Hiking Policy

[SKItheBOAT]

So i have an opportunity to do some hiking on Thursday morning and figured i may as well make my hiking more enjoyable. What is the policy with hiking up to Jester and looking at the snow? Is it permitted, frowned upon, or left up to the hiker? Any insider info on this? Thanks

[HowieT2]

So i have an opportunity to do some hiking on Thursday morning and figured i may as well make my hiking more enjoyable. What is the policy with hiking up to Jester and looking at the snow? Is it permitted, frowned upon, or left up to the hiker? Any insider info on this? Thanks

I have no idea what the policy is but please don't take any snow.

[ski_resort_observer]

Being that the lifts are not spinning enjoy the hike but please look don't touch....

[scharny]

If you have time to take photos while you are "looking" at the snow, please post some of your pics when you get a chance...

[djd66]

Ski it - if you can!

[skithemontis]

Yeah...the hiking is tempting. However, I was there yesterday (Tuesday) afternoon with a few friends. As we were loading our packs in the parking lot a couple of Sugarbush employees walked by and encouraged us. "More power to ya!" and "Take a few turns for me!" So my friends and I took off up Gondolier. But within 200 yards of starting up the hill a quad drove up next to us and the driver asked us to leave the mountain. After asking us where we were headin (clearly to the snow!) he told us there were numerous excavators, hoses, trucks, and other equipment on the mountain. He told us they were closed and we would have to wait two to three weeks until they are open. He was very rude and as much as I can understand his side of things I still feel like he went out of his way to be mean about it.

So my friends and I went back down to the parking lot and left. I don't think that guy understands that 2-3 weeks is WAY too long to wait. Take away whatever lesson you want from my story. I don't mean for it to be discouraging. I just recommend going about it slightly more stealthily.

I would be curious to hear Sugarbush's official policy, I suspect this guy might have just been having a bad day. Some of my other friends were able to get up to the snow without problem and enjoyed a couple of runs.

-skithemontis

[atkinson]

More info soon. You all know how I feel about it.

John

[boze]

John,
Like myself, I am sure a good many of us on the board really appreciate your taking a look into this

[Hawk]

Don't ask - don't tell is the best policy. If you don't want an unfavorable responce than why ask? That being said, dawn patrol and sunset works best.

[scharny]

I would be curious to hear Sugarbush's official policy, I suspect this guy might have just been having a bad day. Some of my other friends were able to get up to the snow without problem and enjoyed a couple of runs.

Some friends of mine were stopped a few years ago while skinning up Sug South by one of the Mtn Ops people, and were told that skinning (or hiking) & skiing without paying for use of lifts was considered "theft of services". They (my friends) replied that since the ski trails were located on USFS land, that should be a moot point. They were then told that the resort had the ability to prosecute if necessary, and that it was written down somewhere in some bylaws or policy documents.

I know that this is dated, and definitely secondhand info , but I just thought I'd put it out there.

[summitchallenger]

Darn. I was planning a hike/ski on Saturday....weather and snow permitting. Any one else game?

[skiladi]

I would be curious to hear Sugarbush's official policy, I suspect this guy might have just been having a bad day. Some of my other friends were able to get up to the snow without problem and enjoyed a couple of runs.

Some friends of mine were stopped a few years ago while skinning up Sug South by one of the Mtn Ops people, and were told that skinning (or hiking) & skiing without paying for use of lifts was considered "theft of services". They (my friends) replied that since the ski trails were located on USFS land, that should be a moot point. They were then told that the resort had the ability to prosecute if necessary, and that it was written down somewhere in some bylaws or policy documents.

I know that this is dated, and definitely secondhand info , but I just thought I'd put it out there.

