Wisconsin's Tyrol Basin Ski Area Owner Avoids Jail After Altercation With Teenager

By pleading no contest to disorderly conduct, the owner of Tyrol Basin has brought a criminal case stemming from a confrontation with a teenage guest to an end.

Nathaniel McGree, 41, entered the plea on Thursday, August 6, in Dane County. Online court records show that he was found guilty of disorderly conduct, while a misdemeanor battery charge was dismissed. The court ordered McGree to pay costs, allowing him to avoid jail time.wmtv15news+1

The case began with a dispute over a lift pass and ended more than a year later with a conviction—but not for the alleged battery that initially brought McGree before the court.

Dispute began over lift access

The incident occurred on February 24, 2025, at Tyrol Basin, a ski area near Mount Horeb, Wisconsin. According to the Dane County Sheriff’s Office account cited in contemporaneous reporting, a 17-year-old boy acknowledged that he had entered the ski hill without purchasing a pass. Staff asked him to leave, and he did so.saminfo+1

The teenager told deputies that McGree and another staff member followed him after he left the property and physically confronted him. McGree then allegedly required him to return to the ski area and pay $120—twice the reported price of a regular pass.saminfo+1

Deputies became involved after receiving a report of a distressed teenager walking along Bohn Road, near the ski area. McGree was arrested that evening. Early reports identified the allegations as disorderly conduct and physical abuse of a child; the court case later proceeded on disorderly conduct and misdemeanor battery charges.snowbrains+1

The criminal complaint offered competing accounts of the encounter. The teenager reportedly told investigators that McGree grabbed him by the back of the neck and yelled at him to pay. McGree denied putting his hands on the teenager and told deputies he had only stopped him and told him he needed to return to the hill.

A case that never reached trial

McGree’s case was initially headed toward a jury trial. In March 2025, WMTV reported that he faced a maximum of 11 months in prison and an $11,000 fine if convicted on both charges.

That trial did not take place. Instead, prosecutors and the defense resolved the matter through a no-contest plea to disorderly conduct, with the battery charge dismissed. Local television reports said the sentence consisted of court costs, with no jail term

A no-contest plea is not the same as a traditional guilty plea in how the defendant’s admission may be used in later civil proceedings. But under Wisconsin law, the plea can support a judgment of conviction; in this case, the court entered a disorderly-conduct conviction.

What the conviction means

Wisconsin law defines disorderly conduct broadly, covering violent, abusive, profane, boisterous or otherwise disorderly behavior that tends to cause or provoke a disturbance. The offense is classified as a Class B misdemeanor, which can carry up to 90 days in jail and a fine of up to $1,000, although the law does not require a judge to impose either penalty.legis.wisconsin+1

McGree’s sentence was substantially less severe than the maximum exposure he faced when both counts were pending. The dismissal of the battery charge also means the allegation that he physically assaulted the teenager was not adjudicated as a battery conviction.

That distinction matters in a case that drew attention beyond the courtroom. The alleged confrontation involved the owner of a business personally pursuing a teenage customer over an unpaid pass, rather than staff handling the matter through ordinary ticketing or trespass procedures.

Questions left after the plea

The resolution closes the criminal case, but it does not erase the central dispute over how the teenager was treated after leaving the property. McGree’s account and the teenager’s account differed on whether physical contact occurred, and the no-contest plea resolved the charge without a trial determining the full sequence of events in open court

For Tyrol Basin, the episode became a test of the boundary between enforcing access rules and escalating a customer dispute. The final result is a criminal conviction for disorderly conduct, a dismissed battery count, court costs—and no jail time for the ski-area owner.