Slides craziness

ScottyJack wrote

simple solution - beacons all the time.

I met many people this week that made the trip to WF just to ski the Slides. One group of 7-8 Killington regulars made the trip this weekend because pics and reports of the Slides are all over social media. Two guys from NJ drove up Sunday and got one run. WF has a lot going for it and one of the things that make us unique is the Slides. Once people come for that they see everything else we have as well.

I get the BSP argument. It would keep traffic in there way down and make it a private playground for those with the gear which would be a blast. That said it would cut people out and the bottom line is the bills have to be paid to keep offering the great product we do and for improvements in the future.

The Slides are one of many things that drives business to WF and we need to maximize all our revenue streams IMO.

You know if they did have the rule beacons required for the slides it would eliminate any confusion and hostility.  Bridger Bowl has it for one of there lifts and there are generally no problems.  That would take the responsibility off of the patrollers judgment and place it squarely on the skier.  Its the in between stuff that gets people ticked.  If those people coming from Killington or Jersey knew they needed a beacon they would arrange to have one with them.

I'm one of the Kmart regulars. Most of us brought beacons with us. I opened the slides at 10:15 after askng Patrol at the top. We got first tracks down 1 on Skiers right in some beautiful wind pack that took all 10 of Us over the ice bulge at the bottom. Some great turns made. Due to some confusion I was the  only one who made a second trip and was both first and last through the gates. We also hiked from lookout back to 5 after they closed access.

Coupla observations:


There seem to be MANY people who are in  way over their head. These runs were not cut man  and by there very nature aren't like anything else lift served in the east.  I really do not agree that ANYONE should be allowed back there. It's a safety issue not exclusivity. Just a matter of time before some has to be airlifted out.

Beacons  make the most sense. That way MOST  users of the Slides ( assuming they actually learn how to use them , as well as some basic avalanche/rescue skills) will have at least some skill in decision making if nothing else.
Most areas out west have side country that is only accessible with beacons/probes and shovels.

my 2 cents

Becon controlled gate with high fencing on sides to keep others out---or even if they did, they are poaching and liability is gone.  All that said, Patrol would still have to go in to pull out injuried parties---a nice charge could be added for BC rescue, paid to the patrolers who do it---or part of that fee would go to them, increasing the number of personnel who want to go in and help.    


In Europe, and maybe out west, lots of places rent becons for $15.00...no one says you need to know how to use it, they just rent it.    That could be a problem in the US---of course.    

tjf1967 wrote

You know if they did have the rule beacons required for the slides it would eliminate any confusion and hostility.  Bridger Bowl has it for one of there lifts and there are generally no problems.  That would take the responsibility off of the patrollers judgment and place it squarely on the skier.  Its the in between stuff that gets people ticked.  If those people coming from Killington or Jersey knew they needed a beacon they would arrange to have one with them.

As a WF outsider looking in this ^^^^ seems to make sense to me. Just make it slide law to have a beacon and live by it.

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

WF has a lot going for it and one of the things that make us unique is the Slides.......The Slides are one of many things that drives business to WF and we need to maximize all our revenue streams IMO.

tjf1967 wrote

Lets face it, its a matter of time before a serious injury happens in there.

That's the conundrum, balancing the need/desire to have the traffic/shit show with the inevitability that a serious injury will happen in there at some point.  That injury, more likely than not, will happen to someone who got in over their head.

Maybe it shouldn't be balanced is the point some are making.  It's terrain, just like any other.  When it's open let people do what they will, and let their chips fall where they may.  

I guess if management is good with that, and the first significant injury that occurs in there doesn't force them the re-examine things as they pertain to the Slides, then there really isn't a need for a discussion.

You can't protect people, especially stupid people, from themselves.  Would just hate to see future opportunity in the Slides impacted by an injury from one such person.  But you can't protect stupid people from getting in over their heads and hurting themselves on Skyward, and why should the Slides be any different?

There is a possibility that people could get seriously hurt or even killed in the Slides and that would be a tragedy. That said, when you hear or read about someone being seriously hurt or killed skiing in the East what type of terrain is it usually on?

tjf1967 wrote

Bridger Bowl has it for one of there lifts and there are generally no problems.

You just have to train the staff to deal with douche bags like this...

