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