Slides craziness

Few years back we were up on a "restricted with guide" gold day. Very good fun. My daughter--who was 8 at the time and could rip--was told her group had to be "as tall as the lollipop" to get in. Bummed for her, but I was ok with it. Just because she could, doesn't mean she should. Now a few years later I would feel a lot more comfortable with her in there. My son (now 8) still asks when he'll be as tall as the lollipop...

Sugarloaf has a similar situation with their backside. But I found what keeps some of the gapers off that is the legitimate hike up in full view of the access point. To a surprising number of folks, it ain't worth the trouble. Plus patrol gets a chance to advise you against going up when they see you carrying your skis and poles like an NYC bus tour knucklehead. (Though maybe now hiking IS the preferred mode of uphill transport at the Loaf )

100% BSP would certainly cut the traffic, but I'm not sure I like it...didn't someone just post on one of these threads that he was coming from metro NY and planned to just buy a beacon on the way up so he could ski the slides? Maybe require a wilderness snow safety orientation or some other nonsense--at least there's an educational component to it and would turn off huge swaths of the general public that won't sit through a 30 minute presentation in the base lodge to get a certified slide skier card or whatever....

Highpeaksdrifter wrote

Harvey wrote

Sweet photos!

+ lots of numbers...magazine worthy

Yes. Sweet Shots.

Unless your one of the few cutting 1st tracks after a dump why are people so hell bent on skiing ice?

skimore wrote

Unless your one of the few cutting 1st tracks after a dump why are people so hell bent on skiing ice?

Well,

Maybe 'cause we're really good at it?  You go with what you, welcome to the Adirondacks.

Hope to soon ski with all on the Slides.

skimore wrote

Unless your one of the few cutting 1st tracks after a dump why are people so hell bent on skiing ice?

If you believe that other than first tracks on a powder day the Slides are nothing but ice you;

A) Haven't been,
2) Caught them on a very bad day, or
C) Have terrible route finding skills.

Why are people hell bent on skiing rocky 50 degree chutes?  Before the garden and cliffs, the waterfall on Paradise was the thing to ski at MRG, why was that?

The ice falls and ice floes in the Slides present an opportunity to test your skills and push your limits, something people have felt the need to do for ages.  Why was I hell bent on the ice falls skiers right on Slide 1, where I had to make a kick turn on a 4 foot ledge of snow, so that I could drop an 8 foot ice fall to powder below?  Well, because I could!  Gets the adrenaline going, and gives a heck of a sense of satisfaction afterwards.

The ice in the Slides, should you choose to tackle it (it can be avoided) is generally not like skiing an icy groomer.

That's why we call him Skiless

mattchuck2 wrote

I don't understand why anyone skis 4 anyway. A few good turns followed by a steep, narrow, tree filled chute that even the best skiers have to use advanced strategies to maneuver just isn't fun for me, especially because you have to bypass 3 wide open lines, really fun cliff jumps and open snow fields to get to it.

I only skied it once but I was stoked when I got into the tight lower part... it wasn't what i was expecting. Reminiscent of a lot of the stuff I cut my teeth on at Cannon. I can see it getting wrecked after the first day the Slides open, though. A lot of folks will drop into that line without knowing how it ends nor having the skills to ski that stuff well. It only takes a few slip sliders to wreck a line like that.

All that said, I think I remember enjoying 2B the most

I:)skiing wrote

lots of places rent becons for $15.00...no one says you need to know how to use it, they just rent it.

Patrol is going to be conservative. If they are opening the Slides without need of avi gear, it is probably pretty damn stable. Forcing folks to rent becons when the snow has gone isothermic and avi risk is essentially nil would be asinine and a blatant cash grab. Then you create a situation in which folks with the skills to ski that area but without a beacon can't but folks with only a snow plow are good to go because they bought or rented a freakin' beacon to ski an isothermal snowpack in which terrain risk (e.g. ledges, rocks, mandatory airs, ice, etc.) are infinitely more of an issue than avalanche. Doesn't make sense.

I think the better route here is education. Let people make their own choices. If terrain is open without restriction of avi gear, then it should be open to all. And setting a beacon requirement for essentially no risk isothermal snow would just be silly... it would trivialize the need for avi education. "Just wear a beacon and you are good to go, no education needed!" Good grief.

Educate people. Ask questions like "are you comfortable with a mandatory air with a sketchy landing?", "can you handle over 1000' vert of bumps?" "are you aware that some slides lines are end in tree runs that are narrower than a ski width, can you ski that?"

And after you educate people, let them have at it. Goodness knows everyone here has done something stupid and got over their heads at some point. I certainly wouldn't have attained the level I've gotten to without doing so. Maybe someone is going to need to be rescued. But good grief, is there ever a busy weekend at a major mountain when someone isn't taken down in a sled? I appreciate patrol but I've skied terrain at ski areas far nastier than the Slides in reference to difficulty of sledding someone out of a bad situation.

riverc0il wrote

Ask questions like "are you comfortable with a mandatory air with a sketchy landing?"

