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

[Scruffy]

My contention is that you will call for help when the rubber meets the road, not matter the cost. If someone is stupid enough to say "my ass is not worth $2500, then let em freeze.

 

[Scruffy]

So given that the average cost of a rescue is well under those figures based on info provided in this thread, what is the motivation to charge double, to quadruple the amount.

These people are not criminals. I sense mob mentality building.

No one stated they were criminal. You can ski off the back of whatever Mt. you want, as long as your not breaking any local laws or Mt. rules; but don't expect to be rescued for free. You made a decision to go out the patrolled ski area boundary, and probably had to duck a rope, or pass a warning sign to do it. You gotta pay to play.

 

[AdironRider]

So Scruffy likes his high horse.

Noone is saying that its free (although I dont think they should be charged at all), but you just want to punish people to feel better about yourself. Sweet bro.

You still havent answered why you want to charge them quadruple the amount it actually costs to rescue them.

You must be a cop, because only someone who like writing speeding tickets thinks rescues should be a money generator. And you feel comfortable letting someone die because they cant afford a couple grand.

Again in college, I had nowhere near 2500 to my name. My life should be ruined financially because I got lost. Come on.

 

[fbrissette]

My contention is that you will call for help when the rubber meets the road, not matter the cost. If someone is stupid enough to say "my ass is not worth $2500, then let em freeze.

If the cost of a reasonable fine (not 2500$ mind you, more like 250$) is a deterrent to calling for help, then they certainly deserve a night in the woods. I can certainly comprehend the appeal of untracked snow, but at some point, once you realize you're lost with no real skills to help yourself out, then you call for help and should be happy to pay 250$ to be bailed out. This money could be put into a backcountry awareness program targeted at ski resorts users.

 

[Scruffy]

So Scruffy likes his high horse.

Noone is saying that its free (although I dont think they should be charged at all), but you just want to punish people to feel better about yourself. Sweet bro.

You still havent answered why you want to charge them quadruple the amount it actually costs to rescue them.

You must be a cop, because only someone who like writing speeding tickets thinks rescues should be a money generator. And you feel comfortable letting someone die because they cant afford a couple grand.

Again in college, I had nowhere near 2500 to my name. My life should be ruined financially because I got lost. Come on.

What? I thought we were having an intelligent conversation? I have no high horse nor do I care about punishment, after all I agree with you; it's not a crime!!
A) If you're skiing at a resort paying greater than $50 a lift ticket, you or your parents or someone else in your life would have 2 grand to save your life.
B) Not having a dime does not stop people from calling 911, going to ER, etc.. Paying for it later is not on your mind when the rubber meets the road. If I think my life is in eminent danger, I'm calling for help come hell or high water, paying for it is not on my mind at the moment. You can always pay it off if your alive, you can't if your dead.
C) You have one data point on rescues costing $1300.
D) Small fines are not a deterrent.
E) It's a matter of economics, why should 99% of the population, who either do not ski, or ski responsibly be asked to pay more in taxes for irresponsible behavior?

 

[fbrissette]

It's easy for us on this board to say that. Many of us know the resort terrain very well and often ski out of bounds. For a tourist or someone inexperienced with the terrain they can easily get lost at Jay. They don't necessarily know that if they just keep going they will eventually get back to a road.

You're probably right. It is very hard for me to comprehend why skiers would choose to hit the backcountry without minimally looking at a map first.

I think there was a woman last year who was lost all night long in the Dip/Orchard area where you can even HEAR cars lower down. I never understood why she tried sleeping in the woods but it happened. The valley/bowl coming down from Big Jay is a large swath of woods and some places it flattens out. It's easy for people to get disoriented and no know which way is out.

Yep, but if you look at a map, it is very obvious that you'll hit the road by simply following drainage. You have to be stupid/totally unprepared/lazy to get lost on Big Jay. The same applies to that lady that somehow got lost in the one-third of a square mile piece of land completely encompassed by the long trail, Jay Peak Resort and the 242, with a slope leading naturally to the road. This one was mind-boggling.

 

[AdironRider]

What? I thought we were having an intelligent conversation? I have no high horse nor do I care about punishment, after all I agree with you; it's not a crime!!
A) If you're skiing at a resort paying greater than $50 a lift ticket, you or your parents or someone else in your life would have 2 grand to save your life.
B) Not having a dime does not stop people from calling 911, going to ER, etc.. Paying for it later is not on your mind when the rubber meets the road. If I think my life is in eminent danger, I'm calling for help come hell or high water, paying for it is not on my mind at the moment. You can always pay it off if your alive, you can't if your dead.
C) You have one data point on rescues costing $1300.
D) Small fines are not a deterrent.
E) It's a matter of economics, why should 99% of the population, who either do not ski, or ski responsibly be asked to pay more in taxes for irresponsible behavior?

