Summit County - Keystone instruction wanted  

fly me there and back, and i'll give you several topnotch fullday or halfday privates simply for lift tickets.
I taught there in the mid-80s.
I can be on the next flight outta JFK

I would suggest that a group lesson at their level would work just fine.

Also, any instructor employed at a Vail area who did what you are asking would be dismissed for it. Freelancing, in general, is frowned upon and, depending on who you ask, may actually be illegal.

If you'd like to speak directly with someone at Keystone, however, you might PM Bob Barnes/Colorado here on EpicSki.

as long as any monetary transactions occur offsite, 'freelancing' is actually legal in the US.
one can get, in many cases, a higher-quality lesson at a much, much better deal through a freelancer than through a resort school.
unfortunately, you can get a real bowler, too.
never pay 'up front' for 'mustang' lessons.
were we to assume that freelancing were illegal, the we'd have to assume that having one's friend or family teach us is, as well.
just don't transact for $ onsite.
buying tickets (in lieu of $$$) for a friend or associate who's teaching you is fine, as is buying them food and drinks. notice my offer in my preceding post.

As I said, there are differing opinions on this topic. I am no expert, but I do know that there are some potential legalities involved, including but not limited to what happens if the student or teacher are injuried during the course of the lesson.

if anyone has any questions about the legality/ethics call the local US Forest Service office and ask to speak to one of their investigators. i'm certain he/she will be glad to offer their position on the matter.

http://www.steamboatpilot.com/sectio...ve/story/35643

.....hence my statement that there be no $ transaction onsite.
technically, if you, in the comfort of your own home, agree to pay someone for ski instruction, and further agree that said payment will occur at your home, or some other venue far away from
USFS/mountian corp. etc. property, then, technically,
there is no infraction of the USFS regs.
better yet, don't transact money at all, but, rather, transact services (such as lift ticket, etc.) from the mountain, and then both the instructor and pupil are merely patrons of the resort, and any compensation can then be described as being compensation to the mountain corp itself, thus indemnifying both the pupil and the 'instructor'.
this isn't some scheme i hatche dup last week, i've done a LOT of mustang work at many US resorts, and I typically check with the snow school director first. You'd be surprised how cool most really are in this regard.
Funny sidenote:
I spent this winter in my hometown here in NY's OC, and I was at Intrawaste's Mountain Crick several days a week.
Almost all of the level III and other really professional, highly-requested snow school staff either didn't return to work there this season or promptly quit, due to the (in the words of one of the school's two-decade top trainers- who quit in january) : The ghetto atmosphere and lack of professionalism".
so, where were they?
hell, on any given day, I could spot AT LEAST 6 ex-instructors, (mostly lev. II or III, who had worked there for years) with bogner-clad all-day privates, faithful manhattanites who demand the best.
I'd spend lunch with many of these instructors, and it was absolutely wild to sit, on what used to be the private club deck at 'south' with some of the most professional staff that had ever taught there, all enjoying the benefit of HIGH-$$$ private lessons and the camaraderie of their old buddies, all making many times what they would have made working in the 'school' of the real estate resort.
On some weekend afternoons, there might be over a dozen professional ex-staff enjoying a few with their high-dollar pupils.
Thankfully, MC management didn't care a whit, as long as there was a chance more folks would see their real estate units.

First of all I think under the table teaching is morally wrong. However, my understanding is that there a few resorts turning a blind eye. ie. Aspen. due to real estate (and the guests pumping money into the resorts economy more generally). However, Vail Resorts (thus Keystone) do care. In addition, if an instructor is employed, most resorts will prohibit teaching elsewhere (breach of contract), unless it goes through there ski school.

not even a nugget of truth in there. i've never worked at any american school under a contract which said i couldn't work at other schools.
'moonlighting' AT THE RESORT, ie teaching lessons not assigned by school, 'nor paid through the school, is breach at almost every school I can think of, in America, but many professional ski instructors work at more than one school during a season.
many hold occasional weeknight jobs at local, commuter resorts, and then they work weekends at destination resorts.
i'd love to see a contract which says an instructor can't work anywhere else while employed at a mountain.
pete ruschp allowed me to work part-time at smugglers (i could only take sherm white for about 5 minutes over there, though), and my m om, running a huge school in joisey, employed many stratton/killington/gore/whiteface/bromley
instructors for midweek nights.
eddie, pete, alois, et al had no problem with this arrangement.
hell, my dad brought eddie kriel over from europe to start his american career at vernon valley, long before eddie became director at whiteface.
i worked at keystone with a handful of simultaneous vail instructors, as well.
I hired a great trainer for Vernon valley/great gorge back when he was training for his lev II, nighgts, at the resort, while he was still a weekend instructor at pico.

not sure where these contracts are hiding out......

No offense intended, though, 'Boat.

Yes, well I guess you are right to a degree.
I do know quite a few people who work part time at multiple resorts etc. I was referring more to under the table stuff. I can't remember off the top of my head what I signed this season (its over in the US and I'm back in Australia), but I am pretty sure I remember signing something. Maybe I'm dillusional

After getting additional information on this, I would argue that anyone compensated for teaching at a resort on USFS land (and, in all likelihood, BLM land, given the way the BLM agreements were created from the USFS ones) is in violation of Federal law (hence the investigation by USFS investigators in the Steamboat incident). This means that every Colorado resort is off-limits for compensated instruction.

While one might be able to argue that quid pro quo (working for lift tickets, meals, or even plane tickets) isn't in violation of these laws, I think you'd have a difficult time convincing a judge if it came to that.

