The "Sugarbush Thread"

[Johnny B]

On another topic...I haven't seen any mention of snow-making at LP in I think over a week now. Any information on what's going on there or what the plan is to finish up the trails that still haven't been started or finished?

Working on a blog post right now

Generally speaking, we're out of water right now. We're pretty much tapped out at Lincoln Peak on withdrawal from the Mad River/snowmaking pond given where water levels are and the super cold weather has really slowed down the recharge of all our water resources. Mt. Ellen is still in decent shape which is why you're seeing snowmaking continue over there.

 

[thetrailboss]

I understand that these people suck. I get it. But you get a few Morons so you shut it down? How about enforsement and penalties first or a warning before you shut it down. Looks to me that you guys were looking for a reason to shut it down and they handed it to you.

Your rules will not stop the responsible people that know where to go and what to ski. They have been skinning at the mountain for years. Long before there were such policies.

I get what you are saying, but how does SB enforce the policy when, in the referenced incident, the culprits who skied into the winch cable simply ran off and are unknown?

 

[Smellytele]

"Do you know who I am?"
"I was skinning up these trails before you were born"

 

[cdskier]

Working on a blog post right now

Generally speaking, we're out of water right now. We're pretty much tapped out at Lincoln Peak on withdrawal from the Mad River/snowmaking pond given where water levels are and the super cold weather has really slowed down the recharge of all our water resources. Mt. Ellen is still in decent shape which is why you're seeing snowmaking continue over there.

I was actually afraid that was the reason...

 

[mikec142]

I get what you are saying, but how does SB enforce the policy when, in the referenced incident, the culprits who skied into the winch cable simply ran off and are unknown?

I saw elsewhere that it can be that a groomer can see someone skinning (and breaking the rules) from a distance and have no chance to catch them.

My gut feeling is that short of someone actually running into a patroller or groomer, it's not so easy to catch people.

Also, during the pandemic, there has been an explosion in popularity of ski touring. This will obviously increase the number of folks who are unaware of the proper etiquette. It will also (obviously) increase the number of people who are aware, but choose to ignore the rules/etiquette.

 

[mikec142]

I understand that these people suck. I get it. But you get a few Morons so you shut it down? How about enforsement and penalties first or a warning before you shut it down. Looks to me that you guys were looking for a reason to shut it down and they handed it to you.

Your rules will not stop the responsible people that know where to go and what to ski. They have been skinning at the mountain for years. Long before there were such policies.

I don't think this is necessarily fair. If it was easy to catch and punish the few bad apples, I'm sure that SB would go that route first. Why would you assume that SB is/was looking for a reason to shut down uphill travel? Seems counterintuitive to me.

I have a ton of respect for your love of SB and your institutional knowledge of the area. That said, I wish you would rethink your last three sentences. I get your frustration. I really do. But the answer isn't to intentionally disregard the rules under the guise of "I'm one of the responsible rule breakers"

 

[cdskier]

I get what you are saying, but how does SB enforce the policy when, in the referenced incident, the culprits who skied into the winch cable simply ran off and are unknown?

Agreed...and asking SB to hire someone to "patrol" and "enforce" rules during off-hours for a service that SB provides for FREE really doesn't seem like a good idea either. It is definitely a difficult and complicated situation that SB is being put into by a handful of idiots.

 

[thetrailboss]

The harsh reality is this: it only takes ONE bad accident and one ambitious/desperate injury attorney to threaten or file suit against Sugarbush. Granted that the Vermont Skier Act, as well as other laws, may protect SB, but that does not prevent someone from filing suit requiring SB to notify its insurer and/or retain an attorney to defend and get the case tossed (which costs money). That is also assuming that SB follows its own rules and its winch cat driver took all the precautions perfectly which is not always the case (we're human).

A death or serious injury is "worth enough" for someone to try suing because they will get SOMETHING that is worth the time and effort even if it is nuisance value. It sucks, but that is where it is. Add to it the fact that a lot of people STILL don't have health insurance and if they get hurt they can't pay their medical bills so they still go to an attorney and try to sue.

Just a claim on the liability policy will increase premiums a lot for SB.

So that is why the stakes are high for a ski area like SB and why some places simply say no to uphillers.

 

[HowieT2]

The harsh reality is this: it only takes ONE bad accident and one ambitious/desperate injury attorney to threaten or file suit against Sugarbush. Granted that the Vermont Skier Act, as well as other laws, may protect SB, but that does not prevent someone from filing suit requiring SB to notify its insurer and/or retain an attorney to defend and get the case tossed (which costs money). That is also assuming that SB follows its own rules and its winch cat driver took all the precautions perfectly which is not always the case (we're human).

A death or serious injury is "worth enough" for someone to try suing because they will get SOMETHING that is worth the time and effort even if it is nuisance value. It sucks, but that is where it is. Add to it the fact that a lot of people STILL don't have health insurance and if they get hurt they can't pay their medical bills so they still go to an attorney and try to sue.

