RESORT UPHILL SKIING — A RIGHT OR PRIVILEGE?

[LesterSmoove]

JHMR doesn't allow uphill access at all, which I think is absolutely the right policy during the ski season. However, I find it frustrating that they restrict access to inbounds terrain in April/May when they stop spinning lifts while there's plenty of snow on the ground. I understand their economic reasons for closing with good snow on the ground, and I know GTNP is right there with plenty of spring ski tours, but still. I wanna ski JHMR in April and May and I don't see what the big deal is. Liability? plenty of other tours manage the liability, if that's what it's all about. if it isn't about fear of a lawsuit, I can only imagine it comes down to evil and hatred deep in the kemmerer's hearts.

it was really funny when snow king started charging $75 for annual uphill access and many people were just outraged and circulated petitions about the tyranny of being forced to pay a marginal fee in order to skin up a manicured resort in their expensive AT setups and arcteryx. it's an extraordinarily generous policy.

snow king is one thing, but it's crazy to me that any major resorts charging major prices for day tickets or season passes would allow anyone to track up powder or corduroy for free. they invest a lot of money in the infrastructure and guest experience, and paying customers expect a certain experience.

[NathanL]

The avy control is a valuable service, and it's not free. I think the skinners should be allowed to take advantage of it, and resorts allowed to charge a fee. At Squaw, there's also a great tradition of illicit early morning poaches, which I hope they never crack down on.

[SkiLyft]

Not sure if it’s a right or privilege but it sure is FUN! Back when I was at CU a buddy and I would routinely buzz up to the Basin after classes and skin up the resort at night! The weather would range from clear skies lit by the moon to raging snow storms but the route was the same and very navigable — we’d ski down with headlamps. Good times for sure.

Other times we would get to the parking lot at 6 and skin a quick lap prior to the lifts spinning then swap over to a full alpine setup and ski the rest of the morning.

It’s funny so many people on here make comments about how ludicrous it is to tour in the resort but frankly I have a hard time seeing how it’s NOT a part of the sport. Is it the same experience as touring out in the BC? No — but is it a part of skiing in general? HELL YEAH! And is it FUN? Absolutely.

But there is a bit of common sense that should be applied and this is where the regulation in the form of a nominal fee seems logical. As more and more people begin to tour in the resort problems can arise, especially if people are naive to the inner workings of a ski hill. Ie grooming schedules and avy mitigation. So I’d say for the purposes of this thread. The latter — it’s a privilege, and I sure hope we can educate the public to keep growing this aspect of resort skiing.

Don’t own a shop and have no pony in the race but this recent rise of people touring really has infused more money back into the sport which I only see as a positive!


Sent from my iPhone using TGR Forums

[m2711c]

It’s a fad... it will fade when the next cool thing comes out.

remember snowshoe running? standup paddle boarding?

[Vt-Freeheel]

Definitely a privilege to access resort trails for uphill and downhill travel. If it is public land the ski area has a lease that gives them control of the land. It's always amusing when people wanting access claim that because they don't use the lift they should be allowed to use the resort. They seem to forget the maintenance that goes into keeping a resort running.
Too much access can be a bad thing. Look at Mad River Glen, open door policy that has people out at 4am on powder days and the place tracked before opening day like a Bronx junkie. One of the main reasons I would never buy a pass there again.

As M-jong said it is a bit of a fad, so many people I see around here had no clue how hard it is to tour and quit soon after starting.

[whipski]

Dawn patrols for the proletariat will persist as long as snow falls from the ski and bipeds populate the planet

[Timberridge]

As M-jong said it is a bit of a fad, so many people I see around here had no clue how hard it is to tour and quit soon after starting.

...and realized all touring gear cost a lot of $$ and skied like shit.

[The SnowShow]

As M-jong said it is a bit of a fad, so many people I see around here had no clue how hard it is to tour and quit soon after starting.

I have a friend who bought the whole package two years ago: New DPS Alchemist with Kingpins, new boots, & new skins and hasn’t even tried it. He just skis resort with that setup. I keep asking if he wants to do some skinning and he never commits. My guess is one day he will and he’ll show up with uncut skins. 🤦

[Bluebird]

Definitely a privilege to access resort trails for uphill and downhill travel. If it is public land the ski area has a lease that gives them control of the land. It's always amusing when people wanting access claim that because they don't use the lift they should be allowed to use the resort. They seem to forget the maintenance that goes into keeping a resort running.
Too much access can be a bad thing. Look at Mad River Glen, open door policy that has people out at 4am on powder days and the place tracked before opening day like a Bronx junkie. One of the main reasons I would never buy a pass there again.

