KILLINGTON: "...1 strike! .....Ski/ride closed trail = losing pass!"

[millerm277]

If you poach a closed run or ski out of bounds and then get hurt will you expect someone to come and get you?

Nope....I accept responsibility for myself, but I do usually ski with someone else if I'm going to be poaching/out of bounds.

The closed run might look real good and might be closed for your safety and the safety of others.

That is sometimes why they're closed, but most of the dangers to your safety are usually very obvious, unless you're doing a 50mph run your first time down the trail....

Also, the reasons trails are closed is often because of something that most people don't want to deal with, like a bare spot or two that stretches across the trail.

I've been at several mountains for ski races and runs have been closed for the race yet every time we start our races we find skiers and snowboarders who have ducked under the ropes or gone...

That's a bit different than when trails are closed for things like lack of snow, or whatever other reason, and that isn't something that most of us would consider poachable, and if whoever poached that, had checked out the trail beforehand to check for any reasons it was closed (from lifts or trails nearby), they would know that.

If ski patrol or the courtesy patrol tells you to stay off a trail, then there is a good reason for it. It is for your safety and the safety of others.

Yes, there usually is, however...on a powder day, when you want first tracks, you know the mountain, and ski patrol just hasn't gotten to checking the trail yet.....

 

[JimG.]

Yes, there usually is, however...on a powder day, when you want first tracks, you know the mountain, and ski patrol just hasn't gotten to checking the trail yet.....

Or patrol keeps on "checking" it over and over to make sure it's unsafe.

I have total respect for ski patrol and what they do...but it annoys me when I see patrollers ski a closed run over and over without ever opening it. And I see that happen at more than a few ski areas.

 

[threecy]

Originally Posted by NJSkiBabe
If you poach a closed run or ski out of bounds and then get hurt will you expect someone to come and get you?

Nope....I accept responsibility for myself, but I do usually ski with someone else if I'm going to be poaching/out of bounds.

The problem is, it doesn't work this way.

Not to sound like a jerk, but let's say you skied a closed trail at Killington (after all, its the new Magic in terms of being contriversal here) which is in plain view of the chairlift. You fall and get hurt and can't get out. Are you honestly saying that you don't expect any medical attention? Would you understand if a patroller stopped at the bottom of the trail, saw you hurt/unable to move, and decided to do nothing? I'd be you'd be on the phone with a lawyer as soon as you could (or your family would be if you didn't make it out alive).

 

[NJSkiBabe]

Guess the answer really is to become a ski patroller so you can ski all the closed runs.

When you hurt yourself or someone else - who should be responsible? Ski patrol shouldn't have to come and get you if you are hurt and on a closed run.

Here's a question for everyone. If you owned a ski area and you had to pay the insurance and safety costs - how would you run it?

 

[andyzee]

The problem is, it doesn't work this way.

Not to sound like a jerk, but let's say you skied a closed trail at Killington (after all, its the new Magic in terms of being contriversal here) which is in plain view of the chairlift. You fall and get hurt and can't get out. Are you honestly saying that you don't expect any medical attention? Would you understand if a patroller stopped at the bottom of the trail, saw you hurt/unable to move, and decided to do nothing? I'd be you'd be on the phone with a lawyer as soon as you could (or your family would be if you didn't make it out alive).

Let's look at it a bit from a differnt angle. Plenty of areas now not only allow, but encourage tree skiing, if you get hurt here, do you expect assitence? My guess is yes. What's the differnce between skiing a tree run and a closed trail with regards to patroller safety. My opinion, the closed trail would be an easier rescue.

 

[dmc]

My opinion, the closed trail would be an easier rescue.

Maybe so - maybe not...

Close a trail due to ice and rocks and you'll have a tough time doing a rescue..

 

[JimG.]

Guess the answer really is to become a ski patroller so you can ski all the closed runs.

When you hurt yourself or someone else - who should be responsible? Ski patrol shouldn't have to come and get you if you are hurt and on a closed run.

Here's a question for everyone. If you owned a ski area and you had to pay the insurance and safety costs - how would you run it?

From a purely human perspective, you cannot refuse to treat/rescue an injured skier on a closed trail. Or out of bounds. You just can't. For many reasons both legal and moral. Not to mention the damage your brand would suffer if you did refuse them.

