YOU'RE ABOUT TO LOSE YOUR RIGHT TO SKIN UP MOUNTAINS

[archbishoptwoplanks]

Did you know that resorts CAN NOT charge access fees to the Federal Forests they lease?

Resorts currently DO NOT have the right to stop you from skinning, hiking, biking up any forest land. However, that isn't stopping them from trying to change that.

A recent "Directive" would allow resorts to charge "forest access fee's" instead of "right to use improvements" like chairlifts.

In other words, resorts could charge tolls to access your public land. Hike, Bike, Skin, etc... on public lands they lease but do not remotely own or pay taxes on. Paragraph 5 outlines what they're trying to accomplish.

The Federal Comment Peroid ends 12/02/13 so please Submit Your Comments and encourage others (including forest advocacy groups) to discourage this directive and especially Paragraph 5.

Link to "Directive" & Comment Link; https://www.federalregister.gov/arti...s-at-ski-areas

Tom Tidwell-Nat. Forest Chief: ttidwell@fs.fed.us (202) 205-8439

Link to Sen. Udall (Chair: Sen. Committee Natural Resources) http://www.markudall.senate.gov

OFFICIALLY REGARDING: Ski Area Recreational Opportunity Enhancement Act (SAROEA)

[snoqpass]

You don't know what you are talking about

[PNWbrit]

You don't know what you are talking about

I concur.

[powdork]

this paragraph 5?

The text regarding utilization of existing facilities included in this paragraph would be relocated to FSM 2343.14. New paragraph 5 would preclude authorization of an entrance fee at ski areas, and would allow authorization of fees for facilities and services the holders provide, such as lifts, parking lots, and slopes and trails that have been cleared, graded, groomed or covered with manmade snow. Additionally, this paragraph would encourage authorized officers to ensure that some portions of the permit area remain open to the public without charge, so that the holder's charges do not constitute de facto entrance fees.

[Hugh Conway]

edit: powdork beat me to it.

The text regarding utilization of existing facilities included in this paragraph would be relocated to FSM 2343.14. New paragraph 5 would preclude authorization of an entrance fee at ski areas, and would allow authorization of fees for facilities and services the holders provide, such as lifts, parking lots, and slopes and trails that have been cleared, graded, groomed or covered with manmade snow. Additionally, this paragraph would encourage authorized officers to ensure that some portions of the permit area remain open to the public withoutcharge, so that the holder's charges do not constitute de facto entrance fees.

which seems contrary to paragraph 6

This paragraph also would provide that in most cases it would not be appropriate for restrictions to preclude all public use during the ski season other than by those purchasing a lift ticket or paying for other services.

I'm not a lawyer

[raisingarizona13]

Yep, theft of services. This is why you can skin up the slopes here at the Bowl but they say it's not allowed to ski the areas ski runs. The same could be said if you were skinning on any ski run or groomer track.

I do think it's fucked tho that we can have ski resorts on public land that are charging 100 bucks for a day ticket and close off our access to public lands, it just doesn't sit right with me.

[stuckathuntermtn]

Never mind that while your ass is trying to get in a dawn patrol before work, people may already be at work above you throwing explosives.

[spindrift]

From a practical point of view, limiting uphill traffic inbounds sits just fine with me.

Ignoring, for the moment, the business issues (which IMO are legit), the slopes already provide plenty of challenges in terms of collision avoidance. Uphill traffic just adds to those. There are millions of acres of ungroomed & uncontrolled terrain out there. Where's the problem with skinning those?

Whining about inbounds restrictions on uphill traffic == first world problem to the max.

Oh - and to that explosives point - I've wasted a bunch of time standing in line (longest being a full hour with probably 500+ people stuck behind me - yeah at Whistler, but the point stands....) because patrol could not bomb due to folks skinning inbounds in the likely runout zones. That erased the last vestiges of inbounds skinning sympathy I had.

[rideit]

Jackson Hole Mountain Resort already put this issue to rest a few years ago, it seems. It's just a friendly bonus if areas allow skinning/uphill traffic....that's why they get a permit.

[Garth Bimble]

From a practical point of view, limiting uphill traffic inbounds sits just fine with me.

Ignoring, for the moment, the business issues (which IMO are legit), the slopes already provide plenty of challenges in terms of collision avoidance. Uphill traffic just adds to those.

This...and although I think most who wish to skin in-bounds are smart enough to do so before/after hours there will always be some asshole who will do it during prime time just to make a point.

