I almost got nailed by two skiers this weekend....

[Quietman]

Are you sure that WV doesn't allow skiers to go Out of Bounds? It's certainly commonplace at Wildcat and Cannon, which both have excellent backcountry terrain close by. I don't think it's against their policies, but I'm not sure about WV.

-dave-

Interesting insight, while skiing Cannon 2 years ago, the lady at the ticket counter specifically warned us that skiing the old Mitersell(sp) slopes was dangerous and not allowed. But by telling everyone, including many who wouldn't have known about them, she was almost encouraging people to check it out. There was no rope on the trail to the short climb up to the old ski trail, and a ski patroller was one of the 5 that were climbing up. So we followed, said hi to the patroller, and had a blast.

While this dosen't directly relate to the debate, it may give some insight to what WV's response might be.

 

[David Metsky]

And in VT, it's pretty much standard. I've gone to well established backcountry runs OOB from Jay, Stowe, MRG, Sugarbush, and others. There's a backcountry gate for Big Jay, but that's the only one I know of in VT. Only a few of these runs coincide with traditional hiking trails, mainly around Stowe. I've also skied several of the hiking trails around Camels Hump. You should definitely expect to encounter skiers up there.

But VT has much more backcountry skiing then NH, Tuckerman Ravine excepted.

-dave-

 

[grouseking]

Safety First

No offense, but you really seem to have a chip on your shoulder. You might be surpised to know that the vast majority of people out there aren't even farmiliar with the concept of winter hiking. Sorry you had a bad experience but, as I recall, someone specifically warned you about the fact that this trail is often used by snowboarders in the previous thread you started prior to taking this hike.

peace

The comment simply highlighted the ignorance that the skiers had that day. I wasn't being serious. I would never hike down the middle of a skiing trail. That being said, how could I not have a chip on my shoulder? I could have been hurt really bad, kind of hard not to. My opinion stands....safety first. I was ready to turn around and bushwhack off the mtn if more skiers came down, because, safety first.

Few can disagree with that motto.

grouseking

 

[Stan]

I suspect skiers may have used that trail as much as winter hikers for many years and that the popularity of winter hiking and peakbagging has grown in the past several years. This creates a greater potential for conflict.

It would be smart if WV put up caution signs ... maybe at both ends.

What grouseking describes is reckless and I'd be a bit peeved if it happened to me ... did almost get wiped out by a similarly self engaged bicyclist once on Sawyer Pond Road and had a similar gut reaction. Makes you wonder whether you have to fend off such hazards with the sharp end of a hiking pole directed in the soft end of said soft headed hazard.

 

[el-bagr]

I have skied numerous designated hiking trails in New Hampshire and across this corner of the continent, some on mountains with lift-served access and others quite far from machinery.

I have never personally encountered conflict with other users over this issue, whether I was the skier or I was the hiker.

Not to open the mountain-biking-the-WMNF debate, but as we say for bicyclists, "Share the Road".

 

[David Metsky]

My opinion stands....safety first. I was ready to turn around and bushwhack off the mtn if more skiers came down, because, safety first.

Few can disagree with that motto.

I don't think anyone will argue with you about needing to look out for our own safety, and that of others. These skiers were probably not doing that and you have every right to be pissed. I hope no one feels otherwise.

But, many of us have years and years of experience hiking and skiing on the same trails and we've managed to find ways to get along in a safe and fun manner. There will be exceptions from people behaving badly. Some responsibility falls on the skiers to be in control, and on the hikers to be alert for skiers and step aside when they are coming down. On trails with a lot of skier use (such as the Tecumseh Trail) it is even more important to remain alert and behave accordingly.

-dave-

Multi-use is a strength.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Some responsibility falls on the skiers to be in control, and on the hikers to be alert for skiers and step aside when they are coming down.

I have to respectfully disagree with that, simply because many times it is simply not possible to "step aside". I will do my best to be alert for the presence of skiers, but when a skier chooses to ski down a narrow trail at high speed with short sight distances that is heavily used by hikers, the responsibility lies soley with the person barreling downhill with long metal edged objects attached to his feet, IMHO. And I think if it ever came to a lawsuit by a hiker who was injured by a skier in this example, I can't see how the hiker would be liable in any way for not being able to "get out of the way" in time for an out of control skier.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

If you are curious, the following might cover the legal questions:

225-A:24 Responsibilities of Skiers and Passengers.

(http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XIX-225-A.htm)

I don't see the text "hike(r)" herein, but it does include snowshoes. It is targeted at ski area operators.

I found this, oddly enough, while checking the conditions at Wildcat... ski conditions that is

Tim

 

[David Metsky]

I probably didn't write up what I intended, my apologies.

I agree, no one should ever have to jump out of the way of an out of control skier. That is not part of common courtesy. The skier (or biker, or sledder, or glissader) would be at fault in any case where they are unable to stop themselves in a prudent amount of time or distance. When I ski down trails I am extremely careful about going around blind turns, or where my sight lines are poor. There's no excuse for running someone off the trail.

I was talking about situations where a skier is coming down a trail and there is a more pleasant interaction between them and an uphill traveler. If you see someone coming down the trail, who is in control, and their rate of speed allows you to step off the trail to let them by, then I believe you should. If not, the skier should stop so there is no collision. When hiking or skiing uphill and downhill skier comes by, or going in either direction when a snowmobiler goes past I have found it easy to step aside so the skier or biker or rider doesn't have to kill all their momentum. I usually inform the lead rider how many other skiers/hikers are behind or ahead of me so they have know to be alert for them. We occasionally have pleasant chats as well. There are exceptions to the rule, and they give us all a bad reputation, like these guys on Tecumseh.

There's no excuse for being out of control on a tight trail with no sight lines, no matter what your mode of transportation.

-dave-

 

[Stan]

The statute Tim links has this very pertinent section:

III. Each skier or passenger shall conduct himself or herself, within the limits of his or her own ability, maintain control of his or her speed and course at all times both on the ground and in the air, while skiing, snowboarding, snow tubing, and snowshoeing heed all posted warnings, and refrain from acting in a manner which may cause or contribute to the injury of himself, herself, or others.

I've taken the liberty to bold two passages which place some onus, in this case, on the skier and perhaps the operator.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/rsa/html/NHTOC/NHTOC-XIX.htm also points out the more general TITLE XIX: PUBLIC RECREATION which includes 225-A.

I don't have more then a cursory interest myself, so I haven't read through them. A quick scan still does not reveal the word "hike(r)" and so I'm not sure which law(s) cover the interaction between a skier at a DH area and a hiker on a nearby trail.

I have two NH lawyer acquaintances who are avid cyclists and skiers and if I run into them skiing this weekend, as I do most, I'll ask....


Tim

 

[expat]

Rules of engagement

Most accepted (and in some places posted) rules of a hiking trail are that foot traffic has the right of way over any other conveyance (besides horse), and that the uphill hiker has the right of way.

 

[Tim Seaver]

I have two NH lawyer acquaintances who are avid cyclists and skiers and if I run into them skiing this weekend

Metaphorically speaking, I take it?

 

[MadRiver]

So bikehikeskifish, if I see you coming or going as I hike the Tripyramids on Saturday, I should expect a kind word or a tip of the hat as you pass? I will be the hiker with the Marine K-Bar in his teeth.

 

[MadRiver]

lawyer acquaintances [/QUOTE] Someone has been reading [I]A Streetcar Named Desire[/I] ;)

 

[bubba]

From a hiker/skier - the dudes skiing were rude and not conducting themselves in a proper manner. Okay - I've done the same thing!! I was prbly about 18 years old.. maybe 24 and a few pops in me These skiers were out looking for a good time, and unfortunately it prbly never occured to them that they would run into (no pun) hikers on a ski trail (guarantee that's how they saw it - a ski trail... or a trail to ski on).

As a Jr. ski racing parent and ski race participant, I hike on many a ski slope. It's not dangerous!! It's great exercise. A club member at our ski club hikes up the hill on his first run to stay in shape (a back-country telemark skier). The uphill skier has the responsibility for his direction and control. They've all missed me so far! Many other race parents and I have hiked up ski slopes all over the northeast.

As a back-country skier we've all learned the call "TRACKS!" - a kind way of saying "Get the heck out of my way! I'm coming through." The post can't help but remind me of hiking in the ADK's and sharing ski trails - with as minimal elevation gains as Loj to Avalanche Lake. Even on this, there's places that you can pick up speed. I'll kindly disagree with a previous mention that most x/c skiers have better control -- not usually so. They often don't have the skill, much less the metal edge to make a strong turn.

Out of bounds - it wouldn't be fun if it was inbounds!! (Northeast speaking - another thing out west). And, trust me, with liability issues the way they are, those OOB signs limit the ski area's responsibility.

 

[forestgnome]

I probably didn't write up what I intended, my apologies.

I agree, no one should ever have to jump out of the way of an out of control skier. That is not part of common courtesy. The skier (or biker, or sledder, or glissader) would be at fault in any case where they are unable to stop themselves in a prudent amount of time or distance. When I ski down trails I am extremely careful about going around blind turns, or where my sight lines are poor. There's no excuse for running someone off the trail.

I was talking about situations where a skier is coming down a trail and there is a more pleasant interaction between them and an uphill traveler. If you see someone coming down the trail, who is in control, and their rate of speed allows you to step off the trail to let them by, then I believe you should. If not, the skier should stop so there is no collision. When hiking or skiing uphill and downhill skier comes by, or going in either direction when a snowmobiler goes past I have found it easy to step aside so the skier or biker or rider doesn't have to kill all their momentum. I usually inform the lead rider how many other skiers/hikers are behind or ahead of me so they have know to be alert for them. We occasionally have pleasant chats as well. There are exceptions to the rule, and they give us all a bad reputation, like these guys on Tecumseh.

There's no excuse for being out of control on a tight trail with no sight lines, no matter what your mode of transportation.

-dave-

I think Dave really captures the spirit of the White Mountains here, and it's a tried and true way of life. Sometimes experience shapes tastes and opinions and we arrive at new ways of looking at things. Many times I have been shocked to learn of certain goings-on and have formed a negative opinion. This was because others recreate in ways contrary to my own taste, and because I learned that reality was different than my expectations. I now value the status quo of the WMNF, and there is little I would actually change. As an avid trail hiking, bushwacking, snowboarding, photographing, nature-lover, there are infinite opportunities for me despite all the others recreating in the forest in all sorts of modes.

Once I was hiking up the hard-packed East Side Road at Lincoln Woods. There were two distinct tracks for xc skiers on either side, with plenty of room for hikers right up the middle. As one pair of well-heeled skiers passed, my friendly hello was met with a cold silence and blank faces. They thought I didn't belong because their expectation did not match reality. Later, as I approached the bottom of a long hill I heard and saw a skier who was starting to pick up speed as she came down the hill with eyes wide open and a terrified look and called for help. I just turned my back to her and jogged in the same direction and stuck out my arm for her to grab, then slowed the both of us down to a stop. She was thrilled and her husband both thanked me as we talked and joked and so forth. That experience was more in line with the multi-use spirit of the WMNF. I then followed the first set of moose tracks that crossed the path and had the whole mountain side to myself for the rest of the day.

happy Trails

 

[Amicus]

. . . so I'm not sure which law(s) cover the interaction between a skier at a DH area and a hiker on a nearby trail.
I have two NH lawyer acquaintances who are avid cyclists and skiers and if I run into them skiing this weekend, as I do most, I'll ask....

Tim

I'm not an NH lawyer and don't even play one on TV, but Sec. A:24 serves only to limit the liability of the ski area operator to skiers, tubers, snowshoers or tram passengers who get hurt (which is why Wildcat posts it). Sec. A:23, in turn, imposes a few obligations on the operator, including some required postings.

Neither, as I read them, addresses the rights of a colliding skier and hiker against each other. The Ancient Greeks and about every reputable civilization since them have regarded litigiousness as a sign of decadence, so my (non-legal) advice to any would-be plaintiff is to fuggedaboutit.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

So bikehikeskifish, if I see you coming or going as I hike the Tripyramids on Saturday, I should expect a kind word or a tip of the hat as you pass? I will be the hiker with the Marine K-Bar in his teeth.

I pretty much smile, nod, or say hi to just about everyone I pass out there on the trails. I will certainly not tell you to get off the trail!

Tim

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Metaphorically speaking, I take it?

Ha. If I was skiing, I probably won't be running into them, would I?

Tim