TR - Big Jay, VT 1/20/08

[BigJay]

Northern Vermont has received more then 30in of snow in the last week... 6-10in at a time, things pilled up in the backcountry. Since it was the first "good" weekend after the major thaw that has spread over the East Coast in early-mid January, we figured we'd beat the crowd on the mountain and get our own stuff.

A group of 5 formed for what was to be an epic day out in the woods. My girlfriend was making her first trip on AT gear even though she rides the woods of Jay every weekend. My friend Art was there also on snowshoes... He's been meaning (and moaning!) about getting a splitboard and even tough he lurks around this website, he never signed on! Two other mountain biking friends tagged along on snowshoes also, they ride 3-4 times a year... but only in powder... resorts don't mean anything to them.

We made our way up to sample what was going to be a perfect outting. Already, we were following a very fresh skintrack from other telemarkers, splitboarders and snowshoers... At some point, we saw Don from First Trax who just enjoyed his first lap... Tracks were deep so we moved along and followed in there steps.

The climbing is steep in most places once you come to the bottom of the hill... but the view once you reach the top is worth it!

The first section was affected a bit by the sun... so it wasn't as light as we expected... but as soon as you go back under the trees, things got fluffy and deep!

After our first lap, we decided to go for a big one... THe objective was to traverse all the way to the end of the Jailhouse Chute and cut below the ice fall and climb away from all those people coming down illegally from the ridge. The climb was steep and my girlfriend was struggling. The skins she rented were too narrow for her skis... So she was slipping here and there... At one point, things got way to steep and there was a boot pack climbing up to another section... It was 2PM and we didn't have lunch out in the sun like we originally planned. So we set-up for transitionning in this steep chute. Some idiot ran out of nowhere and almost buried us and our gear... This guy "absolutely" wanted to ride in-between us no-matter the consequences! GRRRR! If i would have lost my gear because of this jackass, grrrrrr!

The way down was solid... Lightest pow i rode on Big Jay this season for sure! We were hitting always mid-thighs to waist deep snow... that stuff was blowing all over us... What a feeling! Haven't had that in almost a month!

Me enjoying it:

Marc:

What's left of Karine:

Now the good thing is that for once, my GPS didn't die on me because of the cold... Last two outtings were done around 0F... So anything with a battery dies instantly! Now i got better recordings of where we were... And got pictures of other spots we want to ride... Hopefully, we'll be able to ride again this upcoming weekend!

I'll have a very short video up soon... But you'll see a bit of what we had to play with! I also met up with a fellow splitboarder who just received is Voile Mojo and was trying for the first time... Apparently he lurks around here sometimes...

Keep the EC stoke!

 

[Anthony]

Great pictures , eastern conditions at their best. That's what I tell the kids about hiking in the winter at least you don't have to hike down :lol:

 

[riverc0il]

Nice. Way to do Big Jay proper. I thought about skinning it this past Saturday but couldn't turn up the lift assistance. Hopefully the opportunity will come up again next month on a good powder day after Jay proper has been tracked out.

Too bad about the people dropping in illegally from the ridge. I sure hope they don't spoil things permanently and in the long run by not being able to wait one year and see what happens. That certainly plays right into the three groups that made the decision. They defended the closure partially by essentially saying that Big Jay skiers could not exhibit self control. As I recently wrote on my site, this sets a rather ugly scenario in which rule breakers are rewarded, rule observers are essentially punished, and the rule observers could face potentially increased and more harsh restrictions because of less ethically inclined skiers.

 

[Admin]

Nice. Way to do Big Jay proper.

=D>

 

[redeyes]

big jay,
i sure am glad you guys found my ski track on sat. i went back yesterday and you guys slayed it! oh well, i should of went up for more on sat. but breaking trail in waist deep blower was a lot of work. epic conditions for sure early that morning.

 

[BigJay]

...but breaking trail in waist deep blower was a lot of work. epic conditions for sure early that morning.