In short, unless you don't mind being in a legal circumstance that is at least gray and in all likelihood just plain illegal, stay away from compensating anyone to teach you or others to ski outside the structure of the ski resort.

etseban:
the magnanimous burden of any attempt at proving the occurence of said compensation, placed upon the already-overburdened and heavy-docketed federal prosecution, attorneys general, et al., is such a needle-in-haystack long shot, that any such citation by any authorities would be frowned upon, with grim prejudice, by the prosectution. Any USFS ranger would likely be facing the remainde rof her/his civil service in latrine duty in the Alaska wildlife refuge were she/he to even suggest writing such a citaion.
it's not whatcha know, but, rather, whatcha can prove.
federal prosecutors don't relish having these frivoulous and improvable tags coming across their desks...
rest assured, you can tecah anyone, anywhere, as long as the compensation occurs off campus.
did you know that hashish sale is illegal in Amsterdam?
little something called "official tolerance" due to the pyrrhic nature
of any (astronomically unlikely) conviction....

you're 100% right about 'under the table' stuff, as well. that's illegal at any resort where an instructor actually works, and the resort enjoys considerably lessened indemnification from liability in these instances.
land of the free, home of the ambulance-chasing citizen

I read through the last change (1998?) in the Forest Service rules concerning this issue as discussed in a previous thread on this topic (the exact links escape me). It took about an hour to wade through the entire mess. The gist of what happened was that "pirate" guide services were poaching clients from "exclusive" Forest Service permitted operations where the guide fees were either paid off site or provided as a "free" extra for off property lodging. The "pirates" were able to significantly undercut the permitted operators because they did not have to pay fees to the Forest Service. Thus the rules were changed to explicitly close this loophole. It covers "fees" of any kind paid at any location related to services performed on Forest Service land.

As Vlad has pointed out and the Steamboat story suggests, successful prosecution of freelance ski instructors for this is highly unlikely. However, as the Steamboat article strongly hints, lack of discretion is a key factor for drawing unwanted attention and the accompanying grief. I'd guess we're a few years ahead of the game, but you never know when some resort operator will have too much free time on their hands and post a "help wanted" ad on a public forum in search of an example to bust.

I don't think many resorts care much about freelance instructors, except that they don't want employees taking the ski school's share of the price. The USFS permit requirements complicate that a little, but I suspect USFS is more interested in their share of the cafeteria money than in tracking down bandit instructors. If they go after an instructor, it's probably because the resort management put them up to it. I coach people at different mountains a lot, it's never been a problem and some resorts actually give me discount lift tickets to do it. I also know people who take eastern instructors out West every year, but I don't know if they pay them or what they expect.
TO get back to the original question, kids do better in group lessons. A 7 year old and a 10 year old are at different levels of physical and mental development, and they'll learn more with kids of their own age. If they ski the same, it's probably because the older kid has't been challenged to develop to all her ability. Peer pressure is a wonderful thing.

BK

what about insurance?

Color me however you like, but the likelihood of prosecution or even apprehension is of no matter to me. If an act is illegal it is inappropriate to practice it (unless it is a matter of conscience, which this cannot be as far as I can see, and even then I would not expect to escape the consequences).

I find it fascinating how some people see laws as suggestions until they are the victim of one violated. Integrity is far too important to me to even consider it.

before this spins into "reefer madness, part II", let's remember that the USFS regs apply to federal forest land, and that not all resorts are on such property.

I believe that all Colorado resorts besides Silverton are. And Silverton is on BLM land.

"Illegal" is too strong a word here. If a resort is private property, it's not illegal, but the owners could ask you to leave. On USFS land, the issue is essentially the same, although it might violate permit requirements, but since the USFS doesn't (as far as I know) ever inform the skiing public of those requirements, you don't need to assume that the permits don't allow it.
The real reason that private instruction isn't a viable business is that liabilty insurance is not available at any price. Given that situation, it's surprising that there are so many non-resort owned instruction programs as there are.

BK

the bottom line as I see it

1) Should a "professional" instructor open themselves up to liability or expose a client (particularly one with an apparent limited budget, as above) to risk for potential financial loss?

2) And if the illegality of this transaction (on federal land, or undesirability on private property elsewhere) is known, is it appropriate or ethical for an instructor to use the Epicski website to conduct this kind of business?

EPICSKI TERMS (see above under "terms"):
....EpicSki is among the largest of the Internet ski communities. As a result, it is a great place to connect with others who love skiing. However, there is a line that can be crossed by commercial posts of any kind (for example, offers of free services or for-pay services....)...
You agree, through your use of this (Epicski) service, that you will not use this forum to post any material which is knowingly false..... inaccurate....or otherwise violates any law.

BK, see the quotes above (and/or look into the permits). It is illegal, and those practicing it can be arrested by agents of the federal government and charged with a crime.

Good point, vera! In general, we attempt to err on the side of making information available to users of EpicSki, but commercial posts are expressly forbidden without the prior approval of EpicSki management. Thanks for pointing this out.

FWIW, I took vlad's offer to be tongue-in-cheek and not literal, which is why I didn't consider it to be a real commercial offer at the time.

and, ssh- were my post to have been serious,
IT WAS A RESPONSE TO SOMEONE ASKING FOR HELP
c'mon, now.

This will be the final post in this thread.

It is vital that members and guests here at EpicSki understand that soliciting or offering ski instruction from other than the permit-holder on public land is a violation of the use permits.

It is also important that everyone understand that soliciting or offering freelance instruction is a violation of the Terms of EpicSki. We will leave this thread as a reflection of this, but future threads of this type will be deleted. Commercial offers need to be coordinated with EpicSki management as outlined in the Terms.

Please see http://forums.epicski.com/showthread.php?t=39828
for a discussion of a lawsuit brought by another Colorado ski area against an instructor who freelanced without permission.