Wildcat pass required for hikers?

[JustJoe]

Well if they only will allow hikers on Polecat and only when it's open, that could be a problem as middle and lower are closed.

http://skiwildcat.com/snowreport.html

I do hope this gets worked out as I plan to finish the W48 this year on "D" peak using Polecat so my better half can join me.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

This report deals with it on NewEngland trail conditions http://www.newenglandtrailconditions.com/nh/viewreport.php?entryid=7052

Also see this report: http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=43308

It would appear that the Forest Service has not yet made their decision as to the new rules at Wildcat but Wildcat until told otherwise is enforcing them.

 

[TEO]

Which would be in violation of their lease, correct?

 

[--M.]

I must be reading this wrong, so I'll ask it like this: if I hike up from Lost Pond to the E peak and cross over the top, meeting Wildcat Ski Patrol atop D Peak, will I be able to pass uncontested to C, B and then A? Surely that route is open without a dispensation?

 

[MichaelJ]

Which would be in violation of their lease, correct?

One would imagine so. One could also imagine that the Forest Service would not be too happy to learn of Wildcat trying to enforce restrictions which they are not entitled at this time to enforce.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I must be reading this wrong, so I'll ask it like this: if I hike up from Lost Pond to the E peak and cross over the top, meeting Wildcat Ski Patrol atop D Peak, will I be able to pass uncontested to C, B and then A? Surely that route is open without a dispensation?

Whatever the outcome of the decision on using the Polecat trail, I honestly don't think you would have any problem just passing over the top. Although you might have someone checking to make sure you weren't planning to descend without a pass.

 

[MichaelJ]

The top would be the A.T. corridor, so no, I can't imagine them stopping someone hiking the Ridge.

 

[kaseri]

Just wondering if there have been any new developments on this? I may hike in from Carter Notch and down Polecat this weekend.

I can see it now, hikers start late and descend Wildcat without a headlamp so as to be as incognito as possible. What a great way to increase the potential for injuries. Thanks Wildcat, you can bet that I'll be calling the USFS to voice my disapproval of Wildcat's strong arm tactics. See if I ever ski Wildcat again.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Just wondering if there have been any new developments on this? I may hike in from Carter Notch and down Polecat this weekend.

I can see it now, hikers start late and descend Wildcat without a headlamp so as to be as incognito as possible. What a great way to increase the potential for injuries. Thanks Wildcat, you can bet that I'll be calling the USFS to voice my disapproval of Wildcat's strong arm tactics. See if I ever ski Wildcat again.

The person who initially contacted me with info from the FS has not had anything new to report. It probably would be a good idea to call the Forest service. If you find out anything new from them please report back here with it. I think we all are curious to know what is going on.

 

[kaseri]

One of my hiking partners called me this morning and said that he spoke with Susan via telephone. Based on what he told me it looks like the big issue is people sledding down the mountain which has the owners of Wildcat concerned. He also said that Susan said she had a letter drafted up that was to be submitted to the owners of Wildcat. He didn't know exactly what the content of this letter was.

I highly recommend everyone call the USFS and let them know what you think of the strong arm tactics that Wildcat is pursuing.

 

[MichaelJ]

I don't like Wildcat's desire to exclude or charge hikers; however, I have said on more than once occasion (and posted here) that people should not be sledding down the ski slopes. If that truly is Wildcat's impetus for this action, then even though I "need" Wildcat D in winter, I cannot fault them for wanting to do something about it.

 

[ow2010]

Like all those here, it frustrates me that Wildcat is now using strong-arm tactics to keep hikers off the ski trail. But I think it is probably true that the actions of a few are representing all of us here. If people really are sledding down the ski trails, not only is this a liability for the ski resort, but it comes across as hikers having no respect for the business Wildcat is trying to run.

I hiked the Wildcats on December 18 and we came down Polecat. We spoke with a ski patrol guy at the top of the lifts who works for the AMC in the summer (I suspect this helped us out a bit). After we chatted for a few minutes, we asked where the Polecat Trail was and he pointed us in the right direction with no other comment. We also passed a snowcat grooming the trail on our descent who we waved to and he waved back.

That said, once we began down Polecat, we realized that whoever hiked down before us walked right down the center of the trail, the entire way down. Not even an attempt to stay to the edges of the trail!
This is disrespectful and only gives Wildcat more reason to keep hikers off the slopes. If we want to be allowed on the ski trails, we have to respect the ski resort as well.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I just received this E-mail from John the fellow who originally had E-mailed me about the subject:

Hi Ed:

I just came across the VFTT thread on Wildcat again today. As I
started to respond I got a call from Susan who indicated the problem
of sledders has become the central focus of everyone's efforts.
Apparently a sledder even called her to say they do sled, they sled in
groups and they will continue to sled no matter what. Yikes!
Sledders are essentially not in control as they go down, they are a
liability to the skiers/snowboarders and the ski areas don't want them
even if they paid a fee. She is preparing a letter trying to address
the matter and that goes up to the forest supervisor. So what was
once a simple situation has become much more nuanced.