You are making quite an assumption that every skier has access to 2+ thousand dollars somewhere somehow. I dont outside of my personal savings. Not everyone that skis is rich.

If you dont think paying for it doesnt come into play its pretty clear you have never been in a dicey situation like that before. Comparing it to the ER (where they legally have to treat you regardless of your ability to pay) isnt exactly fair and precisely the reason why people use the ER as their primary care facility. Wait around in one lately?

If small fines are a deterrent for speeding, why are they not in this situation?

Ive needed to use the police or fire department once in my entire life, when my house caught fire in college. Yet I continue to pay taxes to have those services available if needed. SAR does more than just save gapers on a ski hill. Im fine with it being a public service like the others.

 

[thetrailboss]

My brother is a water safety and rescue expert and teaches ice rescue classes throughout New England each winter. He is hardly a bleeding-heart and I yet know he is generally against charging the "victims" (however dumb and irresponsible they may be) large sums in rescue cases due to the fact that any time lost can seriously jeopardize the odds of the victims survival, the fact that it can lead to longer and more costlier rescues, and the fact that in a worst-case scenario can increase the risk of danger to the rescuers themselves. Now granted, ice water rescue is more dangerous than on-mountain rescue, but I think the parallels are there.

I think that is why there is a determination that is made as to if the facts demonstrate if the person was "irresponsible" in their actions. Specific facts might include that the person admits that they don't have experience backcountry, that they did not have items on them for a self-rescue, that they knew that they were leaving the boundaries of the ski area, that they did not have a map or understanding of the area, etc. It is an inexact formula, obviously, but from what I've seen NH has charged folks on a case-by-case basis looking at some of these factors.

 

[AdironRider]

I think that is why there is a determination that is made as to if the facts demonstrate if the person was "irresponsible" in their actions. Specific facts might include that the person admits that they don't have experience backcountry, that they did not have items on them for a self-rescue, that they knew that they were leaving the boundaries of the ski area, that they did not have a map or understanding of the area, etc. It is an inexact formula, obviously, but from what I've seen NH has charged folks on a case-by-case basis looking at some of these factors.

Was it the Larry Flint trial where the quote "I know it when I see it" comes from.

I think that applies here most likely.

 

[MadMadWorld]

You're probably right. It is very hard for me to comprehend why skiers would choose to hit the backcountry without minimally looking at a map first.



Yep, but if you look at a map, it is very obvious that you'll hit the road by simply following drainage. You have to be stupid/totally unprepared/lazy to get lost on Big Jay. The same applies to that lady that somehow got lost in the one-third of a square mile piece of land completely encompassed by the long trail, Jay Peak Resort and the 242, with a slope leading naturally to the road. This one was mind-boggling.

Maybe she just wanted some early morning pow. You know how you guys get up there!

 

[drjeff]

Yeah, around where the golf course is is where you'd end up. Trust me, wasting 1 or 2 hours of my ski day pole holing across flat back country followed by a dormant golf course is far more of a deterrent to me than any eleventy-billion dollar fine would be!



You're preaching to the choir, I'm generally against the fines for the safety reasons I noted, but if something menial like $250 could potentially eliminate 8 or 10 rescues a year, I dont see the big deal. It's these draconian $10000 or $25000 fines that I think are cray-cray. To be honest, I'm even a bit uncomfortable with the $5000 I mentioned, but if it can be proven that it really was a $5000 rescue as opposed to the $500 variety, AND it can be proved with a study that it isnt a deterrent to safety (which I'm not convinced of) than I'd acquiesce to it.

I look at it also from the extra risk standpoint that the individual being rescued is putting the search and rescue party through too. Fortunately it hasn't happend in this VT situation yet, but one of these days, odds are that part of the rescue party will have something happen to them and need to be rescued themselves.

It's the same reason why I won't poach a closed trail. If something happens to me, i'm not worried about the patrol getting to me per say, what I'd be more worried about is the patrol trashing their gear, gear that they pay for themselves, in the process of getting to me, when I realistically shouldn't of been there in the 1st place. Call it realizing that sometimes, it's not ALL about me, but about other folks too and their safety

 

[snowmonster]

Was it the Larry Flint trial where the quote "I know it when I see it" comes from.

No. That's Justice Potter Stewart describing pornography in Jacobellis v. Ohio.

 

[Cannonball]

This is a complicated issue and a debate that has been going on for a long time. Guy and Laura Waterman tackled it pretty strongly in their book "Backwoods Ethics" and other articles. They were staunch believers that personal responsibility was the golden rule. And that if you needed rescue you damn well better be prepared to pay for it. Then Guy decided to end his days by lying down on top of Lafayette and freezing to death. His "recovery" plan failed and Laura ended up calling on S&R. She was billed for the expense and there was widespread outrage over that. (obviously there is a lot more detail to this story). The point is: even people who have though about this a lot and have very strict, strong views on the matter find that their beliefs are challenged when the shoe is on the other foot.

