Everything Elk

[elkskibum]

I guess I just need to move to Maine or out West somewhere. I'm sorry but I don't see "It's PENNSYLVANIA" as a reasonable excuse to be afraid of lawsuits, I guess it's just the people down here that ruin the atmoshpere of skiing because they are not as comfortable with the risks of a mountain lifestyle.

 

I would like to know how complaining about wanting to wear a backpack while skiing is weak. I realize this is PA and you don't need a beacon or probe, but am i out of line because I don't wanna go into the lodge everytime I want to grab my cam and take pictures or perhaps take off a shirt and keep it on my person. Also as someone who likes to ski fast and take risks I enjoy the extra back pad of wearing my pack, I spilled from a motorcycle once with a pack on and was completely unscathed on my hind side. In the unlikely event of going ass over tin cups into a tree I'd like a pack and waterbottle between us.

 

Also for the employee death in the trees, I'm sorry I have experience with loss just like anyone else, but I feel that is just a risk that goes with the territory. Being in administration the GM will always have to bring down bad news like that, I'm not saying it will ever be easy, but if someone died from hitting a lift pole I doubt they would default to tow ropes. I realize they are cutting down the amount of injuries and potential suits and that is a good thing for them, something about it just seems wrong to me that I have to scale back the way I want to ski depending on what state I'm in.

 

I guess I could have left out all this and just posted the first sentence, or just said "See Username". The more I ski the less I wanna ski in PA would also describe how I'm feeling lately.

 

 

I understand with everything you said, and do agree with you on the backpack issue. The issue is that Elk in their 40 some year history never condoned or really allowed skiing off trail: people did it, and for the most part if the ski patrol saw you and could see that you knew what you were doing they usually wouldn’t mind. The problem is the average skier in pa. I have been skiing in this state my whole life, have been to almost every hill at least once and can say with complete confidence that there are a dangerous amount of people on the hill that have absolutely NO IDEA how to get down it; this could be a little worse since the advent of shaped skis and the fact that they are easier to ski, but I don’t think so. With the close proximity to 2 major cities and their suburbs: one being the largest in the county in New York and the other being Philadelphia the hills around here can be swarmed with the yahoos that think they are awesome at everything and therefore think are great skiers.

 

Elk, for being further away than many of the other mountains usually don't have as many "gapers" or whatever, but every day I see people skiing stuff they should be nowhere near. Even on the beginner slope, I see all these people who might have taken one lesson some time and think they are the next bode miller, while in real life they are a menace to themselves and others. Now imagine if they would make a line in the woods a real "trail". Many of these people, who shouldn’t be on anything else other than green circles see it and think "Cool, trees! Extreme!" and then go down and seriously injured themselves. The mountain is now responsible for that probable lawsuit, and if they keep coming not only is it good bye woods its good bye Elk.

 

I know the mountains up in New England and obviously out west have dangerous terrain everywhere, but I think because the pa hills are day trip distance to one of the largest population density areas in the country people really have no idea what their doing. Also, think about the size of the mountains: up at Killington or whatever the trees and dangerous stuff is up top, a place most of the people im talking about would never venture to or are hidden enough that people have to look. The hills here have really one main lift to the top (or a portion at the top) so people will get to the main part of the mountain with one ride. Also, its kind of hard to "hide" a trail, many can be seen either from the lifts or the major easier trails, so instead of people having to go find the woods they are staring them right in the face.

 

I know this is really long but I think it sums up a lot of the local mountains and obviously Elk's feelings one the matter of glades. Hope this helps.

Edited January 25, 2008 by elkskibum

[Glenn]

I would like to know how complaining about wanting to wear a backpack while skiing is weak. I realize this is PA and you don't need a beacon or probe, but am i out of line because I don't wanna go into the lodge everytime I want to grab my cam and take pictures or perhaps take off a shirt and keep it on my person. Also as someone who likes to ski fast and take risks I enjoy the extra back pad of wearing my pack, I spilled from a motorcycle once with a pack on and was completely unscathed on my hind side. In the unlikely event of going ass over tin cups into a tree I'd like a pack and waterbottle between us.