I don't think requiring a beacon necessarily would make things any less crazy... In fact, I think it could make things crazier. Just like airbags... I think beacons provide a false sense of security which diminishes the impact of your internal "red-flagger"... You'd probably end up seeing less competent people taking even bigger risks because they were wearing their beacon.

Why can't they exempt the area from "active" patrol entirely? Create a system that charges a fine for rescue, when the patrol has to enter the area to extract someone?

nepa wrote

 

Why can't they exempt the area from "active" patrol entirely?  

Beat me to it.

I was wondering if there has ever been a time, or ever been discussed about leaving the slides OB and not patrol them. It would be a similar situation to what Smuggs/Stowe does with their slackcountry and it never really seems to be an issue.

ADmiKe wrote

Coach Z wrote

The way I think about Slide 4 is its the best one to ski first in on a powder day and the worst one to ski second run because by then it's toast

I like 2b the best

I was lucky enough to time out the opening of the summit chair correctly Saturday morning - was first guy in the slides after patrol - hit 4, untouched and boot deep. It may be a little tight at times - but it was a hell of a run.  Big thanks to the patrol I was with who said I could set first tracks.  Had several other good slides runs this weekend even bumped into some ppl from on here...great weekend both conditions and weather.

I was right behind you a friend, we got first shot on 2B and it was big fun, took a total of 8 runs in the slides. Left side of one held up the longest, waterfall was a hoot, with all the loose snow piled up you could ski it quite easily without sowing down a whole lot. One of the better day in there just wish it was a weekday, would have been an all day affair.

I've been in there when they are marginal and almost needed a clean pair of underwear afterward

If they did that people would be getting seriously hurt

Coach Z wrote

I've been in there when they are marginal and almost needed a clean pair of underwear afterward

If they did that people would be getting seriously hurt

Or maybe learn a lesson... to take one?

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

The Slides are one of many things that drives business to WF and we need to maximize all our revenue streams IMO.

A beacon always policy consistently implemented and clearly communicated to the skiing public would drive even more business to WF.  

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

I get the BSP argument. It would keep traffic in there way down and make it a private playground for those with the gear which would be a blast.

Our private playground is not lift served.....  

Just playing devil's advocate...

Coach Z wrote

If they did that people would be getting seriously hurt

Even if access was more strictly controlled?  

For example, let's say, you can't get through the gate without a beacon.  I think an "all condition" beacon requirement would cut down on some of the volume in the area.  This means you must decide to bring your avy kit, before coming to the mountain with the intention of heading up into the Slides area.    The "beacon requirement" eliminates a lot of "last minute" and "tag along deciders"  Basically, if you didn't come to the mountain "prepared" to enter the Slides area, you will be prohibited from doing so (even if conditions are perfect).   The requirement doesn't make the area safer, but it could help cut down on unprepared people getting into trouble.  With a lower volume of unprepared participants, the patrol could focus on other areas of more importance.

In my opinion, people need to be more responsible for their own decisions... the function of the ski patrol is not to prevent people from making bad decisions.   I'm not saying that the patrol is not needed... In this scenario, I think the focus could be shifted from policing to rescue when needed.  

Finally, if you require a rescue, you should have to pay for it.  The "rescue fine" is the icing on the cake.  A monetary consequence would go a long way to help eliminate unpreparedness.  

ScottyJack wrote

Sweet photos!

what he/she said ^^^  except the fee thing.

ScottyJack wrote

what he/she said ^^^  except the fee thing.

Why no fee?  You should go up there with the intention of being self-reliant... heck, if you're solo, you should be able to self-rescue.  

If you need to bring in back-up, you should have to pay for it

BSP would cut down the traffic, but might be too restrictive.  That's the problem with the discussion, where do you draw a line, if one should even be drawn?  Like others have said, there's not really any restrictions on hiking the Chin at Stowe....

Maybe I'm a 'your group must have a BSP' advocate.....which would at least send groups in with someone who is likely aware of what the group is getting itself into.  To me that's the issue, making sure those going in are aware, or with someone who is aware, of the kind of terrain they are taking on, and the skills potentially required to do it.

An intermediate or lower who gets to the top, not knowing what is really in there, saying 'what the heck, let's check it out'....that's where the problem lies.

Harvey wrote

Sweet photos!

+ lots of numbers...magazine worthy