 

[AdironRider]

I look at it also from the extra risk standpoint that the individual being rescued is putting the search and rescue party through too. Fortunately it hasn't happend in this VT situation yet, but one of these days, odds are that part of the rescue party will have something happen to them and need to be rescued themselves.

It's the same reason why I won't poach a closed trail. If something happens to me, i'm not worried about the patrol getting to me per say, what I'd be more worried about is the patrol trashing their gear, gear that they pay for themselves, in the process of getting to me, when I realistically shouldn't of been there in the 1st place. Call it realizing that sometimes, it's not ALL about me, but about other folks too and their safety

Without getting to politcal us taxpayers pay for the subsidy on that gear when they write it off on their taxes. Moot point really, but its not like the SAR or Patrol are getting totally screwed in the deal.

 

[noreasterbackcountry]

Have we started the portion of the "should people pay for rescues" thread where we blame "stupid flatlanders" for deficits yet? Because that's my favorite part.

 

[thetrailboss]

This is a complicated issue and a debate that has been going on for a long time. Guy and Laura Waterman tackled it pretty strongly in their book "Backwoods Ethics" and other articles. They were staunch believers that personal responsibility was the golden rule. And that if you needed rescue you damn well better be prepared to pay for it. Then Guy decided to end his days by lying down on top of Lafayette and freezing to death. His "recovery" plan failed and Laura ended up calling on S&R. She was billed for the expense and there was widespread outrage over that. (obviously there is a lot more detail to this story). The point is: even people who have though about this a lot and have very strict, strong views on the matter find that their beliefs are challenged when the shoe is on the other foot.

Well....the story, as I understand it, is more gruesome than that. I read that he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and that he actually spent his last day by going to his favorite mountain to be there for his final moments. In case you don't get what I'm saying, he intended to perish up there. But that raises the same irony you point out.

 

[Huck_It_Baby]

Maybe she just wanted some early morning pow. You know how you guys get up there!

Haha! I always felt like there was more to that story!

 

[AdironRider]

Well....the story, as I understand it, is more gruesome than that. I read that he had been diagnosed with terminal cancer and that he actually spent his last day by going to his favorite mountain to be there for his final moments. In case you don't get what I'm saying, he intended to perish up there. But that raises the same irony you point out.

Whoa, crazy story.

Devils in the details, but I have to respect the guy getting to spend his last moments in his favorite place. I only hope to be so lucky.

 

[thetrailboss]

Whoa, crazy story.

Devils in the details, but I have to respect the guy getting to spend his last moments in his favorite place. I only hope to be so lucky.

I think it was reported in the Caledonian Record, and I think that Laura wrote about this in an intro to a revised addition of their history on northeast recreation (its name escapes me....)

 

[Scruffy]

Ive needed to use the police or fire department once in my entire life, when my house caught fire in college. Yet I continue to pay taxes to have those services available if needed. SAR does more than just save gapers on a ski hill. Im fine with it being a public service like the others.

I agree SAR does more than save gapers skiing off the back of a resort unprepared, and I AM NOT suggesting every rescue is charged for. Certainly a hiker, let's say in the Adirondacks for example, is invited to hike and backpack on the public land, if they get into trouble, I believe SAR should be a burden of society. House or business fires also are a burden of society. Even prepared backcountry skiers ( which I am one ) whom get into trouble should be rescued. Even skiers who know the terrain, are with the Mountains rules about out of bounds, are prepared and have an accident ( not lost type ), i.e. smack a tree and need SAR. I'm not suggesting any of these get charged.

What should not be a burden, especially when there are ropes and signs and warnings that you are leaving the patrolled area and you are responsible for your self and etc... is someone ignoring all the signs and throwing caution to the wind and ducking the rope anyway, not knowing where the hell they are going or what they are doing. How would you feel if emergency responders were administering to some hubris dumb ass kids who ducked ropes and skied off the back into nowhere land while a responsible person, maybe someone in your life, that was in real peril and died because the thinly stretched emergency resources where busy with an avoidable situation.

Look, I am a back country skier, I have the equipment and take it seriously. I like side country myself when I'm at a resort since it's easier than skinning and since I'm already skiing a resort, why not. But I've not given in to temptation many a time when I don't have the right equipment with me that day, don't know the terrain or have topo maps, don't have a ski buddy, the time of day is too long, or whatever. It's a responsible judgement call.

All I'm saying is it is a problem that is getting out of hand. Something needs to be done. Resorts need to take some responsibility in educating the public with pamphlets, signage, etc.. The media needs to take some responsibility. Skiers need to take responsibility, and if they don't, then need to be prepared to pitch in and pay for the rescue.