Originally Posted by Rossi Smash
Bob...you said it for me (thanks). Since many of the areas allow access to skinners (on NF land) this will hopefully force a ruling to standardise what will be the policy on National Forest Land.
btw.....as a (free) lifetime pass holder at the mountain in question big surprise you agree with whatever they do policy wise. You probobly skin there yourself (untouched).
I don't understand why you would think that my having a lifetime pass (which I paid for, by the way) makes me automatically agree with ski corporation policies. There are many that I disagree with and I've done so not only directly to the owners and management but also publicly, including here on Epic. I'm hardly a rubber stamp for the ski area, but I do respect THEIR right to make rules that apply to the area they have legitimately leased and on which they run a business.
And yes, by the way, I have skinned many, many times up the ski resort, often in view of patrollers and other resort employees. I'm sure they didn't know it was "ME" because everybody looks the same in the pre-dawn darkness. I always start up way before the hours of operation and am done skinning before the area opens. Over the years, I've had two times when a resort employee (once a patroller and once a trail crew) asked me not to skin because of something going on further up mountain. Both times I immediately switched modes and skied down, saying "thank you" when I was asked to turn around.
Originally Posted by MasterMagician
Originally Posted by Bob Peters
Originally Posted by Rossi Smash
It is NOT their property.
You don't seem to understand the concept of a lease. In exchange for some form of monetary return, the "owner" of the property transfers almost all of the owner's rights to the holder of the lease. The owner may make all kinds of stipulations with regard to how the lessee can use the property, but once that lease is signed, the property comes under the control of the lessee for as long as the lease stays in place.
The nephew of the owner of an apartment building in New York can't walk in and plop himself down in front of the tv in someone's legally-rented apartment just because his uncle (Sam?) owns the building.
You have a clear conflict of interest in this case, and would serve your resort's image best by... refraining from comment.
You should know that.
Oh, great. I'm being told by some anonymous magician on the internet that I should stop expressing my opinion. Good luck with that.
I do have a related question for you armchair keyboardists who are so incensed at the prospect of having your RIGHTS so outrageously restricted by JHMR...
I just got back from a long, beautiful skinning tour about 40 miles from the ski resort. National Forest land, no restrictions whatever other than a miserable grunt of a skin up a ridgeline to get there. While driving there, I passed a large area of ridges and faces that I would dearly love to ski some day. It's on National Forest land, so I "own" it, but I can't ski it.
WHY can't I ski it?
Because the Forest Service has designated that land as critical winter range habitat for elk, deer, and mountain lions. No travel whatever is allowed there for the entire winter. It's some fantastic-looking terrain and I'm certain it would be great skiing. But I don't ski it and neither does anyone else around here. The reason is that we respect the right of the people who control that property to make the rules they think are best.