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



## thetrailboss (Jan 8, 2013)

http://www.wcax.com/story/20536799/vt-rescue-crews-swamped-with-calls-for-lost-skiers

Tis' the season for folks to go off-piste and get lost.  We've had some threads on here about the folks at Killington and Pico a couple weeks ago, there was one guy at Bolton last week, but apparently 7 folks got lost the other day at Killington. 

The VT State Police said that they have seen at least 45 rescues in the last two weeks alone!

Bolton's ski patrol says that folks aren't "backcountry skiing," but "irresponsible skiing" and urge folks to bring a buddy, have a plan, know the terrain, carry first aid supplies, and realize that if they get lost they are putting themselves and others at risk.  

As the story outlines, apparently VT officials have not been charging for rescues as of late, despite budget cutbacks.  I recall hearing about folks being charged a few years ago, but apparently they are not doing that much anymore.  NH, on the other hand, is more aggressive.  

Perhaps this spike (45) is pent-up demand for pow, especially after last season, but folks need to be prepared before they head out of bounds.


----------



## millerm277 (Jan 8, 2013)

Lots of snow, combined with it being a holiday week where the average quality of the skiers out there is much lower.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

millerm277 said:


> Lots of snow, combined with it being a holiday week where the average quality of the skiers out there is much lower.




Still, how dumb can people be ???  Going out of bound, having no idea where they are, with little to no ability to backtrack if needs be.


----------



## Nick (Jan 9, 2013)

I wonder if one track leads to the next. In other words, someone sees a skin or ski track going under the rope our out of bounds, they think, "Let's see where that goes!" 

People assume if others have traveled a certain way, it might be OK. That could be a part of it.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

The problem is there is NO deterrent. They need to start charging but obviously not everyone should get charged.

I came up with an easy way to determine charge/no charge for rescue:

The State Police create a panel (Or group of specially trained officers) that is responsible for interviewing the rescuees immediately upon rescue. They have a standard checklist of questions that goes through some basic backcountry preparedness (I'm using "backcountry" loosely here). 

_*Question 1:* Describe you "backcountry skiing" plan.
1a. Where were you starting?
1b. What time were you starting?
1c. Where did you plan to exit the backcountry?
1d. What time did you plan to exit the backcountry?
1e. Did anyone else know what your plan was?

*Question 2:* Is anyone in your group familiar with this specific terrain and/or skied it before?
2a. Were they involved in creating the plan from Question 1?
*
Question 3:* Do you have basic supplies to survive overnight in the backcountry (food, water, firestarter) and can you show them to me? (Must provide proof that a fire was started and food wrappers/containers if supplies were used prior to rescue.)
*
Question 4:* Did you or a member of your group experience a major equipment failure or sustain an injury that made completing your plan from question 1 impossible?_


The panel then works with the resort Ski Patrol to review the answers to question 1. If there is no plan or the plan does not make sense (e.g. you can’t get to point B from point A) = LARGE CHARGE. And end of analysis.

If they had a real plan and pass question 1, then the panel considers the answer to questions 2, 3, and 4.
If the interviewee answers “yes” to Question 2 and 3 they are not charged. 

If they answer “no” to either 2 or 3 = SMALL CHARGE.

Answering “Yes” to question 4 wipes out any “no” answers for 2 and 3. This falls into “These guys had a plan. Although they could have been better prepared, they had some bad luck and needed help to get out.” = NO CHARGE

This solution does have a bit of bureaucracy to it. However it is expedited bureaucracy in that I feel the determination of financial charges can be decided in the lodge within an hour or two after the rescue is complete.

I'm not sure what the scale of financial charges that the State Police have but haven't been enforcing is. 
However, I would set it at: Large Charge = $1000/person. Small Charge = $500/person. This likely wouldn't pay for the whole rescue process but it would help defray costs a bit and act as that much needed deterrent.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

Nick said:


> I wonder if one track leads to the next. In other words, someone sees a skin or ski track going under the rope our out of bounds, they think, "Let's see where that goes!"
> 
> People assume if others have traveled a certain way, it might be OK. That could be a part of it.



That's very likely in many cases.  That's also part of being dumb.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> _*Question 1:* Describe you "backcountry skiing" plan.
> 1a. Where were you starting?
> 1b. What time were you starting?
> 1c. Where did you plan to exit the backcountry?
> ...



Anyone having satisfactory answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 will normally not need to be rescued.  In the unlikely event of a crippling injury, I don't see why they should not get charged.  If I was stuck in the backcountry with a broken leg,  I would fully expect to be charged for my rescue, even if i was fully prepared.

When our car goes dead on the side of the road, we fully expect to pay for a tow.  I fail to see why this should be any different when lost in the backcountry.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> The problem is there is NO deterrent. They need to start charging but obviously not everyone should get charged.
> 
> I came up with an easy way to determine charge/no charge for rescue:
> 
> ...



With the exception of question 3 all of those questions can be easily answered with lies.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Anyone having satisfactory answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 will normally not need to be rescued.  In the unlikely event of a crippling injury, I don't see why they should not get charged.  If I was stuck in the backcountry with a broken leg,  I would fully expect to be charged for my rescue, even if i was fully prepared.
> 
> When our car goes dead on the side of the road, we fully expect to pay for a tow.  I fail to see why this should be any different when lost in the backcountry.



You are exactly right that "Anyone having satisfactory answers to questions 1, 2 and 3 will normally not need to be rescued."

Question 4 is the bonus for those that would normally not need to be rescued but ended up needing help. Those people aren't the problem and the rescuers are usually more than happy to help out someone that had their plans foiled by injury or equipment failure. I the person that is rescued wants to give a donation to their local rescue agency then good on them (I would) but I don't think they should expect to get charged.
escuing idiots that have no plan is annoying to the responders and a drain on resources. 

My plan is focused on being a deterrent for those that have no plan and are completely irresponsible in their decision making.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> With the exception of question 3 all of those questions can be easily answered with lies.



That is why you have to pass all three to not get charged.
IMO Question 1 would be very hard to fake. That is why it carries so much weight and has multiple sub questions. I highly doubt most of these jokers that are skiing out of bounds would be able to just come up with a "fake" plan on the spot that would pass the review by the panel and ski patrol.


----------



## skiur (Jan 9, 2013)

At killington people ski off the back side of coops and get lost every year.  There is some decent skiing down to wheelerville rd but if you dont know your way you can get stuck in the flats and have to spend a very cold night out there. The appalachian trail is back there as is the long trail and many other hiking trails so people see them and follow them then when they go uphill people continue downhill and get lost.  If you have no idea where your going than stay inbounds.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> That is why you have to pass all three to not get charged.
> IMO Question 1 would be very hard to fake. That is why it carries so much weight and has multiple sub questions. I highly doubt most of these jokers that are skiing out of bounds would be able to just come up with a "fake" plan on the spot that would pass the review by the panel and ski patrol.



Just playing devil's advocate....but it seems very easy to lie...

*Question 1:* Describe you "backcountry skiing" plan.
1a. Where were you starting? Skiers left of the top of Joe Schmo
1b. What time were you starting? 2pm
1c. Where did you plan to exit the backcountry? the bottom of Joe Schmo
1d. What time did you plan to exit the backcountry? 2:30pm
1e. Did anyone else know what your plan was? yes my good friends on the alpinezone forum

Were those answers true? Whose to say. Maybe you can't exit at the bottom of Joe Schmo but that is what I thought. It's very hard to prove intent with questions like this.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 9, 2013)

skiur said:


> At killington people ski off the back side of coops and get lost every year.  There is some decent skiing down to wheelerville rd but if you dont know your way you can get stuck in the flats and have to spend a very cold night out there. The appalachian trail is back there as is the long trail and many other hiking trails so people see them and follow them then when they go uphill people continue downhill and get lost.  If you have no idea where your going than stay inbounds.



I agree here. Coops is a popular spot to hang out and many people don't realize that if you don't traverse right back into the resort it leads you into a valley or down a ridge far, far from the slopes. Wheelerville rd isn't exactly close and the terrain gets flat for a long way before you hit the rd.

In the last couple seasons I have been carrying first aid, matches/lighter, rolled up, dry newspaper, radio, skins, etc. I think people under estimate the trouble you can get into out there.

45 in a couple weeks is crazy.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> Maybe you can't exit at the bottom of Joe Schmo but that is what I thought.



If you thought you could exit back to Joe Schmo trail and you really can't (the review panel will know if this is true)= Large Charge.

You have to KNOW you can exit back to Joe Schmo trail before you start.

For a real world example: 
If you duck the rope at the bottom of the Poma Woods glade trail at Pico and tell the interviewer that you "Planned" on skiing back to Giant Killer or the top of Golder Express or Outpost. The panel would know they are full of crap since once you duck that rope you can't get back to the resort without going up hill since you are in a drainage that dumps you into the wilderness on the Southwest side of the mountain.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

Im pretty against being charged for rescue. Shit happens, whether by stupidity or dumb luck. 

I think the comparison to having your car break down is weak. Thats not a life or death situation and most likely your fault to begin with due to neglected maintenance or what have you. 

A more proper comparison would be if you are in danger. My house caught fire when I was in college. We werent charged as it was a public service. 

Also, keep in mind you already do pay for rescues already, through taxes and the like. This is no different than having a police force, public hospital, or fire department. Most likely, its members from these organizations that will be assisting with your rescue to begin with.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> That is why you have to pass all three to not get charged.
> IMO Question 1 would be very hard to fake. That is why it carries so much weight and has multiple sub questions. I highly doubt most of these jokers that are skiing out of bounds would be able to just come up with a "fake" plan on the spot that would pass the review by the panel and ski patrol.



Creating qualifications for being charged isn't a bad idea but in practice it's not going to be so easy. Once the people are rescued they would then go in front of a panel of reviewers? This is going to cost money to have people reviewing as well. So it creates a cost associated with the fact they are trying to determine if the should be a cost for rescue.

The review then basically becomes a legal hearing. You can't just sit someone in front of a couple ski patrol, sheriff or GM of a resort and let them dictate if you have to pay or not. That is too unofficial when trying to determine if someone or a group must be legally be  required to pay. It becomes too messy and opens itself up for a big legal battle.

I agree in some cases lost skiers may not DESERVE to pay for the rescue but picking and choosing who pays and who doesn't is a nightmare. 

If you require rescue, no matter how experienced of a skier you are and how well prepared you are, there is still a cost. How many patrol and police had to go out looking? How much fuel was spent driving cars/trucks and snowmobiles to reach the person? If those patrollers and police are out looking for a skier then who taking care of their normal duties in their absence?

Just because a skier had a plan of where he/she was going and have skied in the back country for XX number of years doesn't change the cost associated with a rescue. Those dollars don't go away because you and your buddies are "sick" skiers with a "plan".


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Also, keep in mind you already do pay for rescues already, through taxes and the like. This is no different than having a police force, public hospital, or fire department. Most likely, its members from these organizations that will be assisting with your rescue to begin with.



Despite my last post I think this is a very good point.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> The State Police create a panel (Or group of specially trained officers) that is responsible for interviewing the rescuees immediately upon rescue. They have a standard checklist of questions that goes through some basic backcountry preparedness (I'm using "backcountry" loosely here).



The State Police or other agents of the State can ask me questions all day.  There's no need to lie however.  You are under no requirements to answer any of their questions, regardless of the circumstances.


----------



## snowmonster (Jan 9, 2013)

Charge them for their rescue. This should be done because it is the fair thing to do and it deters others from being reckless. 

I thought it was SOP that they charged for every backcountry rescue. Stowe and Jay have all these signs (especially in places used as access points) that warn you that you are entering into a backcountry area and that you will be billed for rescue. I think it's only fair to the rescuers (and the people who pay their salaries) that any backcountry rescue should be borne by the rescued skier. Whenever I cross the rope and enter the backcountry, I know I'm taking my life into my own hands and that I am assuming any cost of rescue. But, that's me. Personal responsibility is high on my list of values.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Creating qualifications for being charged isn't a bad idea but in practice it's not going to be so easy. Once the people are rescued they would then go in front of a panel of reviewers? This is going to cost money to have people reviewing as well. So it creates a cost associated with the fact they are trying to determine if the should be a cost for rescue.
> 
> The review then basically becomes a legal hearing. You can't just sit someone in front of a couple ski patrol, sheriff or GM of a resort and let them dictate if you have to pay or not. That is too unofficial when trying to determine if someone or a group must be legally be  required to pay. It becomes too messy and opens itself up for a big legal battle.



The rescuees never actually go before the "panel". 
A member of the State Police (with extra training for this task) interviews the rescuee(s) immediately after their rescue. The short list of questions above should take no more than 5 minutes per person to complete. Most likely the State Police are already asking followup questions to file with thier reports.
The answers are then taken before the panel (consisting of the specially trained officer and 2 or three high ranking members of the resort's ski patrol). They review the answers and make a determination of Large, Small, or no charge. Of course there will be inconsistancy in anwsers between members of a group but the more inconsistant the answers the more likely they are to get charged. The panel process should take no more than 2 hours. I figure the "No Charge" cases would be pretty easy to determine and therefore the panel would only deliberate for a short amount of time. The cases were charges are applied would pay for the extra work.

I don't see grounds for a legal battle here. If someone challenges the panel ruling, the State Police can invoke the fact that they can be legally charging full price for these rescues and if the rescuees really want to pay for what the rescue REALLY cost, then they are more than welcome to argue about the relatively tiny $1000 or $500 charges. 8)

The tough part is actually having some sort of incentive to actually pay the $1000 or $500 fines.



> I agree in some cases lost skiers may not DESERVE to pay for the rescue but picking and choosing who pays and who doesn't is a nightmare.
> 
> If you require rescue, no matter how experienced of a skier you are and how well prepared you are, there is still a cost. How many patrol and police had to go out looking? How much fuel was spent driving cars/trucks and snowmobiles to reach the person? If those patrollers and police are out looking for a skier then who taking care of their normal duties in their absence?
> 
> Just because a skier had a plan of where he/she was going and have skied in the back country for XX number of years doesn't change the cost associated with a rescue. Those dollars don't go away because you and your buddies are "sick" skiers with a "plan".



