snoloco wrote: ↑Jan 31st, '24, 09:55
It's all public land, but the resort has no obligation to let you access it through their permit area. Many resorts have designated gates where you can access the backcountry, but they aren't required to do so. If these people ducked ropes, then they deserve to lose their passes. They put themselves and everyone else in danger who had to come rescue them. It's the exact thing that they should be pulling passes for. It's also against state law to duck ropes. That being said, if the boundary wasn't clearly marked with a rope line, then they shouldn't have their passes pulled.
the people in the article are claiming they didnt duck or see any ropes or signs. at least some of them left off of snowdon in an area where people dont usually leave the resort (because there really isnt anything worth skiing back there from that point).
many resorts are on federal land, not state land like k and most vt resorts are. ones with backcountry gates are generally out west and federal, theres not a whole lot of resort-access backcountry on the east coast, all i can think of off the top of my head is the slides in whiteface (gated as far as i know, avalanche gear required) and above stowe, but i dont believe theres a gate there, its been many years since ive been to stowe and wasnt the rider then that i am today.
i have a friend who is former patrol, and they said they werent allowed to rope off the access to coops because it blocks public land. they were a long time patroller and one of the veterans i reference when i mention how the resort lost a lot of talented people over the years... i trust their judgement more than random internet commenters speculating about land use.
jimmywilson69 wrote: ↑Jan 31st, '24, 10:15
There was definitely a rope out at Coops the last time i was out there in the winter and It was also there in the summer when I hiked the Vermont section of the AT.
coops is very well marked, one would have to be willfully blind to not see the many signs and ropes and orange tape. but a lot of the people who got lost (maybe not all) did not leave from coops. the mountain is trying to insinuate that they did to get the heat off of them.
easyrider16 wrote: ↑Jan 31st, '24, 12:37
I think these folks are culpable to some degree. You don't go off into the woods unless you know what you're doing. On the other hand, I don't think it's the resort's business to discipline these people.Once they leave the resort, they cease to be the resort's responsibility. But they did something dumb requiring a rescue, and they should be held responsible there - pay a fine or pay for the rescue.
yeah exactly, not the resorts responsibility. it says so in all the waivers! and the trail map!
these people are obviously culpable, they made a mistake and luckily the worst of it was a long uncomfortable hike out and embarrassment. i dont agree with fining people, because of the risk that people will be less likely to call for help until they are in an even worse situation and requiring a more difficult rescue. in terms of backcountry rescues this one is pretty tame minus the sheer amount of people rescued. its a mostly flat long hike out, there's no 200ft cliffs to fall off of and die like the stowe backcountry.
Off of Snowdon, taking a right off the SD6, I think you can immediately go left [before Frolic] and if you keep on going, get on the wrong side of the ridge between Snowdon and Rams Head.
Goes to show, you don't never know
Watch each card you play, and play it slow
Don't you let that deal go down
Don't you let that deal go down
Looks like its going down no matter what I do !!!
It's really simple. Don't follow tracks into the woods unless you know where they go. Unfortunate situation for those people. But they did live and kept all limbs. More than can be said for some. Very well roped. I know the area well. The Bucklin is a favorite. I try to spend at least one night a winter at coops. I bring a tent because the acomodations leave a bit to be desired. The tent platforms are nice.
Not to revive this dead horse, but I have a theory about what happened here, and why anyone would be skiing off Snowdon toward the backside vs the usual (and well signed) access points like Cooper Lodge. I haven't been to the top of Snowdon since earlier this season, so I don't know the current state of signage or what it looked like when the incident happened, but don't ever remember a rope there as the woods are pretty dense, flat, and unappealing. But one thing that is (relatively) new is that's where one of the designated uphill routes stops. So unlike the before-managed-uphill times you have a bunch of BC capable skiers ending their climb there rather than the summit. A non-zero portion of these are going to want to continue to the summit, and without a designated route will see that they can use the AT/LT just beyond the boundary to continue their ascent and stay kosher. My theory is that some of these busted a track through to the AT/LT in a spot without signage that a chunk of those 23 lost souls then unwittingly followed. No way to test this theory, but the resort might want to consider this in how they manage these routes and the areas of the boundary where they end.
Also wrt resort boundary policy, the stated policy on the website is not a closed one (which is IMO how it should stay). No idea what happened to the lost's lift access, but it does not sound like this policy was violated if they did not cross a closed in-bounds area. And since the rescue happened on the other side of the mountain, seems like an issue between them and their rescuers, but I am not a lawyer.
