Reconsidering Access Restriction as the Best Policy
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.
