• Women skiers, this is the place for you -- an online community without the male-orientation you'll find in conventional ski magazines and internet ski forums. At TheSkiDiva.com, you can connect with other women to talk about skiing in a way that you can relate to, about things that you find of interest. Be sure to join our community to participate (women only, please!). Registration is fast and simple. Just be sure to add [email protected] to your address book so your registration activation emails won't be routed as spam. And please give careful consideration to your user name -- it will not be changed once your registration is confirmed.

NJ travelers to Vermont/ Stratton

newboots

Angel Diva
Oh, the bumping chairlifts. There's one at Suicide Six that will bruise the back of your knees if both you and the liftie aren't working in perfect time.
 

NYSnowflake

Angel Diva
Crack down on what exactly with spot checks? There is no way to prove if you quarantined in your home state except your signing something to that effect.
It may be hard to prove 100% that you DID quarantine...but I imagine if a prosecutor was trying to prove that you didn’t they could use things like your work attendance records, your children going to school, and your cell phone data and credit card to prove that you were not quarantining. I haven’t heard that they’re doing that yet but I imagine it’s possible for it to be used as evidence that you broke the VT law.
 

MissySki

Angel Diva
It may be hard to prove 100% that you DID quarantine...but I imagine if a prosecutor was trying to prove that you didn’t they could use things like your work attendance records, your children going to school, and your cell phone data and credit card to prove that you were not quarantining. I haven’t heard that they’re doing that yet but I imagine it’s possible for it to be used as evidence that you broke the VT law.

Eek that would never be the norm here, imo, given privacy issues and how very labor intensive that would be. I think it’s pretty tough to get someone’s cellphone records. There are apps and a cellphone setting now that you can enable to show if you were anywhere near someone who tested positive, but you have to opt in and I don’t know how people feel about that outside of the people who have railed against it on social media haha. Have you all opted into it on your phones?

If you were worth going after criminally after the fact because you caused a huge issue, sure that could work. But I was taking the comment @newboots made to mean cracking down in some way on how people are currently able to show that they have followed the rules prior to arrival. As far as I know there is no way to really do that given the current rules and that it’s all honor system.
 

gingerjess

Angel Diva
There are apps and a cellphone setting now that you can enable to show if you were anywhere near someone who tested positive, but you have to opt in and I don’t know how people feel about that outside of the people who have railed against it on social media haha. Have you all opted into it on your phones?

Unfortunately, California hasn't produced an exposure notification app yet. I have read the specification for the Apple/Google Exposure Notification System standard and don't see any obvious flaws in it that would compromise a person's privacy for choosing to use it, so if and when one becomes available for California, I will opt in. If there isn't one for California by the time I'm in Tahoe for skiing, I might install the Nevada app.
 

MissySki

Angel Diva
Unfortunately, California hasn't produced an exposure notification app yet. I have read the specification for the Apple/Google Exposure Notification System standard and don't see any obvious flaws in it that would compromise a person's privacy for choosing to use it, so if and when one becomes available for California, I will opt in. If there isn't one for California by the time I'm in Tahoe for skiing, I might install the Nevada app.

I know RI has one, but saw a lot of people on social media who said they’d never do that. So I think the issue is more with perceived privacy issues rather than if they actually exist in a technical manner. Do you have an iphone? I’m not sure about other phones, but my iphone has a setting now to opt into this sort of thing.
 

gingerjess

Angel Diva
I know RI has one, but saw a lot of people on social media who said they’d never do that. So I think the issue is more with perceived privacy issues rather than if they actually exist in a technical manner. Do you have an iphone? I’m not sure about other phones, but my iphone has a setting now to opt into this sort of thing.

I do have an iPhone. Basically the deal is that Google (for Android) and Apple (for the iPhone) built a shared privacy-protecting standard for exposure notifications. But in most cases you can't turn it on until the state/country you live in has issued an app to manage issuing those notifications when a positive test happens. Most official apps are going to be based on this system. There are some unofficial apps or poorly-made official apps that use unanonymized GPS locations to work, and I don't recommend those apps at all.

For this particular technology, yes, the issue is definitely perception. Here's a link to the list of US state iPhone apps that use this secure technology:

https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1524690171
 

MissySki

Angel Diva
I do have an iPhone. Basically the deal is that Google (for Android) and Apple (for the iPhone) built a shared privacy-protecting standard for exposure notifications. But in most cases you can't turn it on until the state/country you live in has issued an app to manage issuing those notifications when a positive test happens. Most official apps are going to be based on this system. There are some unofficial apps or poorly-made official apps that use unanonymized GPS locations to work, and I don't recommend those apps at all.

For this particular technology, yes, the issue is definitely perception. Here's a link to the list of US state iPhone apps that use this secure technology:

https://apps.apple.com/us/story/id1524690171

Interesting, I didn’t realize the states had to get that going to coordinate with what’s on our phones already. Thanks for the clarification! I love how much we can learn on this site, even unrelated to skiing.
 

gingerjess

Angel Diva
Interesting, I didn’t realize the states had to get that going to coordinate with what’s on our phones already.