From the website:
* If you decide to leave the ski resort premises and go beyond the ski area boundary, be aware that Killington and Pico assume no responsibility for safety of, or injury, death or damages to skiers or riders. Backcountry areas beyond the ski area boundary are not maintained or checked by ski area personnel VERMONT LAW PROVIDES THAT YOU ARE LIABLE FOR ALL EXPENSES OF SEARCH AND RESCUE IF YOU SKI BEYOND THE SKI AREA BOUNDARY AND A SEARCH IS CONDUCTED.
* Check the Killington and Pico Trail Guides to see ski area boundaries shown by dotted yellow lines bordering each map.
jerm wrote: ↑Feb 20th, '24, 08:40
Not to revive this dead horse, but I have a theory about what happened here, and why anyone would be skiing off Snowdon toward the backside vs the usual (and well signed) access points like Cooper Lodge. I haven't been to the top of Snowdon since earlier this season, so I don't know the current state of signage or what it looked like when the incident happened, but don't ever remember a rope there as the woods are pretty dense, flat, and unappealing. But one thing that is (relatively) new is that's where one of the designated uphill routes stops. So unlike the before-managed-uphill times you have a bunch of BC capable skiers ending their climb there rather than the summit. A non-zero portion of these are going to want to continue to the summit, and without a designated route will see that they can use the AT/LT just beyond the boundary to continue their ascent and stay kosher. My theory is that some of these busted a track through to the AT/LT in a spot without signage that a chunk of those 23 lost souls then unwittingly followed. No way to test this theory, but the resort might want to consider this in how they manage these routes and the areas of the boundary where they end.
Also wrt resort boundary policy, the stated policy on the website is not a closed one (which is IMO how it should stay). No idea what happened to the lost's lift access, but it does not sound like this policy was violated if they did not cross a closed in-bounds area. And since the rescue happened on the other side of the mountain, seems like an issue between them and their rescuers, but I am not a lawyer.
From the website:
* If you decide to leave the ski resort premises and go beyond the ski area boundary, be aware that Killington and Pico assume no responsibility for safety of, or injury, death or damages to skiers or riders. Backcountry areas beyond the ski area boundary are not maintained or checked by ski area personnel VERMONT LAW PROVIDES THAT YOU ARE LIABLE FOR ALL EXPENSES OF SEARCH AND RESCUE IF YOU SKI BEYOND THE SKI AREA BOUNDARY AND A SEARCH IS CONDUCTED.
* Check the Killington and Pico Trail Guides to see ski area boundaries shown by dotted yellow lines bordering each map.
Your theory is NOT what happened here . . All were "resort" skiers (and a Killington instructor). None had any "backcountry gear" with them. 5 different groups, each with slightly different intentions.
"Fare you well, fare you well
I love you more than words can tell"
jerm wrote: ↑Feb 20th, '24, 08:40
Not to revive this dead horse, but I have a theory about what happened here, and why anyone would be skiing off Snowdon toward the backside vs the usual (and well signed) access points like Cooper Lodge. I haven't been to the top of Snowdon since earlier this season, so I don't know the current state of signage or what it looked like when the incident happened, but don't ever remember a rope there as the woods are pretty dense, flat, and unappealing. But one thing that is (relatively) new is that's where one of the designated uphill routes stops. So unlike the before-managed-uphill times you have a bunch of BC capable skiers ending their climb there rather than the summit. A non-zero portion of these are going to want to continue to the summit, and without a designated route will see that they can use the AT/LT just beyond the boundary to continue their ascent and stay kosher. My theory is that some of these busted a track through to the AT/LT in a spot without signage that a chunk of those 23 lost souls then unwittingly followed. No way to test this theory, but the resort might want to consider this in how they manage these routes and the areas of the boundary where they end.
Also wrt resort boundary policy, the stated policy on the website is not a closed one (which is IMO how it should stay). No idea what happened to the lost's lift access, but it does not sound like this policy was violated if they did not cross a closed in-bounds area. And since the rescue happened on the other side of the mountain, seems like an issue between them and their rescuers, but I am not a lawyer.