 

Well I suppose it's all opinion but...

 

I've never had a need for one neither has virtually every skier/rider in PA, and virtually everywhere else in the country when sking/riding inbounds. I carry everything I need in pockets, and it's not a lot. You aren't in the wilderness. I've got zippers on all my clothing, and have never felt the need to carry around an extra layer just in case. Maybe 2 or 3 times EVER have I gone back to my car for layer adjustment. You're not Jamie Pierre, and even if you think you are, there are no 200 footers to warrant a padded backpack. Besides big camera gear or working as a ski patroller you look rediculous with a pack, because you are rediculous. Travel light. There are facilities and services that the mountain provides (for free), utilize them.

 

So yeah, it's kind of weird and maybe a tiny bit lame that Elk doesn't allow packs. In light of my comments above though, I think it's way more lame that you would boycott the mountain because of the policy. And since you are a risk taker lame that you boycott because they don't allow tree sking, when in reality PA mountains are SUPER lax about rope ducking and O.B. riding in general. Learn how to deal with ski patrol types, and shred the trees. It's better that way since all the goobers won't track them out for you.

[trackbiker]

Well I suppose it's all opinion but...

 

I've never had a need for one neither has virtually every skier/rider in PA, and virtually everywhere else in the country when sking/riding inbounds. I carry everything I need in pockets, and it's not a lot. You aren't in the wilderness. I've got zippers on all my clothing, and have never felt the need to carry around an extra layer just in case. Maybe 2 or 3 times EVER have I gone back to my car for layer adjustment. You're not Jamie Pierre, and even if you think you are, there are no 200 footers to warrant a padded backpack. Besides big camera gear or working as a ski patroller you look rediculous with a pack, because you are rediculous. Travel light. There are facilities and services that the mountain provides (for free), utilize them.

 

So yeah, it's kind of weird and maybe a tiny bit lame that Elk doesn't allow packs. In light of my comments above though, I think it's way more lame that you would boycott the mountain because of the policy. And since you are a risk taker lame that you boycott because they don't allow tree sking, when in reality PA mountains are SUPER lax about rope ducking and O.B. riding in general. Learn how to deal with ski patrol types, and shred the trees. It's better that way since all the goobers won't track them out for you.

 

Well said.

90% of the people who would carry a pack would be OK. It's the 10% of the goobers who have all kinds of sh!t hanging off it and loose straps, etc. who would cause a problem an get hung up on the lift.

 

Hey, if you are looking for "glade skiing" in PA, go to Jack Frost! If you call that call that one trail "glade skiing"!

[RidgeRacer]

PASkiingSucks I think your points are valid. But Elk's policy is what it is for better or for worse. You seem like a knowledgeable skier who could contribute greatly around here. But labeling all of Pennsylvania as "suckiing", as per your username, primarily because of Elk's no skiing in the woods policy is a bit much. Again, I'm with you and I personally would love to see Elk open a few marked gladed trails too. But as others have mentioned there are other options in the state for skiing glades including Jack Frost, Blue Knob and now Sno Mt.

 

Jack Frost is nowhere near being boring, yet they allow you to ski on anything that has snow.

[kate]

I guess I just need to move to Maine or out West somewhere. I'm sorry but I don't see "It's PENNSYLVANIA" as a reasonable excuse to be afraid of lawsuits, I guess it's just the people down here that ruin the atmoshpere of skiing because they are not as comfortable with the risks of a mountain lifestyle.

 

 

I don't think that anyone is saying that the reason Elk is worried about lawsuits is because "It's PENNSYLVANIA." I would say that a more realistic reason is because Elk is privately owned, whereas many larger resorts out west or up north are corporately owned by companies like Intrawest. Elk is fairly uptight about safety across the board, from no glade skiing, to no the no backpack rule, to not having any gapped rails in the park. The mountain has pretty good reason to be concerned about the risk of lawsuits; a few large ones could potentially put them out of business.

