Comments on: Whitefish Resort Announces New Uphill Travel Policy
By --dhc-- on 08-17-10
Just to clarify for readers, that clause in the resort’s Special Use Permit reads,
“The lands within the special use permit boundary shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes; except for any restrictions the resort and Forest Service agree to be necessary as documented in the operating plan.”
Why might the resort and the USFS agree that restrictions are necessary? Well, the Special Use Permit also states,
“The resort is responsible for public health and risk management within the resort boundary…”
Anyway, as the article said, we were really encouraged with the uphill community’s participation in last spring’s new policy, and were all very excited to be able to open up the policy so much for this year. We’re particularly pleased the USFS put its new special order into effect because it made it possible for us to extend uphilling into the pre-season.
As for the full moon question, one of the benefits of the ridiculously short days we have in the heart of winter here is that on a full moon night, you get the full effect way before 7PM. So around Dec. 5 and Jan. 4 this season, there should be some great opportunities for full moon skiing.
In the spring, I think there may be opportunities to have special full moon hike and ski evenings. We’ll see.
Hope all this helps, and thanks to everyone who submitted comments.
Donnie Clapp
PR Manager
Whitefish Mountain Resort
By MattBRake on 08-17-10
There is a contradiction within the permit. It states that the land shall remain open to the public and also that the resort has safety and risk management duties as Donnie stated.
So, there is a gray area within the permit here.
The new Forest Service rule which prohibits skiers, hikers, etc. from going within 100 yards of dangerous equipment finally gives legal standing for enforcement of safe behavior and further reduces WMR’s liability.
I think we (the public) need a seat at the negotiating table before a judge to provide clarification. Donnie and WMR seem to disagree.
By --dhc-- on 08-17-10
But Matt, how can you ignore the second half of that sentence?
“...EXCEPT for any restrictions the resort and Forest Service agree to be necessary as documented in the operating plan.”
By MattBRake on 08-17-10
Donnie,
I don’t have the documents in hand right now, but I do recall that the clause stating the right to public access comes well before the discretion to which you refer.
For decades uphill users have utilized the permit area without any accidents. Now that rules for safe practices and penalties for disregard are in place, I think more inclusive access is reasonable. We will be safe or we will be breaking the law.
Give us a chance to act safely now that we have rules to follow and punish any that disregard them and we will have a “win, win” for all involved.
By --dhc-- on 08-17-10
I have it in front of me. It’s on page 5, Section 1, Subsection B, Item 3. It’s a single sentence, not separated by anything, just as I quoted it above. My copy is the 2007-2008 Resort Operating Plan.
“The lands within the special use permit boundary shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes; except for any restrictions the resort and Forest Service agree to be necessary as documented in the operating plan.“
It is untrue that there has never been an accident involving an uphiller. There was one at some point about 15 years ago, although it did not involve grooming equipment. In any case, it would be silly to wait for another accident before implementing restrictions given that we have witnessed several near-misses. We have to be proactive, not reactive.
Finally, uphill skiing is no different than something like snowmobiling. It’s allowable on other USFS lands, but it sometimes conflicts with the safe operation of a downhill ski resort, which is what we are permitted for. So we have to restrict it within the permit boundary.
All that being said, I totally agree with you. Hopefully, adherence to the new policy will be as great as it was in the spring and we’ll be able to feel comfortable relaxing restrictions further in the future.
Donnie
By David Cockrell on 08-18-10
I am of the opinion that hiking up Big Mountain during Winter operating hours should be 100% PROHIBITED. Allowing hikers access to the slopes is against the grain of downhill traffic and the most DANGEROUS and idiotic activity I have ever witnessed at Big Mountain in my 30 yrs of skiing there. And it gets more popular every year.
There are too many blind spots for downhill skiers and boarders coming over rolling hills. This is just COMMON SENSE people.
People should only be allowed to hike up the mtn before and after the hours of operation and on certain runs. Hands Down.
I am shocked the mountains insurance policy even allows for this kind of non-sense.
dave
By -MattBrake- on 08-18-10
Donnie, you are looking at the resort operating plan. I am referring to the Ski Area Term Special Use Permit signed in 1999 and good through 2038. The operating plan to which you refer is a component of this permit. I believe the intent of this permit conflicts with the resort operating plan with respect to area access.
