Is this OK w/ Alta patrol? - Page 3

Quote:

Originally Posted by iKabrex 

Irrelevant.

Also irrelevant, let's not make this personal.

Well, to be fair, it would be hypocritical. But again, its irrelevant. 

 

To be perfectly honest, if its gate accessed terrain and it doesn't pose a risk to others, or is marked a hazard/avalanche area, its probably okay to hit a few times a season. Technically its still against the rules, and if you're caught doing it, you have to accept the consequences (which in this case would probably be a cut day pass or a slap on the wrist). 

Everyone is sort of drifting off topic with avalanche posts and stuff. Of course cutting avy ropes is not okay, but this doesn't sound like the case.

 

So to sum it up, it is against the rules, but its probably okay to hit a few times a year when no one's watching as long as it doesn't endanger anyone else.

 

Wow, that was the most useless non-answer of the thread. It's not okay...but it's probably okay if no one's looking... Herp. Derp.

Also, Josh said straight out those are avalanche ropes. I believe he knows Alta pretty well. So yes, avalanche ropes are the case.

Hypocrisy would be saying one thing and then going out and doing another. Not the same as doing something, realizing it was a bad decision and then giving advice based on what you learned. Is every single parent in the world a hypocrite (i.e. not encouraging their children to make the same mistakes) or are they just good parents? I realize 'hypocrite' is a great buzz word and all, but it doesn't apply as generally as you're pretending.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

Wow, that was the most useless non-answer of the thread. It's not okay...but it's probably okay if no one's looking... Herp. Derp.

 

 

Also, Josh said straight out those are avalanche ropes. I believe he knows Alta pretty well. So yes, avalanche ropes are the case.

 

Hypocrisy would be saying one thing and then going out and doing another. Not the same as doing something, realizing it was a bad decision and then giving advice based on what you learned. Is every single parent in the world a hypocrite (i.e. not encouraging their children to make the same mistakes) or are they just good parents? I realize 'hypocrite' is a great buzz word and all, but it doesn't apply as generally as you're pretending.

 

That's not what I said at all. What I said is its against the rules, but if you're not endangering the populace or breaking any serious rules, its probably okay to do a few times a season.

For example, jaywalking is against the law, but everyone does it anyways. Can you be punished for it? Of course. Is it a serious enough offence that you're likely to be, especially if you don't do it right in front of a cop? Of course not. Let's be realistic.

No, it is the same thing. Just because you're appending a heart warming 'I learned from my mistake' on the end doesn't take away from the fact its hypocrisy. Every single parent in the world is a hypocrite, but that doesn't preclude them from being good parents either. Not sure where you're going with how it applies; it applies as 'generally' as the definition says it does. If you've ever said something and done something else, or vice versa, its hypocrisy. That doesn't necessarily make you a bad person.

How does that make any sense? You're breaking a serious rule by ignoring the avalanche rope.

And are you really comparing ducking avalanche ropes to jaywalking? Herpity do dah.

You really don't seem to grasp the concept of hyprocrisy, because the definition doesn't apply as 'generally' as you say. Here it is from Merriam Webster: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not."

Even if someone ducked avalanche ropes in the past, it would only be hypocritical to scold someone else for doing it if he didn't believe it was a big deal and continued to do it himself. It's not hypocritical (or just a warm, fuzzy addendum) to do something in the past, realize it was dumb and tell other people not to do the same thing.

Hypocrisy equates to a parent that smokes pot everyday telling their kid that pot is terrible and he/she shouldn't smoke it. Hyprocrisy is not a parent that smoked pot in high school, realized it has some bad consequences, and told her child not to smoke it 20 years later. So no, not every parent in the world is a hypocrite at all.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

 

 

 

How does that make any sense? You're breaking a serious rule by ignoring the avalanche rope.

 

And are you really comparing ducking avalanche ropes to jaywalking? Herpity do dah.

 

 

 

 

You really don't seem to grasp the concept of hyprocrisy, because the definition doesn't apply as 'generally' as you say. Here it is from Merriam Webster: "a feigning to be what one is not or to believe what one does not."

 

Even if someone ducked avalanche ropes in the past, it would only be hypocritical to scold someone else for doing it if he didn't believe it was a big deal and continued to do it himself. It's not hypocritical (or just a warm, fuzzy addendum) to do something in the past, realize it was dumb and tell other people not to do the same thing.

 

Hypocrisy equates to a parent that smokes pot everyday telling their kid that pot is terrible and he/she shouldn't smoke it. Hyprocrisy is not a parent that smoked pot in high school, realized it has some bad consequences, and told her child not to smoke it 20 years later. So no, not every parent in the world is a hypocrite at all.

 

 

I wasn't defending breaking of the rules, but realistically a lot of people do, and this specific instance doesn't seem to put anyone in harm's way. Rules get broken all the time, and that's just a reality. Distinguishing what's important and what's not is sort of a grey area. Let's not start with the childish insults because I believe you started to cite the bridge example earlier...really?