One day there was major windhold , all lifts had stopped and I was hiking up to ski home. Figured if I had to walk home I may as well make it interesting. Ski patrol stopped and said: No hiking. I just had this confused expression so he said: Told you. That's my job. I continued up and skied home when I reached a point where I could do that. I had a pass , so how would that be "theft"? Must be more of a liability issue , I would think. But I agree with not asking too many questions. Just wait to be caught. ; } Sorta like taking the board up the rivah before opening day.

[asland]

Two things:

1. Isn't sugarbush south located in the green mountain national forest. How does this affect policy towards hikers, skinning up...?

2. Last year when I skinned up sugarbaush south nobody said anything until I was all the way up to jester. Then, a ski patrol came by to ask if I had a ticket. I did not (becasue I started hiking before the ticket office opened) but had a voucher for one. The guy said enjoy and skied on by. Numerous other ski patrolers skied by and did not say anything.

asland

[BushMogulMaster]

Two things:

1. Isn't sugarbush south located in the green mountain national forest. How does this affect policy towards hikers, skinning up...?

2. Last year when I skinned up sugarbaush south nobody said anything until I was all the way up to jester. Then, a ski patrol came by to ask if I had a ticket. I did not (becasue I started hiking before the ticket office opened) but had a voucher for one. The guy said enjoy and skied on by. Numerous other ski patrolers skied by and did not say anything.

asland

1. Yes it is. It all comes down to the USFS special use permit. Nearly every ski area on USFS land has a provision in their special use permit that gives them the right to deny access to any part of the mountain during preseason snowmaking, etc. It also gives ski area operators the right to close any terrain within the area boundary when they deem it necessary. Too many people believe that just because it's on public land means the area can't turn you away. Not true. They can, and they will if they have good reason. This is why you get in trouble for ducking ropes. That trail was closed by the area. Just because it's public land doesn't mean you can duck the rope. In fact, in Colorado, it's an automatic $1000 fine per the Colorado Ski Safety Act (SB 203, SB 90-80, and HB 04-1393).

2. In this case, if you are hiking up and skiing down terrain that has not been closed by the area, you technically have no legal responsibility to have purchased a lift ticket (Win... correct me if I'm off base here). This is a case where, because it is public land, you do have free and open access to it if it is not closed. If, on the other hand, you hike up on a windhold day and a patroller tells you to turn around, you'd better listen, because he does have the right to do so if a condition is present that may pose a danger to you. In this case, patrol should also have the responsibility to "close" that area by marking it as such. If they tell you to turn around simply because they want the powder to themselves, well... that's not exactly within the provisions of a special use permit. You might consider very politely requesting a reason for being turned away. If they give a legitimate safety/liability reasoning, be a good guest and turn around. If they don't have a good reason, be a good guest and turn around. But then I would think you're perfectly within your right to (again, very politely) talk to the patrol director or mountain ops manager and find out what the deal is.


The cold hard fact is, because it is operating under a special use permit, the ski area management is in charge and makes the rules (as long as they fit within the USFS permit).

Now Mt. Ellen, for the most part, is a completely different scenario. All but the very top of that mountain is Summit Ventures privately owned land. If they tell you to leave over there, do it. You're on private land, and they can kick you off or deny access for any reason they want. You may not like it, but that's the way it is. And you can't get to the part that's USFS without being on private land first (unless you come across the LT, of course). Look at Stowe. That's private land, and IIRC, they do not allow hiking/skinning during winter operations. As for the policy at Mt. Ellen, that's a question better left to someone like Win.

I have the feeling we can expect to hear some official word on this soon.

[win]

Here is the official policy. According to our Special Use Permit from the USFS when the lifts are running one is required to purchase a lift ticket to ski or ride on the mountain. If we have wind hold and patrol is able to station themselves we will allow hiking on open trails. We will take away tickets if anyone skis a closed trail. Trails are closed for a reason and this is done so everyone's safety and our liability. We do not want hiking until we are open because we are working trails, have equipment out there and there are safety hazards if we permit it. So if we see someone hiking through the base area to go up and ski, we have to say something and turn people away.