Why I'd Prefer to Earn My Turns (access issues)

[dug]

http://www.wmur.com/news/14867291/detail.html

 

[rocket21]

I'm surprised how big a story this...derailments aren't that uncommon...it probably wouldn't be in the press if not for a rumor that was spreading around earlier (Loon had to come out and say it was a derailment because there was an untrue story going around that was much worse).

Still can't figure out why they'd be operating with 75 mph gusts

 

[Tom Rankin]

Still can't figure out why they'd be operating with 75 mph gusts

$$$ ???

 

[Maddy]

Still can't figure out why they'd be operating with 75 mph gusts

Excellent question

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Easy -- they took people's money and didn't want to close. People choose ski areas based on how long they're open -- hence the pressure to be open in October even with one trail (can-you-say Killington?) People aren't going to come back if the last time they went they got shut out.

I once hiked Bald / Bluff in Franconia and after a while realized nobody was skiing down Canon, and that a lot of cars were leaving -- turns out they'd had a power failure. At least they gave out vouchers for free skiing in the future, but they didn't come with free gas for the return drive...

Tim

 

[TDawg]

Went to go snowboarding Sunday and heard the mountain was closed around exit 30.

We went to the mountain anyway (after a breakfast stop) because I had my snowshoes in the car and was going to hike up to the top with my board for at least one run for my gas money. A big group of us made it up to the East Basin Chair, where we met a ski patrolman who shut us down. I obeyed because it wasn't worth losing my job over, plus he threatened us with being put under arrest had we not listened. No big deal though, I ride enough where one day without won't kill me.

Question: Since I didn't use their lift, and was on National Forest land, could I have technically told him "I'm a hiker, "F" off (but in nicer words of course") and plodded on to the top without further issues? It was before (during?) their sweep of the mountain.

The gondola was closed all day today while maintenance, tests, and inspections were done.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

FS land leased to Loon Mtn, who then get to make rules. Typically ski areas do not allow hikers on groomed trails. WV does not require a trail pass for Tripoli or Livermore Roads as they are access roads to non-leased, National Forest land.

Might find legal rules here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XIX/225-A/225-A-mrg.htm

Here's the excerpt I think you care about:

225-A:24
V. No skier, passenger or other person shall:
(d) Ski or otherwise use a slope or trail which has been designated ""closed'' by the operator without written permission of said operator or designee.

Tim

 

[David Metsky]

Question: Since I didn't use their lift, and was on National Forest land, could I have technically told him "I'm a hiker, "F" off (but in nicer words of course") and plodded on to the top without further issues? It was before (during?) their sweep of the mountain.

As Tim said, in most cases the answer is No. Just because the land is leased from the USFS doesn't mean that it is open to the general public at all times. The ski area operators often retain the right to control access; it depends on the way their lease was written. Some areas, like Wildcat, are much more open to hikers. Others, like Cannon (which is on state land) are most assuredly not.

 

[TDawg]

FS land leased to Loon Mtn, who then get to make rules. Typically ski areas do not allow hikers on groomed trails. WV does not require a trail pass for Tripoli or Livermore Roads as they are access roads to non-leased, National Forest land.

Might find legal rules here: http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/XIX/225-A/225-A-mrg.htm

Here's the excerpt I think you care about:

225-A:24
V. No skier, passenger or other person shall:
(d) Ski or otherwise use a slope or trail which has been designated ""closed'' by the operator without written permission of said operator or designee.

Tim

Thanks, I was aware of the leasing/special use permit situation. This much I figured and was pretty sure of, that the mountain makes the rules. There were just a bunch of point of views being thrown around the bar at the mountain after everyone got down. One of which, and not surprisingly the most popular was the, "I'm a hiker, this is federal land, "F" off," reasoning. This sounds nice but it was tough for me to buy at the time.

Others, like Cannon (which is on state land) are most assuredly not.

"What happened to "Live Free or Die" man??" (Quote from my buddy when we got caught poaching closed trails at Cannon. Guess ya had to be there...)

 

[TomD]

I thought the story about the couple who got into a gunfight with each other was more interesting. (He won, if you can call killing your wife, winning.)

You NH people are tough.

As far as the land issue-I am pretty sure once the G leases the land, the lessee can control access under the terms of the lease.

 

[DrewKnight]

Discretion was probably the better part of valor

I, too, have heard the "f-off" theory espoused, including by folks who work for special-permit holders (can't be too specific, of course, to protect the innocent).

In theory, it's NF land and open to all, and I have heard legends of locals driving up the haul road at local mountains completely unmolested in the off-season. At Waterville, there are several folks who routinely snowshoe up open trails (mid-week), and, rumor has it, download on the chair ticket-free. No one raises an eyebrow, I am told, but it may be that they are known commodities.

In the end, it probably boils down to who you run into and how much of a control freak they are, what kind of day they are having, etc. Sounds like your ski patroller was pretty determined, probably having a bad day, and maybe even sincerely concerned for your well-being. I guess I wouldn't have tested his resolve, or the (probably high) willingness of the Lincoln Police to back him up, however questionable the legal position.

 

[David Metsky]

In theory, it's NF land and open to all,

This is simply not true. It all depends on the language of the use permit for that particular ski area.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

In the end, those with an in, locals, employees, friends, family, etc. will be able to skirt the rules. That's nothing new and applies equally well outside hiking.