Yes—the key reason here is that exposure notifications need to be issued only when a bona fide infection has been verified. Apple/Google provided the technical framework for the notifications, but the verification process itself needs to be written into each state's app. For example, one state might have you punch in a unique code to indicate that you have COVID, while in another you might enter your personal information to be checked against the state's testing database.
 

WhyKnot

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
Are you talking about ski resorts in VT/NH/ME in terms of people who book resort lodging, or people using season passes, or people buying day tickets in advance online?

From what I'm reading and listening to in podcasts by assorted ski management, the senior managers are well aware that if there is any hint of a resort not following public health guidelines or local government mandates then their season could well be over. The ski industry is working together in unprecedented ways to help each other come up with general operational adjustments while still maintaining a unique approach. What I've learned the last decade about skiing in the southeast is that even direct competitors will help each other out when it counts.

Whether or not a resort can make it clear to all guests in New England/NY/NJ that travel restrictions matter is a hard question to answer. But I have no doubt that they will try.

The situation in other regions of the U.S. is completely different. As is generally true for COVID-19.

I was talking about people coming into the resorts in VT to ski -- whether THEY care or not to follow quarantine rules that they ought to. They (visitors) may say yes and just not be doing it. It already happens in the area (VT, NH).

As to people/skiers behaving and wearing face coverings --- I think resorts won't get too involved with policing the KINDS of coverings which can make a big difference, but my feeling is -- on a positive note -- that there is a shame factor working on the side of protocols in that people -- I think -- will likely wear masks. I know in other settings, management just cannot get involved in enforcing it gets too dangerous (ask any grocery store and they just cant intervene with non-abiding customers it can get dangerous).
 

WhyKnot

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
@WhyKnot - Point of clarification, I assume @MissySki is referring to Bethel Maine not Bethel Vermont. I don’t really go anywhere other than to hike but around here (border of Chittenden/Addison counties) I see ample compliance as well.
AHHHH!! Okay that makes better sense (!) as I've seen solid compliance (for the most part) in VT. Outside at gas stations maybe not (in some places) but OTW I have seen solid compliance but I don't go around "that" much.
 

WhyKnot

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
People here may find this article below interesting on travel restrictions. The Ford Sayre kids who live just across the river in VT -- if it were ski season right now - would not be able to ski /practice at the Dartmouth Skiway (in NH) or Whaleback (NH) even though they are in school with the same kids during the day and it's way closer then other mountains (AND on top of that VT has MORE cases so even less safe to have the kids/families traveling within VT).

They are trying to work this all out. It's an interesting case study. And also insight into how VT inflates numbers in other counties by 2.5. This is why Grafton, NH, is green by NH standards and yellow by VT (because VT is multiplying cases by 2.5). For us where I live, with about 1-4 cases, to get lumped in a county such that I, myself, could not technically ski in VT is just... well... something.

On top of that, there are no travel restrictions within VT even though some towns have more cases. (So, someone who lives just across the river, in a county with higher numbers in VT than the county I live in in NH, can freely ski in VT, where I (if it were today) could not. And I guess Dartmouth students/staff/etcetera, who technically live over the river in VT as some do, could not actually ski at their own college Skiway).

I trust they are doing what they can to make the best decisions! I also wonder how "quarantine" rules may change (to allow someone to grocery shop once a week, say, and still be okay to ski).

The relative chaos this travel restriction is causing for people wanting to go out to dinner (even outside but I guess those days are waning) or go for a hike (technically not allowed right now) between two towns where people go back and forth like one's own backyard -- is odd. I cant say everyone is abiding.

https://www.vnews.com/Thetford-legi...vel-restrictions-in-the-Upper-Valley-37020365
 
Last edited:

marzNC

Angel Diva
They are trying to work this all out. It's an interesting case study. And also insight into how VT inflates numbers in other counties by 2.5. This is why Grafton, NH, is green by NH standards and yellow by VT (because VT is multiplying cases by 2.5). For us where I live, with about 1-4 cases, to get lumped in a county such that I, myself, could not technically ski in VT is just... well... something.
Starting to understand why NY is only working together with NJ and CT on travel restrictions. Sounds like cooperating with VT would've been impractical.

NY divided the state into sub-regions quite a while ago. That was a recognition that having the same restrictions for the entire state wasn't going to make any sense. Have to maintain some balance between minimizing risk of community transmission and learning to live safely with COVID-19. There is more general discussion about COVID-19 here.
 

MissySki

Angel Diva
People here may find this article below interesting on travel restrictions. The Ford Sayre kids who live just across the river in VT -- if it were ski season right now - would not be able to ski /practice at the Dartmouth Skiway (in NH) or Whaleback (NH) even though they are in school with the same kids during the day and it's way closer then other mountains (AND on top of that VT has MORE cases so even less safe to have the kids/families traveling within VT).

They are trying to work this all out. It's an interesting case study. And also insight into how VT inflates numbers in other counties by 2.5. This is why Grafton, NH, is green by NH standards and yellow by VT (because VT is multiplying cases by 2.5). For us where I live, with about 1-4 cases, to get lumped in a county such that I, myself, could not technically ski in VT is just... well... something.

