You are NOT Logged in.
Chat about all aspects of snowsports, backcountry, climbing and mountaineering.
Goto Thread: PreviousNext
Goto: Forum ListMessage ListNew TopicSearchLog In
Goto Page:  123Next
Current Page:1 of 3
Snow-Bunny


Posts: 219
Joined: Jan 2008
Last Visited: 21:03
4th Aug 2019
Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 12.01hrs on Wed 21 May 14
We have probably covered this in the past but would like to open again.

How does one stand with respect to lift tickets being taken should you wish to duck a rope at one of the ski areas to access some good snow you know off even though there is no lift back.

I cant find anything written down anywhere. CGM refers to respecting the Protected European Conservation site. There is nothing in the law as far as I can see to prevent me ducking a rope to go where I please as long as I am aware of the conditions etc.


geeo


Posts: 426
Joined: Sep 2006
Last Visited: 20:04
7th Feb 2019
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 21.24hrs on Wed 21 May 14
they don't have any power to take your ticket, they can ask for it back and can stop you using their lifts I suppose, mostly it's a thinly veiled threat to coerce you.
Gorminator


Posts: 667
Joined: Jan 2011
Last Visited: 15:45
11th Aug 2019
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 22.11hrs on Wed 21 May 14
You are only paying for Uplift !!

No law to stop you skiing where you want !
jabuzzard


Posts: 885
Joined: Jan 2010
Last Visited: 11:02
16th Apr 2021
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 10.28hrs on Thu 22 May 14
The absence of a specific law is utterly irrelevant.

When you purchased a lift pass you entered into a binding legal contract with CGM. CGM provide uplift and you agree to respect the conditions of that uplift. One of these conditions is that you don't duck the ropes. If you fail to respect the terms of the contract CGM are entitled to the return of the lift pass. This is made perfectly clear, and takes just a couple of seconds to Google.

[www.cairngormmountain.org]

The terms and and conditions make it clear that the ticket remains the property of CairnGorm Mountain Limited. That is the physical ticket is and remains the property of CGM at all times. Refusal to return the ticket back then becomes a criminal act of theft. It's not yours and you are depriving the rightful legal owner of possession of their property. This is well established legal practice, read the back of your bank/credit cards. Without checking I also believe you will find that your passport remains the property of Her Majesties Government.

On the other hand there is nothing CGM can do to stop you turning up, making your way up the hill under your own steam and then ducking the rope because you have no contractual obligation with CGM in this case.

It gets trickier if you have a season pass, and turn up one day and ascend the mountain on your own steam and then duck a rope. Only a court of law could provide a ruling on that.
alan


Posts: 10768
Joined: Nov 1994
Last Visited: 17:02
27th Mar 2024
What's this?What's this?What's this?
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 11.36hrs on Thu 22 May 14
Refusal to return the ticket back then becomes a criminal act of theft


No, it would be a civil matter between CML and the ticket holder. However of course CML can now de-activate season passes remotely.
Hipennine


Posts: 1061
Joined: Dec 2005
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 11.46hrs on Thu 22 May 14
thanks for providing the link Jabuzzard.

However, I can't find any condition relating to ducking a rope (or using any part of the ski area not open).

What really got my interest were the following 2 conditions:

"The carriage of ski equipment unrelated to piste skiing is not permitted on the funicular."

"All visitors taking part in a winter snowsports activity within the ski boundary area must be in possession of a valid ticket."

The first seems to suggest that for eg taking touring gear isnt allowed on the funicular, and by interpretation any ski equipment if you don't intend to use it for piste skiing (ie within the designated ski area)

The second one is in direct conflict with the right to roam legislation (ie it suggests that if you are outwith the ski boundary without a ticket, and go inside the boundary, you must then have a ticket.

The conditions are also specific in some cases to ski equipment, but to snowsports in others. So for eg, a snowboarder apparently could use the choo-choo to go touring, but a skier can't.

Given all the contradictions and potential unfair contractual terms contained in the conditions, I can't see any of it being sustainable in court.
Andy


Posts: 1406
Joined: Jan 2003
Last Visited: 08:47
2nd May 2019
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 11.59hrs on Thu 22 May 14
"All visitors taking part in a winter snowsports activity within the ski boundary area must be in possession of a valid ticket."

This is complete nonsense....they do not have any right to stop you walking, touring , sledging within the ski area. You pay for uplift.
The rules on the finicular banning people who want to use it to access ski touring, climbing etc seems to suit CG - they can now make money off "guided " trips to the summit or "guided mtn biking" etc.


At glenshee if you ski in the out of bounds area at glas maol then you may have your pass taken off you but thats about it.
alan


Posts: 10768
Joined: Nov 1994
Last Visited: 17:02
27th Mar 2024
What's this?What's this?What's this?
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 12.08hrs on Thu 22 May 14
The Section 50 agreement and the VMP derived from it exist solely as a conservation tool based on a 'precautionary principle'. It was not intended to be and is not a management tool for the benefit of CML.