Actually, it wasn't that hard when i was out front opening up a new track... but we came to a dead end... I would have gone for more on the east ridge... but my friends were getting tired... and it was 3:30 when we came out of the woods!

I saw a guy in there with 150mm SHOVELS-type skis... 130mm at the waist... Looked like 2 snowboards!

Too bad so many people are still hitting it from the resort...

 

[DD Powder]

I skinned into Big Jay on Saturday and many people were coming across from the ridge. It was so frustrating to see skiers in downhill gear and snowboarders with no snowshoes riding past. We were asked by one group for the best way down to 242…hmmm…if you had started from the road you wouldn’t be having this problem.

Someone in a car waiting for a pickup at the lot asked how long it took us to get down, they were told (incase they didn’t already know) how access has been restricted from the ski area and that we skinned up from the road. The classic line that followed; “What do you not brake rules or something?”
](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,) ](*,)

 

[riverc0il]

This has been one of the on going issues I have taken issue with the closure and the way it was handled. There has been no educational activism taking by the parties involved that initiated the closure. They setup a self fulfilling prophecy of failure for the closure, IMO. While I 100% vehemently oppose the rule breaking during this first year following an emergency hastily made decision, I also see a complete lack of follow through and education on the part of GMC et al which is partially leading to rouge descents. One single sign and a buried fence is as good as a rope to many skiers, that does not educate any one. And where is JPR in all of this? They are in a tough position of wanting to play nice and open access back up, but publicly it seems like mums the word from JPR too as nothing official as been said publicly since the president spoke at the meeting in December. I am not expecting policing the saddle but some education on the issue (without expanding too many resources) might be helpful to the cause. Full saddle access only benefits Jay and not educating about the closure may lead to rogue descents that force the issue the wrong way.

Then again, there are also those that understand the issues at play, have read the news, have weighed the issues, perhaps even attended the meeting, and are taking things into their own hands. Ignorance is one thing and that is the fault of GMC et al who made the decision to close access. But rouge descents knowing the potential is there to aggravate the issue and potentially lead to permanent closure and perhaps even limiting earned turn access? Not good.

It would be very tempting to play into the hands of conservationists that would probably like to see the easement re-written to limit recreational access and support a permanent closure of the Saddle. Not having skinned it yet but certainly wanting to, I can see more desire in skinning up Big Jay if Saddle access was closed and enforced. But that is not the answer, access is important, and earned turn access only would be a pretty selfish way of looking at the issue. Access is the important thing here, we do not want precedents beginning here that could have ramifications else where. This is bigger than Big Jay. Not going to apologize for hijacking this trip report as I hope we can open up some discourse on the subject here.

 

[salida]

I think it's great that you guys skinned up from the bottom. When I ski it, its how I'll do it. I do not agree with the closure however. I'll quote Pete from TTips...

Dear Mr. Fraysier, Mr. Rose, Ms. Washburn, and Mr. Stenger
I recently became away of a decision made to close easy access to the 1500 plus acres in the Big Jay Tract of Jay State Forest from the Jay Peak Ski area. I feel the new cutting, without permission on State owned land, and all past cutting—regardless of the tool used--- is an illegal act that most be stopped. More alarming to me than the new cut itself, is the decision to attempt to restrict access to publicly owned land , for reasons other than safety or conservation
Vermont has a great tradition of public access to both privately owned large tracts ( ex. Paper Companies, Villenue Land) as well as state lands. Restricting access to State Forest Land in VT has traditionally only been done for safety reasons, such as during logging operations, or when certain activities would not be compatible with management goals or conservation easements in place on the land.
I suspect that some will claim that the closure of the easiest access is necessary to maintain the conservation goals of your easement , and to allow regrowth of the new cut. I do not feel this is a valid claim. The impact, more specifically soil compaction that will limit vegetative growth and hence accelerate erosion is minimized by adequate snow cover. The soil compaction caused by a skier spreading the load on on 2 skis on a snow pack that even when shallow continues to spread the load, is minimal—and becomes non-existent at greater snow depths. This well accepted fact leads to different regulations regarding travel and camping in the winter and summer, such as in the WMNF (restricted locations in the summer, anywhere except in the Cutler River Drainage with 2 ft of snow) as well as landowners allowing VAST trails on their land. . Note that heavy skier traffic on Mount Washington crosses the Alpine Garden in route from the East Snow Fields to Tuckerman Ravine without leaving detrimental impacts on this very fragile environment. The low ( by USFS standards) skier traffic that the newly disturbed area will possibly receive ( remember the new cut is “past” the normal descent route and simple signs will help guide people off this cut and to other areas) will not slow the natural re-growth process.
Compare the Tuckerman Ravine trail ( summer) to the Sherburne trail ( winter) shoes the pwer of snow to minimize impact-- Tucks is eroded dirt, Sherburne is grass. Closing easy access to the 1500+ acres is not necessary to achieve the conservation goals of the easement. Skiing and conservation of resources are compatible uses.
I have read in various articles that the new cut will attract skiers as they get off the Tram. The new cutting was very visible this fall--- it was brown, and the rest was green.
With snow cover, the area near the cliff ban does appear more open than in the past, but similar to other natural and old cut areas. The trail like cut high on the peak is very visible from the Triple chair. It is not visible from the Tram area do to topography. It is very speculative and faulty reasoning to say the new cutting will attract more use as people view it from the tram. The cutting has not created an “attractive nuisance”.
Allowing access only from the longer approach is a poor management decision that goes against recent trends to make natural areas accessible to greater segments of the population, such as funding for handicapped access trails. Restricting access to State Forest Land to those with long periods of free time and high fitness levels will ultimately make future public land purchases harder to justify and fund. This restricted access policy show elitist favoritism—always a poor management decision. Future land acquisition funding flows from the population appreciating the value of preserved land. Allowing the population open easy access is compatible with your conservation efforts, especially winter access---- summer hikers result in much more soil compaction! Open winter access will not slow regrowth , nor conflict with conservation goals.
Restricting easy access as a way to send a message to the skiing community is a poor management decision., and likely is not a tool available in the terms of the easement or normal state policy. Placing restrictions on many people do to the actions of few has never been good a good management policy. Restricting easy access to a large area as a means to help a 2 acre area is also poor management. Trying to justify restricting winter access from the ski area as necessary do to safety or conservation goals is not truthfully possible. The illegal cutting on 2 acres should not stop people from enjoying the other 1500 plus acres easily.
This land was purchased with public money, assisted by 20,000 from the GMC LTPF. The LTPF has also received public funding in the past. I am dismayed that GMC press releases attempt to lead the public into believing that the GMC raised 460,000 to conserve this land. Restricting access to publicly purchased lands should only be done for safety reasons or when incompatible uses conflict, and as a last resort after education has failed to minimize conflicts. Safety concerns and incompatible uses are not sufficiently supported concerns to justify restricting easy access on Big Jay.
Under private ownership, the public enjoyed easy access to Big Jay. The public spent 460,000 to insure that this area would be conserved for the enjoyment of present and future generations. Restricting access more after land becomes publicly owned than when under private ownership should not occur. . Easy access should continue under public ownership
Thank you for reading this, and hopefully you will not implement policies restricting easy access to Big Jay.

 

[salida]

Steve, I posted the post above before I read your most recent post. That being said I take issue with a few of your points.

This has been one of the on going issues I have taken issue with the closure and the way it was handled. There has been no educational activism taking by the parties involved that initiated the closure. They setup a self fulfilling prophecy of failure for the closure, IMO. While I 100% vehemently oppose the rule breaking during this first
year following an emergency hastily made decision, I also see a complete lack of follow through and education on the part of GMC et al which is partially leading to rouge descents. One single sign and a buried fence is as good as a rope to many skiers, that does not educate any one. And where is JPR in all of this? They are in a tough position of wanting to play nice and open access back up, but publicly it seems like mums the word from JPR too as nothing official as been said publicly since the president spoke at the meeting in December. I am not expecting policing the saddle but some education on the issue (without expanding too many resources) might be helpful to the cause. Full saddle access only benefits Jay and not educating about the closure may lead to rogue descents that force the issue the wrong way.