John

I wish people would realize that when they insist on doing their own thing no matter what the rules are they are spoiling things for everyone else.

 

[MichaelJ]

Apparently a sledder even called her to say they do sled, they sled in groups and they will continue to sled no matter what.

People suck.

My skis are a lot bigger, and sharper, than their sleds. I'm just sayin ... in a collision, I would totally win.

 

[JustJoe]

People suck.

My skis are a lot bigger, and sharper, than their sleds. I'm just sayin ... in a collision, I would totally win.

As a skier myself, I'd say hitting a fairly solid object at knee height going at let's say 40, would totally suck. I say just shoot 'em.

 

[peakbagger]

I was aware of some "locals" who used to run up the slopes after work and sled down. There could be some rationalization for the act related to the new owners refusal to honor "lifetime" passes. I strongly doubt that any of the sledders are actually lifetime pass holders but its a convenient way of justifying the activity.

As I mentioned previously, an insurance company may be driving this effort. A skier essentially signs a waiver of liability when buying a lift pass (its tied to a state statute) but a hiker or sledder doesnt. Skiers can and do attempt to sue when injured but they have a very high threshold to get around the waiver. I expect the threshold for a hiker or sledder getting injured by ski operations is much lower and the insurance company can use this when calculating a rate. Pure speculation on my part is by having a hiker or sledder buy a pass, albeit a limited one, they become covered by the waiver of liability and the insurance company has one less thing to bump up a rate.

Even though I am a hiker, I can see the ski areas point and expect the USFS is going to have a tough time figuring out what is fair.

 

[Mike P.]

Are the sledders parking at Wildcat & walking up their trails & then sledding down? Why aren't they catching down low or are they walking through the woods to get there? (Say parking at PNVC or the Auto Road & walking)

They aren't climbing E peak or A-D to get there are they?

I would think the idea would be to catch them before they get on the slope. Once we get a couple of feet of snow, I can't see them bushwhacking through knee/hip deep snow to get there if cutting through the woods.

How many runs are they getting in before they are caught. Can't they confiscate their sleds?

Don't some of you walk up 19mile & then WRT and then ski down on your own skis or glissade? (Pole Cat not really steep enough to glissade except in a few spots if memory serves correctly)

I understand the liability issue, but since we all hike in the USFS, you'd think that anyone injured glissading could sue the USFS, then again after the Weingarten (spelling?) death in Tucks, her family did sue. Even if you never lose one of these, you have to defend.

As fas as hitting them, the biker has an advantage over the pedestrain too, in both cases the lower or slower gets knocked to the ground the highe faster person is launched. If you skis went under the sled, you'd probably really mess your knees up. (Your better off reporting them, or finding out how they get on)

 

[MichaelJ]

Pure speculation on my part is by having a hiker or sledder buy a pass, albeit a limited one, they become covered by the waiver of liability and the insurance company has one less thing to bump up a rate.

And/or the hiker or sledder becomes a trespasser, implicitly waiving liability.

 

[Mike P.]

And/or the hiker or sledder becomes a trespasser, implicitly waiving liability.

It should be that simple but it's not. Don't think we have any lawyers but an attractive nuisance is treated differently.

If you and I are neighbors & I have a tower, a silo (with a ladder) or a nice hill for sleeding & your property is just woods, I can expect sledders or (with a silo) teenage boys with spray paint to paint 'Our' High School 2012.

Same if I have a cliff, a la the Quincy Quarry.

 

[MichaelJ]

Attractive nuisance is predicated on the situation being one a child would enter on their own, and not understand as dangerous, as well as the plaintiff being a child. I highly doubt we would see any unattended children sledding at the ski area, and adult accompaniment would rule out an attractive nuisance as an adult is assumed to know better, and the parent would be held liable for bringing the child into the situation in the first place.

Seriously, forget the parts about my injuring my knees or who's bigger ... my skis, or a snowboard, have very sharp metal edges. If I hit an out-of-control sled, the results are likely to be a lot worse for the sledder, especially since I'll have a helmet on, and I'll bet you a nickle the sledders don't. Sledding on active ski trails is stupid. Sledding in the dark, or on ski trails with active grooming or snowmaking is stupid (those snow guns and their hoses will mess you up).