 

Also, not to be a bitch, but about how no one bothered to tell you that backpacks were not allowed on the lift while you were on the wagon and getting ready, did you really expect them to realize that was your intent given the fact that nearly everyone else comes to the mountain with some type of pack to leave in the lodge?

 

As you said, Elk IS the best mountain in PA. They have outstanding terrain, a friendly staff, and a pretty laidback air. That said, they certainly have the right to ask that you do something as small as staying out of the trees or not wearing a backpack on the lift. Boycotting the mountain for this is rather excessive, but to each his own i guess.

 

Good luck finding a place where you can live a risky mountain lifestyle.

[bigdaddyk]

There's definitely more than one trail for glade skiing area at Jack Frost.

 

That's correct. There might only be one listed on the web page, but the best ones are not listed. There are definately numerous areas to tree ski.

 

...Perhaps the mountains that do offer this need to offer something unique because their terrain is boring. I'm not sure. Regardless, we will continue to make snow and provide quality skiing to those who STILL like our facility.

 

Best wishes,

 

Gregg

 

Hmmm, strange that those "boring" mountains have been 100% open for a while and have been open the longest . That's also not the most professional response.

 

... Whatever the case I respect their decision to not allow tree skiing and I think their reasoning for not allowing it is as valid as they come.

 

I agree, but the response could have been worded better and more straight forward, than avoiding the real answer and putting down other areas.

Edited January 26, 2008 by bigdaddyk

[RidgeRacer]

That's correct. There might only be one listed on the web page, but the best ones are not listed. There are definately numerous areas to tree ski.

 

Hmmm, strange that those "boring" mountains have been 100% open for a while and have been open the longest . That's also not the most professional response.

 

I agree, but the response could have been worded better and more straight forward, than avoiding the real answer and putting down other areas.

 

Agreed on all points, especially on your take to the email response. Referring to Jack Frost as boring is completely off base and unwarranted.

[clashboy]

if you wanna ride the trees at elk you gotta do it behind the patrollers back. it makes ducking the ropes even more fun and also keeps the good stuff from getting skied out. be thankful that the policy is the way it is at elk because it does keep those who shouldnt be out of bounds, in bounds. if you don't like elks policies, don't go there and stop complaining about it. why make a big deal over nothing. go wear your backpack and ride in the woods out west wear if you do hit a tree, no one will find you for a long tim (if you dont have a beaker).

 

just my two cents, take it how you please.

[fluffy]

Everyone's opinions are valid and equal. The real people that everyone should be pissed at are the ignorant scum-suckers who do crash into trees/lift towers/signs/buildings and then attempt to file suit against the ski area. Every ski area has signage (inlcuding the lift ticket itself) that explains and describes the fact that skiing/riding is a recreational sports activity and is in fact NOT SAFE. By accepting the lift ticket, every individual is agreeing that they understand the inherent risks involved in any winter sports activity.....however, these numbnuts still do stupid things and get hurt....which makes them feel like they can suck some money out of the ski area even though it is was the individuals fault and responsibilty.

 

The problem for every ski area and all of us who want to ski the trees, etc. is that most people (especially in the lawsuit friendly northeast) are unwilling to accept any sort of personal responsibility.

 

Elk has made their choice and that is fine. Regardless of the rules, if some a-hole hits a tree and wants to file suit then he can. No matter what the claim, Elk must spend lots of money in legal fees to fight it. It's a lose-lose situation. IMHO.

 

I personally feel that JF has made a good decision to keep its terrain open. There are tons of great spots...like Mark's Way...the new glade from Challenge to River Shot.

 

It's not on the map, but it's still there. And it has a name! BDK knows what I'm talkin' about.

[bigdaddyk]

Everyone's opinions are valid and equal. The real people that everyone should be pissed at are the ignorant scum-suckers who do crash into trees/lift towers/signs/buildings and then attempt to file suit against the ski area. Every ski area has signage (inlcuding the lift ticket itself) that explains and describes the fact that skiing/riding is a recreational sports activity and is in fact NOT SAFE. By accepting the lift ticket, every individual is agreeing that they understand the inherent risks involved in any winter sports activity.....however, these numbnuts still do stupid things and get hurt....which makes them feel like they can suck some money out of the ski area even though it is was the individuals fault and responsibilty.

