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

[AdironRider]

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.

I can see your reasoning outside of its no different for a hiker getting lost than a skier IMO. Its pretty clear throughout the ADK's that you are in the biggest park in the country.

As Ive mentioned before, I think its a bit early with a two week sample size with the most attendance in history to say the problem has all of a sudden become worse and immediately needs to be fixed.

As Ive mentioned before in this

 

[Cannonball]

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.

Yes, he intended to die up there. He sent letters to a number of his friends describing the details of his plan and instructed them to come retrieve his body. Due a series of coincidences none of his friends received the letters in time. His wife (understandably) was concerned and ended up calling the authorities. His friends eventually got the letters and actually recovered his body before S&R found him, but not before they launched an expensive search. So yes, lots of ironies. And lots of questions raised. If you call for help but then end up extracting yourself do you still get charged?

 

[Scruffy]

You don't like $2000, make it a sliding scale; you're really scraping by, $500, you pull into the resort in a Porsche Cayenne, $15000

 

[from_the_NEK]

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.

Have you actually been reading this thread? I think there has been some good debate and no one has resorted to "blaming stupid flatlanders" for any deficit problems. Your oneliners seem to be deriding the fact that we are discussing this topic at all.

Currently there are four camps here:

1. Stick 'em with a huge fine $2500+ even if that is more than the cost of the actual rescue.
2. Make them pay the cost of the rescue.
3. Small to moderate deterrent fines that are applied to those deemed "irresponsible" in their actions.
4. Continue on Status Quo (maybe put up a few signs saying "Don't do that")

Can a poll be added to this thread? Or maybe we start a separate thread that we can vote for whatever camp we are in.

 

[Scruffy]

The Vermont State Police think it's getting worse.

 

[fbrissette]

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.

Yep definitely. However, I would venture that in Vermont, 90%+ of rescues are due to ill-prepared tourists, hence why I think charging everyone would not make a big difference. The ill-prepared tourists should pay the fine and the experienced backcountry users are well aware or risks and more likely to accept the fine/costs of their rescue.

 

[drjeff]

Yep definitely. However, I would venture that in Vermont, 90%+ of rescues are due to ill-prepared tourists, hence why I think charging everyone would not make a big difference. The ill-prepared tourists should pay the fine and the experienced backcountry users are well aware or risks and more likely to accept the fine/costs of their rescue.

That's the common part of this issue in VT this season. It hasn't been Joe Schmo smacked a tree and broke his leg while skiing/riding in the backcountry and NEEDED to be rescued, it's been Joe Schmo and friends got lost while skiing/riding in the backcountry and needed to be found/rescued. Is it semantics?? Sure Is there a difference in my book? Yup.

Charge for ignorance, not necessity

 

[MadMadWorld]

That's the common part of this issue in VT this season. It hasn't been Joe Schmo smacked a tree and broke his leg while skiing/riding in the backcountry and NEEDED to be rescued, it's been Joe Schmo and friends got lost while skiing/riding in the backcountry and needed to be found/rescued. Is it semantics?? Sure Is there a difference in my book? Yup.

Charge for ignorance, not necessity

I think everyone can agree that this would be the best option in a perfect world. But the problem is, who and how can this be enforced fairly, within the law, and at what cost.

 

[SnowRock]

The Vermont State Police think it's getting worse.

And its happening primarily at one mountain. IMO it would be crazy to dictate a statewide policy change for a problem that appears to be relatively minor in the grand scheme of things (number of SARs vs number of skier visits) and primarily occurring at one resort.

 

[thetrailboss]

And its happening primarily at one mountain. IMO it would be crazy to dictate a statewide policy change for a problem that appears to be relatively minor in the grand scheme of things (number of SARs vs number of skier visits) and primarily occurring at one resort.

That's a good point.

 

[thetrailboss]

Have you actually been reading this thread? I think there has been some good debate and no one has resorted to "blaming stupid flatlanders" for any deficit problems. Your oneliners seem to be deriding the fact that we are discussing this topic at all.

I think he is referring to another board and a thread there and trying to add humor to this one. At least that is what I think I'm seeing....

 

[BenedictGomez]

a problem that appears to be relatively minor in the grand scheme of things (number of SARs vs number of skier visits)

I tried to point that out as well, to no avail.