On top of that, there are no travel restrictions within VT even though some towns have more cases. (So, someone who lives just across the river, in a county with higher numbers in VT than the county I live in in NH, can freely ski in VT, where I (if it were today) could not. And I guess Dartmouth students/staff/etcetera, who technically live over the river in VT as some do, could not actually ski at their own college Skiway).

I trust they are doing what they can to make the best decisions! I also wonder how "quarantine" rules may change (to allow someone to grocery shop once a week, say, and still be okay to ski).

The relative chaos this travel restriction is causing for people wanting to go out to dinner (even outside but I guess those days are waning) or go for a hike (technically not allowed right now) between two towns where people go back and forth like one's own backyard -- is odd. I cant say everyone is abiding.

https://www.vnews.com/Thetford-legi...vel-restrictions-in-the-Upper-Valley-37020365

IMO people will follow rules much more willingly and appropriately when they make sense. When they start having so many points that seem unreasonable and way over the top, they have less problem skirting them if they can easily and without Likely ramifications.

Supposedly the governor of VT also indicated now that Ski Patrollers would not be considered essential and would therefore be subject to quarantine to go to work if they don’t live in VT. It’s my understanding that there are many who would fall into this issue at VT resorts. If that stays upheld, resorts are going to have big problems, I don’t think you can easily backfill those types of positions at this point. Hopefully he misspoke or they work that out in some way.
 

Jenny

Angel Diva
Yes—the key reason here is that exposure notifications need to be issued only when a bona fide infection has been verified. Apple/Google provided the technical framework for the notifications, but the verification process itself needs to be written into each state's app. For example, one state might have you punch in a unique code to indicate that you have COVID, while in another you might enter your personal information to be checked against the state's testing database.
I like having you techno-nerdy people on the site!
 

WhyKnot

Ski Diva Extraordinaire
IMO people will follow rules much more willingly and appropriately when they make sense. When they start having so many points that seem unreasonable and way over the top, they have less problem skirting them if they can easily and without Likely ramifications.

Supposedly the governor of VT also indicated now that Ski Patrollers would not be considered essential and would therefore be subject to quarantine to go to work if they don’t live in VT. It’s my understanding that there are many who would fall into this issue at VT resorts. If that stays upheld, resorts are going to have big problems, I don’t think you can easily backfill those types of positions at this point. Hopefully he misspoke or they work that out in some way.

Hadn't heard about ski patrollers. I am speaking with a friend from VT who typically works at Patrol in NH and will get their thoughts today (and their partner ALSO does the same at a different ski area). Interestingly, I am getting their views on ski passes to buy -- "back-up" ones in the area. I am thinking of getting another NH specific one if these restrictions hold up, cos it would mean I am technically barred from VT (again, even though there is next to no community spread in my NH town and there are strict mask laws...)

I like what you say about "people will follow rules much more willingly and appropriately when they make sense." THAT makes sense. I mean I think the Upper Valley and the situation here is a perfect case study for that point. I further heard (please check for self) that VT wants to maintain their "best" state in the union status so that fuels decisions like the ones they have made with restrictions (and numbers calculations). I mean if one really thinks about it, this 'technically' bars people who are dating who live across the river, or families (and I know an instance of that) from even spending time with each other and that will not stick. (I mean, I had a friend literally across the river drive by yesterday to say hi outside! Never though until know we were breaking the rules! And we even had masks outside!).

I guess for me, I see this country divided into people who willfully do not give a hoot about rules and those who are following them. And if I were in charge I would cut the people slack who ARE following rules. It's always the ones who don't who impact the ones who do. I know that's not possible to do and we are in this together. It will be curious to see how folks from NY, CT and elsewhere handle whether they will or won't come to VT and if this means NH resorts and even more modest ski hills will get more traffic. I realized I should have posted this in the other Vermont travel restriction thread - forgive me it was late and I hope some people fond this useful here.
 

Tvan

Angel Diva
As a current CT resident who recently purchased property to build a home in VT, and who skis primarily in VT, I'm staying home in CT. It's one season. There will be other seasons.
 

marzNC

Angel Diva
From a business perspective, if VT travel restrictions make it impossible for a few small ski areas to open at all then it could be that that they end up closing not just for this season but for good. That would be a great loss for the local community that such ski areas serve.

Obviously ski areas have gone out of business before. However, presumably it wasn't because government rules made it impossible to operate the business effectively.
 

Tvan

Angel Diva
@marzNC - true, and I don't mean to sound heartless. I worry about the small ski area, both because they are often locally owned, and because they are critical feeder programs for the sport. One of the reasons we purchased property where we did in VT is because of proximity to one of those small mountains.

I can only hope that if the small areas do open, their mostly local clientele take the health precautions seriously and adhere to the regulations.
 

Members online

Forum statistics

Threads
26,237
Messages
497,662
Members
8,503
Latest member
MermaidKelly
Top