 

The problem for every ski area and all of us who want to ski the trees, etc. is that most people (especially in the lawsuit friendly northeast) are unwilling to accept any sort of personal responsibility.

 

Elk has made their choice and that is fine. Regardless of the rules, if some a-hole hits a tree and wants to file suit then he can. No matter what the claim, Elk must spend lots of money in legal fees to fight it. It's a lose-lose situation. IMHO.

 

I personally feel that JF has made a good decision to keep its terrain open. There are tons of great spots...like Mark's Way...the new glade from Challenge to River Shot.

 

It's not on the map, but it's still there. And it has a name! BDK knows what I'm talkin' about.

 

All points agreed. You can counter sue people, and the attorneys who file the frivolous law suits, for filing a law suit that shouldn't be filed. This might be more of a hassle and money, than what its worth. If this would happen more, it would help put an end to people suing for the results of their own actions.

[method9455]

People have died at Shawnee, Mountain Creek, and Camelback - without any gladed terrain at any of them. People get killed on groomed trails, on bumped trails, in terrain parks, in the parking lot, on the lift, the drive up, and the drive home. To say that that ONE thing is the one that will get Elk sued is stupid. Sure it is more dangerous in a glade than on the bunny hill, but is it more dangerous than the park? There are degrees of risk and the glades are definately riskier than a gladed trail for someone who knows what they are doing, but is it worse to have advanced skiers in a glade or beginners venturing out onto a wide open steep trail where they will get a bunch of speed, fall, and have no way to stop themselves before they hit a tree or lift pole. Based on my experience trying to get people to try glades with me, people are much more intimidated by a stand of trees than a steep trail, and I don't think beginners venture into the glades as often as they do onto trails that are too steep for them.

 

I've ridden with a backpack before, and it was very useful. But that was because we where at Mountain Creek. You park at one lodge and it is 25 minutes from one end to the other because of how it was 2 seperate places at one time. So we used to be dropped off by the school at Vernon, ride up with food/clothes/cameras, get to south, and lock the stuff in the lodge there because we where at south most of the day there. sometimes things happen outside of what the resort plans for you, if mountain creek had banned backpacks we would not have been able to do that. on the other hand, dumb people with backpacks get hurt on lifts, who saw that youtube video with the kid in utah hanging from the lift with a 40 foot fall below because of his backpack.

[moe ghoul]

People have died at Shawnee, Mountain Creek, and Camelback - without any gladed terrain at any of them. People get killed on groomed trails, on bumped trails, in terrain parks, in the parking lot, on the lift, the drive up, and the drive home. To say that that ONE thing is the one that will get Elk sued is stupid. Sure it is more dangerous in a glade than on the bunny hill, but is it more dangerous than the park? There are degrees of risk and the glades are definately riskier than a gladed trail for someone who knows what they are doing, but is it worse to have advanced skiers in a glade or beginners venturing out onto a wide open steep trail where they will get a bunch of speed, fall, and have no way to stop themselves before they hit a tree or lift pole. Based on my experience trying to get people to try glades with me, people are much more intimidated by a stand of trees than a steep trail, and I don't think beginners venture into the glades as often as they do onto trails that are too steep for them.

 

I've ridden with a backpack before, and it was very useful. But that was because we where at Mountain Creek. You park at one lodge and it is 25 minutes from one end to the other because of how it was 2 seperate places at one time. So we used to be dropped off by the school at Vernon, ride up with food/clothes/cameras, get to south, and lock the stuff in the lodge there because we where at south most of the day there. sometimes things happen outside of what the resort plans for you, if mountain creek had banned backpacks we would not have been able to do that. on the other hand, dumb people with backpacks get hurt on lifts, who saw that youtube video with the kid in utah hanging from the lift with a 40 foot fall below because of his backpack.

