Pissed off ski patrollers

[geargrrl]

I think this is what the others are referring to -

https://www.theskidiva.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11284

And for those on FB -

https://www.facebook.com/SupportSkiPatrol

Yep. Just google Sunshine Ski Patrol and you should get LOTS of hits.

 

[Serafina]

Disgusting. I get really cheesed when I see people duck the ropes. My assumption is that the ropes are there for a good reason: the run is not safe for anyone to ski, the patrollers do not wish to have to execute a rescue in the area, and/or skiing in this area will really mess up the base and wreck the skiing for others for the near-future.

I don't reckon the ropes are there because someone forgot to take them up, or because someone on the patrol is desirous of marking personal territory.

Saw a bunch of guys duck some ropes on a run under the lift line in a relatively remote part of the ski area. From the lift it was VERY easy to see why the ropes were there - the slope is a "natural" (no snowmaking) and was in VERY bad shape, with a lot of exposed ice and exposed dirt, much of which would not be visible until a skier was right on top of it. It was also narrow, and duh, had lift towers marching through the center, so there wasn't a lot of room for evasive maneuvers.

Predictably, they all had huge wipe outs. I wanted to (but did not) shout down "You stupid *@*%&! What did you expect when you ran under the ropes? Have fun hiking your way out of THAT!"

I dunno - I am happy to know that, should I wind up with some kind of major disastrous fall, the ski patrol will get my injured butt off the hill and help me get medical attention. And they're going to have to do that by loading my Amazonian carcass into a sled and hauling it down. I'm just grateful to know that this emergency out exists, and I feel that it is very, very wrong to abuse it through stupidity, arrogance, and selfish behavior.

 

[Kim Kircher]

Wow. Thanks for all the support ladies. We patrollers have a hard enough job without all the extra tomfoolery.

 

[Kim Kircher]

it's where avalanches have occurred, but there is often visual evidence of this. Sorry - I work with words, so I find that I need to be precise about them.

A slide path is a known avalanche path. Any slope greater than 35 degrees can be considered a slide path. In the case of my blog post, I was referring to a known avalanche path, Kempers, that has produced some very large avalanches.

 

[Christy]

So do you guys have any recourse? Can any legal actions be taken, does he get blacklisted from Crystal, etc etc?

 

[Kim Kircher]

Christy,
Yes, we do have some recourse. Certainly, we don't have to sell Marcus a lift ticket ever again. Perhaps this public chastisement has been enough. After a week of searching for a missing skier, also a former ski patroller and considered "one of us", we all felt a little violated by this one. So appreciate you posting it here, and all the support the Ski Divas offered. Thanks!
Kim

 

[Seattle Gal]

Thanks for posting Christy. I get soooo annoyed with folks who put other folks lives at risk. I was just talking to someone who climbed Mt Rainier with a friend, having no idea what they were doing or any of the safety gear they needed. He thought that it was no problem for somone to help them if they needed it. Having a couple ski patrol/mountain guide friends, and hearing their stories where they have to put their lives at risk to save these dumba$$s makes me soooo mad!!!

I crack myself up, all the "hot topics" like religion and politics are no problem for me, but you put me in a conversation with someone who climbs a mountain or backcountry skis without a clue and I get all fired up! :mad:

 

[litterbug]

I just don't get how anyone would ignore basic safety based on the assumption that they can just call 911 if they get injured or lost. Above all else, it's my goal as an outdoorswoman to never ever require rescue. I've known SAR volunteers who've gotten injured or killed while saving some ignorant fool in an obviously dangerous and completely preventable emergency.

 

[gardenmary]

I just don't get how anyone would ignore basic safety based on the assumption that they can just call 911 if they get injured or lost. Above all else, it's my goal as an outdoorswoman to never ever require rescue. I've known SAR volunteers who've gotten injured or killed while saving some ignorant fool in an obviously dangerous and completely preventable emergency.

I know exactly what you mean. My son is an Eagle Scout, Silver Palm, and if I ever required assistance because I went out unprepared, I think I would just die of embarrassment. Our favorite stocking stuffers at Christmas are little doo-dads that complete one's backpack for whatever activity - skiing, hiking, mountain biking, etc. We buy backpacks on clearance and keep them "stocked" and ready to go. This started when I was pregnant with DS and got a half-dozen diaper bags at showers - we stocked them for different types of outings and kept them ready to go, instead of returning them. Worked great! Then we later translated that to backpacks.

