Wildcat Winter Rules - Background and Discussion

[peakbagger]

Wildcat has had a policy regarding uphill and downhill non ski area traffic in place for at least three seasons. This policy has been reportedly poorly enforced/communicated to the ski area employees and the public leading to inconsistent enforcement of the rules. The USFS and Wildcat were aware of this and have worked over the summer to allow Wildcat ski area to put in place a new policy that is in compliance with federal requirements for leaseholders on federal lands.

Please remember that anyone in the world can search for and read this thread and most likely interested parties will. Like anything else on the internet, comments posted may live on forever and therefore please think before you hit the reply button.

A very simplified description of the ski area rulemaking process is that Wildcat Ski Area as a condition of their lease has to have multiple written policies in place regarding operation of the ski area. They have to submit these to the USFS. A designated USFS specialist reviews the proposed rules to ensure they comply with USFS rules and if they do, the WMNF chief ranger signs off on the proposed ski area rules and they become the rules that the ski area must follow. In exchange the leaseholder has to pay the US government a yearly lease fee that is based on multiple factors including skier usage. The lease fee currently paid was not disclosed by the USFS or the Wildcat representative but a knowledgeable member of the public reported an approximate amount of $63,000 per year based on a past Freedom of Information Act request. This cost is reportedly low relative to other regional ski areas that exist either partially or wholly on USFS land.

You may note that the simplified process does not have a formal requirement for public posting or public comments. When the USFS specialist was asked during a recent meeting, she stated a formal posting and comment period are not required per USFS rules as this procedure was not covered by NEPA (National Environmental Policy act). I also asked if there was an appeal mechanism and was told that no there was not.

In order to gain input, the USFS specialist did invite individuals who has expressed concerns over the past Wildcat access rules to a meeting on Friday Oct 26th at the USFS office in Gorham NH. There was no formal method of selecting attendees or notification that such input was wanted. Ultimately the people attended represented hikers, hikers who wished to hike with a dog, someone who used to actively participate in backcountry skiing and a hiker with ski industry experience. In actuality in my and at least some others opinion the presentation was intended to explain why the USFS has the authority to deal directly with Wildcat in getting Wildcat’s proposed rules approved by the USFS. Public input was accepted but the approach was predominately to inform the members of the public why Wildcat had the right to make the rules. It was mentioned several times by the USFS that the Wildcat Ski area is only 1000 acres out of 750,000 acres in the WMNF so that if the general public is unhappy with the rules in place at Wildcat, that there are plenty of other places to go.

 

[peakbagger]

Part 2

The actual presentation of the rulemaking process is fairly long, I will attempt to summarize but if someone has great interest the USFS representative indicated that she could make the presentation again.
The USFS has no interest in building or operating a ski area, if a private firm wants to build one and it meets USFS objectives, the private firm can be allowed to lease US government land and make “improvements” to it. These improvements may include but are not limited to parking lots, base lodges, ski runs and snow making equipment. Basically the US government leases raw unimproved forest land and anything the lease holder adds or maintains, the leasee controls and is allowed to make a profit. As the US government is “landlord” they have a right to make sure that the ski area is operated in accord with long established USFS policies to ensure equitable treatment of the leaseholder and the general public.

A very major distinction, key to the process is that the US government is not leasing the actual land under the ski area, they are leasing the right to make improvements and profit from those improvements. Wildcat has approximately 1000 acres within their lease boundaries with approximately 500 acres developed. As an illustration, inside the lease boundary there is a backcountry ski route referred to as Thompson Falls. This ski route is not “improved” by Wildcat. It is typically accessed from the improved section of the ski area as accessing by ascending the actual ski route would impair the snow and expose uphill ascenders to skiers going downhill. Wildcat can regulate access across their “improved” ski area to this area. If the backcountry ski crowd finds an alternative route that does not access the “improved” area, then they are not subject to the ski area rules. This would also apply to hikers, sledders and dogs, if they wish to climb Wildcat Mountain through ski area lease boundaries without at any point entering or crossing the “improved” area of the ski resort; they are not subject to the Wildcat Ski area rules despite at some point being on the undeveloped Wildcat lease.

Given that the USFS contends they have a chain of regulations in place conveying Wildcat Ski area the right to make the rules on the improved area of the lease, any considerations for members of the general public who are not skiers who have paid for use of the ski area improvements are essentially there by the grace of the ski area. The USFS regulations do have numerous conditions that the ski area must prove compliance with including one that allows the public access at least part of the year. This is addressed by allowing the public full access during the rest of the year when the ski area is not in operation. The forest service also has the right to deem that access to adjoining WMNF forest property can be by other established routes outside the lease area. The ski areas rules are specific to each leaseholder; some leaseholders may be far more or less generous in what they allow non-skiers to do. A policy from a similar ski area from out west was mentioned, that policy was far more generous and did not require non skiers to pay an access fee. In any case other ski areas are welcome to look at the Wildcat rules and adopt them when their individual lease is renewed.

With regards to the proposed access fee, the dollar value was admitted by the ski area to be arbitrary and was selected by the ski area. Although the USFS is required to ensure that the amount charged would not be construed as discriminatory, it’s really up to the ski area. In reality the fee is a means of the non-skier’s to come under the NH State waiver of liability skier’s law. By buying the access ticket, the non-skier is not allowed to sue for any damages that they may incur on ski area property. The Wildcat rep indicated that the $10 fee is effectively his administrative cost to put this option in place. He could just as well charge a$1. He does not want to actively encourage this option he is basically offering it as a goodwill gesture to the non-skier public that has traditionally enjoyed access in the winter.

I did bring up the historical CCC ski trail that was in existence long before the ski area, the USFS contends that that was effectively transferred to the ski area and improved so it is covered by improvement. Unlike personal property I don’t think that any right of way based on prior established use by the public is applicable to public land.

I also mentioned the Mt Tecumseh Ski area that appears to have relocated an existing hiking trail at least twice in its history to reduce skier/hiker conflicts. There does not appear to be any interest on the USFS or Wildcat ski area's part in pursuing a designated but segregated hiking route as two exist. My observation is that any such route in the ski area would rapidly become a bootleg ski trail.

The potential dangerous access from either Carter Notch or Route 16 was mentioned. This is not an issue on the USFS part. Hikers are responsible to take hazards into effect when hiking up trails and in any case the USFS is not liable for injuries that incur in the forest.

I brought up the subject of hiker emergencies that will occur on occasion while folks are up the ridge. Despite the best intent people may “want” or need to go down the ski slope outside of normal hours without a pass. This would be dealt with by the ski area on a case by case basis. If they deem that an individual is using the “emergency clause, they have the right to call law enforcement and have the individual cited for theft of services. Obviously that’s bad PR so they have to balance the offense against the PR hit.

In general there isn’t a lot to do about this in my opinion. The number of individuals affected is small and have little political support and is far outweighed by the ski industry. Politically ski areas donate money to politicians and also contribute to local economies. Non skiers at ski areas are a minority and tend not to be members of any major organizations that would back them up. It is interesting to note that AMC either as not invited into the discussion or was not informed. In order to get the policies reversed would be a significant legal case and any loss of control by the ski areas would be resisted by all other resorts operating on leased US lands. There could be an attempt at gathering negative publicity but in reality the local news media in ski regions tend to be highly supportive of ski areas as they are a major source of revenue. I expect at least a few folks may advocate either ignoring the rules and taking their chance on getting caught or possibly “monkey wrenching”. In either case I will not have a lot of sympathy for either approach and expect if it's significant the ski area will revise their plan at a later date to prevent all non-skier access.

Realistically for my part I am not a “gridder” and will hope for a late opening and a early closing of the ski area prior to the end of calendar winter.

Tim: ETA: The corresponding rules thread

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Thanks again, Peakbagger, for attending. The new rules, while more restrictive, are also more clear, provide for advanced purchases, and per Wildcat, will be made well-known to all employees.

The first question / ambiguity is this - crossing from the Platform on D peak to E Peak, one arguably crosses an improved area, as the AT crosses this area. Presumably, there will not be a hassle in so-doing?

Tim

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Am wondering if you used 19MBT and did an over and back along the ridge - not descending via Polecat or similar - would that avoid any necessary fees/interaction with the Wildcat Ski Area?

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I would think so - you are not using any improvements - My question is what happens when you are between D and E?

Tim

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I would think so - you are not using any improvements - My question is what happens when you are between D and E?

Tim

Hmmm ... not following you, Tim. Aren't all the peaks on the AT anyway? If you stay within that corridor, I think that "right-of-way", or whatever it's called, takes precedence over these new rules? I didn't read the other thread word for word, so maybe that issue of the AT corridor was covered there.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

I would think so too - but you are walking within the boundary of the groomed ski area while on the AT. Much more likely to raise an eyebrow snowshoeing over corduroy than out-and-back to D-peak from 19MBT.

Tim

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

I guess I was the "dog person" representative who was there. Let me say first of all that Peakbagger's account is impressively good and accurate. To answer a couple of questions:

Am wondering if you used 19MBT and did an over and back along the ridge - not descending via Polecat or similar - would that avoid any necessary fees/interaction with the Wildcat Ski Area?

I would think so - you are not using any improvements - My question is what happens when you are between D and E?

Tim

It was clearly stated by the USFS representative that hikers could access the two peaks from either Rt. 16 or the 19 mile trail. As long as you stay on the narrow corridor above the lift there didn't seem to be any problem with access. The Wild Cat rep didn't seem at all interested in contesting this passage.

As was stated, before Wild Cat opens for the season and after it closes for the season there are no restrictions to access to the mountain even if snow remains.

It was also stated that at that time of year when Wild Cat is open only on the weekends, during the mid-week at times when they are not making snow or grooming the trails, they will not be enforcing the rules and the public can access the area without paying and without time restrictions.

Correct me if I am wrong, but it was also my understanding that when it was pointed out that hikers wanting to bag A really needed more time, the manager said he would seriously consider allowing hikers to leave at 7:00 AM and to return to the station by 5:00 PM (rather than the announced 7:30 - 4:30) as long as the hiker had purchased and was carrying with him a ticket purchased online.

 

[peakbagger]

I agree Ed, that flexibility in the AM was discussed but I dont remember a definite commitment. The problem with letting hikers in early is that they could conceivably ruin the best snow of the day. There was also a discussion that the actual ticket purchased online is not a ticket as such, its a receipt that can be transferred for a ticket at the baselodge. Therefore there still might need to be interaction by a hiker at the baselodge, Wildcats rep did commit to looking into it and hopefully it can be resolved so the hiker doesnt have to be further delayed waiting in line.

With regards to the the Wildcat ridge trail (the AT), as long as a hiker stays on the trail and doesnt access ski area improvements, no need for a pass or following the ski area rules. There are no ski trails crossing the actual AT route and no grooming equipment so effectively there are no improvements. It would be interesting if the AT maintainer for this trail would weigh in on his understanding of the extent of the trail corridor in this area.

I expect if they did try to extend the rules to the AT itself, there suddenly would be a lot more interest in this matter and there would be several national groups that might take it up as a cause.

 

[Raven]

Wildcat can regulate access across their “improved” ski area to this area. If the backcountry ski crowd finds an alternative route that does not access the “improved” area, then they are not subject to the ski area rules. This would also apply to hikers, sledders and dogs, if they wish to climb Wildcat Mountain through ski area lease boundaries without at any point entering or crossing the “improved” area of the ski resort; they are not subject to the Wildcat Ski area rules despite at some point being on the undeveloped Wildcat lease.

I found this part interesting and quite clear. Perhaps a possible solution is a winter herd path that parallels the ski slope in the woods and has an access route that does not cross improved areas of the ski resort. If it becomes a rogue ski trail, even better - some grooming (by skiing) without it being "improved" so still "legal."

Personally, I don't find the trip up and down from 19MB in winter to be so bad, so I imagine I'll continue going that way. I prefer not to be hassled when I hike. These conversations make me thankful that NH has opted to not allow ski resorts over many of it's higher ridges.

Thanks for taking the time to go the meeting and share the results in a clear, concise thread. This has been a hot-button issue filled with confusion and misinformation the last couple winters.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

Perhaps a possible solution is a winter herd path that parallels the ski slope in the woods and has an access route that does not cross improved areas of the ski resort.

Parking is listed as an "improvement", so they are within their rights to charge for that. I suppose they aren't looking too carefully inside cars to determine if you've got skis/boards. I suppose you could always say "Hey, I like paying $11 for a hamburger and I was hungry!"

It would appear that the legal free options are:

1. Loop via the Wildcat Ridge Trail (very steep), 8.1 miles, 3150'
2. Out and back from 19MBT, 12.8 miles, 4350'

I asked a member of the Four Thousand Footer Committee to discuss this at their next meeting to see if they have an official position / recommendation on using the ski trail or not.

Here is last year's thread if anyone is interested

Tim

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Parking is listed as an "improvement", so they are within their rights to charge for that. I suppose they aren't looking too carefully inside cars to determine if you've got skis/boards. I suppose you could always say "Hey, I like paying $11 for a hamburger and I was hungry!"

Parking was discussed. What I remember being said was that Wild Cat could charge for parking but they do not do so and the USFS prefers that they do not charge. As I remember it was stated that whatever was done, the policy would be the same for everyone.

 

[RoySwkr]

Thanks to those who attended and provided information.

As was stated, before Wild Cat opens for the season and after it closes for the season there are no restrictions to access to the mountain even if snow remains.

Not quite, they are considered to be "in operation" when they start making snow even if the area isn't open

It was also stated that at that time of year when Wild Cat is open only on the weekends, during the mid-week at times when they are not making snow or grooming the trails, they will not be enforcing the rules and the public can access the area without paying and without time restrictions.

Is there a method for finding out if this is true on a given day?

Parking was discussed. What I remember being said was that Wild Cat could charge for parking but they do not do so and the USFS prefers that they do not charge. As I remember it was stated that whatever was done, the policy would be the same for everyone.

The Cog Railway (not subject to USFS rules) at one time charged everybody for parking but gave a credit against ticket price, so effectively only hikers/sightseers were charged.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Thanks to those who attended and provided information.

Not quite, they are considered to be "in operation" when they start making snow even if the area isn't open

Is there a method for finding out if this is true on a given day?

The Cog Railway (not subject to USFS rules) at one time charged everybody for parking but gave a credit against ticket price, so effectively only hikers/sightseers were charged.

No question about snow making. Sorry if I didn't make it clear. The Wild Cat manager did make that very clear. When they begin snow making their season has begun whether or not the lifts are running.

Wild Cat does announce when it is weekend only. From what I understood there would be no snow making or grooming from Monday through Thursday at those times. I would imagine you could call the weekend before to verify. You might find it more difficult to get hold of someone on the days they are not in operation.

I can assure you it was made clear they they do not plan to post anyone at the entrance of the parking lot to charge hikers for parking as the Cog Railway folks do. The hikers are going to pay the $10 fee and that covers them for the parking also.

 

[BobC]

Thanks to everyone for attending meetings, following up, and posting this. I haven't done Wildcat D in winter, and intend to do it at some point, and this is valuable info.

 

[SherpaTom]

First off, thanks Peakbagger for a very thorough summary. Last year we planned to do this hike, bought a pass in the a.m. (yes waiting in line is a pain) but never hiked down Polecat as plans eventually changed. This year we plan to return and hile up 19M and descend Polecat. Rather than the hassle of waiting in the morning (there are 10 of us), I was going to suggest paying for a pass on the way out. Any concerns with this approach since we cannot purchase online as someone mentioned and I really don't want to delay our start time. Perhaps the best solution is going to be in & out. Thanks.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

It's probably too soon to make concrete plans. Wildcat is surely aware that the normal hours are a stretch for some would-be hiking customers, and appears to be considering options. What will be interesting is if you arrive at the top of D-peak without the advance purchase and a statement of "my only ride is in the C-lot below."

Tim

 

[bikehikeskifish]

It's probably too soon to make concrete plans. Wildcat is surely aware that the normal hours are a stretch for some would-be hiking customers, and appears to be considering options. What will be interesting is if you arrive at the top of D-peak without the advance purchase and a statement of "my only ride is in the C-lot below."

Perhaps the Forest Service needs to post signs at the trailheads to the north to this effect.

Tim

 

[peakbagger]

Signage at 19 mile brook and Rt 16 were discussed but given that would be USFS land it may be difficult to allow. The issue of someone deciding mid hike that they need to or want to go down the ski area without a pass was discussed. At a minimum the individuals will need to sign a liability waiver at the ski patrol hut at the top. This alerts the ski patrollers that hikers are on the mountain and covers the resort for any hiker liability. If a hikers needs to go down the ski trail without a pass due to an "emergency" it will be sorted out by the ski area. If the hiker just wants to go down they will need a pass or they can be prosecuted for theft of services at the ski areas discretion. The key thing is the ski area is not advertising itself as "the downhill hiking on ski trail capital of NH", they arent really interested in pursuing the hikers business and are offering limited access to their improvements as a courtesy. As for what constitutes an emergency it was not defined, its intentionally open for the discretion of the ski area. Its a case of where a reasonable person will know an "emergency" when they see it.

I sure hope no one pushes for a definition of "emergency". IMHO I sure would not support an individual declaring an emergency due to poor planning on their part such as taking longer than expected or needing headlamps or other gear recomended by Hike Safe. Probably a good guideline is that if someone has a choice between calling Fish and Game for a rescue or heading down the slope unassisted, that probably is a legitimate emergency and quite frankly a $10 dollar pass is a lot cheaper than a F&G bill.

By the way, I have sent a link to the rules to the trip organizers of the New England Outdoors Meetup group and have asked any organizers in that group to forward it to their groups. If anyone else has contacts in outdoor groups that may be impacted by these rules please forward a link.

 

[Ed'n Lauky]

Keep a check on the Wild Cat website. The manager definitely indicated that advance purchase would be possible online. With advance purchase skiers would still have to check in at the office first because there will be no bar code on the online ticket. It was pointed out at the meeting that a bar code was irrelevant for hikers who don't take the lift. I personally thought the manager was open to the idea of hikers simply carrying the online pass with them. This is something that probably should be checked on in a few weeks after the final details are worked out. It is certainly something I hope the management seriously considers as it would be a tremendous help to hikers and actually a convenience to Wild Cat also as a $10 hiker is not taking a place in line slowing up big bucks skiers.