I did not say it applied generally, you did, two posts ago. I simply refuted what you said. Your example comparison is fundamentally flawed because the only difference between them is the flow of time. 12 hours or twenty years; it doesn't matter, you're still eventually stating something that went against what you believed and lecturing your child on the proper course of action. I do not think there is a single person alive that has done something hypocritical in their lifetime, and that would make all parents hypocrites as well.

That said, its clear you either didn't read or didn't understand both my posts. I noted that hypocrisy is not necessarily bad, just a reality of life. People change their attitudes and learn lessons; that doesn't change their actions. All it changes is the future actions, where hopefully their attitudes will fall in line with their actions.

This is going woefully off-topic though, and its a little bit amusing that you're taking it so seriously anyways. We'll simply have to disagree on the topic of the OP's post.

HEY OPie
 

Quote:

Originally Posted by drainbamage 

So I have been eyeing this rope gap for a little while and decided to take it today. I hardly ever go to Sugarloaflift at Alta but there is a little thing to hit and it's that edge of the groomer on the left here. I did it first time today and took it way deeper than I even had thought was possible, so I rag dolled a few times but it's pretty damn fun and I was wondering if I can do it without any problems if that terrain is open on the other side of the rope in that bowl there.

 

(If you go skiing at Alta before the next storm, look for my tracks and you can see what I am talking about)
 

 

Ha if you haz to ask patrol the answer haz to be no.

but if you must

Make sure you skies are waxded & scraped.

Be sure that your helment strap is good and tite.

Wear goggles, not sun glasses.

Station BroBrah #1 with viddy cam in teh LZ.

Station BroBrah #2 with viddy cam on the chair.

Time you jump so BB#2 can record your gnarness in the air

and BB#1 can record your ragdoll eggbeater tomahawk landing for your heirs.

Hmm... this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Josh Matta 

actually in that canyon(alta/bird) there are Cliff ropes (that you are allowed to duck anytime anywhere) and avalanche closure ropes which you can not duck(or jump at anytime) .

 

the cliff ropes have no warning at all on them, quite often leads to some great snow, sometimes lead to some crazy big cliffs as well, best to know whats there first before ducking them. I use to duck them all the time and its 100 percent allowed. wuite literally the cliff ropes are for "the other" people. Other people being gapers who do not know any better.

 

The avalanche ropes are a different story. They clearly have warning signs every couple post. You can never duck(or jump these ropes) and should only enter these areas though gates. 

 

The rope in question is an avalanche rope. The landing of the slope you will land has slid before. With that said the jump is fun and there is a legal way to hit it. Jump it after hours when the resort is effectively Backcountry.

 

I'm not an expert on Alta and Snowbird, although I've skied there a half dozen times.  I have seen ropes at the tops of cliffs around North Tahoe.  Most cliffs have just caution signs but if a cliff drops blind onto a busy area or is otherwise particularly dangerous--a pretty high standard at Squaw, it might be roped off closed. A few years ago I saw a guy duck a rope (no closed sign) along the traverse to Our Father gully and jump into counterweight gully. He set off an avalanche that knocked over four people, injuring one. He didn't stick around to ask patrol if ducking the rope was ok.  Yeah, if you're well known by patrol and you duck a cliff rope discreetly patrol might let you get away with it but it's still wrong, just like speeding 5 mph over is wrong and we all do it.  But that's something you should keep to yourself and not advertise to people who may not know what they're doing. (At Squaw, every season [well not this one] someone skis tram at dawn.  No one ever seems to get busted, even though it's in full view of the base area.  Again--people get away with breaking the rules when they are discreet and they truly know what they're doing--if that's you keep it to yourself.)  

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

Hmm... this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

 

 

+1

That GIF was pure gold.

I think this thread has gotten off topic altogether. The question the OP asked was "would this be okay with Patrol?" The answer is no. Period.

Quote:

Originally Posted by drainbamage 

or I could just set off an avalanche by going through the "Open" gates 75 feet to the left and traversing over to the landing of said uber-gnar lip...

 

I think this is where the OP is coming from..

    He *could* do a high speed traverse just inside the rope after entering at the gate.

    Then at some point hang a hard skiers left and rag doll himself down the slope.

Doesn't make it a good idea (blind landing, jumping over a rope in the middle of a groomed run visible to people on the chairlift)

Cutting under a rope slightly downhill of a gate might be plausible if questioned by Patrol

Skiing 90 degrees to the flow of all other skiers and bombing over a rope is pretty tough sell, even if landing in accessible terrain.

The area just below this rope is steep and seldom tracked.  

 My take has always been that flatland run-out far outweighs the 2-4 turns one might get on this pitch.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JayT 

Hmm... this doesn't seem to be going anywhere.