Here is the language from the permit, “Except for any restriction as the holder and the authorized officer may agree to be necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized structures and developments, the land and waters covered by this permit shall remain open to the public for all lawful purposes. To facilitate public us of this area, all existing roads or roads as may be constructed by the holder, shall remain open to the public, except roads as may be closed by joint agreement of the holder and the authorized officer.”
Whitefish Mountain Resort is restricting access for reasons not authorized by their special use permit. Structure protection has not been mentioned as a concern.
WMR has a duty to warn and educate and the new uphill policy does this quite well.
WMR does have the discretion of restricting access to some, and probably most slopes and trails so that dangerous ruts are not created before the snow “sets up”.
However, I do not believe that WMR can legally restrict ALL access completely from 7PM until 6AM.
It is possible to “allow”, but “not recommend” limited access during these hours.
Yes, WMR will have a bit more liability, but this additional liability is miniscule relative to the general liability of operating a ski resort. Further, WMR has a plethora of liability coverage already via state and federal Skier Responsibility Codes, Montana’s excellent Recreational Use Statutes and the new Forest Service special order which prohibits users from going within 100 yards of snowmaking or grooming equipment. This new rule should be enforced with gusto to further reduce liability.
You mention that WMR needs to be proactive and I agree, but this statement seems a hypocritical to me. You are on record as saying, “Incidents have been too numerous to count in the last few years.” While nearly all uphill users have been and will continue to be safe, I think it is remarkable that no one got hurt during the period of years when WMR realized that unsafe behavior was occurring occasionally, yet WMR failed to educate uphill users with respect to safe practices.
cont.
By -MattBrake- on 08-18-10
Education and rules for safe behavior when combined with penalties for breaking the rules are all that is necessary to get everything that WMR wants. Give us one reasonable route from 7PM to 6AM. Sure, there will be days when it won’t groom quite as nice as other slopes, but it would honor the local community of uphill users which predate the resort itself. It would also honor the millions of public dollars spent on the new road which leads to WMR’s front door.
For years, WMR’s after hours policy was that after hours uphill use was “not recommended”. I think WMR should return to this policy and close all but one route from 7PM to 6AM. It could remain “not recommended”, but it wouldn’t be closed.
-Matt
By --dhc-- on 08-19-10
Matt—
First, I am sorry I was reading from the Operating Plan and you were referring to the Permit itself. In dealing with the USFS, they refer to the two interchangeably, and I have gotten into that habit myself.
When you say that the Operating Plan is a component of the Permit, you are correct, and I believe that it is structured so that the language in the Operating Plan carries just as much weight as the language in the Permit itself, which would render your arguments moot.
However, let’s assume for a moment that the Permit language takes precedent over anything in the Operating Plan. In that case, you have to read this sentence a little more carefully:
“Except for any restriction as the holder and the authorized officer may agree to be necessary to protect the installation and operation of authorized structures and developments..”
You read that and heard just physical structures, but it actually refers to much more. Protecting “the… operation of authorized… developments” includes protecting the business that has been developed here, which includes limiting liability. This sentence, although more legalese than the one I was referring to in the Operating Plan, is essentially saying the same thing: If the resort and the USFS agree that a restriction is necessary to protect the continued permitted use (downhill skiing), that restriction is allowed.
The bottom line is that we feel a moral obligation to prevent injuries that may be caused by our equipment and operators. This moral duty also happens to line up with our interpretation of our legal duty.
That means there is no possible way to keep a route open all night without safety personnel on hand, because that would put skiers and groomers in the same place, at the same time, in the dark, sometime during the night. That is not acceptable.
Yes, we probably should have done more uphill education in the years leading up to 2009-2010. Maybe that would have worked. I don’t know. It’s debatable whether the people causing the problems would have shown up for class, so to speak. But we can’t change the past. We can only do what we think is right for the present. And right now, at this moment, we believe that this policy is the best possible solution.
—Donnie
The views expressed in the comments section do not reflect those of the Beacon.