As M-jong said it is a bit of a fad, so many people I see around here had no clue how hard it is to tour and quit soon after starting.

The new policy at MRG allows management to close the mtn to skinning. These closures will definitely be on powder days.

[schindlerpiste]

To me it matters whether the ski area is on public or private lands. If it is on public lands, when the resort leases the property there should be a clause in the lease about whether or not uphill travel is permitted and if so whether there should be a fee for access. If it is on private land All bets are off and a landowner can charge what they want.
Definitely a privilege though. People who pay a lot of money to ski resorts have an argument that they don’t want people traveling up hill. I get that.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

Holding a lease on public lands allows the lease holder to treat it like they own it. Can you use cabins on leased FS land anytime you want? All infrastructure, improvements and safety mitigation is paid for by the lease holder. Should they just provide those things for free?

It seems like most people lack the common sense to stay out of the way and/or have a pretty good sense of entitlement.

[doebedoe]

Holding a lease on public lands allows the lease holder to treat it like they own it. ....

Frankly bullshit. There are many different kinds of leases on public lands -- many of which (ski resorts included) have far more restrictions than an owner has on what they can do with their land.

Here for instance is the basic use permit granted to ski areas: https://www.fs.fed.us/r2/recreation/...fs-2700-5b.pdf

E. Nonexclusive Use. This permit is not exclusive. The Forest Service reserves the right to use or permit others to use any part
of the permitted area for any purpose, provided such use does not materially interfere with the rights and privileges hereby
authorized.
F. Area Access. Except for any restrictions as the holder and the authorized officer may agree to be necessary to protect the
installation and operation of authorized structures and developments, the lands and waters covered by this permit shall remain
open to the public for all lawful purposes. To facilitate public use of this area, all existing roads or roads as may be constructed by
the holder, shall remain open to the public, except for roads as may be closed by joint agreement of the holder and the authorized
officer.

Personally, I don't think "right" or "privilege" are either the right terms here unless heavily qualified.

[SumJongGuy]

Leased public land or private shouldn't really matter. I bet the hammer will come down pretty soon on people leveraging loopholes to hike or ski free on these resorts where the clear objective of the owner/holder is to charge people for such activities.


Should everyone also be allowed to ride their bikes on the resort property whenever they want or when not open for skiing? Add a battery and you got your own ride up without needing the lifts. Betting they won't be allowing that for long if they still do.

Maybe one workaround to getting the money is to charge $100 for parking on resort property 24/7 but you get that $100 back when you buy a lift ticket or rent a room or whatever there. OK you can come ski free after hours but parking will cost you $100 LOL.. Got a season pass and you park free.

[GeezerSteve]

If it’s . . . federal/state land you really don’t have a right to be there at all. * * * Holding a lease on public lands allows the lease holder to treat it like they own it.

It's not that simple. For ski areas on USFS land, the rights and/or privileges of non-patron traffic depend on the terms of the special use permit (SUP) and/or documents referenced or incorporated into the SUP. Each SUP and related documents are unique to each area. AFAIK, most (maybe all?) WA ski areas on USFS land are governed by SUP packages which require the lessee to tolerate certain kinds of non-patron traffic ("non-fee based winter use" in some SUPs), e.g., Alpy, MR, White Pass, Xtal, Stevens, Baker, etc.

ETA: The WS article is vague and incomplete re SUPs. The article suggests that all ski areas on USFS land are parties to a SUP that "allow[s] them to restrict access as deemed necessary." Although maybe that's in a SUP doc package for some ski area somewhere, I have never seen such a sweeping provision without carve-outs for some non-patron access. It requires some digging to find the language. Most SUPs incorporate or refer to outside documents, some of which are difficult to obtain.

It doesn't really bother me that people want to hike uphill, inbounds, while lifts are spinning.

Such tolerance for others will not be tolerated on this forum!

I've done it a few times, e.g., last year at Stevens Pass when I met my bud at his RV and I did not feel like forking $$ for a lift ticket. Per local rules, I checked in with ski patrol and signed a waiver.

[m2711c]

When I was making snow at Sugarbush, we were not allowed to kick the hunters off the mountain whilst we were making snow. The occasional shotgun blast during startup or shutdown was to be expected.

Not sure how skinning is different. Just carry your shotgun during hunting season and you should be good to go for a few laps at least...

[::: :::]

We pay the National Forest for winter parking directly. Resort can’t charge for parking.

[mall walker]

Not sure how skinning is different. Just carry your shotgun during hunting season and you should be good to go for a few laps at least...

Finally some actionable advice!

