Idea To Keep Whiteface Open Later in the Spring

Mike has indeed shown us that WF has offered use of the man made covered and maintained ski trails within the WF resort for a nominal fee, and trails can be skied for next to no cost while not being required to pay for lift access.  So the snowmaking and grooming is, for all intents and purposes, FREE...........ummmm, if you want to ski in the dark.  I'm glad we've established that!

Point to Mike.  Of course, Mike might not want to fall victim to my 'I have a point and dammit I'm gonna make it' Achilles heel.  Sometimes the accuracy of point to prove distracts from the overall convo.  Forest through the trees shit, know what I mean?  I've been guilty of that on occasion or three!

In reality, I don't think the point won by Mike wins him the overall argument.  It seems rather obvious to me that, without a published 'thou shalt not, it is illegal' decree, WF has limited peoples ability to access terrain without a lift ticket during normal operations.  Other mountains probably do the same.  Sure, while the snowmaking and grooming are "free", accessing the resort during normal operations gets someone Patrol services (if needed) and access to facilities.  While taxes could, theoretically, cover the land maintenance (snowmaking/grooming), they may not cover other resort services.  Not like Patrol is going to ask to see your lift ticket before they toboggan someone's broken ass off the hill, or someone is gonna scan your ticket for access to the john.

I'd heed HPD's observation that accessing ski trails from outside the resort during normal operations is likely considered some kind of theft of services.  Of course, winning on that point is also somewhat of a hollow 'point to prove' victory.  As they say, something isn't a problem, until it's a problem.  Reality is that Mike can access Gore terrain from any pond he wants, and nobody is going to stop him on the way down a groomed trail to ask him for his lift ticket, even though he is technically stealing services.  Of course, if Mike and 100 friends are all doing it at the same time......

Mike....I could be wrong about this, but the skier responsibility to 'not ski any terrain not designated for skiing' only becomes a statute, term of use, or condition one becomes subject to when they purchase the lift ticket bearing those restrictions.  Outside of skiing a resort with a lift ticket, I'm not sure Joe Public is subject to the Article in question.  As you point out, anyone can venture out into public wilderness and ski whatever they like.

Mr. Skidds,

I'm not trying to 'win' anything.

I'm trying to understand the legality of skiing off-season... which has yet to be established.

I knew of the WF policy earlier this year because it had come up talking about this same thing.  It seems to me no one has a clear answer.

I was being a bit tongue-in-cheek about the whole Siamese Ponds business.  The only thing I've ever heard that I took to heart is that ski patrol was not going to look for you if you took a lift up Gore and took off in Siamese Ponds.  I knew that was just an empty threat because I'd talked to rangers about S&R on state land in NY.  It isn't like NH where they don't take kindly to morons - they'll rescue you here, and only fine you if you weren't following some posted regulation (the regs I speak of clearly posted at every trailhead in the HPW).  There is no regulation limiting access to Siamese Ponds from the top of Gore as far as I know.  They just discourage it because the average resort skier isn't prepared to go into the backcountry.

So anyway in those terms I didn't see anyone stopping you from hiking up the backside of Gore (marked trails do exist) and skiing back down.  If someone did who would it be?  Ski patrol?  I'd plead ignorance.  Obviously not a great defense but there is no literature or signage telling us otherwise.  I also don't plan on doing this... again the question was really about the legality after the lifts stop running - I'm not so cheap that I wouldn't pay for a lift ticket during the regular season even if I did want to putter around the glades and maybe go a bit out of bounds.  Again as soon as I'd crossed out of marked trails I'd be on my own (well except for our kindly NYS DEC).

Anyway I didn't think HPD's comments were very helpful in terms of understanding the legality of anything - just a bit of smoke up my behind - which I'd expect to some degree on an internet forum, but again, I wouldn't let it go unnoticed.

Anyway I've been blowing my own smoke - Sno has no interest in EYT but still he thinks it's illegal.  Maybe a bit off topic but still to the point of education in my mind.

What, yet another snark fest with people bashing Sno ?

Reality is the overwhelming majority of downhill skiers only ski lift served.

Latest tangent is somewhat free of Sno bashing, I think.

As for bashing Sno, I agree there may have been a few people along the way who might have benefitted from a little yeast before their booze.  It's the interweb though, not a place for the timid.