Of course there is still a cost for events where *prepared* skiers and riders need rescue. However, those events are few and far between. We are taking about trying to create a deterrent for the huge numbers of idiots that are just skiing off out of bounds with no regard for anyones safety.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Also, keep in mind you already do pay for rescues already, through taxes and the like. This is no different than having a police force, public hospital, or fire department. Most likely, its members from these organizations that will be assisting with your rescue to begin with.



I'm sure there is some portion of the police force, public hospital, or fire department budgets that account for these types of rescues. However, when this starts becoming an almost daily occurrence and often times the rescues aren't completed until well into the evening (sometimes they go all night), these departments start running up huge tabs for overtime and peripheral expenses (fuel, vehicle maintenance, etc). At the next town meeting when these departments come in looking for large increases in their budgets, it really sucks big-time for the taxpayers.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2013)

I've been a bit of a Nostradamus on this and I predict it will get worse.  More and more people are skiing in the woods, and many of them have no business being there.  And I mean even _on_ the map.  It's the "cool thing" to do now, and you'll see people no better than barely a passable low-level intermediate in fairly steep woods at places like Jay Peak EVERY time out. They're begging to get hurt.  As more people without a clue are ducking into woods at/near ski area boundaries, this is bound to happen.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 9, 2013)

skiur said:


> At killington people ski off the back side of coops and get lost every year.  There is some decent skiing down to wheelerville rd but if you dont know your way you can get stuck in the flats and have to spend a very cold night out there. The appalachian trail is back there as is the long trail and many other hiking trails so people see them and follow them then when they go uphill people continue downhill and get lost.  If you have no idea where your going than stay inbounds.





That is what happen to me and my friend thanksgiving Fridayb2001 it was so snowy, but we got lost, and had to walk for hours.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> The rescuees never actually go before the "panel".
> A member of the State Police (with extra training for this task) interviews the rescuee(s) immediately after their rescue. The short list of questions above should take no more than 5 minutes per person to complete. Most likely the State Police are already asking followup questions to file with thier reports.
> The answers are then taken before the panel (consisting of the specially trained officer and 2 or three high ranking members of the resort's ski patrol). They review the answers and make a determination of Large, Small, or no charge. Of course there will be inconsistancy in anwsers between members of a group but the more inconsistant the answers the more likely they are to get charged. The panel process should take no more than 2 hours. I figure the "No Charge" cases would be pretty easy to determine and therefore the panel would only deliberate for a short amount of time. The cases were charges are applied would pay for the extra work.
> 
> I don't see grounds for a legal battle here. If someone challenges the panel ruling, the State Police can invoke the fact that they can be legally charging full price for these rescues and if the rescuees really want to pay for what the rescue REALLY cost, then they are more than welcome to argue about the relatively tiny $1000 or $500 charges. 8)



There's lots of potential legal problems here.

Am I being detained against my will during this interrogation and panel review process?  Am I required to answer the questions by either the SP or the resort management (ymmv on skiing there again)?  Does resort management have legal grounds to penalize me with a fine (tax) to the State?


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I'm sure there is some portion of the police force, public hospital, or fire department budgets that account for these types of rescues. However, when this starts becoming an almost daily occurrence and often times the rescues aren't completed until well into the evening (sometimes they go all night), these departments start running up huge tabs for overtime and peripheral expenses (fuel, vehicle maintenance, etc). At the next town meeting when these departments come in looking for large increases in their budgets, it really sucks big-time for the taxpayers.



Lets not get ahead of ourselves here. 

Its been posted on this board and elsewhere that this past holiday season set attendance records. 

To have (and I admit its a high no) a two week frame of reference on the issue and to imply that it will be fact moving forward is a bit much. 

That being said, I agree with those that think that personal responsibility should be priority number one. That is the only solution to the problem. 

Charging outrageous fees is just going to prevent people from calling for help when they really need it. Do you think some broke college student at closing time lost in the woods is going to call in knowing its going to cost him thousands, or think that maybe he can make it out before dark? That only leads to a worse situation.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 9, 2013)

Scotty said:


> That is what happen to me and my friend thanksgiving Fridayb2001 it was so snowy, but we got lost, and had to walk for hours.



Scotty,

As someone who has been lost back behind Coops maybe you could share what your thoughts were. 

Did you plan on skiing off the back and down to Wheelerville rd and just got lost because your weren't familiar with the terrain? OR did you see tracks and assume they lead back to the resort?

Or maybe some other scenario?


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

RootDKJ said:


> There's lots of potential legal problems here.
> 
> Am I being detained against my will during this interrogation and panel review process?
> *No.*
> ...



... need 2 characters outside quote...


----------



## Riverskier (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Im pretty against being charged for rescue. Shit happens, whether by stupidity or dumb luck.
> 
> I think the comparison to having your car break down is weak. Thats not a life or death situation and most likely your fault to begin with due to neglected maintenance or what have you.
> 
> ...



I agree with this.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Scotty,
> 
> As someone who has been lost back behind Coops maybe you could share what your thoughts were.
> 
> ...


We were young and stupid, no plan we just started skiing the glades and it probably snowed half a foot that day and after 30-;minutes we realize something wad wrong and it got flat, we call the local police on our cell and they told us lots of.people do this and we to pay a huge fee which neither one of wanted to do, so we walk out it wad very scary actually I was so tired I threw out my skis which were old any way, we eventually got the road and their was another group of kids there, we all split a cab back to the parking lot of K. That why to this day I'm very anxious about glades.


Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I'm sure there is some portion of the police force, public hospital, or fire department budgets that account for these types of rescues. However, when this starts becoming an almost daily occurrence and often times the rescues aren't completed until well into the evening (sometimes they go all night), these departments start running up huge tabs for overtime and peripheral expenses (fuel, vehicle maintenance, etc). At the next town meeting when these departments come in looking for large increases in their budgets, it really sucks big-time for the taxpayers.



In most cases, ski patrols (most of them are not paid) and volunteers will be part of the search.  The analogy to a house fire is not good.  Your taxes specifically pay for the fire department and you have an insurance for damage to your goods.

In Europe you can get a backcountry insurance that would cover the cost of helicopter rescue. In New Hampshire, you will be charged in cases of negligence (at least it used to be like that when I was skiing Tuckerman regularly).

Another approach would be to charge a fixed amount on lift ticket price (0.5$ as an example) to setup an across the state search and rescue fund.  But in this case, you would be asking every skier to cover the cost for a few irresponsible yahoos.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> That being said, I agree with those that think that personal responsibility should be priority number one. That is the only solution to the problem.
> 
> Charging outrageous fees is just going to prevent people from calling for help when they really need it. Do you think some broke college student at closing time lost in the woods is going to call in knowing its going to cost him thousands, or think that maybe he can make it out before dark? That only leads to a worse situation.



Good luck with getting the general public to become more personally responsible. 

I don't think $1000 and $500 is outrageous. It is a lot of money, especially to a college kid. However, that is within the range of the cost of a season pass at most of the resorts in Vermont. Maybe a $500 and $250 fine levels would be more appropriate? The fine amount is up for debate but it would need to remain high enough that it would still be a deterrent.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Also, keep in mind you already do pay for rescues already, through taxes and the like. This is no different than having a police force, public hospital, or fire department. Most likely, its members from these organizations that will be assisting with your rescue to begin with.



This thread is crushing my productivity at work today, haha.

OK thinking about what AdironRider said a little more. How many of these people needing rescue are VT residents? Probably not many especially @ K-Ton. So they don't even pay VT taxes.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jan 9, 2013)

I don't believe a fine (tax) would be a deterrent.  Do fines deter people from driving over the speed limit?


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

RootDKJ said:


> I don't believe a fine (tax) would be a deterrent.  Do fines deter people from driving over the speed limit?


It wont be a deterrent.  But when caught speeding, you pay the fine.  Same thing with backcountry negligence/accident.  I fail to see why taxes (most of my taxes are paid in Canada and I backcountry in Vermont) should cover the risks I willfully take when hitting the backcountry.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> In most cases, ski patrols (most of them are not paid) and volunteers will be part of the search.  The analogy to a house fire is not good.  Your taxes specifically pay for the fire department and you have an insurance for damage to your goods.
> 
> In Europe you can get a backcountry insurance that would cover the cost of helicopter rescue. In New Hampshire, you will be charged in cases of negligence (at least it used to be like that when I was skiing Tuckerman regularly).
> 
> Another approach would be to charge a fixed amount on lift ticket price (0.5$ as an example) to setup an across the state search and rescue fund.  But in this case, you would be asking every skier to cover the cost for a few irresponsible yahoos.



The House Fire was not my analogy. It is close but not perfect to what we are talking about. However, Fire Departments do often respond to these rescues resulting in increased taxes to provide the supplies and man-power to cover these rescues.

True that a lot of the searchers are often volunteer Ski Patrol. I'm not sure how you would compensate them. It would be interesting to know how many ski patrollers would vote for a fine system like the one I have proposed?
IMHO they would rather have a deterrent that effectively reduces the number of rescues they respond to instead of figuring out how to get paid for a large numbers of rescues.

Backcountry insurance is an option. You have it, you are covered. No insurance, and you’re taking out a second mortgage.

A .05 charge per ticket isn't going to deter anyone. In fact, it would almost encourage idiots to go out of bounds since the rescue fee is paid for in the ticket.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

RootDKJ said:


> Do fines deter people from driving over the speed limit?


Yes they do. I know a lot of people that don't speed due to fear of getting fined. Does it stop everybody? Of course not but it significantly reduces the amount of people driving 90mph.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> It would be interesting to know how many ski patrollers would vote for a fine system like the one I have proposed?
> IMHO they would rather have a deterrent that effectively reduces the number of rescues they respond to instead of figuring out how to get paid for a large numbers of rescues.
> 
> Backcountry insurance is an option. You have it, you are covered. No insurance, and you’re taking out a second mortgage.
> ...



I don't like backcountry insurance.  I think everyone should be liable to cover the rescue costs or at least a should get a hefty fine.  I find it curious that so many advocate the libertarian approach of letting anyone hit the backcountry, but are quick to say that others should incur the cost for rescue.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

Hypothetical scnario. 

I think its safe to assume that someone volunteering to ski patrol, most certainly expects, if not wants, to be part of a rescue situation. To think that they need to be compensated is a non-issue and shouldnt be taken into account. (Keep in mind Im not saying they want people to get hurt, but rather they find it exciting and want to do all they can to help). 

While I dont doubt that most people who require rescue are not actual VT residents, I think its averaged out in the grand scheme of things over time where other VT residents might need rescue in another state. Otherwise its saying noone from VT ever gets in a jam, but everyone else does. We all know thats not true. 

Ultimately, I dont think you should be putting fines as a hard a fast rule, as ultimately, it will be a deterrent to getting necessary help. I find it highly doubtful that anyone on this board wouldnt think to themselves, "I think I can get out of this", knowing that if you make that call, youre in for a fine. I would definitely think about it at the very least. I also think this board has more wits about them when it comes to being in the BC than the average gaper, so I think our frame of reference is a bit different than say some kid from Jersey who thinks he can just make an igloo and figure it out in the morning. 

Not saying the fire comparison (which was mine) is perfect, but its certainly closer than breaking down in your car. When your car breaks down the worst that happens in boredom or you are late. Hardly life or death, which was more my point.


----------



## bobbutts (Jan 9, 2013)

Culture is producing an increasing number of people who think they have skills that they don't actually have.  When everyone in the league gets a trophy, people actually start to believe they can achieve whatever they want with no effort.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

bobbutts said:


> Culture is producing an increasing number of people who think they have skills that they don't actually have.  When everyone in the league gets a trophy, people actually start to believe they can achieve whatever they want with no effort.



Completely agree. 

I stopped coaching swimming because I got tired of every helicopter Mom demanding that their kid (its always the ones that can hardly float, let alone swim fast) be on the top tier relay team because hes the best thing ever. 

Sorry he sucks. I learned at a young age that I sucked at ball sports. I learned I was good at swimming, skiing, etc. I didnt get my panties in a bunch because some kids were better than me at football. 

So yeah, I blame the parents, but I think you are onto the root cause of the problem for sure.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

I'm sure ski patrollers do like to perform rescues. However, when those rescues start becoming a daily/nightly occurrence as they have recently, they get annoyed with them.
That said, in order for my deterrent fine system to work. The resorts have to put a more work into it as well. They would need to have signs at lifts, ticket windows, and commonly used side country access points that if you require rescue you could be fined up to $1000 dollars by the State of Vermont (I'm comfortable letting the state take the image hit for the policy rather than the resort). The resorts should also make sure the boundaries are clearly marked. I know that when I ski at Jay, even the boundary on the Dip/Orchard side of Timbuktu is very hard to miss. I'm curious if Scotty knew when he left the resort boundary during his escapade?


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> ... you could be fined up to $1000 dollars by the State of Vermont...



Just wondering where this figure comes from? I always assumed a rescue would cost MUCH more...?


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I'm sure ski patrollers do like to perform rescues. However, when those rescues start becoming a daily/nightly occurrence as they have recently, they get annoyed with them.
> That said, in order for my deterrent fine system to work. The resorts have to put a more work into it as well. They would need to have signs at lifts, ticket windows, and commonly used side country access points that if you require rescue you could be fined up to $1000 dollars by the State of Vermont (I'm comfortable letting the state take the image hit for the policy rather than the resort). The resorts should also make sure the boundaries are clearly marked. I know that when I ski at Jay, even the boundary on the Dip/Orchard side of Timbuktu is very hard to miss. I'm curious if Scotty knew when he left the resort boundary during his escapade?



So the resorts need to take on the costs? 

Honestly, an orange rope line isnt enough? I dont see how this would work without posting a tree every five feet or building a massive true fence around the ski area boundary.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

I would also love to see the cumulative amount of money spent on rescues. 

Arguably, its relatively small compared to other areas of the state budget with some fluff no? 