Just a claim on the liability policy will increase premiums a lot for SB.

So that is why the stakes are high for a ski area like SB and why some places simply say no to uphillers.

Oh right, blame it on the lawyers. If it wasn’t for the lawyers, who cares about the injured victims. They probably only break their legs and will never be the same again. Probably after 6 months or so they can even get back to walking. And of course, in the unlikely event that someone dies or is paralyzed, well, shit happens. Who gives a crap about them and their families. And who cares about the groomer who has to live with the memory that he chopped someone up.
I’m obviously being facetious but this post is infuriating. ill informed. First of all, the mountain has zero liability for an incident in these circumstances. Sure, anyone can sue for anything but lawyers in this business don’t get paid unless theres a recovery so its highly unlikely any lawyer would spend his time and money on a loser case like this. And insurance companies don’t just hand out money, ever, especially when there’s any kind of a defense to liability. They have armies of lawyers in house that vigorously defend even the most meritorious cases. They are on the payroll and it doesn’t cost the insurance company or the insured anything additional to defend another case.
medical costs-it isn’t uninsured victims seeking recovery for medical costs in injury lawsuits, its the health insurers, medicare Medicaid and medical providers who are seeking reimbursement from the 3rd party tortfeasor.

 

[thetrailboss]

Oh right, blame it on the lawyers. If it wasn’t for the lawyers, who cares about the injured victims. They probably only break their legs and will never be the same again. Probably after 6 months or so they can even get back to walking. And of course, in the unlikely event that someone dies or is paralyzed, well, shit happens. Who gives a crap about them and their families. And who cares about the groomer who has to live with the memory that he chopped someone up.

Wow, tell me how you really feel.....

I’m obviously being facetious but this post is infuriating. ill informed. First of all, the mountain has zero liability for an incident in these circumstances. Sure, anyone can sue for anything but lawyers in this business don’t get paid unless theres a recovery so its highly unlikely any lawyer would spend his time and money on a loser case like this. And insurance companies don’t just hand out money, ever, especially when there’s any kind of a defense to liability. They have armies of lawyers in house that vigorously defend even the most meritorious cases. They are on the payroll and it doesn’t cost the insurance company or the insured anything additional to defend another case.
medical costs-it isn’t uninsured victims seeking recovery for medical costs in injury lawsuits, its the health insurers, medicare Medicaid and medical providers who are seeking reimbursement from the 3rd party tortfeasor.

Ill informed? No. More like the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes there is statutory protection but I've explained that people still will try to sue. And that costs something to defend against. A claim by SB, no matter how frivolous, will increase its premiums. That's how it works. If SB opts to not file a claim and defend itself that also costs money.

And the idea that Medicare/Medicaid/insurers initiate suits is complete nonsense. They don't. They will assert a lien on the injured person's case and even then accept pennies on the dollar if there is any award or settlement. That's how it works.

More important you missed the the point which is the motivation behind SB's decision to avoid any issues, let alone anyone getting hurt or killed.

 

[HowieT2]

Wow, tell me how you really feel.....

Ill informed? No. More like the pot calling the kettle black.

Yes there is statutory protection but I've explained that people still will try to sue. And that costs something to defend against. A claim by SB, no matter how frivolous, will increase its premiums. That's how it works. If SB opts to not file a claim and defend itself that also costs money.

And the idea that Medicare/Medicaid/insurers initiate suits is complete nonsense. They don't. They will assert a lien on the injured person's case and even then accept pennies on the dollar if there is any award or settlement. That's how it works.

More important you missed the the point which is the motivation behind SB's decision to avoid any issues, let alone anyone getting hurt or killed.

You're simply wrong and don't know what you're talking about. I've been in the business for 30 years. You're just regurgitating false, albeit widely held misapprehensions about how the system works. But believe want you want to believe, facts be damned. People contact lawyers all the time seeking recovery for personal injuries and its the lawyers who have to decline to bring cases that dont have any merit. You think lawyers want to spend their time and money for years of work on a case that is going to be summarily dismissed. It is not the case, although that's not to say there arent exceptions to the general rule. and insurance companies don't just settle cases where there is no liability. Believe me, its a hard fought battle to get paid on a meritorious case let alone a case that will be dismissed outright.
I never said health insurers initiate suits against tortfeasors to recover medical expenses. They don't. But they do seek reimbursement when there is a lawsuit and they usually recover most, if not all, of their costs if the case has any merit.

 

[thetrailboss]

You're simply wrong and don't know what you're talking about. I've been in the business for 30 years. You're just regurgitating false, albeit widely held misapprehensions about how the system works. But believe want you want to believe, facts be damned. People contact lawyers all the time seeking recovery for personal injuries and its the lawyers who have to decline to bring cases that dont have any merit. You think lawyers want to spend their time and money for years of work on a case that is going to be summarily dismissed. It is not the case, although that's not to say there arent exceptions to the general rule. and insurance companies don't just settle cases where there is no liability. Believe me, its a hard fought battle to get paid on a meritorious case let alone a case that will be dismissed outright.
I never said health insurers initiate suits against tortfeasors to recover medical expenses. They don't. But they do seek reimbursement when there is a lawsuit and they usually recover most, if not all, of their costs if the case has any merit.