Sno is not timid, and I like that.  Of course, while we've all been there, done that...he has the thinking of a typical teenager.  When making statements like 'you don't need strength or fitness to ski', I hope it isn't seen as bashing to try and educate him, based on our experience, in the err of his ways.

As to most skiers only skiing lift served, you are absolutely correct.  Of course, the context of the conversation did not include most skiers, I don't believe.  Most skiers have no desire to ski the Slides, which is specifically what Sno asked about.  I would disagree that most skiers who are serious about skiing the Slides ski only lift served.  Not everyone is telling him to do his own backcountry touring, but at the ski level Sno aspires to, sidecountry, slackcountry, and backcountry efforts requiring some degree of hiking (and fitness) are very much part of the picture.  I only ski lift served resorts, but I've done a heck of a lot of hiking during that time.  Sno will be 20, 25, 45 some day, and he will want to rock various slides, chutes, couloirs, etc.  Easy for the teenage guy, with the energy and exuberance of youth, to say 'I don't need this' or 'I won't do that', but some day he will look back at some of the sage advice dispensed amongst the bashing and have an 'ah, ha!' moment.

Article 18 says nothing about buying a ticket for the law to apply. Article 18 does not say you must buy a ticket to ski. It does say a ticket signifies lawful entry and use of lifts and ski trails so one might infer that without it use is unlawful, but it does not say that explicitly.

When you ski the WF road you don't violate Article 18 because the road is not a designated area for skiing and unless you are on a designated ski trail you are not a skier and if you are not a skier you can't be violating Article 18 as it only applies to skiers (with one or two boards attached). Read 18-102 closely. How stupid is that, according to Article 18 I am not a skier when I am in the backcountry.

First off, I'm not trying to bash young Sno.  If it seems that way, I apologize.

I'm trying to address a couple points that were brought up earlier:

1) The boy seems to think skiing on state land out of bounds or at the end of the season is illegal.  I can't comment for every situation but I know there are some situations that are perfectly legal.  The ones I am positive are skiing on NYS land that is designated Wilderness or Wild Forest, whether there are trails or not.

2) Mr. Sno seems to think going into the backcountry is dangerous.  It may appear that way and it is for those who aren't prepared.  There have been some posts to try prove that is contrary.  I ski, hike, paddle, etc in the Adirondacks on state land and I've been doing so by myself since I was just a little older than he is (15/16ish).  I'm not saying everyone will chose that path, but I survived and I'll admit I didn't always do things the right way (or legal way).  I was a dumb hick country boy back then - I try to not make those mistakes these days and I'm pretty animate about educating people when I can.

3) Personally this gets my goat:  People who don't respect the Adirondacks and Catskills for what they are.  I'm trying to hint that there is more to those places than amusement parks and ski lifts.

As far as actual legality of anything, I don't think we've gotten anywhere.

PeeTex,

Ski Code 18 (it's not an article I don't think) is about as clear as mud.  It doesn't specifically state or deny anything concerning ski touring.

I see your points, and I read those parts... but again, I don't get how that applies to state managed lands.  I can certainly see it from a privately owned resort in that a ticket keeps you from trespassing unlawfully on PRIVATE land otherwise, but the areas in question are not private land.  It is encouraged that people hike and ski in the ski bowl at Gore and use the adjacent trails.  Those are within the special management area and no lift ticket is required unless you want to ride the lift.

Again, clear as mud!

I can also see how the ski area might ask ski tourers to have a pass so they can keep track of them and limit their activities to certain times (although I'd think during the daylight hours might be more appropriate) to limit liability.

Well actually, according to your posts, " you're not a skier " only because you're not in ski areas which is what article 18 covers. Define it as you may, ski area, ski resort, lift served, etc.

MikeK wrote

campgottagopee wrote

MikeK wrote

 
So anyway do you know all this for a fact.  If so I'd really like to know the law.  If you're just blowing smoke then I can get that elsewhere on the internet.

Yo, Mike ---- HPD doesn't blow smoke

When he talks you better listen  ----- just sayin

Really.  

Yep, really

I believe 18 is law.
I also believe that the state owned ski areas are designated as ski areas and fall under the law. But once you are off of a designated trail you are free to do what you want.

18 is poorly written, and as such I choose to interpret it liberally and literally.

I find enough freedom within it to go where I want to go.

