Ticketed for skinning at JHMR

**FMichigan** · 02-09-2011, 03:38 PM

http://www.jhnewsandguide.com/article.php?art_id=6974

Yikes, dude wanted to prove a point I guess.

**BiggC** · 02-09-2011, 04:00 PM

I don't know what JHMR's usual policy on skinning is, but that's classy.

Then again, if the policy is no skinning, it shouldn't matter how awesome, old and experienced you are, follow the resort's rules.

**BigPaw** · 02-09-2011, 04:32 PM

This is just another example of when private and public interests collide. JHMR wants to make money (primary) and maintain visitor safety (secondary), the public perceives there to be a right to freely access public land. Rights typically have limitations. This is an exercise by Roland Fleck to see where that limitation lies. A resort operating on public land shouldn't be able to make up any rule they want. I'm not sure that Mr. Fleck is right, but I don't think he put anyone at danger to make his point and sometimes rules need to be challenged.

**rideit** · 02-09-2011, 04:33 PM

I bet he's the one chucking the signs off of the top of Glory.

**jrbd** · 02-09-2011, 04:34 PM

Hopefully this isn't a symptom of some age-related mental illness. Bizarre...

**montanaskier** · 02-09-2011, 04:34 PM

safe uphill travel, on the sides of open runs should always be allowed...IMO

**Goatski** · 02-09-2011, 04:38 PM

What a joke.
ANARCHY ON THE SLOPES!! 78 year old man hiking to his granddaughter's race!!! Call the safety supervisor & all the lawyers!!!

**skiballs** · 02-09-2011, 04:44 PM

Terry questioned whether deputies were correct when they told Fleck skiing uphill is a violation of state statute.

The statute says a skier cannot move uphill when impaired by alcohol or drugs

Houston we have a problem.

**JoshP** · 02-09-2011, 04:48 PM

IDK, sounds like the old coot was being an argumentative asshole to me. I really wonder if he has dementia or something.

And I don't quite get the "because it is public land, you shouild have the right to access it." The resorts pay to lease that land, and they are responsible for their customer's safety (whether or not resorts follow through on that is another matter entirely).

Maybe I am totally seeing this wrong though too.

**nateski** · 02-09-2011, 04:51 PM

they offered him a free pass

**Tye 1on** · 02-09-2011, 04:54 PM

Originally Posted by nateski

they offered him a free pass

i'm thinkin the same thing...

**Wooster** · 02-09-2011, 04:58 PM

Originally Posted by BigPaw

JHMR wants to make money (primary) and maintain visitor safety (secondary)...

If this were truely the case, they would not have offered him a free lift ticket. Keeping visitors safe is one of the primary concerns of any resort (except for Sunshine Village, I guess), because increased safety reduces risk and liability. As for resorts being able to make their own rules, their lease from the Forest Service or other government entity usually charges them with the responsibility to keep guests and employees safe and gives them a relatively free hand when it comes to doing so.

**kidwoo** · 02-09-2011, 05:00 PM

Originally Posted by JoshP

I really wonder if he has dementia or something.

Perceptions are a funny thing.

You and I read the same article and every description of his actions to me point to an incredibly sane human with full awareness of his surroundings and impact.

**f2f** · 02-09-2011, 05:04 PM

Cue TGR420's diatribe about boundaries and whatnot. Only I'm pretty sure he wants to keep on the good side of JHMR. It's different when it's in your own backyard, eh?

edit for those seeking reference: http://www.tetongravity.com/forums/s...06#post3160306

**farmer** · 02-09-2011, 05:06 PM

granted, I've never been to Jackson (which is going to change in a couple weeks!!) but I would assume that a resort that size is fairly busy. Think of it in terms of a never-ever, trying to go down the cat track. I would think that it would be fairly intimidating and confusing to see some old guy skiing uphill (how many people that ski cat-tracks even know thats possible?)

That said, I don't necessarily disagree with him. I think that mountains with open boundary policies should also have some sort of uphill route. I know others allow it. Hell, if it weren't like people that that, Jackson wouldn't have an open boundary policy. Guess someones got to try. Are there any other routes up that area which would keep him out off the runs (like XC or snowshoes trails) but still get you high enough to access the area? That seems like the best solution.