Again, before we jump to conclusions that this is now reality, lets take a step back and give a bit more time before changing the system. I dont think its unreasonable to think that there were an above average amount of incidents due to record attendance numbers. It should be expected that the amount of rescues or ski patrol situations would increase as well.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I know that when I ski at Jay, even the boundary on the Dip/Orchard side of Timbuktu is very hard to miss. I'm curious if Scotty knew when he left the resort boundary during his escapade?



I have skied a lot of ski resorts in the East, West and Europe and I think you have to be either intoxicated or the world's most absent-minded person to end up in the backcountry unknowingly.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Just wondering where this figure comes from? I always assumed a rescue would cost MUCH more...?



We aren't talking about paying for the full rescue here but rather a deterrent fine. The $1000 and $500 amounts seemed to me like somewhat reasonable figures to be a deterrent while not bankrupting anyone. Once a few people get hit with these fines, word will get out and these guys are going to start thinking twice about ducking the boundary rope. Extra deterrent includes pictures of offenders and a running $ amount on a board in the base lodge with a caption 





> Don't be "that" guy. Don't go out of bounds."


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> So the resorts need to take on the costs?
> 
> Honestly, an orange rope line isnt enough? I dont see how this would work without posting a tree every five feet or building a massive true fence around the ski area boundary.



As long as the orange rope line is in good condition and not too high or buried in the snow it should be plenty. Save the signs for common exit points.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 9, 2013)

FWIW in the past, my observation is that NH Fish and Game regularly spends about $15-20k on mountain rescues, especially when choppers are used.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> How many of these people needing rescue are VT residents? .



Dunno if they keep statistics on that sort of thing, but FWIW the only person directly referenced in that article is a Vermont resident (Charlotte).


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> I would also love to see the cumulative amount of money spent on rescues.
> 
> Arguably, its relatively small compared to other areas of the state budget with some fluff no?
> 
> Again, before we jump to conclusions that this is now reality, lets take a step back and give a bit more time before changing the system. I dont think its unreasonable to think that there were an above average amount of incidents due to record attendance numbers. It should be expected that the amount of rescues or ski patrol situations would increase as well.



Agreed that this is something that should be looked at applying in the future. But with the development of fat skis that makes skiing the backcoutry powder that much easier and more desirable, I don't see the numbers decreasing anytime soon (unless we geta  major thaw/freeze event).
With record attendances, I would expect inbounds ski patrol situations would increase. If they are off trying to rescue the idiots that are going out of bounds, it may decrease patrols ability to respond to the inbounds situations.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> FWIW NH Fish and Game regularly spend about $15-20k on mountain rescues, especially when choppers are used.



Word. 

So subtracting 30% for inefficiencies of govt that sounds about right. 

So even if every one of these lost skiers and riders cost the state 15k each, were talking about a grand total of like 700k here. Thats what, one or two days budget for the Burlington PD? Ultimately a drop in the bucket in the worst case scenario, and based on the article the actual costs of these past few weeks were probably less than half that amount. 

Is 350k really that big a deal? Is the 45k in propsed fines really going to make a difference? My thought is no.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> Dunno if they keep statistics on that sort of thing, but FWIW the only person directly referenced in that article is a Vermont resident (Charlotte).


That is the one guy that needed rescuing at Bolton which is also the closest ski area to Burlington which is where WCAX is based. I'm pretty sure the large majority that have required rescue at Killington and Pico are from S New England and NJ from the news stories I've read. I figure it is currently something like a 40 to 1 (non-resident to resident) ratio  this year.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Word.
> 
> 
> Is 350k really that big a deal? Is the 45k in propsed fines really going to make a difference? My thought is no.



So what do you propose ? Status quo ?  Education ?  Take ski passes away ?


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> Agreed that this is something that should be looked at applying in the future. But with the development of fat skis that makes skiing the backcoutry powder that much easier and more desirable, I don't see the numbers decreasing anytime soon (unless we geta  major thaw/freeze event).
> With record attendances, I would expect inbounds ski patrol situations would increase. If they are off trying to rescue the idiots that are going out of bounds, it may decrease patrols ability to respond to the inbounds situations.



I can see your points on fat skis and the increased interest certainly playing a role in these situations becoming more prevalent. No doubt there. My point is more not to overreact based on a very small sample size.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> So what do you propose ? Status quo ?  Education ?  Take ski passes away ?



Ultimately I dont think this is a situation that needs a proposal. I dont think that spending 350k to potentially save 45 lives is so out of this world and financially crippling that it requires a solution. I mean, my 45 mil a year company saved almost that much just in reducing paper/recycling waste this past year. Imagine on a state level.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Word.
> 
> So subtracting 30% for inefficiencies of govt that sounds about right.
> 
> ...




I'm not suggesting the fine is supposed to pay for the rescue. It is a deterrent.
So if you figure $350k for the total statewide rescue bill for this winter. With 30K in fines (remember some people aren't fined and others are only fined $500). That 30K may actually make up some of the difference to pay for the overtime the agencies are putting in. This would keep the agencies from having to ask for more money next year. Additionally, if the deterrent part of this works the way I figure, hopefully the total rescue bill goes down to 200k next year with only 15k in fines.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I'm not suggesting the fine is supposed to pay for the rescue. It is a deterrent.
> So if you figure $350k for the total statewide rescue bill for this winter. With 30K in fines (remember some people aren't fined and others are only fined $500). That 30K may actually make up some of the difference to pay for the overtime the agencies are putting in. This would keep the agencies from having to ask for more money next year. Additionally, if the deterrent part of this works the way I figure, hopefully the total rescue bill goes down to 200k next year with only 15k in fines.



Fair enough, I can see the logic here. I also agree that we should certainly make an effort to minimize these situations going forward. I think we just disagree on the means of how to do so.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> We aren't talking about paying for the full rescue here but rather a deterrent fine. The $1000 and $500 amounts seemed to me like somewhat reasonable figures to be a deterrent while not bankrupting anyone. Once a few people get hit with these fines, word will get out and these guys are going to start thinking twice about ducking the boundary rope. Extra deterrent includes pictures of offenders and a running $ amount on a board in the base lodge with a caption



Does anyone know what a typical rescue cost regardless of what the proposed fine here would be?

I'm not sure about the pictures of past rescuees as deterrent.  Between that and a interview/question session/interrogation by Police and Patrol you make it sound as if skiers, even if they are ill-prepared for BC and shouldn't be out there, are criminals who are breaking a law.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Does anyone know what a typical rescue cost regardless of what the proposed fine here would be?
> 
> I'm not sure about the pictures of past rescuees as deterrent.  Between that and a interview/question session/interrogation by Police and Patrol you make it sound as if skiers, even if they are ill-prepared for BC and shouldn't be out there, are criminals who are breaking a law.



Mugshot style pictures would be a bit much 

Some general wide shot pictures of rescued skier/riders standing around rescue personel may be sufficient to get attention.

And a 4 question post rescue interview is hardly an interrogation. Again, the rescued party(s) never go in front of the review panel. They simply answer the 4 questions and go home (or the hospital).


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 9, 2013)

Here is an article which cites costs associated with rescues in the Tetons. It also has a section where it proposes special use Fees up to $500 dollars per person to cover rescue costs. It is referencing climbers not skiers but it applies to our conversation.

http://wyofile.com/2011/05/teton-rescue-cost/


----------



## gregnye (Jan 9, 2013)

Unfortunately I think that we will see alot more people getting lost in the near future. As a teenager, still in high school, I look around at people in my school and think "Yup, they would never stand a chance in the wild".

Nowadays, people are driven to do stupid stuff just to catch videos of them doing it. People don't travel just to travel anymore. Most of the girls in my school organize trips JUST TO TAKE PICTURES OF THEMSELVES ON IT---and post it to Facebook!!!!!!!! This is sooo annoying!!

So we will see more of this in the future. I was doing community service with a few kids in my school (my age) who couldn't even open a can of paint to paint something!!!! Never mind math and Science, basic survival skills are lacking!!

People don't think---"plan and then do", the just think "I'll think of a plan as I go"

PEOPLE ARE STUPID! (end rant :???

(meanwhile, I do electronics, wood-work and am a member of the Boy Scouts)


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Does anyone know what a typical rescue cost regardless of what the proposed fine here would be?



Just an educated guess:

10 fireman/policeman working overtime - 1000$/per hour
gas/mileage/use of car/truck - 1500$
outdoor equipment - radio, snowmobiles, skis, lamps 1000$

and potentially:
helicopter time - 1500$ per hour
transfer to hospital - 1000$

I would think a very simple search and rescue operation would easily be in the 5 to 10k range and anything more complex/long in the 20 to 50k range.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jan 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> It wont be a deterrent.  But when caught speeding, you pay the fine.  Same thing with backcountry negligence/accident.  I fail to see why taxes (most of my taxes are paid in Canada and I backcountry in Vermont) should cover the risks I willfully take when hitting the backcountry.





from_the_NEK said:


> Yes they do. I know a lot of people that don't speed due to fear of getting fined. Does it stop everybody? Of course not but it significantly reduces the amount of people driving 90mph.



Education is also a deterrent, one that does not entangle with the monopoly on the use of force..  What happens if someone is unable or unwilling to pay the fine (tax)?  Off to the rape cage?


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Here is an article which cites costs associated with rescues in the Tetons. It also has a section where it proposes special use Fees up to $500 dollars per person to cover rescue costs. It is referencing climbers not skiers but it applies to our conversation.
> 
> http://wyofile.com/2011/05/teton-rescue-cost/



Here's one in the White mountains.  A scout was charges 25k for the cost of his rescue operation.

http://www.backpacker.com/eagle_scout_fine_rescue/blogs/1177


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

RootDKJ said:


> Education is also a deterrent, one that does not entangle with the monopoly on the use of force..  What happens if someone is unable or unwilling to pay the fine (tax)?  Off to the rape cage?



Education only educates the willing (see gregnye's post above about stupid people). There has to be a penalty for not learning (e.g. bad grades). You have pointed out the one sticky point with my plan. How do you actually get someone to pay? Is it like the parking ticket I got in Boston 10 years ago that I never paid?


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> The rescuees never actually go before the "panel".
> A member of the State Police (with extra training for this task) interviews the rescuee(s) immediately after their rescue. The short list of questions above should take no more than 5 minutes per person to complete. Most likely the State Police are already asking followup questions to file with thier reports.
> The answers are then taken before the panel (consisting of the specially trained officer and 2 or three high ranking members of the resort's ski patrol). They review the answers and make a determination of Large, Small, or no charge. Of course there will be inconsistancy in anwsers between members of a group but the more inconsistant the answers the more likely they are to get charged. The panel process should take no more than 2 hours. I figure the "No Charge" cases would be pretty easy to determine and therefore the panel would only deliberate for a short amount of time. The cases were charges are applied would pay for the extra work.
> 
> ...



So if the state police are going to be the only ones involved, who is going to make a determination about the answers given in question 1? It's a great idea in theory but this would never work. The only far way to do it in your scenario is that every case would be split down the middle (in your example $750)


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> In most cases, ski patrols (most of them are not paid) and volunteers will be part of the search.  The analogy to a house fire is not good.  Your taxes specifically pay for the fire department and you have an insurance for damage to your goods.
> 
> In Europe you can get a backcountry insurance that would cover the cost of helicopter rescue. In New Hampshire, you will be charged in cases of negligence (at least it used to be like that when I was skiing Tuckerman regularly).
> 
> Another approach would be to charge a fixed amount on lift ticket price (0.5$ as an example) to setup an across the state search and rescue fund.  But in this case, you would be asking every skier to cover the cost for a few irresponsible yahoos.



Ahhh I was wondering why Stowe was so expensive!!:roll:


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> So if the state police are going to be the only ones involved, who is going to make a determination about the answers given in question 1? It's a great idea in theory but this would never work. The only far way to do it in your scenario is that every case would be split down the middle (in your example $750)



The State Police would have 5 specially trained officers around the state. One of these officers would respond to these rescue events. They would be the ones responsible for conducting the interview(s). The officer would then take the answers to the rest of the panel that would consist of 2 or 3 high ranking ski patrol members and maybe a resort representative. The officer is likely not familiar enough with the mountain to determine the validity of answers to question 1. He/she would simply understand the entire procedure and sort of run/advise the panel session as they discuss the answers.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 9, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Ultimately I dont think this is a situation that needs a proposal. I dont think that spending 350k to potentially save 45 lives is so out of this world and financially crippling that it requires a solution. I mean, my 45 mil a year company saved almost that much just in reducing paper/recycling waste this past year. Imagine on a state level.



Cut spending? Pssssssssshhhhh


----------



## snowmonster (Jan 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> I don't like backcountry insurance.  I think everyone should be liable to cover the rescue costs or at least a should get a hefty fine.



Because I think people should cover rescue costs and should get fined, I think having backcountry insurance is a good idea. Having insurance and taking on personal responsibility are not inconsistent because, even if I have insurance, any payment is coming out of my account. If anything, I showed prudence by paying for insurance to defray the costs of my rescue and/or the fine.



> I find it curious that so many advocate the libertarian approach of letting anyone hit the backcountry, but are quick to say that others should incur the cost for rescue.



This is a statement I agree with. We want the freedom of the hills but not the consequences that come along with that freedom.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 9, 2013)

Given this:



bobbutts said:


> Culture is producing an increasing number of people who think they have skills that they don't actually have. When everyone in the league gets a trophy, people actually start to believe they can achieve whatever they want with no effort.




and this:



RootDKJ said:


> Education is also a deterrent, one that does not entangle with the monopoly on the use of force.. What happens if someone is unable or unwilling to pay the fine (tax)? Off to the rape cage?



Why do some people think they can go into the BC when they have no experience or knowledge? 

Ski Porn.

Every teenager who watches films TGR, Meathead, Level 1, etc. is going to want to go out and have fun. It's hard not to watch the films and not want to do it yourself regardless of how impressionable your mind might be. I say this is one factor which has inexperienced people pushing out of bounds.