Guess what? I'm in the business as well (insurance and liability) and what I've said is pretty accurate as to business side of things. It's apparent that you take issue with how I've framed things. We can differ on that but you certainly are on a soapbox. I almost shed a tear over what you said.

Judging by your tone and perspective it seems that you are on the plaintiff's side of things. If so, I suggest that you not hand your card out on SB's lifts this weekend. I've seen some pretty ridiculous claims over my time. Such as the guy with 20 years painting experience who sued a ladder manufacturer after he got hurt after falling off a ladder he put up upside down. Yes, a lawyer took that case on and it was not outright dismissed. People do bring dumb cases and the fact is that accidents will increase insurance costs. In a business with tight margins every little bit counts. Does that mean that a business gets carte blanche when it comes to not complying with safety standards and doing the right thing? Absolutely not. But my point is that SB is taking the action it is to avoid any claims.

Now that I've said that, it's time to go skiing. I suggest you do the same.

 

[ducky]

Instead of SB policing the BC policy, maybe the MRVBC should be doing it, or policing themselves? https://www.mrvbc.org

 

[Shredmonkey254]

I just go to my local taylor shop in my home town. They have 3 russian ladies that can fix anything. I know it voids the warranty but I get it fixed in a week and it is as good as new.

AJ's on the access road in Stowe in the spring is the place to go for bargins on Arcteryx, Marmut and Patagonia. I am sure you have been in there.

Instead of SB policing the BC policy, maybe the MRVBC should be doing it, or policing themselves? https://www.mrvbc.org

wondering if you were out there again Ducky and if it is still rock hard surfaces. losing motivation to be out there on this cold weekend.

 

[ducky]

wondering if you were out there again Ducky and if it is still rock hard surfaces. losing motivation to be out there on this cold weekend.

I was out until 1:00. Surfaces were less hard than yesterday. I did not try CR as there was a lift line (I don't do that). Did a few on Birch and one Upper Jester, also a bike path trail.

 

[HowieT2]

Guess what? I'm in the business as well (insurance and liability) and what I've said is pretty accurate as to business side of things. It's apparent that you take issue with how I've framed things. We can differ on that but you certainly are on a soapbox. I almost shed a tear over what you said.

Judging by your tone and perspective it seems that you are on the plaintiff's side of things. If so, I suggest that you not hand your card out on SB's lifts this weekend. I've seen some pretty ridiculous claims over my time. Such as the guy with 20 years painting experience who sued a ladder manufacturer after he got hurt after falling off a ladder he put up upside down. Yes, a lawyer took that case on and it was not outright dismissed. People do bring dumb cases and the fact is that accidents will increase insurance costs. In a business with tight margins every little bit counts. Does that mean that a business gets carte blanche when it comes to not complying with safety standards and doing the right thing? Absolutely not. But my point is that SB is taking the action it is to avoid any claims.

Now that I've said that, it's time to go skiing. I suggest you do the same.

Oh yeah, the poor insurance companies with their "tight" margins. Come on, do you really believe that crap? There's a reason why allstate, liberty mutual, geico, progressive and the like are such big advertisers. You can't watch a ball game on tv without seeing them. Because they make tons of money. Warren Buffett is no dummy. Its a great business.
and sure there are many cases where the liability is questionable, sometimes you win and sometimes you lose. Do you want me to list the cases I've had over the last 30 years where I should have won but didnt, or all the cases with perfect liability and huge damages but limited coverage. I've had death cases with perfect liability and only 50k in coverage. Try telling that to a grieving family.

SB is taking action to prevent incidents where people can be grievously injured. Avoiding a potential claim is secondary.

 

[KustyTheKlown]

he meant the ski areas have tight margins and don't want claims causing the ski areas insurance premiums to increase. no one is saying geico is in a tight margin business.

 

[djd66]

What I find kind of funny, if you are just going to break the rules, why do you need to get on a public forum and announce to the world (including Sugarbush management) that you plan on breaking the rules? I am not judging about anyone‘s decisions regarding after hours skining, but why go and basically say F U to SB?

 

[JimG.]

"Rules for thee, not for me"

A phrase we hear often today. This behavior pisses me off. Entitled and disrespectful.

And now back to the lawyers.

 

[Smellytele]

To make Hawk happy
Beginning tomorrow, all uphill routes will reopen. We have experienced several incidents this season with guests not abiding by our uphill travel guidelines. We have worked hard to support uphill enthusiasts and continue to find ways to expand and improve our policy. We ask that you review, follow, and help spread the word on our uphill policy and proper etiquette.