 

[snow addict]

Quite unbelievable. Why just don't send him a bill, like doctors do, and then proceed accordingly in case he doesn't pay? I don't think that facebook petitions will change much when it's so simple to avoid the payment. The guy is not an idiot, he clearly thinks he's very clever and is taking advantage of the system in place. He would have been an idiot if wasn't taking the advantage. "naming and shaming" do nothing to people like that - they had their fun and kept their money so all this noise for them is a 'storm in a teacup' (someone else's teacup as well).

Here you get the bill which can be in thousands if helicopters are involved (and they most often are). then you talk to your insurance company, however if ducking the ropes to the closed terrain is involved (if not - the bill might not be sent as rescue is covered by resort insurance) your insurance company will laugh in your face, so you pay.

 

[snow addict]

Christy,
Yes, we do have some recourse. Certainly, we don't have to sell Marcus a lift ticket ever again. Perhaps this public chastisement has been enough. After a week of searching for a missing skier, also a former ski patroller and considered "one of us", we all felt a little violated by this one. So appreciate you posting it here, and all the support the Ski Divas offered. Thanks!
Kim

Problem with people who have such qualities as dedication and sense of responsibility is that they think everyone is like them. (the opposite is also true that's why liars don't believe anyone)
"Public chastisement" is nothing. Where the system allows for abuse, abuse will happen. And more public it's made, more often it will happen as more people get the wind that they can ride 'for fun'. Maybe it sounds cynical, but this is how it often works unfortunately.

 

[geargrrl]

Problem with people who have such qualities as dedication and sense of responsibility is that they think everyone is like them. (the opposite is also true that's why liars don't believe anyone)

I disagree. Anyone who's worked in SAR, patrol, law enforcement etc knows that a good proportion of the population doesn't think about what they do; they know there are idiots out there and that is just part of the game plane.

 

[snow addict]

I disagree. Anyone who's worked in SAR, patrol, law enforcement etc knows that a good proportion of the population doesn't think about what they do; they know there are idiots out there and that is just part of the game plane.

We are not in disagreement at all, just talking about different things

Public awareness and idiots is a separate issue from what happened here. There is a good book on the topic, called 'Wasting Police Time" based on the blog, that covers it pretty accurately, including the cases when people call police (or ambulance) just for fun because they are bored.

But the guy in question - and other people abusing the system - is a different matter. He knowingly ducked the ropes, he got into trouble and called the rescuers to save his neck, and knowingly refused to pay. This is not what I would call "not thinking" or "being not aware". OK, he probably didn't expect to get into trouble but this is irrelevant in this case because he did get into trouble. If the system allows people to get the service (which is not free) and after getting it just shake the hands of whoever provided it and walk away - it's not surprising that people will do it. And by their definition they are not idiots. How can be an idiot someone who can get something for nothing? And we are trying to shame them here like they care. That's why I said that people with dedication and sense of responsibility expect others to be likewise. You can read it "at least to have consceince" for "shaming" to have effect.

Bottom line, people should get paid for the work they do, but to me it appears that within system you have they might be working for free. I saw how patrollers work, and it's a hell of a job. But people refuse to pay not because they think it's a piece of cake of a job - they don't know as you rightly said and don't care most of the time, but "because they can". Over here you pay - this is the law. Every rescue requires the report to be filled and signed - who, when, where, how, then hands are being shaked and speedy recovery is being wished. Then you open your mailbox one beautiful day and there is a bill that you have to pay within specified time. Report is the basis for it. If the rescue happened not in the closed area etc., the case is covered by insurance bought in the resort, the sum in the bill will be zero. In the case above it appears that while the rescue is in theory not free, the payment for it is somewhat discretionary.

 

[litterbug]

Here you get the bill which can be in thousands if helicopters are involved (and they most often are). then you talk to your insurance company, however if ducking the ropes to the closed terrain is involved (if not - the bill might not be sent as rescue is covered by resort insurance) your insurance company will laugh in your face, so you pay.

I know that search and rescue organizations have been changing their policies on billing for rescues, usually from not charging for their services to charging for them. But that's not what we're talking about; we're talking about employees performing their assigned duties,.

If the resort paid out for outside services and made an insurance claim, and their insurance company finds the person rescued was at fault, it's the resort's insurance company that'll sue the guy and get compensated.

But the resort employees did this rescue in the regular course of their employment, and if the resort decides to eat costs like helicopters, overtime, and employee good will instead of making an insurance claim, there's no one to go after the guy for the cost of the rescue.

Dontcha hate having a lawyer in your midst?