[doebedoe]

We pay the National Forest for winter parking directly. Resort can’t charge for parking.

Wow -- you might want to let NFS that. Since there are plenty of ski areas that charge for parking on NF land.

[::: :::]

Must be their agreement
Maybe they do their own snow removal?

[rideit]

Not sure how skinning is different. Just carry your shotgun during hunting season and you should be good to go for a few laps at least...

Or just pull a Stephen Koch, and bring a fishing rod!
(J/K, love ya Steve!)

[XXX-er]

It's not that simple. For ski areas on USFS land, the rights and/or privileges of non-patron traffic depend on the terms of the special use permit (SUP), which vary from place to place. Most (maybe all?) WA ski areas on USFS land are governed by SUPs which require the lessee to tolerate certain kinds of non-patron traffic, e.g., Alpy, MR, White Pass, Xtal, Stevens, Baker, etc.

Such tolerance for others will not be tolerated on this forum!

I've done it a few times, e.g., last year at Stevens Pass when I met my bud at his RV and I did not feel like forking $$ for a lift ticket. Per local rules, I checked in with ski patrol and signed a waiver.

I assume when you pay for a ticket you are accepting the wavier ( which nobody ever reads ) that is printed on that ticket so theoretically if a resort sells you a 5$ lift ticket they are legally covered against being sued ??

At the local hill the uphill traffic policy has gone all over the place since being bought by the investors who hoped to make mad coin selling RE ( just before the big credit swap crisis ) when they they thot they owned the whole fucking mountain

now days it seems most locals tend to just ignore the policy and that would include those who's job it is to roust people cuz being the polite canadians they don't really want to push the situ up on the hill when they gotta live in that small town at the bottom

[AdironRider]

Resort skinners are the road bikers of the ski world.

[MagnificentUnicorn]

It's not that simple. For ski areas on USFS land, the rights and/or privileges of non-patron traffic depend on the terms of the special use permit (SUP) and/or documents referenced or incorporated into the SUP. Each SUP and related documents are unique to each area. AFAIK, most (maybe all?) WA ski areas on USFS land are governed by SUP packages which require the lessee to tolerate certain kinds of non-patron traffic ("non-fee based winter use" in some SUPs), e.g., Alpy, MR, White Pass, Xtal, Stevens, Baker, etc.

ETA: The WS article is vague and incomplete re SUPs. The article suggests that all ski areas on USFS land are parties to a SUP that "allow[s] them to restrict access as deemed necessary." Although maybe that's in a SUP doc package for some ski area somewhere, I have never seen such a sweeping provision without carve-outs for some non-patron access. It requires some digging to find the language. Most SUPs incorporate or refer to outside documents, some of which are difficult to obtain.

Such tolerance for others will not be tolerated on this forum!

I've done it a few times, e.g., last year at Stevens Pass when I met my bud at his RV and I did not feel like forking $$ for a lift ticket. Per local rules, I checked in with ski patrol and signed a waiver.

Yes Steve, it’s an oversimplification. The lease holder can do what they want under the terms of their SUP. That’s what I was getting at.

[GeezerSteve]

I assume when you pay for a ticket you are accepting the wavier ( which nobody ever reads ) that is printed on that ticket so theoretically if a resort sells you a 5$ lift ticket they are legally covered against being sued ??

Well, again, it's not that simple. Ski area operator liability is governed by state law, which varies from state to state. In most states, the first line of defense is the law, not the waiver. As a matter of common law of some states, a business proprietor owes a different (higher) set of duties to paying customer (invitee) than to a non-paying guest (licensee). The common law of some states also incorporates the "assumption of risk" defense or something akin to it, while other states have replaced the assumption of risk defense with comparative liability.

In most, possibly all, states, the common law of proprietor liability is superseded by a statute which specifically governs liability of ski area operators and, in most or all cases, imposes upon all users the assumption of risks "inherent in the sport" of skiing, irrespective of whether there is a written waiver, but this sometimes comes into conflict with statutes that recognize comparative liability. There is a 20 y.o. WA appellate decision that addresses this tension. I have not recently checked to see if that tension has been subsequently addressed.

It's a complicated area of the law that sometimes changes.

[alpinevibes]

It’s frickin huge here. We literally have hundreds a day.

I’m pretty pleased by the Aspen Ski Co rules. On the whole they’re reasonable and sensible.

I’d estimate at least 60-70% of uphillers,are women.

I would also guess that in the RFV there are more skiers who own touring gear and HAVEN'T ever skied it in the backcountry (besides a skin into a hut) than those who have used it for real touring. Big retail $$$ in town.