When I was having that 'what question would you ask' conversation this was my answer.   I think anyone going in should be comfortable with mandatory air of 5 feet with a tight landing.  Sure, there are ways to navigate through some of the Slides without, but a wrong turn here or a bad choice there and it could be your only option.

Thanks for the tips, but how many days have you slide skied?

riverc0il wrote

I only skied it once but I was stoked when I got into the tight lower part...

Like others I have skied the Slides with, 4 is my favorite.  Not as many people head there so it holds snow up top better than the other Slides.  It's also got a bit of everything.  The top, if you take the goat path high, has some of the steepest turns in there.  It's got wide open turns at the top, transitions to some nice tree shots where you can still turn them, and then the fun really starts as it gets technical.  A narrow gully with tight bumps and mandatory air.

Yes, 2B is a blast, where you can let them run, huck the rocky middle, and keep linking turns on the lower steeps.  Not as technical (unless you want to tackle the ice and rocks straight down the lower middle), but pure fun.  However, places like 4 and the ice falls on 1 are not to be missed IMHO, because those test all your skills and every trick in your book, which is what attracts me to the Slides.

skimore wrote

Thanks for the tips, but how many days have you slide skied?

4 days last week, 10 in total, all at Whiteface.  I've never had a bad icy day in the lot.

Five years or so, when I first took my son down the Slides, he was 13, Ski Patrol questioned us, told us to go ski Cloudspin from the top and come back...we did and then they let us in and we skied Slide 1....after that we took the lookout lift up and skied down Hoyts...before snow making....the damn kid beat me down it.

Whiteface is a special place...sometimes you love it and sometimes you hate it....

me..i got there after the slides opened yesterday....and after they closed....i made up for it by cooking lamb chops and scallops with my friend Jerry Bedinfield...it was a great afternoon...and some fun skiing later.

and yes, i Skied with my grill

Like anything in ski area management I don't think we know everything that goes into the management equation.  It's clearly a risk to offer that terrain so there must be a reward. IMO the reason to have sidecountry is to build your brand by providing a unique experience and to drive skiers visits.  I'm certainly no expert, but it seems to me Whiteface does a pretty good job with them.

I think the pressure on management for safety is greater because of perception.  Somebody gets hurt or god forbid killed in the Slides I think more questions would be raised than if the same happened on a trail.

As far as qualification for getting in: I may be someone with no business in the Slides. But I will still go in every chance I get. It's very much fun and I think if I could do it often I could get good or better at it. Like most of you guys when you were younger, I just can't give up on the dream of being an expert.

Five foot mandatory air doesn't really scare me, but I may choose to sit the landing, if it seems like the safest option. Personally I think I have less chance of getting seriously hurt in the Slides than I do inbounds.

Harvey wrote

 . . . . It's clearly a risk to offer that terrain so there must be a reward.  . . .  .

I think the pressure on management for safety is greater because of perception.  Somebody gets hurt or god forbid killed in the Slides I think more questions would be raised than if the same happened on a trail.

I'm trying to figure out why folks seem to think the lawsuit/P.R. risk on the Slides is worse than the regular trails.  Maybe because management has to make a judgment on when to open them . . . and thus deem them "skiable" within reasonable bounds of safety?  People die on groomed trails too.  

Petronio

campgottagopee wrote

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.

Yea it could just be designated "backcountry" terrain like at Stowe and have a sign warning that if you need assistance you will have to pay for it.  This is what I like about Stowe, nothing is really off limits, as long as you are willing to take the risk you can go anywhere.  Also glades are not officially opened or closed, since it is hard for a glade to ever be 100% "safe".  

I guess it is a different situation since there are probably a lot more days where the Chin is good to go compared to the Slides.

Maybe an unspoken issue is knowing the route down if one is not an expert, so to speak. After reading these posts, the slides sound do-able for non experts until you're above an icefall, narrow chute, etc.

Petronio wrote

Harvey wrote

 . . . . It's clearly a risk to offer that terrain so there must be a reward.  . . .  .

I think the pressure on management for safety is greater because of perception.  Somebody gets hurt or god forbid killed in the Slides I think more questions would be raised than if the same happened on a trail.

I'm trying to figure out why folks seem to think the lawsuit/P.R. risk on the Slides is worse than the regular trails.  Maybe because management has to make a judgment on when to open them . . . and thus deem them "skiable" within reasonable bounds of safety?  People die on groomed trails too.  

Petronio

I never said lawsuit. There may be a great risk of one but winning it, not sure.  We are making the same point I think.  I go farther to guess more people die on groomed trails.  Obviously there are less skier days in the slides. But because management is judicious about opening them, it seems conditions are usually good or better and obstacles slow you (me) down.

They could use a sign like Sugarloaf uses, sounds similar to the Stowe signage as well. BTW they were not lying about what was past this sign, it was the backside "snowfields" though it was more like survival skiing down a series of tight cliffs.  

Sorry I couldn't figure out how to rotate the photo.