Me? I'd have a zero tolerance policy...and I'd advertise it. But I would also have as many gladed areas as possible, and I would not trim or prune them to death. And I would have BC areas with guides available for newbies; and with a sign out/in policy. And I would be strict about people who ignored the rules. The few I would have.

Those who broke my advertised rules and skied closed areas (at my area that would be rare) and got hurt, I would also advertise that those folks would be rescued at a cost. You break the rules, you pay the price.

Sure, there would be folks who refused to pay. Those folks would not be invited back to my ski area. And I would enforce that rule without exception.

 

[tjf67]

Or patrol keeps on "checking" it over and over to make sure it's unsafe.

I have total respect for ski patrol and what they do...but it annoys me when I see patrollers ski a closed run over and over without ever opening it. And I see that happen at more than a few ski areas.

I have seen trails being skied by authorities when they are ready but not open. Misteriously the ropes seem to drop. I would not recommend that but i see it happen.
If you want to poach under a lift, drop something. In my book Legal Post. Let them know what you are doing and they let you in.

 

[threecy]

What's the differnce between skiing a tree run and a closed trail with regards to patroller safety.

If a glade is deemed unsafe, it is closed.

 

[RENO]

How about the trails at the top of Rams head? The ones above the top of the new lift where the old lift used to go that don't exist anymore on the official trail map after putting in the shorter lift. People hike those trails all the time when there's a fresh dump of snow. I've hiked those. What's the pass policy gonna be on those trails?

 

[marcski]

Ski Fast!!!

They still have to catch you before they can pull your pass!!!

Sounds like a bogus policy to me....has any of this even been questioned with management?

 

[millerm277]

The problem is, it doesn't work this way.

Not to sound like a jerk, but let's say you skied a closed trail at Killington (after all, its the new Magic in terms of being contriversal here) which is in plain view of the chairlift. You fall and get hurt and can't get out. Are you honestly saying that you don't expect any medical attention? Would you understand if a patroller stopped at the bottom of the trail, saw you hurt/unable to move, and decided to do nothing? I'd be you'd be on the phone with a lawyer as soon as you could (or your family would be if you didn't make it out alive).

Okay, you've got me there, yes...I would expect a patroller to attempt to help me if I somehow managed to get hurt, and they saw me there. I wouldn't be expecting to be found/rescued.

I know the risks of skiing out of bounds/closed trails, and as long as you know the conditions, check out as much of the trail as possible, and take it cautiously the first time or two while checking for dangers, it's not much riskier than regular skiing in my opinion. I have hiked back up a trail that was closed before, because I got to a steep drop on it, and it was a sheet of ice and exposed rock.

Also, regardless of what injury I sustained, I'm pretty damn sure I wouldn't sue the resort unless it was directly caused by them on a portion of the mountain I was supposed to be on.

How about the trails at the top of Rams head? The ones above the top of the new lift where the old lift used to go that don't exist anymore on the official trail map after putting in the shorter lift. People hike those trails all the time when there's a fresh dump of snow. I've hiked those. What's the pass policy gonna be on those trails?

I think they are considered out of bounds now, so while K doesn't care about you going on them, they aren't responsible for you there, and it they'll probably put up the signs like in the woods off West Glade, that say you are leaving the ski area, and that you will most likely not be found if hurt.

 

[skiadikt]

i know this obvious but in case there's any doubt, if you ski out of bounds - you're out of sight, out of mind. the ski area's responsibility ends at those ropes. and if you become lost or hurt they will not lift a finger to rescue you. i know this first hand. it becomes a matter for the local and state agencies usually starting with the state police. and of course you are responsible for any costs incurred.

 

[andyzee]

I find some of these arguments about skier and patroller safety a total crock. Especially after skiing on closed trails that have been in perfect shape and then skiing on open trails, same day, same resort, that have been dangerous as can be, with ice and rocks coming through.

 

[kbroderick]

i know this obvious but in case there's any doubt, if you ski out of bounds - you're out of sight, out of mind. the ski area's responsibility ends at those ropes. and if you become lost or hurt they will not lift a finger to rescue you. i know this first hand. it becomes a matter for the local and state agencies usually starting with the state police. and of course you are responsible for any costs incurred.

That will vary from situation to situation. I'm familiar with a few situations in which mountain personnel were either directly involved with non-mountain personnel in performing a rescue out of bounds and in which mountain personnel performed an out-of-bounds rescue without outside assistance. Other mountains may have different policies, and I'm sure it also depends on land ownership and staffing.