Whenever you look at data, any data, you need to be cognizant of the 'N's involved. Higher rescue numbers shouldn't necessarily be shocking in light of higher skier visits.

In other words, I mathematically dont find this as terribly surprising as some of the articles seek to make it.

 

[Scruffy]

I tried to point that out as well, to no avail.

Whenever you look at data, any data, you need to be cognizant of the 'N's involved. Higher rescue numbers shouldn't necessarily be shocking in light of higher skier visits.

In other words, I mathematically dont find this as terribly surprising as some of the articles seek to make it.

That may be true if your doing a case study when the ramifications could be equally lost in the 'N's.

What's at issue here is a limited resource to deal with any increase, even if it is just statistical noise.

If the problem is just Killington then enact local measures. local laws work, so does education at the Killington level.

 

[Riverskier]

I think everyone can agree that this would be the best option in a perfect world. But the problem is, who and how can this be enforced fairly, within the law, and at what cost.

Exactly, I don't like the idea of penalties based on subjective determinations.

What about some world class mountain climber with all of the tools and skills in the world that decides to climb Mt Washington in a snow storm in January, and ends up getting hurt and needs to be rescued. By all accounts they probably would be considered to have the skills/preperation to successfully complete such a climb, but wouldn't we all agree that anyone attempting that climb in those conditions faces many dangers and it is a risky pursuit regardless of experience? Should there rescue be free because they were prepared, experienced, and equipped for such an excursion, or charged because of the inherent risks in attamepting such a climb in those conditions?

 

[Mpdsnowman]

I think a lot of it has to do with these events happening so quickly and rapidly...It has to do with the snow. I mean it seems to have hit all at once and most likely so have the people so I could see an initial spike in everything involved.

It also seems to be isolating around Killington....Again thats a major resort and a big draw for people compared to other areas in the region. Numbers I am sure correlate..

I think I would go for the Leave it alone for now and maybe prop up more orange fences and signs and hope for the best...

 

[BenedictGomez]

I don't like the idea of penalties based on subjective determinations.

Penalties might be the least of their problems. If you've followed all 150+ posts in this thread, I think some people here would favor castration so they cant pass on their genes.

 

[SnowRock]

What's at issue here is a limited resource to deal with any increase, even if it is just statistical noise.

To me that represents an entirely different problem. If things are so scarce that the state can't deal with SARs then other avenues need to be explored (e.g, a SAR surcharge added to lift ticket price). You don't invent a solution to a problem that you would call statistical noise.. that means its not really a problem. In your scenario funding/resources are the problem.. not an increase in lost skiers.

 

[from_the_NEK]

To me that represents an entirely different problem. If things are so scarce that the state can't deal with SARs then other avenues need to be explored (e.g, a SAR surcharge added to lift ticket price). You don't invent a solution to a problem that you would call statistical noise.. that means its not really a problem. In your scenario funding/resources are the problem.. not an increase in lost skiers.

As I have pointed out before, IMO a SAR surcharge on tickets is a terrible idea as it would actuall encourage irresponsible out of bounds skiing rather than deter it.

 

[Scruffy]

To me that represents an entirely different problem. If things are so scarce that the state can't deal with SARs then other avenues need to be explored (e.g, a SAR surcharge added to lift ticket price). You don't invent a solution to a problem that you would call statistical noise.. that means its not really a problem. In your scenario funding/resources are the problem.. not an increase in lost skiers.

No can do kemosabe. Why should the ticket price go up at K-ton for everyone? Marketing suicide for K-ton also.

Who's Inventing a solution to a problem that hasn't already been invented? Got NH, Europe? The solution has already been "invented", needs local implementation.

statistical noise can have local consequences.

 

[BenedictGomez]

If things are so scarce that the state can't deal with SARs then other avenues need to be explored (e.g, a SAR surcharge added to lift ticket price).

Oh for the love of God..... and this is precisely the sort of thing that will happen if this keeps getting talked up in the media.

Some politician will seize upon it as a way to extract $$$$$, even though the $$$$ extracted will be substantially in excess of total yearly rescue fees, then the government can spend more $$$$$$. Wheeeee!!!!!!!

And dont for a MINUTE think SnowRock's suggestion is unrealistic, because the vast majority of lift tickets in Vermont are sold to out-of-state people, and the people politicians love to tax the most are the people who cant vote against them.