I'm sure in many cases those being rescued don't watch ski films and are just a holiday/casual skier who went into the woods so this doesn't apply. Ski production companies could put more educational segments in their films about BC safety and preparedness. TGR does this to a certain level.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Does anyone know what a typical rescue cost regardless of what the proposed fine here would be?
> 
> I'm not sure about the pictures of past rescuees as deterrent.  Between that and a interview/question session/interrogation by Police and Patrol you make it sound as if skiers, even if they are ill-prepared for BC and shouldn't be out there, are criminals who are breaking a law.



If you leave a helicopter out of the equation, my educated guess would be around 1,000-3,000 but that depends on a lot of variables.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> Education only educates the willing (see gregnye's post above about stupid people). There has to be a penalty for not learning (e.g. bad grades). You have pointed out the one sticky point with my plan. How do you actually get someone to pay? Is it like the parking ticket I got in Boston 10 years ago that I never paid?


Has any attempt to legislate people from doing unwise actions ever been effective?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Just an educated guess:
> 
> 10 fireman/policeman working overtime - 1000$/per hour
> gas/mileage/use of car/truck - 1500$
> ...



See my earlier post.  NH Fish and Game typically come in at $15-20k or so if choppers and lots of manpower are used and it is a short 1-2 day project.  

As to NH's motives for charging folks, though they say it is a deterrence for stupidity, the real truth is that they just don't have the fiscal resources to go after lots of lost folks, so the department is using this as a cost shift.  NH is like that...not much in terms of government services.  

VT has a fine and that is for deterrence, but the talk about charging folks is the same cost shift, plain and simple.  VT already has a large budget shortfall and no real additional ways to raise "revenue" (taxes).  

Both states' officials will probably go on and on about deterrence but, like NH's refusal to let go out liquor outlets, it's not so much about the safety/deterrence/policy as it is about the damn money.  Let's be honest.  

As to my thoughts: I agree that we expect public services for our tax dollars.  The problem is that folks who drive up from out of VT and NH DON'T PAY the local state government's taxes, fees, etc.  As a result, state residents have to foot the bill for more and more rescues of folks outside of the state who generally don't know what they are doing or where they are.  That is what the policy is trying to address.  

Someone in another thread talked about rescue insurance that is offered in the Alps.  Maybe things need to go that way.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 9, 2013)

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533641,00.html

At the end of the article it said that NH in that year spent 175,320 dollars on 131 missions in that fiscal year. That is approx $1,338.20 per rescue. Pretty crazy about the guy in the piece though


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 9, 2013)

There used to be a sign at Powder Mountain in Utah that said "minimum fine for helicopter rescue is $12,000.00. 

Ive always viewed any bc excursions be it on a board or hiking thru the daks, like I do any boating excursions. It doesnt matter how long ive done it, what matters is I respect it and always be on guard to expect the unexpected.....

As these resorts get more filled up people will venture into the woods. Most of the time Ive seen them along the way as a result of simply talking to a local on the chair....


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 9, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533641,00.html
> 
> At the end of the article it said that NH in that year spent 175,320 dollars on 131 missions in that fiscal year. That is approx $1,338.20 per rescue. Pretty crazy about the guy in the piece though



OK that's assuming the average was the real cost.  We only hear about the big ones, and the ones that are generally reported, which have been in that $15-20k range.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,533641,00.html
> 
> At the end of the article it said that NH in that year spent 175,320 dollars on 131 missions in that fiscal year. That is approx $1,338.20 per rescue. Pretty crazy about the guy in the piece though



I gotta say, thats by far and away the best bang for life saved buck in terms of us the taxpayer footing the bill. Im cool with that.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Given this:
> 
> Ski Porn.
> 
> Every teenager who watches films TGR, Meathead, Level 1, etc. is going to want to go out and have fun. It's hard not to watch the films and not want to do it yourself regardless of how impressionable your mind might be. I say this is one factor which has inexperienced people pushing out of bounds.



Yup.  I think this is part of the problem.  Everything is more extreme nowadays.  And not just in skiing.  When I was a kid, you would lose your ticket if you were to do a jump anywhere on the hill  Today they build parks so that kids can easily be upside down.

With these movies, hitting a 20 footer is not good enough unless you add a backflip or a 360.   Good powder and good ledges are mostly found in the backcountry so there you go.  Going backcountry is awesome but there is a definite need to better educate kids about backcountry dangers and responsibilities.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 9, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> OK that's assuming the average was the real cost.  We only hear about the big ones, and the ones that are generally reported, which have been in that $15-20k range.



The numbers that were provided we're from NH Fish & Game for the entire fiscal year of June 2008 to June 2009. I just simply took the number of missions that were completed by the total cost. Obviously, there are some outliers like the one discussed in the article. I would imagine rescues out where you live are much more then here. Helicopters aren't all that useful in New England rescues unless you are somewhere that is above treeline (I.e. Mt Washington) because there would be no place to land. Snowmobiles are a lot more useful out here.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 9, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Yup.  I think this is part of the problem.  Everything is more extreme nowadays.  And not just in skiing.  When I was a kid, you would lose your ticket if you were to do a jump anywhere on the hill  Today they build parks so that kids can easily be upside down.
> 
> With these movies, hitting a 20 footer is not good enough unless you add a backflip or a 360.   Good powder and good ledges are mostly found in the backcountry so there you go.  Going backcountry is awesome but there is a definite need to better educate kids about backcountry dangers and responsibilities.



It's all about the GNAR!

And these days no one bothers to be responsible unless it is going to cost them money.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> Why do some people think they can go into the BC when they have no experience or knowledge?
> 
> Ski Porn.
> 
> Every teenager who watches films TGR, Meathead, Level 1, etc. is going to want to go out and have fun.



I think the danger of ski porn is to the people making ski porn.  Every year it seems they need to go "bigger" etc.. to best other peoples movies and shots.  Last year's Warren Miller movie I said someone is going to get killed soon.  These "Extreme skiing films" are honestly getting ridiculous.   

That said, I doubt it plays much of a part in people's desire to ski backcountry.  I think the recent exposition of legal, on-map gladed skiing, and the perception that_ that_ form of skiing/snowboarding is the "cool" skiing and snowboarding, is much more of a culprit.



AdironRider said:


> I gotta say, thats by far and away the best bang for life saved buck in terms of us the taxpayer footing the bill. Im cool with that.



Yeah, $1,338 per average rescue is less than I would have guessed.  

But it may be logical if you think about it.  We only hear about the dramatic rescues with a "story" to them because that's what the media picks up on, and those extensive multi-hour searches likely cost thousands of dollars.  But many rescues captured in those statistics that sound impressive from a numeric standpoint also likely include plenty of 25 minute or 1 hour searches to find panicking dumb-people who are no more than 1/8 mile out-of-bounds.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 9, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> The numbers that were provided we're from NH Fish & Game for the entire fiscal year of June 2008 to June 2009. I just simply took the number of missions that were completed by the total cost. Obviously, there are some outliers like the one discussed in the article. I would imagine rescues out where you live are much more then here. Helicopters aren't all that useful in New England rescues unless you are somewhere that is above treeline (I.e. Mt Washington) because there would be no place to land. Snowmobiles are a lot more useful out here.



FWIW I have only lived in Utah for less than two years and I was referring to rescues I knew of and heard of while living in VT for 30 some-odd years.  These rescues were in the Presis that involved choppers.  And yes, we only really hear about the outliers, which involve huge costs.


----------



## noreasterbackcountry (Jan 9, 2013)

Yay!  A "should we charge for rescues" thread!  I didn't get enough of these on Views from the Top.  

First things first, can anybody put that number in perspective?  ie.  45 out of 100 skiers getting lost is a lot different from 45 out of 100,000.  One is a pretty big problem, and the other is an acceptable public safety cost given the revenue that many skiers generate for the state.

Secondly, I don't like the disincentive created by charging for rescues as it pressures people into waiting to ask for help, which only makes matters worse, and can increase the likelihood somebody gets killed out there. (including the rescuers)

Is public shaming a viable alternative?


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 9, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


> Yay!  A "should we charge for rescues" thread!  I didn't get enough of these on Views from the Top.
> 
> First things first, can anybody put that number in perspective?  ie.  45 out of 100 skiers getting lost is a lot different from 45 out of 100,000.  One is a pretty big problem, and the other is an acceptable public safety cost given the revenue that many skiers generate for the state.
> 
> ...



Stone him!


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 9, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I'm sure ski patrollers do like to perform rescues. However, when those rescues start becoming a daily/nightly occurrence as they have recently, they get annoyed with them.
> That said, in order for my deterrent fine system to work. The resorts have to put a more work into it as well. They would need to have signs at lifts, ticket windows, and commonly used side country access points that if you require rescue you could be fined up to $1000 dollars by the State of Vermont (I'm comfortable letting the state take the image hit for the policy rather than the resort). The resorts should also make sure the boundaries are clearly marked. I know that when I ski at Jay, even the boundary on the Dip/Orchard side of Timbuktu is very hard to miss. I'm curious if Scotty knew when he left the resort boundary during his escapade?



No I didn't know into I got to the flats. Then it wad getting dark out. I had to walk through a river and my glove was wet. I was pretty scared my friend was a boy Scot so he was better then me and got me through it. It was about 9 pm maybe when we got to the road. The whole car road trip home 4 hours, me and my friend barley said a word.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 9, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


> Yay!  A "should we charge for rescues" thread!  I didn't get enough of these on Views from the Top.
> 
> First things first, can anybody put that number in perspective?  ie.  45 out of 100 skiers getting lost is a lot different from 45 out of 100,000.  One is a pretty big problem, and the other is an acceptable public safety cost given the revenue that many skiers generate for the state.



That goes to my point though in that neither VT nor NH have the money to fund such rescues.  If Joe Blow drives up from Boston, buys a lift ticket, and gets lost and needs a $10,000 rescue, you can't tell me that his "revenue" to the state (say it was 10% of the lift ticket, which would be less than $10) covers these costs.  That's the problem--there's not enough resources left.  Obviously my example is skewed because there are hundreds, thousands who pay the "revenue" to ski and don't get lost, but the agencies will tell you that they ain't getting the money and are getting cuts.  Obviously where the money goes from the "revenue" is a policy decision and discussion, but the rescue services folks are being asked to do more with less.    




> Secondly, I don't like the disincentive created by charging for rescues as it pressures people into waiting to ask for help, which only makes matters worse, and can increase the likelihood somebody gets killed out there. (including the rescuers)





> Is public shaming a viable alternative?



FWIW I have not been lost at a resort in Europe, but don't they charge folks there for rescues?  I may be wrong on that, but I base it on the "rescue insurance" we discussed some time back.  If they do charge, the whole "disincentive" argument doesn't seem to be an issue.  

And, FWIW, some of the higher profile cases, such as the Eagle Scout from MA a few years ago who thought he could do a Presi Traverse in winter in a single day and got in big trouble, do have a pretty big public shaming component to them!  As an Eagle, that guy really embarrassed me!


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 9, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> That goes to my point though in that neither VT nor NH have the money to fund such rescues.*  If Joe Blow drives up from Boston, buys a lift ticket, and gets lost and needs a $10,000 rescue, you can't tell me that his "revenue" to the state (say it was 10% of the lift ticket, which would be less than $10) covers these costs.  That's the problem*--there's not enough resources left.



   You do realize that without tourism, the entire State of Vermont would be completely SOL?  I'd think a little perspective is warranted here in that perhaps the other 414,282 Massachusetts skier visits during the year helped "chip in" to cover some of Vermont's cost.  I'm not trying in any way to belittle this issue, but I genuinely am not seeing the logic.  You cant simply separate all negative costs of business from all positive attributes of business.  

Besides, when I lived up there the great State of Vermont did such a fantastic job of wasting the money from its' citizens paychecks, that I doubt these rescues are much more than a drop in that bucket.  Way bigger fish could be fried first.  Perhaps make them cover 10% of their rescue as a "think twice you idiot" deterrent, but having a kid pay $25,000 for what seems to be an honest mistake (as opposed to a green circle back country vigilante) seems ridiculous.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> You do realize that without tourism, the entire State of Vermont would be completely SOL?  I'd think a little perspective is warranted here in that perhaps the other 414,282 Massachusetts skier visits during the year helped "chip in" to cover some of Vermont's cost.  I'm not trying in any way to belittle this issue, but I genuinely am not seeing the logic.  You cant simply separate all negative costs of business from all positive attributes of business.
> 
> Besides, when I lived up there the great State of Vermont did such a fantastic job of wasting the money from its' citizens paychecks, that I doubt these rescues are much more than a drop in that bucket.  Way bigger fish could be fried first.  Perhaps make them cover 10% of their rescue as a "think twice you idiot" deterrent, but having a kid pay $25,000 for what seems to be an honest mistake (as opposed to a green circle back country vigilante) seems ridiculous.



I live in NY our government waste lots of money to, all the states do, that is not helping our economy one bit.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 10, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


> First things first, can anybody put that number in perspective?  ie.  45 out of 100 skiers getting lost is a lot different from 45 out of 100,000.  One is a pretty big problem, and the other is an acceptable public safety cost given the revenue that many skiers generate for the state.



It isn't acceptable to me and according to the latest story on WCAX, the recent spike in lost skiers isn't acceptable to the rescuers either. http://www.wcax.com/story/20549092/police-concerned
Additionally, to me this just isn't about the cost of the rescue but rather the perception that skiing out of bounds and getting lost carries no consequences. Under the current system, the irresponsible skiers/riders ski out, get lost make a phone call, and are often back in the condo by evening sipping hot chocolates over tales of their extra gnarly day. No skin off thier teeth.

Would it be acceptable if 1 out of every 1000 Vermont tourists that came to Boston, took a Duck boat cruise and jumped out because they thought it would be fun to try to swim to shore?



> Secondly, I don't like the disincentive created by charging for rescues as it pressures people into waiting to ask for help, which only makes matters worse, and can increase the likelihood somebody gets killed out there. (including the rescuers)
> 
> Is public shaming a viable alternative?