(Of course, you shouldn't ever count on anyone being able to perform out-of-bounds rescue services--be prepared and have enough room for error built in that you can handle things going wrong, and know that even if rescue services are available, it may be a while before they can get to you.)

 

[JimG.]

I find some of these arguments about skier and patroller safety a total crock.

Actually, that's really bad.

People get a false sense of security and don't act with preparedness. And that's what leads to rescues.

 

[threecy]

Again, regardless of if you're skiing out of bounds or if you're skiing on a closed trail, you can STILL sue the ski area. It will still cost the ski area/their insurance company money to get the bogus case thrown out.

Rules are to be followed - it doesn't say much for a rule if you allow three strikes - that almost makes it an extra bonus - 'gee, I get two out of bounds catches before they can do anything to me, so I might as well use them!'

I have no problem with ski areas being strict, but fair (ie no bogus entrapment) with these rules. Everyone hates lawsuits until they're in a position in which they can benefit - then all of a sudden things change rather quickly. A litigious society is one in which it is hard to do business.

 

[andyzee]

Actually, that's really bad.

People get a false sense of security and don't act with preparedness. And that's what leads to rescues.

You missed my point. That being, that I've skied closed trails that were in far better shape than those that were opened. As a result, I find the skier/patroller safety argument a crock. And if you want to talk false sense of security, how about putting your faith in a resort that an open trail is in good shape only to find it's not. I've skied on some trails that were truely dangerous and open. One that quickly comes to mind from last year, is the Outer Limits Express. This is a small connector trail from Wildfire to Outer Limits. Well, there were a number of times last year where it was completely iced up and open. That may be fine with a down hill trail, but in this case being a connector it wasn't. As your going between the two trails, you may have a decent speed going, you hit a turn, only to find it's all ice, can you say "hello trees"? I'd be suprised if no one got hurt on that. If I'm going down a a closed trail, I will be more cautious, if I'm going down an open trail, I am taking the resorts word that it's safe. Too me, that is truely a false sense of security.

 

[millerm277]

Again, regardless of if you're skiing out of bounds or if you're skiing on a closed trail, you can STILL sue the ski area. It will still cost the ski area/their insurance company money to get the bogus case thrown out.

That's true, but you could sue the ski area for just about anything......"it caused emotional damage to me when all the people laughed when I fell on the big jump, so I'm suing for 1,000,000 dollars"......

Rules are to be followed - it doesn't say much for a rule if you allow three strikes - that almost makes it an extra bonus - 'gee, I get two out of bounds catches before they can do anything to me, so I might as well use them!'

I may disagree with the followed part ;-), but I agree with getting rid of the three strikes...especially since it'll take many times of poaching before they'll actually catch you, I only disagree with it not being up to the ski patroller to imposing that penalty or not, because of the wide variety of reasons/situations that can come up.

I have no problem with ski areas being strict, but fair (ie no bogus entrapment) with these rules. Everyone hates lawsuits until they're in a position in which they can benefit - then all of a sudden things change rather quickly. A litigious society is one in which it is hard to do business.

While I think it's annoying, some entrapment does work, if only because the skilled people (like the members here for the most part), know how to avoid it/not go to areas where it's going to happen, and the people who really don't belong there don't, and get caught. Personally, I wouldn't sue a ski area for something that is my fault, even if I could win the case and get some large sum of money.

 

[JimG.]

You missed my point. That being, that I've skied closed trails that were in far better shape than those that were opened. As a result, I find the skier/patroller safety argument a crock. And if you want to talk false sense of security, how about putting your faith in a resort that an open trail is in good shape only to find it's not. I've skied on some trails that were truely dangerous and open. One that quickly comes to mind from last year, is the Outer Limits Express. This is a small connector trail from Wildfire to Outer Limits. Well, there were a number of times last year where it was completely iced up and open. That may be fine with a down hill trail, but in this case being a connector it wasn't. As your going between the two trails, you may have a decent speed going, you hit a turn, only to find it's all ice, can you say "hello trees"? I'd be suprised if no one got hurt on that. If I'm going down a a closed trail, I will be more cautious, if I'm going down an open trail, I am taking the resorts word that it's safe. Too me, that is truely a false sense of security.

You missed mine too...it's all about personal responsibility and making sure YOU know the story and any consequences.

What you just said makes no more sense than hearing a resort advertising "packed powder" and thinking the snow is going to be soft and fluffy.