2019

The way I see it, temporarily losing pass privileges is a fair punishment for ducking a rope. I don't think the search and rescue had anything to do with losing the pass privileges. Hopefully they were billed for the cost of the rescue.

x10003q · Jan 29, 2019

Billing for rescue is bad policy. It could cause the situation to get worse when monetary decisions are are made by people in a bad situation. A delayed call for help can put the victims and search and rescue people in greater danger.

machski · Jan 29, 2019

Not sure how Sugarloaf has set things up, but Sunday River has boundary ropes up clearly denoting the end of the resort along the top of ALL the peaks now. Locke and White Cap never had ropes along Bim's Whim and the ridge boot pack to WC summit, but it does now. I know some kid went off the backside a couple years ago and got hurt back there and needed rescue. It seems Boyne has been getting more and more Liability adverse and the penalty at SL does not surprise me. I assume the have clearly defined and roped the backside boundary as well

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

deadheadskier · Jan 29, 2019

x10003q said:
Billing for rescue is bad policy. It could cause the situation to get worse when monetary decisions are are made by people in a bad situation. A delayed call for help can put the victims and search and rescue people in greater danger.

Agreed until education of the risks is improved and costs associated with rescue better published. NH is flirting with the pay for rescue concept with the hike safe card program.

As for Sugarloaf suspending the skiing privileges of these individuals? I'm fine with that for a week or two with a first offense. The event likely incurred some cost and unplanned resources by the mountain. They've got every right to deter skiers utilizing their private facilities in a manner that adds unanticipated costs to their business.

Sent from my XT1635-01 using AlpineZone mobile app

skiur · Jan 30, 2019

tumbler said:
Agreed. Just make them reimburse the costs for the search and rescue. I believe that is what VT does now.

VT needs to with at least 5 or 6 groups of asshats at Killington going off the backside each year. Wheelerville road is not as close as many people think and its not all downhill to get to it. I understand the concern that charging people will make some people afraid to call for help, but why should the public have to pay for these darwin award winners to be found? And thats if they can call them as cell phone coverage is not the best round there. If you go out of bounds you should be prepared to have to spend a night in the woods. It can be done responsibly but most people dont know how.

AdironRider · Jan 30, 2019

skiur said:
VT needs to with at least 5 or 6 groups of asshats at Killington going off the backside each year. Wheelerville road is not as close as many people think and its not all downhill to get to it. I understand the concern that charging people will make some people afraid to call for help, but why should the public have to pay for these darwin award winners to be found? And thats if they can call them as cell phone coverage is not the best round there. If you go out of bounds you should be prepared to have to spend a night in the woods. It can be done responsibly but most people dont know how.

About ten cents of your overall tax burden goes towards search and rescue. The cost is minimal, but sure, let em freeze or better yet bankrupt them because they got lost.

One would think literally saving peoples lives would be a tax most would support but people loooooove to bitch about S&R.

Smellytele · Jan 30, 2019

AdironRider said:
About ten cents of your overall tax burden goes towards search and rescue. The cost is minimal, but sure, let em freeze or better yet bankrupt them because they got lost.

One would think literally saving peoples lives would be a tax most would support but people loooooove to bitch about S&R.

They hate S&R when it involves idiots that think that rules and ropes don't apply to them.

2Planker · Jan 30, 2019

machski said:
Not sure how Sugarloaf has set things up, but Sunday River has boundary ropes up clearly denoting the end of the resort along the top of ALL the peaks now. Locke and White Cap never had ropes along Bim's Whim and the ridge boot pack to WC summit, but it does now. I know some kid went off the backside a couple years ago and got hurt back there and needed rescue. It seems Boyne has been getting more and more Liability adverse and the penalty at SL does not surprise me. I assume the have clearly defined and roped the backside boundary as well

Sent from my Pixel 3 using AlpineZone mobile app

Yup, 2 Kids. After a big storm went over the backside of Locke at 3pm. 20-30 people were eventually called out including Patrol, Mahoosuc Rescue and Maine Game Wardens. Searched for 8-10 hours until the kids walked into a house on North Rd

skiur · Jan 30, 2019

AdironRider said:
About ten cents of your overall tax burden goes towards search and rescue. The cost is minimal, but sure, let em freeze or better yet bankrupt them because they got lost.

One would think literally saving peoples lives would be a tax most would support but people loooooove to bitch about S&R.

Yeah, why have a problem with a bunch of idiots going out getting lost and putting the safety of others in jeopardy when they have to go out looking for the idiots at night when its -10 degrees out.

Hawk · Jan 30, 2019

2Planker said:
Yup, 2 Kids. After a big storm went over the backside of Locke at 3pm. 20-30 people were eventually called out including Patrol, Mahoosuc Rescue and Maine Game Wardens. Searched for 8-10 hours until the kids walked into a house on North Rd

I never hear about that one. They must have been total idiots. 8-10 hours? it is mostly down hill and there are logging roads that lead you right down to close to the airport and it is only about 1 mile total.

thetrailboss · Jan 30, 2019

2Planker said:
Yup, 2 Kids. After a big storm went over the backside of Locke at 3pm. 20-30 people were eventually called out including Patrol, Mahoosuc Rescue and Maine Game Wardens. Searched for 8-10 hours until the kids walked into a house on North Rd

I remember that incident. It was a big deal.

Hawk · Jan 30, 2019

Lets be clear. That area they went OB was fully roped and was clearly signed. They ignored all of that, went way right instead of heading left back to the saddle and continued onward into the abyss. I have no sympathy for people like that. None. They should be banned and fined for being idiots. and you think that is harsh? How harsh would it have been if they we not found and died? or worse, some rescuer was injured or died? People have to be responsible for their own actions. I am sick of the leniency that this current culture continues to embrace.

kbroderick · Jan 30, 2019

Speaking as someone who has worked patrol (at a small ski area in Vermont, not SL) in the past and who has had friends get called out to help with a rescue, I'm 100% against charging for normal SAR activities (if you need to pay for private air hours, that could be a bit different). I—and the other people I've talked to who have or could get called out for such a task—would much rather get a call from a lost skier at 2:30 than a call from a lost, hypothermic, and frostbitten skier at 7:30. Penalizing people for calling greatly increases the chance that you're going to get the second call rather than the first; for most people, there's sufficient disincentive to call before they need to without creating any penalties (including billing for the rescue).

Yes, there's a definite impact on rescuers, and while the official policy of every organization providing such services will be not to create additional victims (i.e. rescuer safety comes first), there are inherent dangers with performing rescue activities in a mountain environment, especially in the winter. I don't think anyone is more cognizant of those risks than the rescuers themselves, but they take them knowingly because they want to help. Creating more incentive for a time-sensitive rescue (hypothermia, frostbite, etc.) and adding darkness puts them at greater risk, and they're still going to go unless the risks are really high.

Three Lost Sugarloaf Skiers Lose Ski Privileges

Moderator

Well-known member

Moderator

Active member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

New member

Active member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Moderator

Well-known member

Active member

Similar threads