 

That may be the single longest .gif I've ever seen. 

That is defending breaking the rules. What are you missing? Saying 'well, it gets done all the time and isn't that important' = defending breaking the rules. On a related note, how is ignoring an avalanche closure not important?

So in that case, no one is ever allowed to change their minds or learn from life? They must always be judged by what they believed decades ago? It's not flawed at all. Learning from your mistakes and advising other people that way is simply not hypocritical. Re-read the definition again, if you need. It doesn't support you. If you give advise based upon your current beliefs, there's no hypocrisy - good, bad or indifferent.

It's clear you didn't really understand your posts.

Says the dude that spent 14 paragraphs trying desperately to make his points. You can't have it both ways.

Some amusing stuff, here.

The OP was asking: is it OK to cross a rope line into an area that is open, but just not do it through the open gate?  This is a less clear-cut question than it may seem.  Most of us have done this, but usually in close proximity to the open gate.  The further you get from the gate, the more troublesome it gets.

As Docbrad pointed out, this particular location is not a prime location for entering Glory Hole, since it is well below the challenging part of the pitch.  The rope line at that location is more important to keep people out when Glory Hole is closed. 

In this circumstance, I don't know that the patrol would worry all that much, but technically, he is breaking the rules, and the reaction may vary with the patroler.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

It's not hypocritical, my friend. It's called learning.

Again, have you ever ducked a rope????  

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

 

 

 

 

That is defending breaking the rules. What are you missing? Saying 'well, it gets done all the time and isn't that important' = defending breaking the rules. On a related note, how is ignoring an avalanche closure not important?

 

 

 

So in that case, no one is ever allowed to change their minds or learn from life? They must always be judged by what they believed decades ago? It's not flawed at all. Learning from your mistakes and advising other people that way is simply not hypocritical. Re-read the definition again, if you need. It doesn't support you. If you give advise based upon your current beliefs, there's no hypocrisy - good, bad or indifferent.

It's clear you didn't really understand your posts.

 

 

 

Says the dude that spent 14 paragraphs trying desperately to make his points. You can't have it both ways.

How is that defending breaking of the rules? Its pointing out the reality of real life.

Again realistically, people do judge on things that people did decades ago. Look at media scandals etc. People have no problem telling you what you did ten years ago makes you a bad person now. I'm not saying its right, but its again, real life.

How is that 'clear'? 14 paragraphs is a bit of an exaggeration, but you seem to be repeatedly missing the point and I thought I had to spell it out for you. Then again, you've missed the point again. Instead of just breaking apart my post, think about what I'm actually saying. Can you not agree that just because rule breaking is wrong doesn't mean that people will do it anyways? That's not defending anything, just acknowledging it. 

Quote:

Originally Posted by iKabrex 


... So to sum it up, it is against the rules, but its probably okay to hit a few times a year when no one's watching as long as it doesn't endanger anyone else.

 

This thread just keeps going in circles.

So when does it become not OK?  When does the threshold of "a few times a year" get broken?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 


Actually pdiddy, this is not entirely true. The part I bolded is wrong. The terms of the resort lease with the FS generally give the lessee the right to control traffic - uphill, downhill, in and out, sledding/tubing, etc. - in any manner they want. Some resorts allow uphill skinning/hiking but it is at the resort's discretion and you are bound by the rules set by the resort wheth you buy a ticket or not.
hth.

When i lived in colorado and according to everything I have ever read, (which I admit isn't much, so you could be correct, ) It was/is considered a right to ski national land so long as you don't buy a ticket.  I was always told that they could have rules but there are no laws that prevent a person from doing so, hence no legal penalties.     Again,  that is just what I heard from everyone but I have never actually seen literature about it.  But I have skied a resort and I know for sure that Brek allows it because they actually have rules.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdiddy 

When i lived in colorado and according to everything I have ever read, (which I admit isn't much, so you could be correct, ) It was/is considered a right to ski national land so long as you don't buy a ticket.  I was always told that they could have rules but there are no laws that prevent a person from doing so, hence no legal penalties.     Again,  that is just what I heard from everyone but I have never actually seen literature about it.  But I have skied a resort and I know for sure that Brek allows it because they actually have rules.  

People say a lot of things that aren't correct.  For the final word, check with the resorts and/or the Forest Service...both of which I have worked for.  

The FS land is leased to the ski areas, and just like an apartment that is leased to someone, the lessee can control the access.  It is the same with mines, and timber sales, and scout camps, and cabins located on government land that are leased to a private concern.  

The ski area in New Mexico where I work allows uphill skinning, but Taos doesn't.  People have been threatened with trespass at Taos for trying to hike/skin uphill and the sheriff was prepared to back that up.  

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bob Lee 

 

People say a lot of things that aren't correct.  For the final word, check with the resorts and/or the Forest Service...both of which I have worked for.  