 

[snow addict]

I know that search and rescue organizations have been changing their policies on billing for rescues, usually from not charging for their services to charging for them. But that's not what we're talking about; we're talking about employees performing their assigned duties,.

If the resort paid out for outside services and made an insurance claim, and their insurance company finds the person rescued was at fault, it's the resort's insurance company that'll sue the guy and get compensated.

But the resort employees did this rescue in the regular course of their employment, and if the resort decides to eat costs like helicopters, overtime, and employee good will instead of making an insurance claim, there's no one to go after the guy for the cost of the rescue.

Dontcha hate having a lawyer in your midst?

Well, here the rescue services workers also rescue people because it's their regular job and not a matter of choice and it's in their job description and all the rescues are in the regular course of their employment (both for resort patrollers and rega guys), but it doesn't make it free of charge. This is the difference I suppose.

But why then are they unhappy about the guy walking away and not paying if from what you are saying the service is then appears to be free? What, they wanted a tip? Now I am confused. If it's free by resort policy, then tough **************** but c'est la vie - tips are appreciated but not expected, as it was said in the other thread. It's not what I understood from the first post. I understood that somehow by resort policy the rescue had to be paid for but there is no way to enforce this policy so people can walk away without paying.

 

[Christy]

we're talking about employees performing their assigned duties,.

You guys are a bit confused--the rescue did not take place within ski area boundaries. The guy ducked a rope and left the ski area, remember? He was in Mt Rainier National Park, it sounds like.

It is not their job to rescue people OUTSIDE resort boundaries. That is the crux of the issue--they told the guy he wasn't in their jurisdiction, that there would be a charge, and now he won't pay. I believe that the guy was really the "responsibility" (if you want to call it that) of either the King County Sheriff or the National Park Service. It would have been either county S&R, park rangers or volunteers, not ski area employees, that would have gone looking for him had the ski area folks just said, nope, you're not in our area. (Kim, is this right?)

 

[geargrrl]

also, US policies are extremely different from what goes on in Europe, Canada and elsewhere. It's like comparing apples to oranges.

 

[litterbug]

Hey, I'm not saying it was right; the dude is an (well, I won't go into my usual description of such "people"), and the patrollers went above and beyond their responsibility because, well, in my view rescuers are heroes who don't let people down just because they're idiots.

I'm just talking about the legalisms according to most US law. The law is impersonal and not generally sensible, and in this case it isn't the issue. In my view, there are two bad acts here: the kid and his friends ducking the rope and acting like they were entitled to be rescued by Daddy's employee's; and the ski area's abuse of its employees by punishing them for doing the right thing and then having the nerve to fight back.

I won't even go into the legal effect of what Christy pointed out; it's the kind of thing that drives all of us crazy, and we're already mad enough.

I haven't checked on recent events in the case, but it sounds like (under US law) the patrollers are doing the legally sound thing: suing the bastards who fired and/or attempted to intimidate them. Getting a money judgment for wrongful termination will get the attention of others in the industry who take this stuff lightly. Unfortunately, little else will.

 

[geargrrl]

Hey, I'm not saying it was right; the dude is an (well, I won't go into my usual description of such "people"), and the patrollers went above and beyond their responsibility because, well, in my view rescuers are heroes who don't let people down just because they're idiots.

I'm just talking about the legalisms according to most US law. The law is impersonal and not generally sensible, and in this case it isn't the issue. In my view, there are two bad acts here: the kid and his friends ducking the rope and acting like they were entitled to be rescued by Daddy's employee's; and the ski area's abuse of its employees by punishing them for doing the right thing and then having the nerve to fight back.

I won't even go into the legal effect of what Christy pointed out; it's the kind of thing that drives all of us crazy, and we're already mad enough.

I haven't checked on recent events in the case, but it sounds like (under US law) the patrollers are doing the legally sound thing: suing the bastards who fired and/or attempted to intimidate them. Getting a money judgment for wrongful termination will get the attention of others in the industry who take this stuff lightly. Unfortunately, little else will.

Are you talking about the Sunshine mess now? That's in Canada, laws are different up there but the concept is the same.

I think there's two different conversations going on here now?

 

[litterbug]

Are you talking about the Sunshine mess now? That's in Canada, laws are different up there but the concept is the same.

I think there's two different conversations going on here now?

Dang, that'll teach me to think I know what's going on. I've lost track, too, and at the moment I'm exchanging emails about a few cases with jurisdictional issues.

Still, although Canada is generally a saner place than the US regarding people's rights, I don't know about employment or liability law there. So never mind--I'm probably wrong.

Sorry!