[powdork]

edit: powdork beat me to it.

which seems contrary to paragraph 6


I'm not a lawyer

i think they both say the same thing. leaseholders can't close off all the permit area to public use even in ski season. but it flies against what the OP was saying.

Ignoring, for the moment, the business issues (which IMO are legit), the slopes already provide plenty of challenges in terms of collision avoidance. Uphill traffic just adds to those. There are millions of acres of ungroomed & uncontrolled terrain out there. Where's the problem with skinning those?

Access may be through the permit area.

[rideit]

Maybe resorts could star a bonus program, where if you bring in the helmet, hat, sunglasses, or goggles of whomever you mow down that is skinning up during operating hours, you could get a $25 gift certificate.

[Meadow Skipper]

Didn't we already go over this like twenty times?

One more fucking time then, and search JONG. Ski areas lease lands from the FS, just like scout camps, mining companies, and summer cabins. <-Those are examples of uses that can keep people out of the leased lands, and ski areas are no different. The ski areas pay (above and beyond taxes) to use the land, unlike dirtbag skinners, and who do you think the FS is going to listen to?* And really, all the ski areas have to do is make the safety case - avy control, snowmaking, downhill traffic, snow groomers and snowmobiles, etc.

*Look how Taos and Alta were able to keep snowboarders out.

[snoqpass]

This...and although I think most who wish to skin in-bounds are smart enough to do so before/after hours there will always be some asshole who will do it during prime time just to make a point.

Control work and grooming happen at those time and in the state of WA being on a closed run within a permitted ski area is tresspass

[Hugh Conway]

Didn't we already go over this like twenty times?

well, this is new. Like 2011 law and current (now) comment period about I'd assume something different. But I'm not a lawyer.

[Meadow Skipper]

well, this is new. Like 2011 law and current (now) comment period about I'd assume something different. But I'm not a lawyer.

The basic premise - ski areas can do almost whatever they want re: access - is the same. IANAL either.

[Garth Bimble]

Maybe resorts could star a bonus program, where if you bring in the helmet, hat, sunglasses, or goggles of whomever you mow down that is skinning up during operating hours, you could get a $25 gift certificate.

At Vail they would just validate your parking.

[Meadow Skipper]

The basic premise - ski areas can do almost whatever they want re: access - is the same. IANAL either.

And just to add - you don't have any right to access federal lands. I await a lawyer to tell me differently.

[systemoverblow'd]

OP, this is serious business. Here's a link you should be reading up on!

[userA]

Control work and grooming happen at those time and in the state of WA being on a closed run within a permitted ski area is tresspass

trespassing should not be the deterrent but is the most efficient argument to keep the slopes clear.
easier then convincing them of the dangers in most instances.
b

[old goat]

Why would anyone want to skin up a ski resort when there's tons of backcountry to skin up and ski down? I can think of three reasons--grooming, parking, and avalanche control. Who paid for the grooming, parking maintenance and snow removal, and avalanche control? Or does OP think it just happens by itself for free? Entitled whiner.

[Hugh Conway]

Why would anyone want to skin up a ski resort when there's tons of backcountry to skin up and ski down? I can think of three reasons--grooming, parking, and avalanche control. Who paid for the grooming, parking maintenance and snow removal, and avalanche control? Or does OP think it just happens by itself for free? Entitled whiner.

Given many season pass holders don't "pay" for the services they consume over the course of a season, that's a bit disingenuous, no? Not counting the places where parking and snow removal is paid for by someone other than the resort? Besides there's places with popular summer trailheads for access (Alpental springs to mind) that without ski area parking there's little access in winter.


Meadow Skipper - paragraph 6, which I quoted, would seem to suggest that "they can do whatever the fuck they want" position is not correct.

[powdork]

At Kirkwood there has been no control work yet (it's still closed). We are not accessing via or skiing groomed runs. There were some cat tracks from snowmaking, but not where we go up. The parking area was cleared better at Carson Pass. There are places that are better with low snow levels and kirkwood holds those areas (and not from summer grooming).
Just because you don't want to do it doesn't mean others don't want to. But I guess we should all want what you want and be happy with that.

[Slaag Master]

the right to skin!!!! i like the sound of that!!!!!

[NoPostholio]

Keep the gubment outta my skin track!

Sent from my Galaxy Nexus using TGR Forums