I'd agree it is the law.  NYS Code: Article 18: Safety in skiing code is what it be.  I've seen it before as just the ski code.

It seems to only cover ski areas.  It would be nice if NYS DEC had a specific outline for ski touring in the UMP for ski areas on NYS land, because I believe these to be special cases.

I'm going to try to query the DEC because I am quite curious what the actual take is why it isn't public and explicitly made clear what the policy is.  Whiteface needed to make a policy - which I think is ludicrous - not the fact that the policy exists, just certain terms of the policy.  I'm not sure who made that policy and what the tax payers of NY have as far as say in that.  When we signed the land over to be ski areas we may have given up certain rights.  Those areas were written in as Amendments to Article 14 of the NYS constitution.

 oh god make it stop!

MikeK wrote

Really.  Seemed pretty smoky to me.

It is actually in article 18.

1.      "Lift ticket" means any item issued by a ski area operator to any skier that is intended to be affixed to the outerwear of the skier, or otherwise displayed by a skier, to signify lawful entry upon and use of the passenger tramways or ski slopes or trails maintained by the ski area operator.

Essentially WF does not have to sell lift tickets, but everyone must have one. When someone gets a lift ticket they are automatically agreeing to code 54 and article 18. It protects WF.


 

 

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

MikeK wrote

Really.  Seemed pretty smoky to me.

It is actually in article 18.

1.      "Lift ticket" means any item issued by a ski area operator to any skier that is intended to be affixed to the outerwear of the skier, or otherwise displayed by a skier, to signify lawful entry upon and use of the passenger tramways or ski slopes or trails maintained by the ski area operator.

Essentially WF does not have to sell lift tickets, but everyone must have one. When someone gets a lift ticket they are automatically agreeing to code 54 and article 18. It protects WF.

Signify does not mean it is required, it's not like a drivers license and you can agree or disagree with article 18 but to be lawful you must abide by it. There is no agreement required.

I am glad you read it, but don't extend it beyond what is stated.

So if said statements from article 18 were true, lifts not withstanding, it would unlawful for people hike and ride bikes in the ski area in the summer.  I am positive this is not the case.  Doing so on lands not owned by the state of NY may be considered trespassing permission from owners had not been given.

WF and most other ski areas will however charge you to ride the lifts either to get a view if you don't prefer hiking (or driving) or to ride your bike down the runs.
 
There are obviously extenuating circumstances for Code 18 that are conflicting.

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

Shame on all you adult men who ganged up on this 15 year old kid. Who the hell are you to tell him what to do with his free time? Did he ask for any of your opinions? From what I've read from him it seems like he has a pretty awesome and supportive dad. I’m thinkin his father knows him better than anybody in here and can hand out life advice when necessary.

Actually he did.  His response seems to be I want ski the slides but is too out of shape to side step and too lazy to get in shape.  This is a huge problem as a ton of kids have this same crappy outlook that everything should be easy or given to them.  I've stuck up for him multiple times but frankly he is ticking me off with this attitude.  His idea of exercise is standing in line for a roller coaster....really!

The reason so many of are are trying to help him is he clearly loves to ski but once he is too fat and out of shape and a little older skiing will become a heck of a lot less fun for him.  I see it all the time when I teach out of shape people that don't have enough core strength to get up off the snow.  The kid loves to ski so we think he is worth saving from his self.

It's amazing how the poop hits the fan in the forums once we all have not skied in a few weeks.

And, to add to what Coach said, so as not to be Sno bashing.......we all need to be saved from ourselves at one time or another, for one thing or another.  We really are trying to help the kid!

Sno... jump into one of these beer threads and ask some these guys how much they drink, and then quote some stats about how they're killing themselves with booze.

Thacheronix wrote

Sno... jump into one of these beer threads and ask some these guys how much they drink, and then quote some stats about how they're killing themselves with booze.

There are studies that show 2 beers a day is good for you.

You may not put a lot of faith in that but I put a lot of history behind it.  Beer has been around for more than 4000 years; is safer to drink than some water, has the calories of a couple slices of bread, and the alcohol, in moderation, is good for the heart.

It is speculated that many of the wonders of the ancient world would not exist without beer and wine.

Coach Z wrote

It's amazing how the poop hits the fan in the forums once we all have not skied in a few weeks.

Just wait till August/September when we have not skied for a few months and are still a few months away from skiing again.