 

Beginners on a steep trail = Assumption of risk as a defense, as long as the trail is properly marked and maintained. Once you start opening glade terrain, or fail to properly post and prohibit off trail areas, the operator moves into an area of negligence that could overcome the assumption of risk defense. Apparently, the cost/benefit of opening wooded terrain is not worth it for the Elksters.

[Crayfish]

The problem for every ski area and all of us who want to ski the trees, etc. is that most people (especially in the lawsuit friendly northeast) are unwilling to accept any sort of personal responsibility.

 

AMEN!!!

[method9455]

Beginners on a steep trail = Assumption of risk as a defense, as long as the trail is properly marked and maintained. Once you start opening glade terrain, or fail to properly post and prohibit off trail areas, the operator moves into an area of negligence that could overcome the assumption of risk defense. Apparently, the cost/benefit of opening wooded terrain is not worth it for the Elksters.

 

On what basis can you say that? You make that statement with nothing to back it up. What defines a properly marked and maintained trail? If I had a choice between off trail glades at JF with soft snow or the ice I encountered on an opened Razors Edge at Blue a few days ago, the glade at JF was unquestionably safer. So how is JF less liable for injury than Blue? Under your argument, JF is more liable soley based on the trees being there, even though the Blue trail was one of the most dangerous I have ever ridden because of conditions.

[moe ghoul]

On what basis can you say that? You make that statement with nothing to back it up. What defines a properly marked and maintained trail? If I had a choice between off trail glades at JF with soft snow or the ice I encountered on an opened Razors Edge at Blue a few days ago, the glade at JF was unquestionably safer. So how is JF less liable for injury than Blue? Under your argument, JF is more liable soley based on the trees being there, even though the Blue trail was one of the most dangerous I have ever ridden because of conditions.

 

 

Based on case law and practicing personal injury law for 10 years. If you want to subscribe to Lexis/Nexis, you can research it yourself or try to google case law in PA. The highest standard of care is applied for biz invitees, so there is an affirmative duty to maintain a safe environment and provide for reasonable signage and fencing, etc. By posting out of bounds areas, providing trail info deeming certain areas off limits, and by fencing off areas of access known or should be known by the operator, he protects himself from a suit. There is no comparison to falling down an icy Razor vs. kissing a tree or other immovable object.

[method9455]

There is no comparison to falling down an icy Razor vs. kissing a tree or other immovable object.

 

Sure there is, because falling down on an icy Razors means you can't stop, which means you gain a lot of speed, and ultimately end up killed hitting a tree at the bottom. Compare that to a glade where getting up to 40+ is difficult because you can't go 10 feet without hitting a tree.

 

Have you ever hit a tree? I have, it didn't hurt me because I slid into it feet first. Yet I have broken my nose, broken my wrists, and gotten concussions in the park. Yet more places have parks than glades. Do you know who has personally been killed at a ski hill? I know of 3 in my town, non involved glades.

 

My point is by saying A is safe you can do it, but B is not safe so you can't, they take the "Ski at your own risk" out of the equation. Now its "ski within the boundaries that we set because they are safe" which makes them MORE liable than if they just say "do what you want, if you get hurt its on you". They are saying that the park is safer than glades, that groomed steep terrain is fine for beginners but glades are not fine for advanced riders, its rediculous.

 

In my other sport, sailing, it is sail at your own risk. When the storms roll in and it gets crazy, it is up to you to decide if you want to go out or not. As soon as they start saying it is not safe to go out today, the next time they go out and someone gets hurt or killed, they can sue and say "I thought it was safe becuase the last time when it wasn't safe you wouldn't let us go out". Lay the responsibility on the participant not the business.

 

Maybe the law doesn't agree with that, but it would hardly be the first time the law doesn't make sense. As for me searching it in Lexus Nexis, while I do have a subscription and I could do that, I'm not the one who asserted the point without any basis. Who gets to decide what is safe and what is not? There is no case law that spells it out, because if there was there would be NO glades.

