ben

Exactly... That's the attitude they should all have. Hopefully Rob's will be contagious.

It won't at all be that he's guilty by association. What I took issue with originally wasn't that Rob wanted to be a Ranger, but that he wanted to 'police the park'. The park is one of the places on the mountain that I think is least tainted by pedantic Ranger behavior, and it's that behavior being brought into the park that I feared an unfortunate but inevitable consequence of Rangers beginning to take on the specific responsibility of policing the park. I'm not saying that Rob will be an unreasonable Ranger, in fact as I said before I believe that he'll be the opposite. Nor is it Rob's wanting to 'police the park' in itself, as I'm sure that would be reasonable too. It is the consequence of this - pedantic Rangers that make a habit of overexerting their authority coming to the park - that I fear.

A good argument. As long as somebody is able, ultimately, to rectify the errant Ranger's misuse of his authority through the chain of command or in some other way, I'll support your perspective. I just hate to see the Ranger act in this way in the first place.

I'd agree with you ideally, but I have this reservation with your position: In the case of certain Rangers, you're desire to negotiate would be given absolutely no value. If you're young, you'd be devalued even more (if that were possible). You'd be overpowered by a person who would think that his position is the right one simply by virtue of his having a yellow jacket and a red marker to ski around with. It is NOT that a Ranger is made just and right because he's in a position of authority; on the contrary, he should be in the position of authority because he's seen as a person who is just and right. Some of the Rangers, unfortunately, seem to believe the first proposition above all else - especially when it comes to policing kids (because they CAN have a more unrestricted power over them). Just last season (and this is off the top of my head), I've seen: 1) a 10-12 year old girl get called an "idiot" in front of her mother by a Ranger (yelling fervently at the top of his lungs) guarding our accident scene who thought she skied too closely to him. She didn't. I saw it. 2) a 20 year old (or so), as I mentioned in a previous post, get stopped for not turning his head up trail when he was going from one side to the other. He was on the same trail the entire time (not merging into another) and maintained situational awareness the entire time. I saw him. 3) a man in his 30s get stopped for putting ONE SKI on the 'wall' on the skiers right of Julius Caesar. The other ski was still on the groomed part of the trail. He was given merely a verbal warning, but this was considered by the Ranger to be an off-trail violation. It's this behavior - both towards kids and towards adults - that I'm afraid of seeing spread, and this behavior that I object to the most.

I'd agree with that. My argument, ultimately, is not that there should be no Rangers in the park at all - or, even, on the mountain in general - but that they (all) should restrict their authority to those situations in which a person's behavior is truly compromising other peoples' safety. People sitting in places where they could be taken out by riders landing is a great example of this. Something must be done, though - and this applies to the entire mountain - about Rangers overexerting their authority. This is something Camelback Rangers have a notorious reputation for, and it's something that I'd hate to see brought into the park because it seems to me like the park one of the places on the mountain that is, in this respect, the least tainted. What I'd like to see avoided in the park is the currently common situation observable on the Front Four: Rangers, in a group, standing on a main part of the trail picking people off for borderline Responsibility Code violations because they want some "Contacts". If you're reasonable in your policing, as it seems you would be, I'd have no problem with it in itself. My worry is that this might attract some of the more pedantic Rangers into the park and lead, ultimately, to a frenzy of whistle-blowing and red-marker-waving that's already observable on some other parts of the mountain. I'd like to keep those Rangers isolated to as few parts of the mountain as possible and then, ideally, do as you said - "police" them so that they conduct their authority more reasonably.

The last thing the park needs is a Ranger 'policing' it. That'll only breed more animosity against the Man. Everyone should make a point of contributing to park etiquette to compensate for the few people who, unfortunately, don't give a shit about it: Ride around the kids that are sitting at the top of the hits, or let the guy go who doesn't call out before he drops into the pipe. This sort of thing is, in the end, much more effective than having a yellow jacket standing there for social control. You might be conducting your authority appropriately, but after certain Rangers get involved, it gets to the point where people are yelled at for the most pedantic bullshit. Once I saw a rider get stopped because the Ranger didn't see him turn his head when he went from one side of the trail to the other, even though the rider never once lost awareness of the other people on the hill. Its this sort of bullshit that loses respect for the Rangers, and it unfortunately seems inevitable when other Rangers start to follow your lead by 'policing' the park too.

Nah its cool, dont worry about it.... Ive seen one other guy tele switch since i started, and im pretty sure that he was keeping his head over one shoulder. I thought about him after id seen him and didnt know how he kept his balance on the turn where his head was looking to the inside. He was pretty sick, though... I also saw him throwing backflips off of natural features under the chair. Id definitely tell someone starting out to switch shoulders as its easier and more natural this way, especially at first. But im looking to make the turns cleaner... its alot shittier to have to throw my whole upper body one way and the other between turns than it would be if i could keep it in one place, like we should do when were skiing forwards. Tele lets you get down deeper in a more solid stance than alpine - especially for switch - so even though it might be hard to ski this way on alpines, i think it might be manageable on teles. The only way to know is to give it a shot. ben

sweet guys, thanks. it does feel natural to alternate shoulders, but well see if we can work out a way to do it over just one on the hill next year. see you then... ben

haha yea... that was sick, laying out those arcs on cliff that day. dennis got a nice shot for your signature. well do it again next season. ben

hey all i havent posted very much here before, but this is to any new-school tele skiers out there that might see this... i have a quick question about switch technique. so far, ive only been able to tele switch by alternating the shoulder that i look over as i transition between turns. this amounts to quite a bit of effort that i could be saving if i were able to look over one shoulder the whole time. obviously, though, because of the asymmetry of this, there are some balance issues that would come up in trying to do this (for instance, making a turn to the skiers right with your head over your left shoulder): in one turn your head would be to the outside of the turn (which is the way its worked for me so far) and in another your head would be to the inside (which is the problem). does anyone here keep their head over one shoulder when riding switch (alpine or tele)? since i wont be able to work it out on the mountain for awhile, id appreciate any tips you could give me... thanks -ben