The VMP and the Section 50 agreement deserves to be treated with the contempt. It is legally dubious under the Land Reform Act and in no way legally enforceable. If you buy a Funicular ticket and leave the Ptarmigan Building in the summer the worst CML can do is invalidate that ticket for the return journey.

Something which underlines the stupidity, today walkers with small day sacks can go up the train and climb over the balcony and wander all over the Plateau - while a skier who wants to ski the Ciste Gully and holds a valid season ticket is refused uplift on the Funicular despite them intending to remain wholly within the snowsports area.

It's a farce that needs to be ended.
jabuzzard


Posts: 885
Joined: Jan 2010
Last Visited: 11:02
16th Apr 2021
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 12.29hrs on Thu 22 May 14
alan Wrote:
Refusal to return the ticket back then becomes a criminal act of theft

No, it would be a civil matter between CML and the ticket holder. However of course CML can now de-activate season passes remotely.


Disagree, you are in possession of a material thing that is not yours which you intend to deprive the lawful owner of. That is the definition of theft and is a criminal matter. Just because something starts out as a civil matter does not stop it progressing into a criminal one.

jabuzzard


Posts: 885
Joined: Jan 2010
Last Visited: 11:02
16th Apr 2021
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 12.45hrs on Thu 22 May 14
Hipennine Wrote:

The second one is in direct conflict with the right to roam legislation (ie it suggests that if you are outwith the ski boundary without a ticket, and go inside the boundary, you must then have a ticket.


By that extension I can play golf on a golf course without having to pay anyone because it is part of my right to roam. Clearly that is nonsense you have to pay course fees etc, if you want to use the golf course.

It is not any great extension to say that if you wish to ski/board on prepared areas that you have to paid the appropriate fee to do so. For example can I turn up at Hillend with my own equipment and use the dryslope without paying? What's the difference between that and the prepared slopes of Cairngorm?

The right to roam legislation almost certainly does not give you the cart blanche that you think it does.

remote_patrol


Posts: 1013
Joined: Apr 2007
Last Visited: 22:53
20th Apr 2021
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 13.00hrs on Thu 22 May 14
jabuzzard Wrote:
Hipennine Wrote:

By that extension I can play golf on a golf course without having to pay anyone because it is part of my right to roam. Clearly that is nonsense you have to pay course fees etc, if you want to use the golf course.




IIRC this has come up on here before? seem to remember a golf course is different in that the terrain is actively maintained for that specific recreational purpose (like a football pitch) whereas a mountain is not. i guess you can argue about pisting etc, but within the area isn't 100% pisted so who knows. can't see it'd be worth thier time to check passes on the way down though, so possibly a moot point?

as for ducking ropes, i don't see how that's any different from riding outside the fences of open runs or taking other "creative" lines, or do CML grump about that too?



alan


Posts: 10768
Joined: Nov 1994
Last Visited: 17:02
27th Mar 2024
What's this?What's this?What's this?
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 13.36hrs on Thu 22 May 14
Quote:
By that extension I can play golf on a golf course without having to pay anyone because it is part of my right to roam. Clearly that is nonsense you have to pay course fees etc, if you want to use the golf course.


The right of access does extent to golf courses (except greens) on the basis of passage over the course, providing that by exercising that right you don't interfere with games in progress.

The presence of mechanical uplift does not alter the status of the land, you are paying CML for use of the uplift not for access to the land.



Edited 1 times. Last edit at 13.41hrs Thu 22 May 14 by alan.
Hipennine


Posts: 1061
Joined: Dec 2005
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 13.58hrs on Thu 22 May 14
jabuzzard Wrote:
Hipennine Wrote:

The second one is in direct conflict with the right to roam legislation (ie it suggests that if you are outwith the ski boundary without a ticket, and go inside the boundary, you must then have a ticket.


By that extension I can play golf on a golf course without having to pay anyone because it is part of my right to roam. Clearly that is nonsense you have to pay course fees etc, if you want to use the golf course.

It is not any great extension to say that if you wish to ski/board on prepared areas that you have to paid the appropriate fee to do so. For example can I turn up at Hillend with my own equipment and use the dryslope without paying? What's the difference between that and the prepared slopes of Cairngorm?

The right to roam legislation almost certainly does not give you the cart blanche that you think it does.