Edited January 29, 2008 by Method9455

[Glenn]

Method, in CO inherent natural and man made risks involved with skiing/riding are the responsibility of the rider. Trees, snow making equipment, rocks, cliffs, lift towers etc. In PA they don't have that kind of protection for ski areas. Since it's not a true wilderness area, it's on the ski area to make things resonably safe. There is a pretty high level of expected saftey in day to day life. Skiing is way riskier than walking through a mall, but the law sees little difference. Unless specific legislation is made to protect and encourage high risk activities like skiing, than businesses will be caught in a balancing act between attracting customers and covering their liabilites.

[moe ghoul]

Sure there is, because falling down on an icy Razors means you can't stop, which means you gain a lot of speed, and ultimately end up killed hitting a tree at the bottom. Compare that to a glade where getting up to 40+ is difficult because you can't go 10 feet without hitting a tree.

 

I had to reread that, lol. So everyone that falls on Razor dies? How many folks have died or been seriously injured falling on Razor this year? Prolly less than 5. Falling is an inherent risk. You just made the case for prohibiting glade skiing. You can't go 10 feet without hitting a tree.

 

Have you ever hit a tree? I have, it didn't hurt me because I slid into it feet first. Yet I have broken my nose, broken my wrists, and gotten concussions in the park. Yet more places have parks than glades. Do you know who has personally been killed at a ski hill? I know of 3 in my town, non involved glades.

 

No, I haven't. I've hit fences that were placed there for my protection. How does my personally knowing dead skiers make any difference to this conversation?

 

My point is by saying A is safe you can do it, but B is not safe so you can't, they take the "Ski at your own risk" out of the equation. Now its "ski within the boundaries that we set because they are safe" which makes them MORE liable than if they just say "do what you want, if you get hurt its on you". They are saying that the park is safer than glades, that groomed steep terrain is fine for beginners but glades are not fine for advanced riders, its rediculous.

 

Good luck trying to argue that in court. You're client would sue you or the judge would laugh you out of the courtroom. Seriously.

 

 

In my other sport, sailing, it is sail at your own risk. When the storms roll in and it gets crazy, it is up to you to decide if you want to go out or not. As soon as they start saying it is not safe to go out today, the next time they go out and someone gets hurt or killed, they can sue and say "I thought it was safe becuase the last time when it wasn't safe you wouldn't let us go out". Lay the responsibility on the participant not the business.

 

THis has nothing to do with sailing and maritime law.

 

Maybe the law doesn't agree with that, but it would hardly be the first time the law doesn't make sense. As for me searching it in Lexus Nexis, while I do have a subscription and I could do that, I'm not the one who asserted the point without any basis. Who gets to decide what is safe and what is not? There is no case law that spells it out, because if there was there would be NO glades.

 

Here's a basis.

 

http://www.skilaw.com/skistatelaw.html#PA

 

you're welcome.

[Boarder1x9]

why can't elk allow tree skiing when JF does?

[RidgeRacer]

I personally feel that JF has made a good decision to keep its terrain open. There are tons of great spots...like Mark's Way...the new glade from Challenge to River Shot.

 

It's not on the map, but it's still there. And it has a name! BDK knows what I'm talkin' about.

 

That area is fun...Is Marks Way the official name for it?

[bigdaddyk]

why can't elk allow tree skiing when JF does?

 

I thought the answer given had something to do with the terrain

[Old Geezer]

This is a WIDE open thread about Elk. There aren't enough posts about this place on here. Say whatever you think; how much you love it, how much you hate it, how you feel about the hits in the park, or the brews in the lodge. Let's get posting.

Ok, we'll play. Here's a question for locals and regulars there. From going there off and over the years I know more than a few of the local watering holes and places to eat, but not this one. What's the story with the dive looking bar on Rt 374, about 1/2 mile of when you get off I81? It's on the south side of the highway, it has lettering 'Tavern' on one side and 'Lift Inn' on the other side, and the building is painted off-white with green trim. I know it's open, never see many cars there, and it looks somewhat run down. They don't seem to bother with many signs to draw people in, with one beat up yellow sign out front that looks like it's hasn't been updated in a while. But with a name like 'Lift Inn' it seems they want to have some connection to the ski crowd that comes off the Interstate highway (which is almost everyone going to the mountain).

