The decision makers and the backcountry community would do well to reconsider the access restriction as the best policy to prevent skiers and riders from accessing the illegal cut on Big Jay. Both parties could learn a lot from the opposing point of view and perhaps conclude neither extreme is appropriate. Policy does need to be in place to protect the scar but a complete restriction of access does not accomplish the desires of either group. This sets up a situation in which moral and ethical backcountry skiers respecting the restriction are effectively punished through restricted access while rule breakers are effectively rewarded with nearly perfect untracked snow conditions and exciting descents.
One of the arguments made by the decision makers is the belief that the skiing and riding community can not self police. Essentially, renegades would ski the scar if access was not restricted. My initial reaction was that, without an attempt at education and alternative solutions, this policy is a self fulfilling prophecy . Especially noteworthy is the fact that restricting access to Big Jay via the Saddle has garnered attention and media coverage that has put a big fat bulls eye on Big Jay and the scar for less ethically inclined skiers and riders. It would be ironic if the decision makers, including the GMC, JPR, and VDFPR, brought about increased risk of skiers and riders sliding down the scar by restricting access.
On December 28th, TheSnowWay.com published Alternative Solutions to Big Jay Closure which listed alternative solutions to restricting access with the ultimate goal of protecting regrowth and regeneration of the scar in mind. Here is a quote from that article:
The community that attended the Big Jay meeting on December 15th was offered no opportunity for partnership, engagement, or participation in the process. The director of Jay Peak Ski Patrol noted that the decision makers were essentially “treating the community like babies.” Without a positive outlet for contribution to making the situation better through collaboration, it seems likely that many members of the community will reject the access restriction this season (proposed without an expected expiration date, essentially an indefinite restriction).
The likely result of the current situation is that the scar might likely be skied just to spite the powers that be. And while that may bode poorly for the long term community, the decision makers should not see individual short comings on values, principles, and morals as anything more than individuals without positive alternatives and partnerships deciding they have nothing to loose. A bad situation has been created by dictation rather than partnership, trust, and collaboration.
The Big Jay meeting held on December 15th exacerbated a bad situation not because of the decision but rather because the way the backcountry skiing and riding community was excluded from the decision making process. At least the community had a chance to voice concerns and provide feedback. But no response nor follow up was made by the decision makers. Many skiers and riders saw this “indefinite” access restriction as a likely permanent closure with no hope for change.
When prospects seem grim that official and proper methods of change will not prevail, humans being human have a habit of breaking the rules. Today I witnessed that rule breaking desire in some skiers who planned to hike the Saddle and ski Big Jay in direct violation of the restriction. Only an unconfirmed report of a Vermont Game Warden on the Tram in the morning turned them away.
Ignorance was not the cause of this foiled plan to hike the Saddle. The backcountry community that decried the access restriction must realize that people will break rules. Simply restricting access to the scar will not keep some skiers from following their own agenda. But the decision makers need to also realize that a complete restriction with no hope of future access, partnership, or cooperation will only discourage potential backcountry community allies and encourage renegade descents which are perpetrated by skiers and riders not concerned about creating sustainable solutions. Any permanent restrictions would effectively punish the majority of the backcountry community while effectively rewarding rule breakers. This is the exact opposite of how the American Criminal Justice System is setup. Punishing rule breakers is more effective policy than punishing ethical and moral rule abiders. While the decision makers at the Big Jay meeting repeatedly stressed that the closure was not punishment, they fail to realize restricted access is punishment de facto regardless of intent.
What most concerns me is the potential for a long term or permanent access restriction due to the actions of certain individuals not observing the closure. 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. Thus, a paradox is created due to the solution causing the problem which is perpetrated by those that would not have skied Big Jay this year without the closure “solution.”
It would be tragic if the closure was extended into the long term because of individual skiers’ and riders’ short sighted approach to the issue. Big Jay access via the Saddle could potentially be open again next season. One season is not so long of a time to wait and see. So long as the decision makers realize the implicit long term problems of the current policy and enact change sooner rather than later. Without an access solution, rule breakers will continue and increase in the future led not by those in the community that decried the cutting and respected the closure but rather by those with their own agendas in search of deep powder and being rewarded for a less than ethical approach to the backcountry. The access restriction must be revised but Big Jay skiers and riders must also realize that some restrictions must be applied to ensure the goals of the access restriction are met.