**BigPaw** · 02-09-2011, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by Wooster

If this were truely the case, they would not have offered him a free lift ticket. Keeping visitors safe is one of the primary concerns of any resort (except for Sunshine Village, I guess), because increased safety reduces risk and liability. As for resorts being able to make their own rules, their lease from the Forest Service or other government entity usually charges them with the responsibility to keep guests and employees safe and gives them a relatively free hand when it comes to doing so.

Reduction of liability goes to the primary goal of being profitable. JHMR is a business and decisions are primarily based on the goal to be financially viable. No one would invest in a company that put safety ahead of finances. Safety could be a close second and financial success and profits may benefit from a good safety program. I'm sure that JHMR and other resorts make business decisions on how far they will go to try to ensure visitor safety. It doesn't stop me from riding inbounds.

I do agree that the free lift ticket was a good offer by a patroller who was trying to diffuse an unnecessarily hostile situation so that everyone could go about and enjoy their day. Mr. Fleck wasn't being reasonable - he was trying to make a point, right or wrong.

**Session** · 02-09-2011, 05:40 PM

It reads like this: Old grumpy fuck wanted to keep being an old grumpy fuck about a situation he created. When a compromise was offered he chose to keep being an old grumpy fuck. He got what he deserved, and probably what he was looking for.

Uphill traffic in a resort setting is not a safe practice.

jgb@etree · 02-09-2011, 05:49 PM

Originally Posted by BigPaw

I do agree that the free lift ticket was a good offer by a patroller who was trying to diffuse an unnecessarily hostile situation so that everyone could go about and enjoy their day. Mr. Fleck wasn't being reasonable - he was trying to make a point, right or wrong.

^^^^^QFT

**targetfiction** · 02-09-2011, 05:54 PM

Seems like the guy was trying to prove a point, since he was even offered a free lift ticket and still refused. Probably could've chosen a better day to be a rebel than at his granddaughters event...Sounds pretty self-righteous to me though.

**Wooster** · 02-09-2011, 05:54 PM

Originally Posted by BigPaw

Reduction of liability goes to the primary goal of being profitable. JHMR is a business and decisions are primarily based on the goal to be financially viable. No one would invest in a company that put safety ahead of finances. Safety could be a close second and financial success and profits may benefit from a good safety program. I'm sure that JHMR and other resorts make business decisions on how far they will go to try to ensure visitor safety. It doesn't stop me from riding inbounds.

I do agree that the free lift ticket was a good offer by a patroller who was trying to diffuse an unnecessarily hostile situation so that everyone could go about and enjoy their day. Mr. Fleck wasn't being reasonable - he was trying to make a point, right or wrong.

Let's just say that ski patrol's primary concern is safety, and they wouldn't have bothered to have 7 patrollers talk to this man and call the sheriff if they didn't think he was doing something unsafe. Policies that don't have much impact on safety are usually enforced with a bit more laxness.

**advres** · 02-09-2011, 05:58 PM

If it was a snowboarder or NSer hiking to the park you'd all have a different tune. Pathetic.

**targetfiction** · 02-09-2011, 06:08 PM

Originally Posted by gameface

If it was a snowboarder or NSer hiking to the park you'd all have a different tune. Pathetic.

Because NSer's and snowboarders hiking the park stay out of the way when hiking and purchased a ticket to get to said park... Not trying to hate, the two just aren't comparable.

**BirdRock** · 02-09-2011, 06:12 PM

Originally Posted by BigPaw

I do agree that the free lift ticket was a good offer by a patroller who was trying to diffuse an unnecessarily hostile situation so that everyone could go about and enjoy their day. Mr. Fleck wasn't being reasonable - he was trying to make a point, right or wrong.

Either this or he was just being a grumpy old dude.

**BigPaw** · 02-09-2011, 06:22 PM

Originally Posted by Wooster

Let's just say that ski patrol's primary concern is safety.

This I agree with 100%. I doubt there are any patrollers on the Board of Directors of JHMR. Corporate agenda and patroller agenda do not always align. You already mentioned SV - prime example. Other resorts allow uphill travel, so there is an argument and precedent that it can be done safely. Maybe the ski resort industry political lobby, JHMR rulemakers and patrollers disagree.