 

The FS land is leased to the ski areas, and just like an apartment that is leased to someone, the lessee can control the access.  It is the same with mines, and timber sales, and scout camps, and cabins located on government land that are leased to a private concern.  

 

The ski area in New Mexico where I work allows uphill skinning, but Taos doesn't.  People have been threatened with trespass at Taos for trying to hike/skin uphill and the sheriff was prepared to back that up.  

I guess it really isn't a popular thing to do.   The resort I hiked and skied was Berthoud, and thats because I BC skied there for years and then they opened (or reopened)  the resort, so all the BC locals continued to hike up and ski the resort.  The patrol was super nice about it and just wanted to know where we were going each time.  What we were able to do is go anywhere we wanted, including out of bounds and ducking the ropes.  So we actually had more access to the terrain than if you bought a ticket.   (or at least that is what the patrol we ran into always said, who knows if they actually had any rules, the place was pretty low key)    The only thing they asked that we did not do was physically cut the ropes, (obviously some A hole probably in protest was cutting ropes that year).  

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdiddy 

When i lived in colorado and according to everything I have ever read, (which I admit isn't much, so you could be correct, ) It was/is considered a right to ski national land so long as you don't buy a ticket.  I was always told that they could have rules but there are no laws that prevent a person from doing so, hence no legal penalties.     Again,  that is just what I heard from everyone but I have never actually seen literature about it.  But I have skied a resort and I know for sure that Brek allows it because they actually have rules.  

 

Breck's rules that you quoted also limit what you can and can't do, so it's completely wrong to say resort rules only apply to paying customers. That doesn't even make sense - it would be mayhem to have a bunch of guys hiking the mountain, ducking ropes and pretty much doing whatever they want in the name of Uncle Sam.

I believe Bob is an actual patroller, so I'd trust what he says a million times over what some dude told you when you were hiking up Breck together.

Quote:

Originally Posted by NeedToSki 

 

This thread just keeps going in circles.

So when does it become not OK?  When does the threshold of "a few times a year" get broken?

 

 

Sorry I should have been more clear. Not okay with the patrol, and not okay with the rules. I meant okay in the context that if he isn't doing it all the time, and its reachable via traverse anyways, then he's probably safe to hit it a few times when no one's looking. Someone used the example of speeding on an empty road earlier; same sort of thing.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JoeUT 

Breck's rules that you quoted also limit what you can and can't do, so it's completely wrong to say resort rules only apply to paying customers. That doesn't even make sense - it would be mayhem to have a bunch of guys hiking the mountain, ducking ropes and pretty much doing whatever they want in the name of Uncle Sam.

 

I believe Bob is an actual patroller, so I'd trust what he says a million times over what some dude told you when you were hiking up Breck together.

Berthoud allowed anything,  So it is resort to resort.    Brek only recently instated those rules and Keystone follows the same rules. 

Vail appears to allow skiing without a ticket, http://semi-rad.com/2011/02/who-needs-a-lift-ticket-poaching-a-day-at-a-ski-resort/   

Winterpark allows skiing without a ticket,  http://www.winterparkresort.com/~/media/downloads/open_closed_policy_1112.ashx  

When the Resort is open for winter operations, you may skin up/down any open trail during, before or after operating hours. You may encounter vehicles, snow grooming machines including winch cat operations, other skiers, snowshoers or hikers, terrain variations and unmarked natural or man-made obstacles all of which you must avoid.

You may not enter any trails or terrain parks that are not open as safety markings and pads may not be in place, avalanche assessments may not have been completed, features may not be fully constructed, maintained or tested, and snowmaking or other trail work may be on-going. Closed trails and terrain may not be marked or signed from the top or bottom of the trail but information as to which trails and terrain parks are or are not open may be accessed on the Resort website or by checking with Guest Services or Ski Patrol. It is up to you to be sure you are using only open trails.

Winter Park asks uphill users to stay on the side of the trails when ascending and hikers and snowshoers to stay on the side of the trails in both directions so as to not impede downhill traffic.

If you present a hazard or Resort staff feels that you are impeding the maintenance operations of the Resort you may be directed by Resort staff to utilize a different location.

You may be asked to exit the mountain when Ski Patrol conducts its evening sweep at closing time. You may then re-enter the Resort trails/property after the mountain has been cleared by Ski Patrol.

It is unlawful to access closed trails by cutting through the trees from open trails.

So skiing at resorts, and it appears to be many is allowed without a ticket.     

Quote:

Originally Posted by pdiddy 

 

So skiing at resorts, and it appears to be many is allowed without a ticket.     

No one's questioning that. That's pretty well known. Some resorts ban uphill skinning, but many are open (why anyone really wants to spend time skinning up a tracked out resort is another question).

The issue is that you can't just do whatever you want inside resort property. Just look at those rules: