Jump to content


Late BREAKING NEWS

Started by tahoeistruckin, Oct 26 2007 05:30 PM

27 replies to this topic

#21 tahoeistruckin

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 282 Posts:

Posted 02 November 2007 - 10:21 AM

View PostCallao, on Nov 2 2007, 10:37 AM, said:

If I recall right, the ski patrol at The Canyons is the only unionized unit in the Utah ski industry. You can't fire a whole union, can you? Because if they can pull that off, and hire a new ski patrol, it seems like they should have done that seven years ago.

Isn't a resort required to have a certain number of patrollers on the mountain at any given time? The Canyons makes it sound so easy to not have any ski patrol at all.



Now i thought most patrols were part of the NSP, While others were paid employess of the resort. Being on the National Ski Patrol ,isn't that a voluntary thing? There for all they recieve is the training and equipment and a ski pass.
As for having so many patrollers on the hill at any given time, i've never heard of a standard rule, saying how man is needed per ioen acrege. I would think however the resort insurance company would have a major say in the matter. Seeing how they are covering the liablity issuse.

#22 liftmech

    lift mechanic

  • Administrator II
  • 5,918 Posts:
  • Interests:Many.

Posted 02 November 2007 - 10:35 AM

It would be interesting to be the so-called fly on the wall if they actually do end up opening sans patrol. I don't think there's any law that actually requires an area to have a ski patrol, but can you imagine the uproar when the first 10-50 happens and no-one is there to haul the victim down the hill? The media would probably crucify The Canyons for that.
Member, Department of Ancient Technology, Colorado chapter.

#23 tahoeistruckin

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 282 Posts:

Posted 02 November 2007 - 10:40 AM

View Postliftmech, on Nov 2 2007, 11:35 AM, said:

It would be interesting to be the so-called fly on the wall if they actually do end up opening sans patrol. I don't think there's any law that actually requires an area to have a ski patrol, but can you imagine the uproar when the first 10-50 happens and no-one is there to haul the victim down the hill? The media would probably crucify The Canyons for that.


And not to mention the ski related website forums, ie: epic ski, skinet, and so on.
No probably about it,, the media WOULD. The are a vindictive bunch.

This post has been edited by tahoeistruckin: 02 November 2007 - 10:43 AM

#24 Allan

    Maintenance Manager

  • Administrator I
  • 2,745 Posts:

Posted 03 November 2007 - 07:11 PM

View Postliftmech, on Nov 2 2007, 11:35 AM, said:

It would be interesting to be the so-called fly on the wall if they actually do end up opening sans patrol. I don't think there's any law that actually requires an area to have a ski patrol, but can you imagine the uproar when the first 10-50 happens and no-one is there to haul the victim down the hill? The media would probably crucify The Canyons for that.


We have this in our code:
11.36.1
One or more persons trained to administer first aid shall be available at all times when a ropeway is
operating and transporting passengers.

But it doesn't give a number or if they have to be ski patrol.
- Allan

#25 Guest_mjturley34_*

  • Visiting Guest

Posted 03 November 2007 - 09:45 PM

This must be because of some union :pinch:


Wolf Mountain declared in default
Griswold must pony up for golf course, county officials say
Patrick Parkinson, Of the Record staff
Article Launched: 11/02/2007 04:38:16 PM MDT

Officials in Coalville hope declaring Wolf Mountain Resorts in default of a development agreement at The Canyons will result in the overdue construction of a public golf course in the Snyderville Basin.

Wednesday the Summit County Commission demanded Wolf Mountain Managing Partner Kenny Griswold turn over land he owns at The Canyons so Willow Draw Road can be realigned and a path can be built for golf carts. The notice of default against Griswold comes in the wake of a lawsuit filed against the county by Wolf Mountain Resorts. :unsure:

"It's a response to the lawsuit," Summit County Commissioner Bob Richer said in an interview.

Griswold leases land to the now-defunct American Skiing Company on which The Canyons is operated. Chief among the amenities promised by American Skiing Company when The Canyons formed in 1999 was an 18-hole golf course. American Skiing Co. agreed to complete the course in 2002. :blush: The construction, however, still hasn't begun. :ohmy:

But roughly 25 landowners at The Canyons needed to cooperate to build the golf course by providing land and other concessions. Griswold blamed Summit County for not enforcing the development agreement to penalize ASC for not completing the course on time in a 3rd District Court complaint filed Oct. 15.

"We are going to be issuing a notice of default for specific performance to Wolf Mountain," Richer :cool: said Wednesday.

But officials in Summit County breached the development agreement by not requiring ASC to construct the course on time and by approving a new golf plan this summer, the lawsuit filed by Griswold states.

Griswold said officials in Summit County ruined the original design for a world-class course at The Canyons last summer by approving a "substandard" golf-course plan with four par 3 holes on the back nine, which made

the development agreement at The Canyons "null and void."

"Nobody really thinks this is going to be the final golf course, do they?" Griswold asked in a telephone interview.

Meanwhile, Richer said concerns the county had about American Skiing Co. not completing the course on time were addressed by the firm.

"There is no need to declare a default against ASC," Richer said. "We appreciate ASC listening and responding."

Griswold disagreed and claimed a so-called standstill agreement

Summit County officials reached with American Skiing Co. indicates "they didn't resolve anything because you don't see the golf course built."

#26 Guest_mjturley34_*

  • Visiting Guest

Posted 03 November 2007 - 09:47 PM

:temper: :shocking: :mad: :sad:

#27 Carl

    Established User

  • Industry II
  • 302 Posts:

Posted 05 November 2007 - 02:44 AM

Back to the ski patrol issue. No Insurance Carrier in the world would touch a ski hill sans patrol, eh?

Carl

#28 Callao

    Established User

  • Industry I
  • 429 Posts:

Posted 05 November 2007 - 08:51 AM

That might be a tough sell for sure--but considering when you're going down one of the back bowls, catch a ski and do the "scorpion" down the rest of the mountain (like I did a few years ago), who finds you? Not the ski patrol! Almost always it will be another skier, who will then alert ski patrol. In other words, there are already too few ski patrol to fetch your lost goggles 15 seconds after you biff.

We have clinics at some of our mid-sized resorts. Why not treat ski patrol like staff on a clinic, waiting in their tuff-sheds for a 1050? I don't see that we necessarily need to swamp the mountain with ski patrol. Just enough to get by with the average 2-3 accidents per 1000 skier visits (which is typical for skiers; slightly higher for snowboarders).

One thing that can be stopped permanently is ski patrol being called to escort struggling (or even worse--"I'm cold!") beginners from expert terrain. What is this, Deer Valley? You don't call for ski patrol to deliver an emergency Kleenex when a drippey has formed on a frozen mustache. (I can hear it now-- "Sir, let me get that for you.") Dislocated shoulders? Hey, ski patrol can't even fix the problem on the slopes because of liability concerns. The point is, ski patrol have bigger problems to deal with, like how to peel a frozen stiff from a lift tower, or how to get a now-inverted snowboarder from off the top of the 20-foot-high treeless trunk he tried to huck.
Attached File  StumpbedBoarder.jpg (15.81K)
Number of downloads: 7
Back to Skilifts.org General Discussion


1 User(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users

  1. Skilifts.org / SORT Forum
  2. → Skilifts.org General Forums
  3. → Skilifts.org General Discussion
  4. Board Guidelines