or Connect
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Summit County - Keystone instruction wanted
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Summit County - Keystone instruction wanted  

post #1 of 29
Thread Starter 
Hello Instructors-

My family will be up in Keystone next week. My two daughters (7 and 10) are similar in ability and Keystone school level 7. My wife and I do ski with them a lot, but also need some time to ourselves; soon enough it will be us who can't keep up with them.

My wife and I are entertaining some private lessons but had sticker shock (>$350 for 3 hours). We only have two of them and thus can't spread cost out over the allowed 6 people.

Is anyone out there a certified instructor that would want to pick up some extra cash? We are not looking for every day, just a handful of half-days.

If so, please also contact me via email and provide a phone number:
gschlact AT comcast DOT net. You can post here but emailing is easier for me to repidly pick up while traveling.

Obviously, I realize you would be acting as a citizen skiing with my girls out of uniform, no line jumping etc etc.

-guy
post #2 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by gschlact
Hello Instructors-

My family will be up in Keystone next week. My two daughters (7 and 10) are similar in ability and Keystone school level 7. My wife and I do ski with them a lot, but also need some time to ourselves; soon enough it will be us who can't keep up with them.

My wife and I are entertaining some private lessons but had sticker shock (>$350 for 3 hours). We only have two of them and thus can't spread cost out over the allowed 6 people.

Is anyone out there a certified instructor that would want to pick up some extra cash? We are not looking for every day, just a handful of half-days.

If so, please also contact me via email and provide a phone number:
gschlact AT comcast DOT net. You can post here but emailing is easier for me to repidly pick up while traveling.

Obviously, I realize you would be acting as a citizen skiing with my girls out of uniform, no line jumping etc etc.

-guy
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
post #3 of 29
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.
post #4 of 29
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.
post #5 of 29
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.
post #6 of 29
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.
post #7 of 29
Quote:
Ski Corp. sues ex-employee

Man says allegations that he gave illegal lessons are untrue
By Alexis DeLaCruz
Wednesday, February 22, 2006
STEAMBOAT SPRINGS — The Steamboat Ski and Resort Corp. is suing a former employee who officials think has been teaching ski lessons illegally since he was fired from Ski Corp. in 2001.
According to court documents, Ski Corp. is suing Kenneth Porteous based on allegations he engaged in "providing ski and/ or snowboard lessons, instruction, training, and/or related services for compensation" at Steamboat Ski Area during the years after his termination.
Porteous said he received notice of the lawsuit late Monday night. Porteous said the allegations are false.
"It's so not true," Porteous said. "I'm just sitting here in tears over this. What a shame."
Ski Corp. President Chris Diamond said Tuesday that he could not comment about the specifics of the case. He said Ski Corp. is pursuing the case now because of new evidence that Porteous has been giving lessons.
"We've been working on this for a while. I think we've been waiting long enough to get to more forward," he said.
Porteous said that he was skiing with friends this weekend in the vicinity of Buff Pass when the group was contacted by U.S. Forest Service officials. Porteous said the Forest Service officials separated the group and asked his friends how much they had paid to ski with him. "They laughed," Porteous said.
Porteous said the Forest Service allowed the men to continue skiing. He said he was not cited and that none of his gear was confiscated.
U.S. Forest Service Public Affairs Director Kim Vogel said law enforcement officials with the Forest Service are investigating the case.
A copy of the lawsuit alleges people have observed Porteous conducting lessons within Ski Corp. boundaries. Porteous does not have a permit to conduct lessons, Diamond said.
During his employment with Ski Corp. from 1994 to 2001, Porteous worked as a ski and snowboard instructor, the lawsuit alleges. Porteous verified his Ski Corp. employment.
Diamond said unauthorized ski or snowboard lessons rob the company and other employees of revenues because such lessons otherwise would have been taught by Ski Corp. employees. "We believe there is an amount of money that would have gone to our company and our employees that didn't," Diamond said.
In the lawsuit, Ski Corp. is asking the court to prohibit Porteous from continuing his lessons; for compensation and damages sustained by the lessons; and for Ski Corp. reimbursement of court costs and attorney's fees.
Court documents indicate officials with Ski Corp. previously confronted Porteous and that he "failed and refused to cease providing ski and/or snowboard lessons."
Porteous, who said he is a self-employed sheep shearer and window cleaner, said Ski Corp. is mistaken. He said he frequently skis and snowboards on the mountain with friends and his children but that he does not charge for lessons.
"I do have friends who come up and ride with me, but it is in no way shape or form about being paid," he said.
Diamond said any criminal charges would be up to the Forest Service.
Diamond said that because the U.S. Forest Service grants Ski Corp. a permit to use the Routt National Forest for its resort, the resort pays a certain percentage of its sales to the Forest Service, which does not happen if nonemployees conduct business on the land without permits.
-- To reach Alexis DeLaCruz, call 871-4234 or e-mail adelacruz@steamboatpilot.com
http://www.steamboatpilot.com/sectio...ve/story/35643
post #8 of 29
.....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.
post #9 of 29
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.
post #10 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by shredthe'boat
First of all I think under the table teaching is morally wrong. .









post #11 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by shredthe'boat
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......
post #12 of 29
No offense intended, though, 'Boat.
post #13 of 29
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
post #14 of 29
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.
post #15 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
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....
post #16 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by shredthe'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
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
post #17 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
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).
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.
post #18 of 29
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
post #19 of 29
what about insurance?
post #20 of 29
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.
post #21 of 29
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.
post #22 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by vlad
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.
post #23 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by ssh
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.
"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
post #24 of 29

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.
post #25 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bode Klammer
"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.
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.
post #26 of 29
Quote:
Originally Posted by vera
is it appropriate or ethical for an instructor to use the Epicski website to conduct this kind of business?
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.
post #27 of 29
and, ssh- were my post to have been serious,
IT WAS A RESPONSE TO SOMEONE ASKING FOR HELP
c'mon, now.
post #28 of 29
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.
post #29 of 29
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.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Ski Instruction & Coaching
This thread is locked  
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › Ski Training and Pro Forums › Ski Instruction & Coaching › Summit County - Keystone instruction wanted