On the flip side, maybe that same pressure about knowing they will get charged for their rescue will keep them from going out of bounds in the first place. 
Maybe my $1000 and $500 fines are too high. Let's lower the amount to $500 and $200. Still a good chunk of change but I feel it would still be a deterrent to irresponsible out of bounds skiing.
Scotty, you said the dispatcher told you you would have to pay (an unspecified amount) for your rescue if you couldn't get yourself out. Would you have paid a flat $500 fine to be rescued? 

Public shaming is definitely viable in my book. Unfortunately, I could see some of these idiots being proud to have their names and pictures on the wall. "Dude, that day was epic. Dropping that (5 foot) cliff band off the backside was totally worth getting lost and having to be rescued!" Gotta hit these guys in the pocket.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> On the flip side, maybe that same pressure about knowing they will get charged for their rescue will keep them from going out of bounds in the first place.
> Maybe my $1000 and $500 fines are too high. Let's lower the amount to $500 and $200. Still a good chunk of change but I feel it would still be a deterrent to irresponsible out of bounds skiing.




EXACTLY.  They think, "gee, if I get lost all I have to do is call 911."  This, and the realization that just because you carry a cell phone, you are not prepared for backcountry skiing.  This is not Boston Commons, where police and rescue are minutes away.  Folks who don't spend time in the woods just don't get that and need to learn to be responsible for themselves.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> You do realize that without tourism, the entire State of Vermont would be completely SOL? I'd think a little perspective is warranted here in that perhaps the other 414,282 Massachusetts skier visits during the year helped "chip in" to cover some of Vermont's cost. I'm not trying in any way to belittle this issue, but I genuinely am not seeing the logic. You cant simply separate all negative costs of business from all positive attributes of business.



I'd invite you to think about it again and to have some perspective.  Think of it as a state government with 650,000 people to foot the bill for services and everything else, a substantial number of which are not able to pay for much.  Now is it fair for Vermonters or New Hampshirites to have to pay thousands of dollars to rescue folks who pay little or nothing for the services that they expect VT or NH to render them?  Especially in cases where folks intentionally took the risk with little or no expertise?    

And again, being irresponsible is not an "honest mistake."


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 10, 2013)

It isnt fair that they have to pay for it however because the mountains are in their state....unfortunately they will......One way or the other.....Its called inherent liability....and unfortunately it creates a gap between liability, irresponsible and an honest mistake

edit:
And to me here is another catalyst of this senario....These internet forums...No offense here but Jersey cowboys and people from the NY Metro and surrounding cities are all over these internet forums and when they read posts and view images of where we go and what we do.....they instantly want to do it and they do! Then they get lost...


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> That said, I doubt it plays much of a part in people's desire to ski backcountry.  I think the recent exposition of legal, on-map gladed skiing, and the perception that_ that_ form of skiing/snowboarding is the "cool" skiing and snowboarding, is much more of a culprit.




To say media has no influence is being a bit blind. The very perception you mention about skiing the trees being "cool" comes from somewhere. 

Skiing fresh powder through the trees is a pretty common theme in ski films. As is hitting huge park features. 20 years ago parks weren't even on the radar of most resorts. Deemed dangerous. Now parks are giant and every kid wants in. Do you think this isn't a result of the media?

I'll be the first to admit watching these films is inspiring and makes me want to head out in search of unexplored powder.


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 10, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> EXACTLY.  They think, "gee, if I get lost all I have to do is call 911."  This, and the realization that just because you carry a cell phone, you are not prepared for backcountry skiing.  This is not Boston Commons, where police and rescue are minutes away.  Folks who don't spend time in the woods just don't get that and need to learn to be responsible for themselves.



I will say it's a very fine line. Charging people will deter people from calling right away. I had a hiking close call once and it was almost pitch black by the time my wife and I got back to our car. I held off on calling because of the cost of a resue. 

On a side note, these skiing apps that mark track your runs could really save a lot of lives. I highly recommend anyone going into the side country or backcountry to download one of the apps out there.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 10, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> To say media has no influence is being a bit blind. The very perception you mention about skiing the trees being "cool" comes from somewhere.



Agreed.  A lot of what is reported in the sports media (outside of professional sports) is about extreme sports - X-games, RedBull rampage, crash-ice etc.   Extreme is cool.   Extreme is not found on groomed runs.  Extreme is found in the park and out of bound.  I go with the flow.  Although I'be been backcountrying for the past 20 years, I now ski 'more extreme' (relatively speaking) in my forties then when I was in my twenties.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 10, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


> First things first, can anybody put that number in perspective?  ie.  45 out of 100 skiers getting lost is a lot different from 45 out of 100,000.  One is a pretty big problem, and the other is an acceptable public safety cost given the revenue that many skiers generate for the state.



This is absolutely correct in my mind because I don' think its enough to simply say its not acceptable or a cause for concern. If you don't quantify the magnitude or understand the scope of the problem.. how can you determine what is or isn't an appropriate response? 

Because to me, something like this:



from_the_NEK said:


> The State Police would have 5 specially trained officers around the state. One of these officers would respond to these rescue events. They would be the ones responsible for conducting the interview(s). The officer would then take the answers to the rest of the panel that would consist of 2 or 3 high ranking ski patrol members and maybe a resort representative. The officer is likely not familiar enough with the mountain to determine the validity of answers to question 1. He/she would simply understand the entire procedure and sort of run/advise the panel session as they discuss the answers.



Appears like something that is going to create a new "line-item" on a budget. I read special training, special panel and think of the state police dispatching a specially trained officer to every incident and hosting a panel like something that is going to cost a lot of $$. If funding is so dire and the cost so great that the states can't handle, perhaps pursue adding a SAR surcharge to lift tickets is more appropriate. Yeah it sucks to be the many paying for few.. but seems like a few pennies might cover the total cost.


----------



## skiur (Jan 10, 2013)

another two lost on tuesday:

KILLINGTON, Vt. -

More lost skiers at Killington Mountain are leaving state police frustrated and draining resources.

State police got a 911 call at about 4:30 p.m. Tuesday from two skiers who had intentionally skied off the main trails and were now lost.

Trevor Smith and Christopher Feehan, both 21, of New Jersey, had become separated from each other, and Smith said he was not doing well. State police tracked them down with GPS, but during the process Smith began experiencing serious fatigue, became incoherent and passed out.

Killington ski patrol sent four people out and brought the two skiers out at around 10 p.m. Both were checked out medically and released.

State police said in a statement:

"This year has seen an unacceptable amount of skiers, primarily at Killington Mountain, intentionally leaving the marked trails and eventually having to call for assistance to get out of the woods. This places a large drain on State Police uniform and dispatch resources and the State Police will be looking to work with Killington Mountain in an effort to curtail these reckless and poorly thought out acts by skiers who are not physically/mentally prepared to deal with the harsh Vermont winter conditions they face upon getting lost."


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 10, 2013)

And you know whats sad...those two jersey cowboys are going to go home and tell everyone what a time it was and next year they will probably do it again....because they got out.....and unfortunately bring more cowboys with them because they think they know the area...

Something tells me Kill is going to have their own police force of some sort...


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 10, 2013)

Mpdsnowman said:


> And you know whats sad...those two jersey cowboys are going to go home and tell everyone what a time it was and next year they will probably do it again....because they got out.....and unfortunately bring more cowboys with them because they think they know the area...
> 
> Something tells me Kill is going to have their own police force of some sort...



Oh the stereotype is so true.


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 10, 2013)

I dont mean to be rude but it is lol...And I am not picking on people from that area as much as I am honest about what ive seen over the years. It all starts at Mountain creek or Hunter lol...And then they say "hey lets go to vermont!"  and they do...and then they get lost....

When people come with us to Jay Peak and other resorts out west typically they have less than two years under their belts. And if you broke down those two years it generally equates to six or eight total times at most. The nice thing is we take them cautiously thru these places and when we do go off base we go in groups and only go so far...We try and take their excitement and keep it in perspective....We can put checks and balances along the way however when small groups go independently and again their excitement levels are so high coupled with what they are reading online the chances for this to happen are going to be high...


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 10, 2013)

Mpdsnowman said:


> And you know whats sad...*those two jersey cowboys are going to go home and tell everyone what a time it was and next year they will probably do it again....because they got out.....and unfortunately bring more cowboys with them* because they think they know the area...
> 
> Something tells me Kill is going to have their own police force of some sort...



Exactly!! That's why you need to charge them with a fine that will bring on some hurt for them. 

It's very easy for anyone of us "self responsibility" types, and some of us back country/side country ski also, to say I don't want fines because  < plug in your argument here >. But, I'll bet, if you are in a dangerous position and actually feel your life is in danger, you or your parents will gladly pay a few thousand bucks to have your ass saved. And you will learn from that. Getting saved for free enables you to do it again.

Education can go a long way here, think Hunter Safety Course, but how do you implement it? There is no license requirement to ski or ride.

SKI mag just ran an article that states AT sales up 70%, so the trend is growing. Hopefully those buying in will also have skins, and obtain the knowledge needed to successfully go BC. It won't stop the "Yo Vinny Gaper" types with rental eqip.


----------



## drjeff (Jan 10, 2013)

skiur said:


> another two lost on tuesday:
> 
> KILLINGTON, Vt. -
> 
> ...




K specific - it seems that most of the lost skiers have left the maintained trails in the same basic area (as has happened for YEARS in the same basic area of the mountain).

Some BLATANT signage in the area, such as many ski areas out West have at Avalanche Control gates for back country acccess, letting folks know that they BETTER be equipped, and even in this case that rescue costs will (or atleast should IMHO) be passed onto them, with a typical rescue costing $X, will likely get at least a few folks who shouldn't be straying off a maintained area in the first place from doing so.

Well not pertaining to back country rescue, an example of where some blatant signage with notification of a fee that worked well was at Mount Snow with their bubble chair.  There were plenty of folks who thought that the bubbles would be stickered up and carved up with folks initials/etc very quickly.  Mount Snow put some PROMINENT signage all over the base area and lift queue area and in the bubbles letting folks know that there's video of them getting off the bubble and if they get caught vandalizing the bubble that they'll be charged a $3000 replacement fee - the bubbles have been essentially vandalism free :idea:


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> It isn't acceptable to me and according to the latest story on WCAX, the recent spike in lost skiers isn't acceptable to the rescuers either. http://www.wcax.com/story/20549092/police-concerned
> Additionally, to me this just isn't about the cost of the rescue but rather the perception that skiing out of bounds and getting lost carries no consequences. Under the current system, the irresponsible skiers/riders ski out, get lost make a phone call, and are often back in the condo by evening sipping hot chocolates over tales of their extra gnarly day. No skin off thier teeth.
> 
> Would it be acceptable if 1 out of every 1000 Vermont tourists that came to Boston, took a Duck boat cruise and jumped out because they thought it would be fun to try to swim to shore?
> ...



Yes at that time I wanted to be rescued, but my friend was happy with the walk, If I was by myself I would have borrowed the money if I had to.

Sent from my ADR6410LVW using Tapatalk 2


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Especially in cases where folks intentionally took the risk with little or no expertise?    And again, *being irresponsible is not an "honest mistake."*



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.



Huck_It_Baby said:


> To say media has no influence is being a bit blind. *The very perception you mention about skiing the trees being "cool" comes from somewhere. *
> 
> Skiing fresh powder through the trees is a pretty common theme in ski films. As is hitting huge park features.* 20 years ago parks weren't even on the radar of most resorts. Deemed dangerous. Now parks are giant and every kid wants in. Do you think this isn't a result of the media?*



You're acting as if ski porn is new.  It's not.  Ski movies depicting skiing the trees have been around forever (literally DECADES).   So what is new?  The LEGAL pursuit of this form of skiing.  

As others in this thread and other threads have noted, if you're a certain age you remember that you could/would get your lift ticket pulled for skiing in the woods.  Now?  Not only is skiing in the woods allowed, it's highly encouraged and marketed by the mountains!  

Same thing with tricks.  Pulling helicopters was cool when I was a kid.  But you better not have done it in sight of a ski patroller or you could get your lift ticket pulled for that "dangerous stunt" as well.  Now?  We have super-extreme-killer-hits in the parks where you can fly off 10 foot features at high-speed if you so choose, or go flying ridiculously high in a pipe, and again, not only is it completely LEGAL, but it's culturally viewed as the "cool" thing to do.  You can say that ski movies helped create a perception that this is "cool" skiing, but this stuff was ALWAYS in ski movies.  The only difference is that people have an outlet to: A) actually do it now B) it's venue endorsed.



MadMadWorld said:


> On a side note, these skiing apps that mark track your runs could really save a lot of lives. *I highly recommend anyone going into the side country or backcountry to download one of the apps out there*.



Good point, but I think familiarizing yourself with GPS on your phone and simply having the know-how to read out your exact GPS coordinates would be even better from a rescue/location standpoint.



drjeff said:


> K specific - it seems that most of the lost skiers have left the maintained trails in the same basic area (as has happened for YEARS in the same basic area of the mountain).



I was about to note this as well.  For whatever reason, a large number of these incidents seem to take place there.  Perhaps that's not the case, and Killington simply has better reporting measures, or perhaps it's just a logical function of scale in that since Killington has the most skier days, it's logical they'd also have the most skeirs lost.  

But again, perspective is needed in terms of the true size of the problem.  With greater than 4,250,000 Vermont skier days, even if 80 skiers need rescuing per season, you're talking about something that happens to 1 in 53,000 people.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 10, 2013)

Good article in the Rutland Herald:

http://www.rutlandherald.com/article/20130110/NEWS01/701109959/1002


The State Police guy seems to think a $250 to $500 fine is a good idea ;-)


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> The State Police guy seems to think a $250 to $500 fine is a good idea ;-)



I dont think a smallish $250 fine would be unreasonable, but the value isnt the money, it's the threat.  Post the $250 *"WARNING"* signs at the top of the lift and at the top of the trails marking ski area boundary.  Will it help?  I'm not convinced, but maybe it's worth a try.