Steve, I know you cut ropes, hell I've gotten in trouble cutting them with you before. Surely your moral compass has fabricated a reason as to why jumping over a fence is different from ducking under a rope. Maybe your ethics have changed over the years, I do not know. Maybe you've become a local and feel like the rules are there for a reason.

Then again, there are also those that understand the issues at play, have read the news, have weighed the issues, perhaps even attended the meeting, and are taking things into their own hands. Ignorance is one thing and that is the fault of GMC et al who made the decision to close access. But rouge descents knowing the potential is there to aggravate the issue and potentially lead to permanent closure and perhaps even limiting earned turn access? Not good.

At this one, I've got to say I'm pretty offended. When I ran into you at Jay on Sat, the 19th, you asked me why I had a pack on, I said we were doing some side country, probably the dip. Then you baited me with, you going out to big jay, and I said maybe. Then you went on a tirade about how "Big Jay is closed for a reason. No one should be skiing over there, man. AND Lots of people are working real hard to open it back up." I left that chance meeting feeling like, well Steve really has a point of view on that one.

Browsing the internet that evening, I came across this article (http://www.thesnowway.com/2008/01/19/re ... est-policy). published the exact same day. To quote your article:

Specifically, those individuals who are not regular Jay Peak or Big Jay skiers. Those individuals attracted not by the spirit of the mountain but rather because of a media headline or an access restriction. The decision makers made the threat of permanent access restriction implicit by stating that the current restriction was indefinite. This hard line approach is encouraging a group of deviant backcountry skiers to push back against the restriction.

I've got to say, I felt pretty alienated by this article, as if you were presumptuous enough to say that I was hitting big jay from the resort. If you want to be on your "holier-than-thou" soap box about the conservation of big jay, and how you are trying really hard to open it back up by publishing articles, and how people like "me" are just skiing it to break the rules, go ahead. But those assumptions are unfounded.

Porter

 

[Admin]

Hold on a sec...I've got to go make some popcorn.

 

[riverc0il]

Specifically, those individuals who are not regular Jay Peak or Big Jay skiers. Those individuals attracted not by the spirit of the mountain but rather because of a media headline or an access restriction. The decision makers made the threat of permanent access restriction implicit by stating that the current restriction was indefinite. This hard line approach is encouraging a group of deviant backcountry skiers to push back against the restriction.

...this was not specific to any one in particular but a generalization. If you took it personally, you took that the wrong way. Perhaps the word "specifically" was not chosen well. I looked at our encounter as a launching off point for expanding my views. I disagree with your perspective. My biggest concern is the potential ramifications of skiers and riders violating the closure.

Regarding ducking ropes, yes I believe this is a completely different issue. Just like pretty much the entire tree skiing population sees a big difference between thinning brush versus taking a chain saw and whacking off a trail measuring dozens of feet wide. An individual ducking a rope causes excessive risk for the individual and ski patrol, it is personal risk of injury. Violating the closure risks access for an entire population. I am certainly no Jay local. I disagree with the rules in place but believe violating them will cause long term access problems. If anything, I think most Jay locals probably are more critical of the closure than me and are more willing to jump the fence from what I heard and saw at the December meeting. Nothing to back that up, just an outsider's perspective. Lot's of people a lot more unhappy about the situation than me, a Johny Come Lately to the party.

You want to pull our chat at Jay into a public sphere, be my guest. I was not baiting you, I was concerned people heading down the Saddle trail and its potential long term consequences. One thing I am taking away is I am definitely a bit too preachy on the issue and that is not going to convince any one to change their minds.

You mentioned word on the tram of someone heading up and over to patrol the saddle or something to that effect. You guys had packs on while skiing Jay and you said maybe to hitting Big Jay. Perhaps that was presumptuous of me to make an assumption you guys were going to jump the fence. My apologies if that was an unfounded assumption and that was not your intent.

You read into my article too much if you "presume" that I was referring to you specifically as skiing Big Jay just to break the rules. The only thing specific to you on that article is chatting at the top of the Jet. The encounter was a touching off point for me writing my point of view on the issue.

The direction of my point of view on the entire matter is a bad decision was made. I think both ends of the perspectives are incorrect. The perspective that no limitation should be put on any part of Big Jay ignores the ecological impact. However, the thrust of that article was that an all out ban does not accomplish the intended goals. But also important, is the potential for permanent or long term access restriction due to making a bad situation worse. The self fulfilling prophecy, the lack of communication, the bad situation following the meeting.... I actually argue for the point you make, the hopeless feeling that the meeting created. It is not good, we need some follow up on the issue, we need to know access will be opened back up, and soon.

 

[BigJay]

OK just to end this topic in a BEAUTIFUL way, i have a few more pictures of my girlfriend, the scenary... and of course me! (lol! ok ok, enough...)

See, how it makes everything better now!

 

[salida]

See, how it makes everything better now!

Sorry I hijacked. Looks like it was a great day with good friends. Let it snow.

Porter

 

[gpetrics]

Does anyone know what statute the GMC and other parties are citing to enforce the closure?

 

[BigJay]

Does anyone know what statute the GMC and other parties are citing to enforce the closure?

There has been a GMC representative garding the ridge a few gates in. If caught, you're looking at a fine for trespassing or something like that, i don't remember what it was exactly... We were surprise that there was no one last weekend after the dump... I'm assuming no one's garding the ridge when it's 0F with winds on a Wednesday... but a sunny saturday with no winds after a dump... Should have been a good day to enforce the closure!

 

[gpetrics]

There has been a GMC representative garding the ridge a few gates in. If caught, you're looking at a fine for trespassing or something like that, i don't remember what it was exactly... We were surprise that there was no one last weekend after the dump... I'm assuming no one's garding the ridge when it's 0F with winds on a Wednesday... but a sunny saturday with no winds after a dump... Should have been a good day to enforce the closure!

a fine for trespassing... on PUBLIC land? Also who's to say you haven't skinned up the long trail?

 

[riverc0il]

From what I understand, the easement allows for public access but the land is owned and managed by the State of Vermont, specifically VT Dept of Forests, Parks, and Recreation. Land owned by the by the state can be closed from public access for numerous reasons and such a closure is not without precedent. While I completely disagree with the closure, it seems legally sound but I am not sure of the exact statute utilized to justify enforcement. Good question. Public access to Big Jay has not been closed so this is not a public land closure but rather closure of an access point. I am under the assumption that as State land the government can dictate lawful usage of the area in a similar sense as breaking into a publicly owned building such as a library or town hall is illegal.

Interesting thought about skinning up the Long Trail. The closure is specifically from the Jay Peak access point. The line between "access from Jay Peak" versus "skinning up from Route 242" seems like a gray area. It would be a pretty hairy bush whack but you could theoretically bypass the saddle trail and whack your way around the ridge.

At the meeting last month, one person questioned where the line was drawn. What if a Long Trail hiker wanted to hike the saddle to Big Jay summit? I would expand upon that thought and question whether or not the closure extends past winter into hiking season. Lots of gray area and issues still not addressed.

The fine is news to me but I don't think GMC Representatives could legally be handing out fines for trespassing which would seem like an action requiring law enforcement rank. I would be interested in hearing that confirmed as it would be yet another instance of the powers that be decidedly not communicating with a community it is trying to "partner" with and that they have already gotten off on the wrong foot with. I do not recall fines being mentioned as a deterrent.