 

And, it looks like there is some development occurring right off that highway interchange with a new convenience store being built. One of older my ski buddies says that would be a good spot to fix up and attract the ski crowd.

[PASKIINGSUCKS]

I visited elk again this past weekend for the fresh snow they got. It snowed off and on all day which was pretty cool and made for good conditions. Left my backpack at home which meant no camera, but made up for it by bringing a cooler of beer. We had about seven friends and got a sweet spot in the parking lots just above the quad, we actually skied down to the car through the woods for lunch and end of day. Met some REAL rowdy older fellas drinking faaarrrrr more than we were, and got to see em bite it hard in the moguls later in the day which was pretty funny.

 

I actually made it all the way until 4pm before me and two others had our passes pulled for being in the trees waayyy over to skiers left. Huge thanks to the very nice female patroller who caught me and didn't pull my pass around 10am, she also informed me of how strict the other patrollers were(I later found out) and that they even had a collection of clipped tickets for fun in the shack. I was respectable to the guy who pulled my ticket, hell I even clipped it for him with MY leatherman, but as soon as they saw us I heard the one patroller yell "take their passes!". I guess that's what I get for wearing a bright yellow jacket in there, I might have to invest in snow camo outerwear. Anywho we waited for the nice patroller to yell at some other folks in some other trees and then he continued on his way. We got back into the woods for our last run of the day and took it all the way down passed the pond and right to the front of the car.

 

 

I also gotta say even though the park is kinda shotty, the kids there know what they're doing as far as calling a drop and not standing in landings and whathaveya. Also the rope tow was running which was cool.

[Capitaaa!]

I visited elk again this past weekend for the fresh snow they got. It snowed off and on all day which was pretty cool and made for good conditions. Left my backpack at home which meant no camera, but made up for it by bringing a cooler of beer. We had about seven friends and got a sweet spot in the parking lots just above the quad, we actually skied down to the car through the woods for lunch and end of day. Met some REAL rowdy older fellas drinking faaarrrrr more than we were, and got to see em bite it hard in the moguls later in the day which was pretty funny.

 

I actually made it all the way until 4pm before me and two others had our passes pulled for being in the trees waayyy over to skiers left. Huge thanks to the very nice female patroller who caught me and didn't pull my pass around 10am, she also informed me of how strict the other patrollers were(I later found out) and that they even had a collection of clipped tickets for fun in the shack. I was respectable to the guy who pulled my ticket, hell I even clipped it for him with MY leatherman, but as soon as they saw us I heard the one patroller yell "take their passes!". I guess that's what I get for wearing a bright yellow jacket in there, I might have to invest in snow camo outerwear. Anywho we waited for the nice patroller to yell at some other folks in some other trees and then he continued on his way. We got back into the woods for our last run of the day and took it all the way down passed the pond and right to the front of the car.

 

 

I also gotta say even though the park is kinda shotty, the kids there know what they're doing as far as calling a drop and not standing in landings and whathaveya. Also the rope tow was running which was cool.

 

Nice TR thanks for posting. I'm glad you got your woods time in before they got ya haha. That weekend was really nice, possibly the last one we'll see until next year.

 

It's nice to hear you say what you did about the park. It is very small, but they have some of the nicest guys running it, and it seems to be the safest I've ever been in. For the most part, everyone really understands some descent park etiquette.

 

The rope tow really makes it worthwhile, you can get about 15 runs in an hour, and because theres less features, the park crew can keep them all in nice shape throughout the whole day. Big ups to Dan and the rest of the park crew.

[PASKIINGSUCKS]

The ski patrol at Elk needs to lighten up..skiing in the woods is not like robbing a bank..

Amen to that. The patroller who took my pass even passed on the story that I heard on here about the employee who died in the trees, he said he was on that call. I'm all for safety but if they cut out tree skiing at every resort where someone has died in the trees, well there wouldn't be much tree skiing.