From the website:
* If you decide to leave the ski resort premises and go beyond the ski area boundary, be aware that Killington and Pico assume no responsibility for safety of, or injury, death or damages to skiers or riders. Backcountry areas beyond the ski area boundary are not maintained or checked by ski area personnel VERMONT LAW PROVIDES THAT YOU ARE LIABLE FOR ALL EXPENSES OF SEARCH AND RESCUE IF YOU SKI BEYOND THE SKI AREA BOUNDARY AND A SEARCH IS CONDUCTED.
* Check the Killington and Pico Trail Guides to see ski area boundaries shown by dotted yellow lines bordering each map.
Your theory is NOT what happened here . . All were "resort" skiers (and a Killington instructor). None had any "backcountry gear" with them. 5 different groups, each with slightly different intentions.
I think you may be misreading that post. I see it as they said some backcountry/uphill skiers may have broke a trail from top of Snowden out to the AT/LT, and continued up. Then someone from the group of 23 found this track and followed OOB.
ski wrote: ↑Feb 20th, '24, 12:27
Your theory is NOT what happened here . . All were "resort" skiers (and a Killington instructor). None had any "backcountry gear" with them. 5 different groups, each with slightly different intentions.
I think you may be misreading that post. I see it as they said some backcountry/uphill skiers may have broke a trail from top of Snowden out to the AT/LT, and continued up. Then someone from the group of 23 found this track and followed OOB.
Yes that's what I meant. Someone skinned to top of Snowdon on the designated uphill route, then went into woods near the top of Snowdon to pick up the AT/LT (which runs parallel to the ridge on the other side) and continued to the top. Then another group/groups of alpine skiers without gear/skins/clues followed those tracks and got into trouble. I think this would be more likely to happen off Frolic but could see it happening other places near the top of Snowdon.
ski wrote: ↑Feb 20th, '24, 12:27
Your theory is NOT what happened here . . All were "resort" skiers (and a Killington instructor). None had any "backcountry gear" with them. 5 different groups, each with slightly different intentions.
I think you may be misreading that post. I see it as they said some backcountry/uphill skiers may have broke a trail from top of Snowden out to the AT/LT, and continued up. Then someone from the group of 23 found this track and followed OOB.
Yes that's what I meant. Someone skinned to top of Snowdon on the designated uphill route, then went into woods near the top of Snowdon to pick up the AT/LT (which runs parallel to the ridge on the other side) and continued to the top. Then another group/groups of alpine skiers without gear/skins/clues followed those tracks and got into trouble. I think this would be more likely to happen off Frolic but could see it happening other places near the top of Snowdon.
If they were following a skinner’s tracks along the LT, they’d be going uphill pretty quickly after Snowdon.
jerm wrote: ↑Feb 20th, '24, 15:44
Yes that's what I meant. Someone skinned to top of Snowdon on the designated uphill route, then went into woods near the top of Snowdon to pick up the AT/LT (which runs parallel to the ridge on the other side) and continued to the top. Then another group/groups of alpine skiers without gear/skins/clues followed those tracks and got into trouble. I think this would be more likely to happen off Frolic but could see it happening other places near the top of Snowdon.
This sounds like exactly what happened. I remembered the week before that incident seeing a heavy skin track going back there and wondering, where the F are those folks going? But it would make total sense to go from there to the LT to get to the peak.
Looks like K put up a legit backcountry gate over on Ridge Run complete with a sign saying if you enter this gate you're on your own. I'm not sure if this will encourage or discourage use of the gate, but I at least appreciate the acknowledgement that people who know what they're doing should be allowed to go back there.
Talked to someone who knew the instructor that was terminated. The five year olds she was in charge of raced ahead and ducked into the trees. She chased after them but by the time she caught up with them it was too late. She ended up carrying one of them two miles out. The parents were extremely grateful.
Four does the same thing, and he is very hard to catch. I’m most sympathetic; woman got sacked. In my mind, she was a hero.
rogman wrote: ↑Feb 21st, '24, 07:22
Talked to someone who knew the instructor that was terminated. The five year olds she was in charge of raced ahead and ducked into the trees. She chased after them but by the time she caught up with them it was too late. She ended up carrying one of them two miles out. The parents were extremely grateful.
Four does the same thing, and he is very hard to catch. I’m most sympathetic; woman got sacked. In my mind, she was a hero.
So it sounds as if this is at least partially on Killington for poor markings.
Interesting that the groups all went in separately.
Too bad the media etc made the skiers out to be the bad guys.