Telling the ski area employees or National Forest Service Employees to "f-off" will not endear you, me, John-Hiker, June-Hiker (pun intended) to the ski area or forest service and will likely cause an adverse reaction for future travelers. On the other hand if you are polite and engaging then maybe the next time (it may be you or someone else) the decision will fall in your favor.

Many times per year I want to flip off a car/truck/SUV because they "did me wrong" while I was riding my bike. In the end all that happens is that they buzz me (or you) closer next time, right-hook me closer, ... you get my drift. Guess who wins the battle of 4,000 pounds of metal vs 20 pounds? Yup, every time.

Tim

 

[skibones]

I, too, have heard the "f-off" theory espoused, including by folks who work for special-permit holders (can't be too specific, of course, to protect the innocent).

In theory, it's NF land and open to all, and I have heard legends of locals driving up the haul road at local mountains completely unmolested in the off-season. At Waterville, there are several folks who routinely snowshoe up open trails (mid-week), and, rumor has it, download on the chair ticket-free. No one raises an eyebrow, I am told, but it may be that they are known commodities.

In the end, it probably boils down to who you run into and how much of a control freak they are, what kind of day they are having, etc. Sounds like your ski patroller was pretty determined, probably having a bad day, and maybe even sincerely concerned for your well-being. I guess I wouldn't have tested his resolve, or the (probably high) willingness of the Lincoln Police to back him up, however questionable the legal position.

If it's the same gals I see hiking up the mt and riding down on the chairs, they do have ski passes. I doubt the mt would let anyone ride down if they didn't have a pass--too much liability!

 

[grouseking]

This is simply not true. It all depends on the language of the use permit for that particular ski area.

Learned this in Feb....

Nearly got taken out by several downhill skiers on the Mt Tecumseh trail where it parallels the ski slopes. It still makes me mad that I had to look out for them, because they gave me no warning that they were coming, and it was one of the most narrow and steep sections of trail. But I guess that part doubles as a ski trail during winter, and whether its against the rules or not, I still haven't figured out, but since it's not going to change...

I just won't be hiking at too many ski resorts during the winter...

grouseking

 

[Pete S]

Opposite applies on Big Jay, VT

As Tim said, in most cases the answer is No. Just because the land is leased from the USFS doesn't mean that it is open to the general public at all times. The ski area operators often retain the right to control access; it depends on the way their lease was written. Some areas, like Wildcat, are much more open to hikers. Others, like Cannon (which is on state land) are most assuredly not.

Daves reply, as applied to Big Jay only, not the other peaks on state land that have been the sight of illegal cutting next to ski areas, would need to read

Because the State Forest Land is next to State Forest Land that is leased to a ski area now means that the State Forest is not open to the general public from the section leased to the ski area. FPR has controlled access from the ski area. It does not depend on the way the FPR mission was written. It does not depend on the way the conservation easement was written. Some areas, like most public lands, are much more open to users Others, like those over a mile away from Jay Peak ski area ( some of which is on state land) are most assuredly not.[/QUOTE]

Hikers of the NE HH will now need to access Big Jay by hiking up the thin soils of the steep sub alpine face, not along the traditional route along the less sensitive ridgeline. Access is closed from the Jay Peak Ski Area. So much for hiking Jay Peak and Big Jay as a loop. Due to the idiotic cutting by 2 criminals on an area south of the summit of Big Jay and a politically pressure from the easement holder this nice loop hike is now closed. The ridge between the two peaks is closed. It does not matter if your route would not take you near the +/- 2 acres of illegal activity. The 1500 acre Big Jay Tract can not be accessed coming or going from the ski area.

It does not make much sense to me either......

 

[David Metsky]

The 1500 acre Big Jay Tract can not be accessed coming or going from the ski area.

It does not make much sense to me either......

It makes perfect sense to me. The gash was cut mainly for skiers to access from the lift at Jay. That would be 95% of the traffic down it so stopping that was the first goal. The supposedly pristine area around Big Jay has had some major cutting/thinning before the gash, there was an illegal cabin built back there, and several other transgressions. As the GMC guy said, this was the third strike.

So, right now they are limiting access from the ski area, but hiking up from Rt 242 is a very nice trip. I don't think they're all that concerned about making life easier for the NEHH folks right now since there is still perfectly good access from the road.

Over time we may be able to see an easing of the access restriction but the GMC feels they need to act now:
- to stop damage on the site and let things heal
- to send a message that there are serious consequences to illegal cutting

The political pressure you mentioned is the land managers trying to manage the land. It's impossible to know where people plan on going before they go there, so limiting access was deemed the best approach for now. Right now, skiing access is getting the most attention; the number of folks who hike to Big Jay is much, much smaller.

 

[DrewKnight]

Right you are, Dave...

This is simply not true. It all depends on the language of the use permit for that particular ski area.

I didn't say it was true. I said I had heard it espoused, including by people who theoretically know better.

My larger point was (and on this one we all seem to agree), there is no percentage in pushing the finer points of access, it's not worth the hassle.

 

[RoySwkr]

I doubt the mt would let anyone ride down if they didn't have a pass--too much liability!

My mother has a bad knee and finds going down harder than going up. She has gotten free rides down at Mad River Glen, Cannon, and Wildcat after snowshoeing up, Cannon at least requires a ticket to ride down in summer but apparently not in winter.

Lots of people seem to ride down at Wildcat including Carter Notch caretaker.

 

[spencer]

She has gotten free rides down at Mad River Glen, Cannon, and Wildcat after snowshoeing up, Cannon at least requires a ticket to ride down in summer but apparently not in winter.

I hope she's not counting those towards any list