In a message dated 9/1/05 10:21:55 AM, [log in to unmask] writes:<< Right, 
that is one of the exceptions that I know of.  Someone else suggested going 
off the backside of Burke and that may be an exception, too. That being 
said, a mountain needs to have the backside goods or at least supposedly 
have them to draw people away.  You don't see too many people getting lost 
off the backside of Mont $neaux, Flatton, Slokemo, Mount Ellen--Matt K.

On 8/31/05, Marc Guido <[log in to unmask]> wrote:  MK wrote>> if 
you are ever lost near Bolton, head downhill and a road is within 2-3 
miles--this will not fail you (heck this is true for virtually anywhere in 
Vermont, but particularly true for Bolton BC)<< . Not true for Black Falls 
Bowl behind Jay, to which virtually one or two parties per season will 
attest. Marc Guido>>


Topo of area in question
http://www.topozone.com/map.asp?lat=44.9313&lon=-72.5404&datum=nad83

(make 3 settings on left 1:24 / 1:25 series; Large; 1:100,000 View Scale)

Note “road” (unplowed) on left side of map on N side of Black Falls Brook.

You could leave the saddle near the top of Beaver Pond Glades and be on that 
road in less than 3/4ths of a mile and with a vertical drop of less than 800 
ft.  Taking a less direct route could add some distance and vertical.

From the SUMMIT to where that road is plowed is as little as 3.5 miles.

From the top of Beaver Pond, straight down and then contouring level to the 
road, and then down the road, it is less than 3 miles to plowing.

On the south side of Black Falls Brook is another road.  From where 
Montrealer intersects with the ridge to Big Jay it is less than 2 miles to 
THAT road.

True enough, people could thread themselves under that southside road and 
not climb up to either road (which are never more than a few tenths of a 
mile and 200 vertical feet away) and remain “lost” all the way to the bridge 
over Black Falls Brook.  But even that bridge is barely more than 3 miles 
from that same intersection of Montrealer and ridge.

And, taking “walk downhill” extremely literally, as opposed to “walk 
generally downhill” (which might allow for the small up that might be 
required to hit either road), it is still possible to contour from the brook 
at the flat around 1970 feet to the road by going west.  You’d hit the road 
in possibly less than a mile staying level or slightly downhill (but that 
would be a good bit of luck to not go up and also to not end up down in by 
the creek a short distance lower down).

And of course, if you walk aimlessly back and forth and panic, this area 
could seem huge – just like the area on the back side of Killington.   But 
my point is that Matt’s suggestion re distance to a road is true even here 
(though 3.5 miles might be slightly more accurate than 3 depending on the 
route a party actually takes.   …keeping in mind you “could” hit a road in 
less than a mile   ...and would likely hit a road in less than 3).

None of this is to say this area is small or a piece of cake.  It’s great 
that the State and GMC saved it from devlopment by buying the 5000 or so 
acres (that has been added to JSF and LTSF).  It is remote and undeveloped.  
Three miles on a bad day in deep soft snow on varied terrain is not an easy 
walk (or ski, with a fixed heel).  It's not like a 3 mile walk on a early 
october day.  And if you took a "creative" route and made the distance 
longer, that wouldn't help. That aside, actual distance is actual distance.  
Of course, in the mind of a lost person, actual distance may not mean much.

Todd H

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
SkiVt-L is brought to you by the University of Vermont.

To unsubscribe, visit http://list.uvm.edu/archives/skivt-l.html