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

[RootDKJ]

I thought the more interesting and more relevant quote for this discussion also came directly from the State Police Captain who stated he is against charging a fee for rescues because he would "much rather" people call as soon as they get into trouble and a fine acts as a deterrent.

This is pretty telling from someone who has to weigh allocation of resources versus public safety on a daily basis.

That said, I think the arguments on both sides (charge/not charge) are perfectly reasonable and nobody has a monopoly on common sense... Not even Mr. Trooper. However, I would tend to defer to him, given he probably as the best handle on the resource vs. safety calculus involved.

Bingo. Fines (tax) will not deter all people from going OOB, it will only deter from calling for help if they get into trouble.

 

[Scruffy]

I thought the more interesting and more relevant quote for this discussion also came directly from the State Police Captain who stated he is against charging a fee for rescues because he would "much rather" people call as soon as they get into trouble and a fine acts as a deterrent.

This is pretty telling from someone who has to weigh allocation of resources versus public safety on a daily basis.

That said, I think the arguments on both sides (charge/not charge) are perfectly reasonable and nobody has a monopoly on common sense... Not even Mr. Trooper. However, I would tend to defer to him, given he probably as the best handle on the resource vs. safety calculus involved.

btw.. the "should we charge for rescues" virus has spread to Telemark Tips. Name calling, side taking and wharblgrbl to ensue in 3...2....1...

God help us if it reaches the TGR forums.

It's a perennial subject on TTIPS :-D

Yeah it is interesting, that "charging could delay someone's decision to call for help" is a common theme amongst SAR coordinators.
And it may very well be. I'm of the mind that if I think I'm in eminent danger, call first worry about paying later.
I wonder if any studies have been done in Europe, with their pay as you go model, if delays led to lost of life?

 

[SnowRock]

I think both sides make valid points, but if there is any chance charging would delay a call for help, I am not sure its worth it. To your point I wonder what learning's there may be from Europe. That is something I think should be looked it before you make a decision like this. But Europe is also a very different place in terms of terrain and type of rescues performed, not to mention with how governments are run/what they provide the populace.

To me it goes to the overall scope of the problem. With 4M skier visits and the sales tax that generates I am of the mind that the relatively small costs associated with SARs for relatively small number lost skiers should be easily covered. I understand that is likely not the case given the way most of our states our run... so even a blip on the radar in terms of the overall numbers can have a very real impact. I just don't see that as a lost skier problem. That is an entirely different animal and should be presented as such given the numbers involved.

 

[fbrissette]

Bingo. Fines (tax) will not deter all people from going OOB, it will only deter from calling for help if they get into trouble.

That's a simplistic view. Fines certainly do deter speeding and any other behavior deemed inadequate (drinking in public, hitting the fire alarm etc..). I can see someone trying a little bit more before calling for help but It would not stop me one second if I felt I was in danger. I doubt there is a database/research to prove that a fine will get people in more trouble then they are already in.

 

[AdironRider]

That's a simplistic view. Fines certainly do deter speeding and any other behavior deemed inadequate (drinking in public, hitting the fire alarm etc..). I can see someone trying a little bit more before calling for help but It would not stop me one second if I felt I was in danger. I doubt there is a database/research to prove that a fine will get people in more trouble then they are already in.

Considering plenty of people in this thread, SAR, and the state police all disagree with you, dont you think it might actually be, you know, true?

 

[gereddunne]

here's my editorial on all of this. recently, i was given a pretty hard time by forum readership about the sacred right to local backcountry powder stash. posting maps in trip reports is an abomination. time share skiers are gobbling up all the goods. and on and on and on.

well, it turns out maybe things shouldn't be so top secret. maybe if you gave better directions, people wouldn't get their dumb selves lost on your dime:

http://nebackcountry.blogspot.com/2013/01/mapless-skier-found-dead-locals-fined.html#more

 

[AdironRider]

Is that a troll?

 

[thetrailboss]

here's my editorial on all of this. recently, i was given a pretty hard time by forum readership about the sacred right to local backcountry powder stash. posting maps in trip reports is an abomination. time share skiers are gobbling up all the goods. and on and on and on.

well, it turns out maybe things shouldn't be so top secret. maybe if you gave better directions, people wouldn't get their dumb selves lost on your dime:

http://nebackcountry.blogspot.com/2013/01/mapless-skier-found-dead-locals-fined.html#more

If you look at the area where folks at K have been getting lost, it is pretty damn obvious that they should not go there. K Ski patrol has put up signs, ropes, and pretty blunt warnings. I'm not sure if it gets much clearer than that.

And just because folks get directions to an area does not solve the problem. They need to have the skills, knowledge, and equipment necessary to rescue themselves if necessary. You seem to assume that these folks will just have that as well. I don't know how many folks I have come across, be it hiking or skiing, that do not have the knowledge or experience to be where they are. Did you ever consider that one reason for secrecy is to prevent folks who should not be out there from going and getting into trouble? When I was at Sugarbush or Burke, if someone asked me for advice on off-map glades, I'd want to be sure that they had the skills to go out there, let alone enjoy it, before offering any advice.

 

[gereddunne]

If you look at the area where folks at K have been getting lost, it is pretty damn obvious that they should not go there. K Ski patrol has put up signs, ropes, and pretty blunt warnings. I'm not sure if it gets much clearer than that.

And just because folks get directions to an area does not solve the problem. They need to have the skills, knowledge, and equipment necessary to rescue themselves if necessary. You seem to assume that these folks will just have that as well.

making it closed off top secret stuff just excites people. perhaps better signage would be "ENSURE YOU HAVE A MAP, FOOD, WATER, AND EMERGENCY SHELTER BEFORE VOLUNTARILY EXITING THE SAFETY OF THE RESORT." kind of like those nice little gates they have above treeline in Utah.

 

[thetrailboss]

making it closed off top secret stuff just excites people. perhaps better signage would be "ENSURE YOU HAVE A MAP, FOOD, WATER, AND EMERGENCY SHELTER BEFORE VOLUNTARILY EXITING THE SAFETY OF THE RESORT." kind of like those nice little gates they have above treeline in Utah.

The signs at Killington are that blunt. One I've seen even said, "if you ski beyond this sign, it is 4 miles to a dirt road and unless you have a ride you will spend the night outside." Another one says, "if you ski beyond this sign there is no return to the ski area." I think that is pretty clear.

 

[gereddunne]

The signs at Killington are that blunt. One I've seen even said, "if you ski beyond this sign, it is 4 miles to a dirt road and unless you have a ride you will spend the night outside." Another one says, "if you ski beyond this sign there is no return to the ski area." I think that is pretty clear.

actually it kind of sounds like they're giving people false hope of an exit. i'd probably leave off the part about the dirt road. maybe more about occasional Sasquatch attacks.

 

[thetrailboss]

actually it kind of sounds like they're giving people false hope of an exit. i'd probably leave off the part about the dirt road. maybe more about occasional Sasquatch attacks.

:roll:

Are you serious? False hope of exit?

I'm paraphrasing the signage, but K ski patrol is pretty damn clear that folks should not ski there if they have no idea where they are going or what they are doing.

 

[gereddunne]

i never joke about Sasquatch.

 

[BenedictGomez]

our tax dollars already pay for SAR to begin with.......the program costs 145k. The horror!

No financial waste is good financial waste, but yeah, $145k spent is less than one decently paid full time employee. That aspect of this argument has reached "joke" status from a financial perspective.

You are against fines and and you are against trying to educate the potential culprits. Obviously you don't seem to think there is a problem out there.

You're close. I do think unnecessary SAR is a problem, I just think the extent of that "problem" is currently being ridiculously exaggerated.


If WCAX etc... keep this up much longer, they'll be entering "Shark Attack" waters of media over-hype.

 

[deadheadskier]

Here's a question, why exactly are people so concerned with punishing people for the cost of rescues?

It doesn't effect you. Okay, maybe a really expensive rescue might cost you 1/1000th of a penny in tax allocation.

Why do you even care?

 

[witch hobble]

Classic clash of concerns and world views. Search for root causes, or think up elaborate punishments?

Why care? I'll hop on the high horse and say that as someone who enjoys skiing in the woods and peripheries, that it reflects poorly on all of us who pursue this if it perceived as abberant behavior and a drain on local resources in the collective mind of the non skiing public. I guess.

 

[deadheadskier]

You think some schmuck getting lost in the Killington Back Country reflects poorly on you as a slackcountry skier? :lol:

I guess I just really don't care about folks getting lost in the woods and what it costs society to pluck their asses out of trouble. Shit happens. Some people call the Fire Department to fetch their cat of a tree, some people get lost in the woods. Determining reimbursement for society from such occurrences sounds like the ultimate 1st world problem to me.

 

[Scruffy]

Here's a question, why exactly are people so concerned with punishing people for the cost of rescues?

It doesn't effect you. Okay, maybe a really expensive rescue might cost you 1/1000th of a penny in tax allocation.

Why do you even care?

Noone really cares DeadH, we're just kicking the can around while pissing time away at work :lol::lol:
None of us has any power to change it anyway.
Better than answering what type of skier we think we are.

Look, this thing had leggs, that's a lot of clicks recorded for the site, don't knock it.

 

[witch hobble]

Not me personally, but a profile I fit. Same way it irks me when other parents of kids let them run wild at a restaurant. Or someone exhibits stoner behavior that reinforces people's already calcified negative opinions of such behavior. But I'm a sensitive guy.

 

[from_the_NEK]

Classic clash of concerns and world views. Search for root causes, or think up elaborate punishments?

Why care? I'll hop on the high horse and say that as someone who enjoys skiing in the woods and peripheries, that it reflects poorly on all of us who pursue this if it perceived as abberant behavior and a drain on local resources in the collective mind of the non skiing public. I guess.

I agree with this. It reflects poorly on the responsible slack country skiers as a group. With the recent reports, I keep getting grief from family about the fact that I go skiing out of bounds on occasion. I have to keep explaining the difference between what those idiots are doing at Killington and what I do when I duck outside the boundaries or even go on a true backcountry tour.