----------



## skiur (Jan 10, 2013)

drjeff said:


> K specific - it seems that most of the lost skiers have left the maintained trails in the same basic area (as has happened for YEARS in the same basic area of the mountain).
> 
> Some BLATANT signage in the area, such as many ski areas out West have at Avalanche Control gates for back country acccess, letting folks know that they BETTER be equipped, and even in this case that rescue costs will (or atleast should IMHO) be passed onto them, with a typical rescue costing $X, will likely get at least a few folks who shouldn't be straying off a maintained area in the first place from doing so.
> 
> Well not pertaining to back country rescue, an example of where some blatant signage with notification of a fee that worked well was at Mount Snow with their bubble chair.  There were plenty of folks who thought that the bubbles would be stickered up and carved up with folks initials/etc very quickly.  Mount Snow put some PROMINENT signage all over the base area and lift queue area and in the bubbles letting folks know that there's video of them getting off the bubble and if they get caught vandalizing the bubble that they'll be charged a $3000 replacement fee - the bubbles have been essentially vandalism free :idea:



Killington has signage in that area, then more as you get towards coops telling you to stick to the blazed trail and it takes you back out onto west glade.  They cant really stop people from going out of bounds there, its state forest land and open to anyone.  Not sure what they could really do to stop people, they tell you on the sign you could be lost and have to pay for your rescue but it if somebody has there mind set on it you cant stop them.  Anyone wanting to do it should atleast hike it in the summer, titally different world but atleast they would know there way to wheelerville rd.  Not that thats doing much for them without a car there to pick them up.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> I was about to note this as well.  For whatever reason, a large number of these incidents seem to take place there.  Perhaps that's not the case, and Killington simply has better reporting measures, or perhaps it's just a logical function of scale in that since Killington has the most skier days, it's logical they'd also have the most skeirs lost.



The problem with Killington is that a lot of backcountry leads to nowhere.  Add this to the high number of skiers and it likely explains the high occurence of lost people. You will get stuck if you have no way to backtrack.  In deep snow, it's already hard enough to climb steep slopes with snowhoes and skins, it is nearly impossible on foot.  At Jay, most of the backcountry, including Big Jay naturally leads back to a road or crosses the long trail.  Very hard to get lost for long.   You can get lost (as it happened before) heading past Beaver Pond's but that's not a problematic area and you really have to be careless to end up on the wrong side of the drainage.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> You're acting as if ski porn is new.  It's not.  Ski movies depicting skiing the trees have been around forever (literally DECADES).   So what is new?  The LEGAL pursuit of this form of skiing.



I am? Pretty sure I never eluded that but you are correct Ski films are NOT new and have always been an influence. 

Yeah pulling Helicopters was considered a no no when I was a kid too but I did it anyway because it's what I saw in films and mogul comps. 

Why are tree runs and giant kickers "legal" now? It's become the norm, why? Ski resorts didn't just allow it over night. they allow it because it's supply and demand. It's what ppl want because it's what ppl SEE.

You talk cool "thing to do" and culture yet ignore the influence of pop culture/media? Doesn't make any sense to me.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> I dont think a smallish $250 fine would be unreasonable, but the value isnt the money, it's the threat.  Post the $250 *"WARNING"* signs at the top of the lift and at the top of the trails marking ski area boundary.  Will it help?  I'm not convinced, but maybe it's worth a try.



$250 is not enough of a deterrent. Make it $2500 - $5000.


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 10, 2013)

I dont know if any amount is enough....Actually I think to post a fine of a high value could be a real issue..

You have to look at the actual "clientele" of the people who are getting lost. Now for some they may think this is stereotyping but its really more of getting to the core and trying to analyze the whole senario of why and how they end up in these situations. I would say the majority of these individuals are from a decent upbringing and certainly have a life and family for backing....IE: there not poor and on the street by any means...

With that, I could see a party getting truly lost, truly at risk and in the need of search and rescue....AND...If the bill was sent to them I could see their Lawyers getting involved, dragging the resort and everyone else into a "who truly is responsible" for years to come. And that cost would outweigh any fine...

With the right set of "mouthpieces" one could really make  a rescue fine turn into a lot worse...Regardless of what the other side might think....

The fact that these are tourist destinations leaves a door wide open...


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> At Jay, most of the backcountry, including Big Jay naturally leads back to a road or crosses the long trail.  Very hard to get lost for long. *  You can get lost (as it happened before) heading past Beaver Pond's but that's not a problematic area and you really have to be careless to end up on the wrong side of the drainage*.



I think you mean Andre's Paradise?  I'm always excessively careful not to go too far left in there because I've heard from so many people that it's easy to make that mistake (which may or may not be true, but I guess I'm someone that heeds warnings, lol) and that many people have made done that and have to hike back.



Scruffy said:


> *$250 is not enough of a deterrent. Make it $2500 - $5000*.



If you read my previous post, I'm against large fines due to the deterrent and/or delay to calling rescue, and the added costs/dangers that that could put rescuers in.  If there's a study showing that that's not the case, then I'd be all for tagging them with $5000, but my inclination is that it's probably true.


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 10, 2013)

Lol you guys are talking about the golf course??? Ive ended up there so have others I know. Very tempting to us powder hounds...until you need your 9 iron lol..

It took me a good hour plus to get back lol, others as well..


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 10, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> $250 is not enough of a deterrent. Make it $2500 - $5000.



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.


----------



## ScottySkis (Jan 10, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> 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.




Probably more signs and I would take any fine they gave to get out, beings lost changed my whole thinking on skiing and glades.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 10, 2013)

AdironRider said:


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



I agree. Some people are taking a very elitist attitude on this. They are skiers not thugs.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2013)

Mpdsnowman said:


> Lol *you guys are talking about the golf course??? Ive ended up there so have others I know.* Very tempting to us powder hounds...until you need your 9 iron lol..* It took me a good hour plus to get back lol,* others as well..



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!



AdironRider said:


> *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.



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.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 10, 2013)

Mpdsnowman said:


> Lol you guys are talking about the golf course??? Ive ended up there so have others I know. Very tempting to us powder hounds...until you need your 9 iron lol..
> 
> It took me a good hour plus to get back lol, others as well..



Nope.  Some skiers have ended up on the wrong side of the divide.  Basically on the left side of the long trail, whereas anywhere on the right side of the long trail take you on the West Bowl and the golf course as you have found out.  Go left and you will have several kilometers before you reach civilization.


----------



## Huck_It_Baby (Jan 10, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> At Jay, most of the backcountry, including Big Jay naturally leads back to a road or crosses the long trail. Very hard to get lost for long. You can get lost (as it happened before) heading past Beaver Pond's but that's not a problematic area and you really have to be careless to end up on the wrong side of the drainage.



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.

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.

Tram side can be worse. Out past Beaver pond it is easy to get greedy and ski too far left and miss the groomer back to the lift.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 10, 2013)

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 (Jan 10, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

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 (Jan 10, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 10, 2013)

Huck_It_Baby said:


> 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.  



Huck_It_Baby said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> 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.
> ...



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 (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

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 (Jan 10, 2013)

drjeff said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

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 (Jan 10, 2013)

Cannonball said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> 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.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 10, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 10, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

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 (Jan 10, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

The Vermont State Police think it's getting worse.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 10, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

drjeff said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

SnowRock said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

SnowRock said:


> * 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

MadMadWorld said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

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 (Jan 10, 2013)

Riverskier said:


> *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 (Jan 10, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

SnowRock said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

SnowRock said:


> 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 (Jan 10, 2013)

SnowRock said:


> 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.


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 10, 2013)

Wheres Spock when we need em lol. 

"The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"..

I think a surcharge in a ticket would rank imo as one of the biggest marketing blunders of all time..Lol Probably right up there with "New Coke" lol


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 10, 2013)

Mpdsnowman said:


> Wheres Spock when we need em lol.
> 
> "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few"..
> 
> I think a surcharge in a ticket would rank imo as one of the biggest marketing blunders of all time..Lol Probably right up there with "New Coke" lol



What about clear Pepsi?


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2013)

Mpdsnowman said:


> I think *a surcharge in a ticket would rank imo as one of the biggest marketing blunders of all time*..Lol Probably right up there with "New Coke" lol



It would be done by the government, not the resort.   And as with any other tax, the company would then pass the tax onto their customers either with higher ticket prices or higher ancillary costs (food and beverage prices increase, start charging $1 for parking, etc...).



MadMadWorld said:


> What about clear Pepsi?



I wish they'd bring that back. 

 It's the same dang thing except it doesn't have the artificial color that does nothing for flavor, and that stains your teeth.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 10, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> 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.



Believe me.. I was not advocating a surcharge system but I don't think you take a 30 day period and change everything because of events from that period of time.

Do you enact a far reaching statewide solution to a localized problem? Or do you take a step back to evaluate the problem... then determine what is needed? Also this isn't le grave or cham we are talking about. What is necessary for one area may not be needed/work in another.. that's all I'm saying.


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 10, 2013)

Yup lol that one too...

Heres my thought....

If it cost me (I am out of state) to ride Killington for the standard price of $80.00 mid week plus lets say a $25.00 surcharge for conceivable BC rescue.

I could just drive North to Jay Peak and pay $50 dollars and most likely have access to an indoor water park.

The consumer ultimately decides and surcharges nowadays are fully involved in their decisions....

Now if the govt steps in and made it state wide then it would be more fair. At that point competition would be equal on that level.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 10, 2013)

Mpdsnowman said:


> If it cost me (I am out of state) to ride Killington for the standard price of $80.00 mid week plus lets say a $25.00 surcharge for conceivable BC rescue.



By no means am I suggesting this is a solution.. but it would be more like 25 CENTS which I imagine would still cover exponentially what is spent on SAR in Vermont each year.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 10, 2013)

SnowRock said:


> Believe me.. I was not advocating a surcharge system but I don't think you take a 30 day period and change everything because of events from that period of time.
> 
> Do you enact a far reaching statewide solution to a localized problem? Or do you take a step back to evaluate the problem... then determine what is needed? Also this isn't le grave or cham we are talking about. What is necessary for one area may not be needed/work in another.. that's all I'm saying.



30 day period this year; we've been seeing an increasing frequency every year ( no, I do not have the stats ).

If you've been reading, I'm not advocating a State wide law; local laws and education are just fine.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 10, 2013)

So are you just making random assed guesses based on your gut? 

This is like avi's, big writeup in the NYT recently, which is making everyone think they are becoming a huge problem, when in reality avi deaths are pretty constant from year to year. 

So again, one 30 day period does not a trend make.


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 10, 2013)

SnowRock said:


> By no means am I suggesting this is a solution.. but it would be more like 25 CENTS which I imagine would still cover exponentially what is spent on SAR in Vermont each year.



Yea I thought about that $25.00 is too high lol...maybe even for the politicians lol...


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 10, 2013)

Killington/Pico has definitely been the focal point of this year's rash of lost OoB skiers. 
However, as people have pointed out Jay has had rashes in past years where people drop off the backside into the Black Falls valley. Stowe has had issues as well in the past. For some reason there haven't been as many recently (at least reported in the media). Are these resorts now doing a better job educating their clientelle about where they are likely to get lost and that they shouldn't go there? 
Is Killington not doing something to deter or better educate OoB skiers?


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 10, 2013)

Everything I read seemed to be a reaction to the recent incidents. I'm actually fine with a small fine, more signage, education... something like that. I just think we should remember that we are talking about close to 4M skier visits in a down year last year. 4M+ in a good year. I just don't think its a huge problem. If its an exponentially increasing issue by all means figure out how best to mitigate... but it should be in line with the size of the problem. Especially one that seems to be occurring in a specific area.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 10, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> 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.



This is a slight exaggeration  but at the other end of the spectrum, it seems some people here are OK with the free rescuing of yahoos ducking under ropes at 3 PM not knowing if they are heading south or north.


----------



## bobbutts (Jan 10, 2013)

Very direct fees like the one discussed here satisfy common sense, but given the overall economic impact of skiing/tourism in VT, I'm not sure it's exactly the most fair thing to put the entire burden on ski resorts.  Adding more and more regulations and fees makes things more complicated for business and regulators.  I'd probably argue that it would be more efficient for the State to fund this less directly if more funds are in-fact needed.
NH has an interesting policy:


> In June of 2008, a law was passed authorizing Fish and Game to request reimbursement from negligent hikers.  This means if a person’s behavior was negligent and, as a result of their negligent actions, a search mission had to be initiated, they could be billed for the total costs of the mission. While this change in the law has helped the Department recoup some costs, it falls far short of supporting the search and rescue program.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 10, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> This is a slight exaggeration  but at the other end of the spectrum, it seems some people here are OK with the free rescuing of yahoos ducking under ropes at 3 PM not knowing if they are heading south or north.




So are you saying they should be just left to die, or charged more just because it was more annoying. A rescue situation is a rescue situation regardless of the time of day.  

Look Im all for personal responsibility, but the overal vibe of those for charging for rescue seems to be that you think they should have known it was coming. If that was the case, noone would ever get lost ever, and we all know thats not the case. 

Noone ever plans to get lost or in an accident. All this talk of you should know better sounds good at face value, but really has no value.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 10, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> $250 is not enough of a deterrent. Make it $2500 - $5000.



Scruffy,

You sound like a fairly experienced skier.  If you hit up some slack country and by some unlucky chance fractured a leg requiring a rescue and your rescuers showed up with an invoice for five grand, you'd have no problem just handing them your AMEX card for them to cart your ass out of there?


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 10, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> Scruffy,
> 
> You sound like a fairly experienced skier. If you hit up some slack country and by some unlucky chance fractured a leg requiring a rescue and your rescuers showed up with an invoice for five grand, you'd have no problem just handing them your AMEX card for them to cart your ass out of there?



Check my post #140.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 10, 2013)

Another one:  

http://www.wcax.com/story/20558013/what-lures-skiers-out-of-bounds


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 10, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Another one:
> 
> http://www.wcax.com/story/20558013/what-lures-skiers-out-of-bounds




He's from Saratoga, New York.   

Thank God he didnt live approximately 18 miles east of there, or he would have been another lost Vermonter.  lol.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 10, 2013)

Sorry you have to endure another Rutland Regional Medical Center ad when you watch the vid.  Folks wonder why it is so expensive there...because they spend way too much on advertising.  

Anyway, here is an interesting quote from the story that fits in with our conversation:



> Rescue crews say the trend is nothing new, but there's been a spike in rescue calls this year, draining resources and putting lives at risk."I think the frustration comes in when we stop to think about how many people willingly do this. They knowingly leave the ski area, putting themselves in danger and putting all of the rescue people in danger," Vt. State Police Capt. Donald Patch said.



And watch the video.  Notice the rope line and the blunt and obvious signage.  Now if folks duck that rope and go right by those signs, and get lost, doesn't it seem like the assumed a pretty big risk?  FWIW out here I've seen folks get their passes pulled for ducking ropes and skiing outside the bounds of the ski area or in avi terrain. People understand, and respect, the boundaries.


----------



## Mpdsnowman (Jan 11, 2013)

It is a numbers game, and as they say its nothing "new" to have to snag these people, its just their is a spike in cases. Typically what I have found is when I see these boundaries, orange fences, signs etc I see them more as a warning rather than a "you go in there and your in big trouble with the resort" type thing.

I think this is a good example...






Basically this is a glade at a popular resort. Its actually not too far off a groomer. You would see all this tape and signage along the boundary line, but you could also see tons of tracks going in and out. And at some point if you went in enough you will in fact end up quite a walking distance from your car...That being said its a great run, plenty know of it, but i also know of people breaking their leg in their. I could show the nasty xray of it but trust me its hard to look at...Now keep in mind its not like out west where vast regions take days to cover, over here I have to say they usually will find you quicker because it is really "compact". But the more that go to the resorts are going to hit these areas . Honestly, nobody needs the wall of china to be built along these boundaries. I think its more of an educational thing to understand the reality..

Now I really think anyone could go thru this area. And at worse case it would be a long walk back. But as I have always said it needs to be respected and sometimes excitement overtakes respect. At that point you are playing into natures hands..

Thats why I think status quo. Who knows..maybe next season their wont be half as much and for  no other reason shit didnt happen...


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 11, 2013)

FYI...Found a SAR app on my Android phone and it seems to plot your GPS really really well and will even send it to Emergency/SAR (although I was too afraid to test that feature out). It might be worth a download. Not sure if it's available or iOS


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 11, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> So are you saying they should be just left to die, or charged more just because it was more annoying. A rescue situation is a rescue situation regardless of the time of day.
> 
> Look Im all for personal responsibility, but the overal vibe of those for charging for rescue seems to be that you think they should have known it was coming. If that was the case, noone would ever get lost ever, and we all know thats not the case.
> 
> Noone ever plans to get lost or in an accident. All this talk of you should know better sounds good at face value, but really has no value.



I certainly don't think they should be left to die.  Good arguments have been made for either end of the spectrum.  Between systematically charging the full cost of rescue and getting a free ride even in cases of uttermost stupidity, I think there are a lot of middle-ground options.

I like the New-Hampshire approach or I would be in favor of a systematic 250-500$ fine that could be waived by authorities if need be.  

A first step would be to better educate resort skiers (they are the main problem, not the guys that earn their turns).  If all the resorts that provide backcountry access could pitch in for 1000$, you could get a nice educational website up where there should be a wall of shame detailing all cases and mistakes made by skiers as well as rescue costs.  Provide a link on all ski-resorts web pages, plaster a few posters everywhere.  That would be a first start, and a nice way for resorts to show that they are good corporate citizens.  Ski Vermont could coordinate that effort.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jan 11, 2013)

What happens when someone is unwilling or unable to pay?  It matters not if the fine (tax) is $25 or $2500.

Off to the rape cage?


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 11, 2013)

I was thinking about this last night, and I think a consideration to be taken into account is each person fitness level or physical capabilities. 

A few years back a dad and some kids got lost at Gore. While they were never to got to far away, a mile through a couple feet of snow is a very different experience for someone whos 4 feet tall (like a kid), opposed to a guy like me at 6'3" who is active every day. I know those kids at Gore were exhausted, and it wasnt exactly a lack of awareness or poor planning per se. 

While open to debate, I think everyone agrees that no matter the amount of training, certain people are more capable than others. Its easy to think that it wouldnt be a problem because we could all handle the situation, but others might be in a different set of circumstances.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 11, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> I certainly don't think they should be left to die.  Good arguments have been made for either end of the spectrum.  Between systematically charging the full cost of rescue and getting a free ride even in cases of uttermost stupidity, I think there are a lot of middle-ground options.
> 
> I like the New-Hampshire approach or I would be in favor of a systematic 250-500$ fine that could be waived by authorities if need be.
> 
> A first step would be to better educate resort skiers (they are the main problem, not the guys that earn their turns).  If all the resorts that provide backcountry access could pitch in for 1000$, you could get a nice educational website up where there should be a wall of shame detailing all cases and mistakes made by skiers as well as rescue costs.  Provide a link on all ski-resorts web pages, plaster a few posters everywhere.  That would be a first start, and a nice way for resorts to show that they are good corporate citizens.  Ski Vermont could coordinate that effort.



Good ideas here.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 11, 2013)

RootDKJ said:


> What happens when someone is unwilling or unable to pay?  It matters not if the fine (tax) is $25 or $2500.
> 
> Off to the rape cage?



That's the 2nd time you mentioned "rape cage"; you got something you wanna confess? :lol:


Since most SAR groups in the NE are against charging Europe style; how about a bill is presented to the victim(s) for the actual cost of rescue with a explanation of the costs the risks the SAR personnel took, whether they were volunteer SAR or paid, the budget constraints of running such an operation, etc.. etc.. Along with the bill is a suggested *donation* amount. If the victim(s) are feeling that their lives where truly saved, and they are feeling generous they pay what the can. The donations help defray the cost, and keep paid SAR on the job, or help keep volunteer SAR in new equipment and training. If the the vics don't feel they should pay, it's business as usual anyway.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 11, 2013)

You seem to be stuck on the notion that this is in someway a big deal for the state budget. That has yet to be proven in the least outside of your mind. 

Again, 1300-1500 per rescue is nothing. Thats paper waste on a state level. Thats putting water fountains in instead of water coolers. Thats one police chief salary per year with benefits (actually, probably less depending on how many years in the force). 

Frankly, this is one of the best ways and one of the cheapest risk/reward options out there for the public good. Anything else is just posturing to make yourself seem elitist. 

SAR arent doctors, the training is cheap and they most likely need it anyways for their other jobs. So all these costs you seem to think are a big deal would be paid for anyways.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 11, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> If all the resorts that provide backcountry access could pitch in for 1000$, you could get a nice educational* website up where there should be a wall of shame detailing all cases and mistakes made by skiers as well as rescue costs. * Provide a link on all ski-resorts web pages, plaster a few posters everywhere.



I fail to see how that would accomplish much of anything or deter anyone.  Who would realistically be perusing that website?  Probably not the lower level nouveau glades skiers that tend to be the ones who get in trouble.



Scruffy said:


> *If the victim(s) are feeling that their lives where truly saved, and they are feeling generous they pay what the can. The donations help defray the cost,* and keep paid SAR on the job, or help keep volunteer SAR in new equipment and training. If the the vics don't feel they should pay, it's business as usual anyway.



This is commonly done, so there's no reason they couldnt do that.  My brother's water-rescue team is volunteer and works entirely on donations (rescues, drowning recoveries, item recoveries).  They've received some pretty decent donations from appreciative wealthy folks.



Mpdsnowman said:


> Typically what I have found is when I see these boundaries, orange fences, signs etc I see them more as a warning rather than a "you go in there and your in big trouble with the resort" type thing.
> 
> *I think this is a good example...Basically this is a glade at a popular resort. Its actually not too far off a groomer*



That one I could see being a real "SAR magnet", because not only is it an area boundary and a place where you're saying if you go much farther you wont have a return point, but it looks to be about as easy of a glade as possible, so lower-level people would be drawn to it.


----------



## from_the_NEK (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Sorry you have to endure another Rutland Regional Medical Center ad when you watch the vid.  Folks wonder why it is so expensive there...because they spend way too much on advertising.



I'm so sick of those commercials  You would think the people would at least appear to be happy that they beat cancer. Instead they are super serious and almost look depressed. Weird.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 11, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> You seem to be stuck on the notion that this is in someway a big deal for the state budget. That has yet to be proven in the least outside of your mind.
> 
> Again, 1300-1500 per rescue is nothing. Thats paper waste on a state level. Thats putting water fountains in instead of water coolers. Thats one police chief salary per year with benefits (actually, probably less depending on how many years in the force).
> 
> ...



Whatever dude, do me a favor, don't respond to my posts and I won't respond to yours. You can't refrain from getting in some insult.
I'm not trying to be "elitist"; I'm having a discussion of ideas; you don't want to partake as an adult.

You want some Vermont farmer just scraping by to pay to save your ass when you visit Killington and act like an ass by getting lost out back, good on ya bro. And stop bring up all the other government waste, it's irrelevant to the conversation.

Vermont used State Police, and they rely on volunteers, here read this:
http://addisonindependent.com/201209who-should-lead-vermonts-search-and-rescue-operations

Wouldn't it be nice if the volunteers were well equipped from donations.

You don't want to donate, fine, just keep sucking off the tit.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 11, 2013)

So now saving lives is sucking off the govt tit. You are delusional. If this is relegated to abusing govt, what actual service do they provide in your opinion that isnt abused. Show me programs, not just posturing.  

Again, our tax dollars already pay for SAR to begin with. So am I sucking my own tit? Sounds pleasurable.

Nevermind if a volunteer buys equipment he can write that off on his taxes, gets pro deals, and donations already. This is not the horrible financial situation you are pasting it to be.

And how is govt waste not part of the conversation. Oh right, it proves you completly wrong. THat article states the program costs 145k. The horror! Again, how many govt programs blow that in a week, not saving lives mind you, but processing bs. You cant argue that this govt program is costing to much but completely ignore all the others. BRO.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jan 11, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> That's the 2nd time you mentioned "rape cage"; you got something you wanna confess? :lol:


No, I just haven't read a good answer to this yet.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 11, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> So now saving lives is sucking off the govt tit. You are delusional. If this is relegated to abusing govt, what actual service do they provide in your opinion that isnt abused. Show me programs, not just posturing.
> 
> Again, our tax dollars already pay for SAR to begin with. So am I sucking my own tit? Sounds pleasurable.
> 
> ...



I never said 145K is a lot for SAR, it isn't much, but it's at least 1-2 state workers salaries. You ok with laying off a couple folks?

" And how is govt waste not part of the conversation. Oh right, it proves you completly wrong."  No, it proves you cannot stay on point, that's all. There is a lot of gov waste, we are not boiling the ocean with this thread, it's irrelevant to the conversation.

"Nevermind if a volunteer buys equipment he can write that off on his  taxes, gets pro deals, and donations already. This is not the horrible  financial situation you are pasting it to be." 

Again, I never said it's a "horrible financial situation".  The question arose whether people knowingly ducted ropes and passed waring signs and got lost off the back of a resort should be fined. 

You don't want to pay, WE GET THAT ALREADY. 

Today we are talking about donations, and you still have to obviscate the conversation with your tired drivel . 
Look we get it YOU DON'T WANT TO PAY, unless you have some other point to make, could you refrain from just attacking others?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 11, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> I'm so sick of those commercials  You would think the people would at least appear to be happy that they beat cancer. Instead they are super serious and almost look depressed. Weird.



They probably owe RRMC money and had to do the ad as payback....

:lol:


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 11, 2013)

BenedictGomez said:


> I fail to see how that would accomplish much of anything or deter anyone.  Who would realistically be perusing that website?  Probably not the lower level nouveau glades skiers that tend to be the ones who get in trouble.



Education can only help.  It might not help that much, but don't you think it would at least be worth a try ?   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.


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 11, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> I never said 145K is a lot for SAR, it isn't much, but it's at least 1-2 state workers salaries. You ok with laying off a couple folks?
> 
> " And how is govt waste not part of the conversation. Oh right, it proves you completly wrong."  No, it proves you cannot stay on point, that's all. There is a lot of gov waste, we are not boiling the ocean with this thread, it's irrelevant to the conversation.
> 
> ...



Proving you wrong does not neccessitate an attack. Now youre saying people are going to be laid off? Seriously? 

We also get that you want to charge them thousands because you think so. WE GET THAT BRO.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 11, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> Proving you wrong does not neccessitate an attack. Now youre saying people are going to be laid off? Seriously?
> 
> We also get that you want to charge them thousands because you think so. WE GET THAT BRO.



You don't _stop_ do ya :lol::lol:   Quick, post something stupid like: "Now you think skiers should just _stop_ skiing."
Any other words you want to twist around today?


----------



## AdironRider (Jan 11, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> You don't _stop_ do ya :lol::lol:   Quick, post something stupid like: "Now you think skiers should just _stop_ skiing."
> Any other words you want to twist around today?



I was a collegiate swimmer. Endurance training paying dividends.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 11, 2013)

So with all the signs and ropes at Killington, and I have personally seen them--they are VERY clear, it would seem to me that folks have PLENTY of notice as to what they are CHOOSING to do and that would justify either a fee for rescue or a fine.


----------



## noreasterbackcountry (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Anyway, here is an interesting quote from the story that fits in with our conversation:



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.


----------



## RootDKJ (Jan 11, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

noreasterbackcountry said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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 (Jan 11, 2013)

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 (Jan 11, 2013)

RootDKJ said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

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 (Jan 11, 2013)

Is that a troll?


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 11, 2013)

gereddunne said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

gereddunne said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

gereddunne said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

i never joke about Sasquatch.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 11, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> 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.  




fbrissette said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

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 (Jan 11, 2013)

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 (Jan 11, 2013)

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 (Jan 11, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> 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 (Jan 11, 2013)

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 (Jan 11, 2013)

witch hobble said:


> 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.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 11, 2013)

AdironRider said:


> 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?



Repeating it does not make it any truer.  It's certainly a possibility but I doubt it's seriously rooted.  The anectodal evidence of one police officer does not mean much.  European SAR (who charge for rescue) don't seem to agree either.


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 11, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> 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.



So, if something happens to you in the BC requiring a SAR you shouldn't have to pay a rescue fee because you're experienced and cautious in the BC and not "one of those idiots at Killington" ?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 11, 2013)

A couple years ago I had a sufferfest on Mount Whittier.  I made it off the hill okay, but at one point I truly thought I was going to get mauled by a bear to death.  Had I not made it off the hill, what do you all think should have been my bill?

http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...ttier-(nelsap)-Misery-tour&highlight=Whittier

$250-$500......FIVE GRAND?

Read the story.  I'm clearly a gaper who had no business schussing the BC.  Clearly their should be some sort of law/fine in place preventing idiots like me from attempting the crazy dangerous Mt. Whittier.


----------



## BenedictGomez (Jan 11, 2013)

from_the_NEK said:


> With the recent reports,* I keep getting grief from family about the fact that I go skiing out of bounds* on occasion.



Your family doesn't know you're from Vermont?



deadheadskier said:


> A couple years ago I had a sufferfest on Mount Whittier.  I made it off the hill okay, but at one point I truly thought I was going to get mauled by a bear to death.  *Had I not made it off the hill*, *what do you all think should have been my bill?*
> 
> 
> $250-$500......FIVE GRAND?



I'd hope you had all the children you were going to have prior to said infraction.


----------



## SnowRock (Jan 12, 2013)

fbrissette said:


> Repeating it does not make it any truer.  It's certainly a possibility but I doubt it's seriously rooted.  The anectodal evidence of one police officer does not mean much.  European SAR (who charge for rescue) don't seem to agree either.



While Europe makes sense to look at... you have to remember there are some pretty big differences.
1) Accessibly and popularity of SAR insurance. People here, even some experienced sort might not even know that you can get SAR through a few carries. The general public certainly doesn't and its not nearly as popular as in Europe 
2) Terrain and type of rescue. I think there may be a real difference the psychology involved with someone's willingness to call for help if they fall into a crevasse versus if they are lost in the woods. You might think you can get yourself out of one situation.. stuck on a ledge in a dark crevasse you know you need rescue.

Once again I keep going back to... 4M skier visits in VT alone. I feel like this is such a small issue when put into that context. And where does it stop? I know a girl who tragically died a few years back in the PNW in a pretty well publicized tree well incident at a resort. Huge search...largest ever at the time in fact, should her family have gotten a bill? Tree wells are known hazards to be avoided right? You should always ski with a buddy in visual/audible contact after a dump right?

No waste is good waste but I just feel like the SAR issue provides a soap box/bully pulpit because of the nature of the incidents.. helicopters, big searches, "you crazy skier/boarders getting extreme and costing us money." It makes for good drama but the reality is its a drop in the bucket compared to what the industry earns for a given state and regular old fashioned government inefficiency/waste.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 12, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> 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.


K has put up lots of signage but I don't think that makes it clear. Think about it... how many ski areas with excellent side country put up warning signs? Signs along the boundary are practically an invitation now. People know that good stuff lies outside the boundary ropes. 

The problem with such warning signs is all signs as a whole loose their collective impact when they "cry wolf" on occasion, let alone at almost every area. Almost all major ski areas have their best skiing outside of the boundary ropes. Just off the top of my head, excellent out of boundary skiing can be had at Wildcat, Cannon, Jay, Mad River, Stowe, and Smuggs just to name a few. They all have boundary signs, they all have warning signs. The signs are practically an invitation for skiers that know about lines but don't know where they are. 

The only difference is a few people every year don't have good navigational skills and just blindly follow tracks without thinking about it. I've certainly looked for such signs when skiing an area for a first time and knowing good side country was available. The only difference is I went out with a good plan of attach and navigational skills that suggested to "go a little further each time and always know a way that will definitely bring you back". Going off the backside of a ridge without knowledge, someone in the know, or a survival game plan is just dumb.

Any ways, I don't buy that warning signs should prevent this type of thing from happening. These incidents are only the ones in which the people did something dumb and needed help. Others are doing dumb things and finding their own way out. Most of us are skiing past those signs (in general, maybe not the K specific ones) and finding great skiing. 

Overall, boundary ropes are invitations, not warnings, because at most major mountains, there is in fact something beyond the rope that is quite good.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 12, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> A couple years ago I had a sufferfest on Mount Whittier.  I made it off the hill okay, but at one point I truly thought I was going to get mauled by a bear to death.  Had I not made it off the hill, what do you all think should have been my bill?
> 
> http://forums.alpinezone.com/showth...ttier-(nelsap)-Misery-tour&highlight=Whittier
> 
> ...



I don't think any one was advocating a rescue charge for general BC skiing or hiking/backpacking, or any other such activity that would require SAR. The fine or rescue charge came up as a local to Killington deterrent to keep the Joyeys from thinking twice about blindly going off the back side and getting lost. The law allowing VT to charge for a rescue appears to be on the books, yet the State Police, who are the SAR in VT, do not want to charge because of the delay factor. So be it, it's their call. Education seems to be the way to go here. It will be interesting to see how Killington pulls off the education if they go that route; apparently the SP have asked them to do something about the problem.

Good story on Whittier, have you been out on your skins since?


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 13, 2013)

Scruffy said:


> I don't think any one was advocating a rescue charge for general BC skiing or hiking/backpacking, or any other such activity that would require SAR. The fine or rescue charge came up as a local to Killington deterrent to keep the Joyeys from thinking twice about blindly going off the back side and getting lost.



That sounds pretty ridiculous/elitist to me.  The cost of SAR doesn't change whether you are an experienced skier or a "Joey".  If your going to start charging for SAR, then everyone should be charged.  It's only fair whether you're a "Joey" or Dan Egan.  

Regarding whether a fine would be a deterrent; do you seriously think the "Joeyes" would even bother to look up the potential fines for requiring a SAR?  Even if they didn't look it up, do you think they'd read enough news stories about others being billed for a SAR to not ski out of bounds themselves?  I'd put the probability of such a deterrent working at less than 5%. 



Scruffy said:


> The law allowing VT to charge for a rescue appears to be on the books, yet the State Police, who are the SAR in VT, do not want to charge because of the delay factor. So be it, it's their call.



Can't blame them really.  Most people who do such jobs typically have a passion for public service.  There certainly are some assholes on a power trip who wear the badge, but most cops I know do so because they want to help civilians. It would kill them to not act and help people over politics/money.



Scruffy said:


> Education seems to be the way to go here. It will be interesting to see how Killington pulls off the education if they go that route; apparently the SP have asked them to do something about the problem.



Education is certainly the way to go, but it would have to be pretty in your face for most people to take notice.  Prominent signage at all lifts concerning the dangers and how many people have gotten lost would perhaps be the only way to go.  The only similar in your face PSA I can ever recall at skiers was about 10 odd years ago at Stowe regarding avalanches. IIRC someone died that winter in an avalanche in the Adirondacks and recent snow/weather patterns were resulting in a number of reported small slides by BC skiers at Stowe.  I stayed away from hiking the Chin during those times until the signs were removed and the all clear was given that the snowpack was stable.



Scruffy said:


> Good story on Whittier, have you been out on your skins since?



I haven't, but not because of my experience on Whittier.  Since that time I've gone back to school full time, while continuing to work full time.  I have such limited time to ski these days that when I do have the time, I want to spend as much time as possible skiing downhill.  It's not that I wouldn't have a great time skinning in the BC for limited vertical decent, it's just that I literally can only ski one day a week these days, so I want to be doing laps off lifts.

Though I have to say a couple of weeks ago I was kicking myself for leaving my skins at home on a Powder Day at Gunstock because high winds had forced the upper mountain lifts to close.  I came home unfulfilled and pissed off and wrote a Trip Report about it here.  Had I had my skins with me, chances are that even if I used them to take just one run in the foot+ of fresh from the summit, I'd have come home fulfilled and happy I made the effort and written a trip report here on my epic experience.   Lesson learned.  In the event that I maybe skiing on a day with potential withholds in the future, I'll probably be certain to have my skins with me if there's fresh snow to be had by using them.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 13, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> That sounds pretty ridiculous/elitist to me. The cost of SAR doesn't change whether you are an experienced skier or a "Joey". If your going to start charging for SAR, then everyone should be charged. It's only fair whether you're a "Joey" or Dan Egan.
> .



I agree it would be elitist to charge for SAR based on experience, but that's not my position. The issue is how do you stop the inexperienced,  with no knowledge of what they are getting into, from ducting ropes and ignoring warning signs and skiing into the black hole that is the flats off the back of K-ton, that's all nothing more, nothing less. 




deadheadskier said:


> Regarding whether a fine would be a deterrent; do you seriously think the "Joeyes" would even bother to look up the potential fines for requiring a SAR? Even if they didn't look it up, do you think they'd read enough news stories about others being billed for a SAR to not ski out of bounds themselves? I'd put the probability of such a deterrent working at less than 5%.
> 
> .



No, they would most likely not know about the fine unless it was heavily posted at the ropes, and in the lodges.

I no longer think fines are the way to go however, I think education is the best shot here.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 17, 2013)

VPR had a story on this issue, now up to 47 folks going missing, and what steps may be taken to warn folks about skiing out of bounds, particularly at Killington.  

http://www.vpr.net/news_detail/97170/lost-skiers-growing-problem-for-resorts-emergency/



> Vermont's Public Safety Commissioner has been talking this week with the Vermont Ski Areas Association, state troopers, ski resort officials and others about a problem they're all concerned about - lost skiers.
> In the last several weeks, Vermont State Police, ski patrollers and other first responders have had to look for 47 lost skiers and riders, 45 of them in the Killington-Pico area.
> Bob Giolito is a former Killington Ski Patroller who's now a state trooper. He says, "Whenever we have a good snow year, you're going to have people going off the back side."
> While he welcomes the growing popularity of backcountry skiing, Giolito says too many people are heading into the woods without a plan.
> ...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 20, 2013)

Here we go again....

http://www.burlingtonfreepress.com/...skiers-rescued-Killington-after-leaving-trail

Some quotes:



> On the second day of National Safety Awareness Week for skiers, three missing teenagers were found uninjured Sunday afternoon after they intentionally skied out of bounds at the Killington Ski Resort, police said



How ironic.... 

And:



> State police said last week they hoped to meet with Killington officials in an effort to cut down on the number of skiers going out-of-bounds at the resort. Police were looking to curtail “these reckless and poorly thought out acts by skiers who are not physically/mentally prepared to deal with the harsh Vermont winter conditions they face upon getting lost,” Capt. Ray Keefe said in an email.


----------



## riverc0il (Jan 21, 2013)

It seems a lot of these stories come from Killington. Are being going out of bounds and getting lost at other areas? I hear an occasional story every once and a while (I recall a helo S&R effort at Jay a few years ago when someone skied past the Dip area and was a few hundred feet from the LT when they were rescued). But those every now and again stories don't have the frequency of the Killington stories which seem to happen on a yearly basis...


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 25, 2013)

Update:  Killington and the state are releasing a new PSA on skiing out of bounds. 

http://www.wcax.com/story/20703865/psas-aim-to-educate-out-of-bounds-skiers

I'd be interested to see it.


----------



## fbrissette (Jan 25, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Update:  Killington and the state are releasing a new PSA on skiing out of bounds.
> 
> http://www.wcax.com/story/20703865/psas-aim-to-educate-out-of-bounds-skiers
> 
> I'd be interested to see it.




Taking to the airwaves ?????    Seems to me that's it's a sure way NOT to reach their intended crowd.


----------



## Scruffy (Jan 25, 2013)

Here is what Stowe posts on their website:

[h=3]Backcountry Safety[/h]    Areas of Stowe Mountain Resort marked outside of the ski area  boundary on trail maps and with signage on the mountain itself, is  hazardous backcountry terrain, containing unmarked hazards such as  cliffs, thick, brushy terrain, riverbeds, stumps, rocks &  avalanches. This area is not patrolled or maintained. Vermont law states  that any person who uses ski area facilities to access terrain that is  outside the open and designated trails shall be liable for any costs of  rescue, medical or other services.
    Please watch the Backcountry Skiing & Riding Safety video


----------



## MadMadWorld (Jan 25, 2013)

When I was at Revelstoke they had strategically placed wipe boards at the more popular backcountry entrances that showed how many unprepared skiers needed to be rescued that season and how much the total cost was for the rescues. The numbers were pretty staggering and made me think twice. This obviously not a solution but I think it's better then PSA announcements.


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 31, 2013)

Looks like NH is thinking of selling "hike safe" cards to help pay for their rescue budget, which is in the red.  

http://www.wcax.com/story/20882392/hikers-rescued-in-nh-could-pay-fee-under-bill


----------



## deadheadskier (Jan 31, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Looks like NH is thinking of selling "hike safe" cards to help pay for their rescue budget, which is in the red.
> 
> http://www.wcax.com/story/20882392/hikers-rescued-in-nh-could-pay-fee-under-bill



...hunting and fishing license holders would avoid SAR fees too.  I hear there's great bass fishing in Huntington Ravine!!!


----------



## thetrailboss (Jan 31, 2013)

deadheadskier said:


> ...hunting and fishing license holders would avoid SAR fees too. I hear there's great bass fishing in Huntington Ravine!!!



Yeah, really!  :lol:  I think their point is that folks who buy a license are already paying into the fund so they can get the services whereas they are trying to cut out the "freeloaders" who need NH Fish and Game Rescue but don't directly pay into the fund.


----------



## thetrailboss (Feb 15, 2013)

Looks like the Vermont Legislature may act:  

http://www.wcax.com/story/21217480/rescued-out-of-bounds-skiers-could-face-fines-under-vt-bill


----------



## BenedictGomez (Feb 15, 2013)

Looks like WCAX is writing legislation now.  

Hopefully WCAX writes a flurry of articles about shark attacks.  Vermont needs anti-shark legislation too.


----------



## fbrissette (Feb 15, 2013)

thetrailboss said:


> Looks like the Vermont Legislature may act:
> 
> http://www.wcax.com/story/21217480/rescued-out-of-bounds-skiers-could-face-fines-under-vt-bill




500$ fine seems like a good compromise to me.


----------