Actually Jabuzzard, I have some agreement with the point you are making. It could be argued that an area of the mountain where snow fencing is used to modify the snow lie for the purposes of effecting snowsports, coupled with the use of man-made snow-making and piste-bashing could be considered a specific recreation area within the terms of the act. Therefore anybody entering the area would have to conform with the act requirements, which would put very specific restrictions on non-payers - ie restrict what they can do, and also make them liable for damage caused (eg walkers going up the middle of pistes in convoy, damaging piste preparation and getting in the way, digging snow holes, etc.). When I have suggested this in the past, others have suggested that it is not "within the spirit of the outdoors/mountain/bla,bla", but i would respond with the old skiers answer that there's still plenty of mountain available outwith the ski area, and precious farmed snow needs protecting.
jabuzzard


Posts: 885
Joined: Jan 2010
Last Visited: 11:02
16th Apr 2021
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 15.55hrs on Thu 22 May 14
Hipennine Wrote:

Actually Jabuzzard, I have some agreement with the point you are making. It could be argued that an area of the mountain where snow fencing is used to modify the snow lie for the purposes of effecting snowsports, coupled with the use of man-made snow-making and piste-bashing could be considered a specific recreation area within the terms of the act.


It most certainly could be argued that way, What makes a golf course a specific recreational area and a prepared and maintained ski slope on a mountain not? I can for the life of me see how you can make that distinction, the act is quite vague here specifically 6.1.e says

(e)which has been developed or set out—
(i)as a sports or playing field; or
(ii)for a particular recreational purpose;

How anyone could argue that skiing and snowboarding is not a particular recreational purpose or that building snow fencing, preparing pistes, etc. is not development is completely beyond me.

To make it more stark do the general public have the right to tramp all over man-made snow that CGM have produced? If so how is this any different from me taking my own gear and making use of the dry slope matting at Hillend? Perhaps I should turn up at Cairngorm next time some event is one and disrupt that; maybe dig a snow hole in the middle of the piste, or sit down and have a picnic?

It is certainly not the clear cut matter that some members of this forum seem to think. Until it is ruled upon by a court of law there is most certainly doubt and unless you can come up with a good argument that skiing and snowboarding is not a particular recreational purpose; and building snow fencing, preparing pistes, making snow etc, does not qualify as development then most reasonable people will have to concede the point.

I would further note that the while it might have been the intention of those who passed the act that ski areas would not be areas where someone could be excluded from, what actually matters is what the law says. That should have been made quite clear from the debacle over the way detention in police custody was calculated the other year which required parliament to pass a new act to make it clear what their intention was.
facelikeanrss


Posts: 36
Joined: Nov 2010
Last Visited: 09:18
11th Feb 2021
Re: Ducking Ropes
Date Posted: 17.01hrs on Thu 22 May 14
jabuzzard Wrote:
Hipennine Wrote:

Actually Jabuzzard, I have some agreement with the point you are making. It could be argued that an area of the mountain where snow fencing is used to modify the snow lie for the purposes of effecting snowsports, coupled with the use of man-made snow-making and piste-bashing could be considered a specific recreation area within the terms of the act.

It most certainly could be argued that way, What makes a golf course a specific recreational area and a prepared and maintained ski slope on a mountain not? I can for the life of me see how you can make that distinction, the act is quite vague here specifically 6.1.e says

(e)which has been developed or set out—
(i)as a sports or playing field; or
(ii)for a particular recreational purpose;

How anyone could argue that skiing and snowboarding is not a particular recreational purpose or that building snow fencing, preparing pistes, etc. is not development is completely beyond me.

To make it more stark do the general public have the right to tramp all over man-made snow that CGM have produced? If so how is this any different from me taking my own gear and making use of the dry slope matting at Hillend? Perhaps I should turn up at Cairngorm next time some event is one and disrupt that; maybe dig a snow hole in the middle of the piste, or sit down and have a picnic?

It is certainly not the clear cut matter that some members of this forum seem to think. Until it is ruled upon by a court of law there is most certainly doubt and unless you can come up with a good argument that skiing and snowboarding is not a particular recreational purpose; and building snow fencing, preparing pistes, making snow etc, does not qualify as development then most reasonable people will have to concede the point.

I would further note that the while it might have been the intention of those who passed the act that ski areas would not be areas where someone could be excluded from, what actually matters is what the law says. That should have been made quite clear from the debacle over the way detention in police custody was calculated the other year which required parliament to pass a new act to make it clear what their intention was.


I hate to add a horribly uninformed and non legally minded opinion here but I'd always differentiated the golf course situation from ski areas in Scotland by the fact that the ski operators tend not to own the land on which their activities occur. Rather they are leased from hereditary land owners who historically have had to accept the "right to roam". Golf Courses tend - in Scotland anyway - to be directly owned by the club concerned. To be fair, however, there can't be many golf courses that don't have loads of people who wander about without specific permission not playing golf. Mine is full of bird watchers at this time of year who are generally welcomed by the members: they don't cause divots and they would still be there if the grass weren't cut therefor the idea of charging them to be there seems bonkers.



Edited 2 times. Last edit at 17.04hrs Thu 22 May 14 by facelikeanrss.
Goto Page:  123Next
Current Page:1 of 3
Your Name: 
Your Email: 
Subject: