Thread: Is it Time for The Canyons to take more resposability for its terrain?

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

I can understand that the resort is not able to limit access to public lands, but what if the gates did not directly enter public lands, but sort of a buffer zone between the resort and the public land.

This way, there could be a little more control. I do not advocate closing the gates, but what about requiring a backcountry access card like they do at Alpental???

http://www.summitatsnoqualmie.com/fi...iver_11_12.pdf

You go to the patrol shack, you talk to a patroller, who can probably do a little more to inform/scare the unknowing than skeery signs, sign a release, they give you a little card, and you are on your way. Maybe they could even have people watch a little video like they make you do for some terrain parks. I don't think it is unreasonable for the resort to require a few hoops to at least try to make sure everyone who uses the resort to access public lands knows what they are getting themselves into.

I think this is reasonable and one of the sanest suggestions in this thread. Of course, people will fill out their cards and three will still be fatalities, just like in the terrain parks. It might be a degree safer and worth taking a good look at just the same.

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

It is real easy to say leave it open, people need to take responsibility for themselves, until it is your buddy, your son or daughter, father, brother, cousin, etc that is caught. Darwinism isn't all the funny when it cuts close to home.

I was friends with victims of the Kessler and the Steven Pass accidents and this does cut close to home, but I'm still not ready to hand over the right to make decisions in the backcountry to a resort or the Forrest Service. For that matter, I'm pretty certain the victims of both accidents would be appalled if their deaths were used as leverage for some "no recreating in the backcountry" clampdown.

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

I can understand that the resort is not able to limit access to public lands, but what if the gates did not directly enter public lands, but sort of a buffer zone between the resort and the public land.

This way, there could be a little more control. I do not advocate closing the gates, but what about requiring a backcountry access card like they do at Alpental???

http://www.summitatsnoqualmie.com/fi...iver_11_12.pdf

You go to the patrol shack, you talk to a patroller, who can probably do a little more to inform/scare the unknowing than skeery signs, sign a release, they give you a little card, and you are on your way. Maybe they could even have people watch a little video like they make you do for some terrain parks. I don't think it is unreasonable for the resort to require a few hoops to at least try to make sure everyone who uses the resort to access public lands knows what they are getting themselves into.

It would also make the patrol seem more accessible to the public... I took an NSP Avy class at Mission Ridge, and they were pretty clear that it was ok to ask them about the avy/sidecountry/backcountry conditions. Before taking that class, and maybe because I remember the days when there were no gates, and all "out of bounds" areas were closed, I would never have thought to just go up to the patrol shack and ask them.

It is real easy to say leave it open, people need to take responsibility for themselves, until it is your buddy, your son or daughter, father, brother, cousin, etc that is caught. Darwinism isn't all the funny when it cuts close to home.

I think having it hit close to home is all the more reason for you to emphasize the self sufficiency/responsibility. Do you honestly think those little videos or the like would change anything? If anything I think people would just see them as an annoyance, nothing more than a hoop, like you mentioned to jump through in their efforts to get into the backcountry. Regardless of what they're told or see before they leave the boundary, it comes down to their decision making that will keep them safe or kill them. There's definitely nothing funny about darwinism, but honestly, as much as it sucks, tragic things like that happening will save way more lives than making people jump hoops to leave private land.

Originally Posted by Sol Skier

The Canyons needs to:

1] Make a better distinction on days when the avalanche hazard is 'high' or greater, like flashing lights at all big posted trail maps or flags at OB gates.

2] Expand their boundary to include the easily accessed terrain off of peak 9990 and control it.

The situation as it exists now is too much of a trap.

Not going to read this whole things BUT...

This kind of attitude is what leads to closures and "management" by real esate companies about where you can and cannot ski.

Nobody's at fault here. We are skiers. You need to start acting like one.

Originally Posted by The Gnarwhale

I was friends with victims of the Kessler and the Steven Pass accidents and this does cut close to home, but I'm still not ready to hand over the right to make decisions in the backcountry to a resort or the Forrest Service. For that matter, I'm pretty certain the victims of both accidents would be appalled if their deaths were used as leverage for some "no recreating in the backcountry" clampdown.

I am not suggesting using anyone's death as leverage for no recreating in the backcountry clampdown,or suggesting a no recreating in the backcountry clampdown at all. The deaths at Steven's were experienced people who had all the skills and tools to make the right decisions, and at this point, most of us can only speculate as to what went wrong there, and I do not want to do that. I did not know those who died, personally, but I have had some interaction with the Leavenworth ski community, and they are an awesome group of people that I am sure are hurting pretty bad right now, and will be for a long time.

I guess my big question is how do we get people to get it? It is not just skiers, either. I have a friend who bought a pair of snowshoes, called me from some ridge on Blewett Pass one afternoon. Alone. Without any avalanche gear or training, and he didnt even look at the forecast. So I pull up NWAC, and avalanche danger is moderate. He says its ok, there is only about 5 feet of snow up here and it is really warm out. The weekend that the Steven's Pass accident happened he was also out, at some lake, alone, no gear, no partner, no info except that I told him that avalanche danger was high. This is an educated 30 something guy. Too busy for an avalanche class, to frugal to buy gear, and too independent to find partners. Will his luck run out at some point?

Something has to give, because if people keep dying insurance companies are going to start refusing life insurance to skiers if they haven't all ready, people are going to start lobbying for changes, some asshole is going to find a way to hold a resort legally liable for a backcountry death... Those are just details, though, complications. It pales in comparison to the fact that these are our people dying. What would the Steven's Pass group say if they could say something? I am 100% sure they would not say to stop recreating in the backcountry, but I am pretty sure they would tell you that that line, that day was not worth it, not worth their lives.

Originally Posted by mtngirl79

I guess my big question is how do we get people to get it?

Something has to give, because if people keep dying insurance companies are going to start refusing life insurance to skiers if they haven't all ready, people are going to start lobbying for changes, some asshole is going to find a way to hold a resort legally liable for a backcountry death... .

People are going to start "lobbying" for change if people somehow how misconstrue these accidents as "problems."

In Europe, there are millions more skiers, most of which are not from the mountains and thus haven't had avalanche respect and protocol drilled into their heads since they were kids. What happens there? Most stay on the piste. Some venture off piste unprepared and sometimes bad things happen.
But you don't see anyone saying close an area, or that is a probelm per se. Unfortunate, yes, but a problem which is to solved with regulation? no.
In the States, these accidents are relativley rare. Maybe that's why they get blown out of proportion.

Nothing should change as far as responsibility assumed by canyons. An actual gate that only opened with a beacon would be nice, and help weed out gapers, but I understand and agree with canyons and patrols desire to remain 'hands off'. The more responsibility they assume the more liability they assume, the only way those bounderies end up getting closed is if canyons did limit the access and something happened ending in litigation.
To answer the question; the uac avy report is posted on the side of the 9s patrol shack daily.

Unfourtunaly being a dick and 'educating' gapers and people with no gear is the best deterrent up there right now, but it gets old and I get tired of always acting like a crusty dick.

Sent from my DROIDX using TGR Forums

Originally Posted by skifishbum

Is it time for people to start to take more responsibility for their decisions to enter any terrain?
Fuck yeah

My thoughts exactly. Try and have this discussion in France.

1) tree wells kill way more than avalanches do, year after year.

LET'S BAN TREE SKIING

2) you cite all the recent deaths as folks that were experienced and "should have known better"

perhaps, and I am sure they would take it back if they could, but they also made a decision we all make. I see stupid shit all the time. I know lots of great skiers that take solo laps in Rock Springs or 4 pines all the time. I would not do solo runs on high days, but its their choice and their life.
The only time folks in the BC piss me off is when they do stupid shit above other folks, putting others in danger.

3) I think any resort can close their gates. What they do is move their gate 10 feet inside the permit boundary. Now you are trespassing on their land on the way to the national forest. That is how it worked for years.


Thank God most resorts have opened the gates in the last decade or so.

If whiny bitches get them closed by the nanny state, I will be pissed.

One thought. It's YOUR public land, that is if it is indeed National Forest. These ski areas lease YOUR public lands to make millions off of the real estate they sell at the base and in surrounding communities. I have a problem with the corporations dictating how , when, or where I access our public lands. I really think that privatizing public lands for profit is bullshit. The real problem I feel is this country's citizens inability to use their heads, it seems like the day to day life most people live in where their safety is constantly looked after for fear of lawsuits has created a society of brainless "victims". Too many people are willing to point a finger and call a lawyer when shit hits the fan and then their have been too many judges willing to take their sides in court granting them huge amounts of money for their lawsuits. Do you like adventure? Well then if that's what you're after then guess what? Risks can have consequences so fucking deal with it.

Originally Posted by Core Shot

TGR FORUM HAS JUMPED THE SHARK
LIVE FREE OR DIE

^^^ fixed it for you.

Most of you need to move your pansy-asses back over to Epic. Life is fatal. Get over it. Live it while you have it.

While you've been arguing, about 30 people have died in car crashes (100 a day in the US, every day). To hear half of you, we ought to shut down all the freeways and boot all the cars so no one gets hurt. While we're at it, we should move cities away from rivers so people won't drown. Etc., etc. Get a freakin clue - people take risks because they want to. The presence of snow, mountains, or signs has nothing to do with it. For most of you, and me too, some of the most fun we've had (on snow or off) required passing a sign or signing a form that said "you may die." Sometimes you do. The posted sign may have even piqued your interest.

(I hope I don't die in a car crash)

I think a larger issue worth discussing is who pays the bill for rescues and body recoveries? Often ski area patrol is involved, when will the ski resort suits start to get tired of having employees on the clock involved with time consuming rescues outside of resort boundaries? I imagine for now they feel obligated, imagine how a lawsuit would turn out if the ski area decided to not be involved because of an overly busy day during peak periods? If trends continue in the direction they are going I see some serious problems evolving.

Originally Posted by LongShortLong

^^^ fixed it for you.

Most of you need to move your pansy-asses back over to Epic. Life is fatal. Get over it. Live it while you have it.

While you've been arguing, about 30 people have died in car crashes (100 a day in the US, every day). To hear half of you, we ought to shut down all the freeways and boot all the cars so no one gets hurt. While we're at it, we should move cities away from rivers so people won't drown. Etc., etc. Get a freakin clue - people take risks because they want to. The presence of snow, mountains, or signs has nothing to do with it. For most of you, and me too, some of the most fun we've had (on snow or off) required passing a sign or signing a form that said "you may die." Sometimes you do. The posted sign may have even piqued your interest.

(I hope I don't die in a car crash)

Yep, Imagine if a safety group with pull was trying to tell the American people that their cars are too dangerous and we need to start giving em up, people would freak out.

Bad facts make bad law. I see a lot of overreacting in this thread and in the community. I ski this terrain frequently and try to educate the uninitiated but have also taken risks that would be second-guessed on this forum, in Dutch's and in my car. We're animals living on a wild planet. Leave the gates open, work on education, and understand that bad things happen.

What if the parks placed a ranger who was allowed to check for proper equipment at select access points near popular areas.

More feds and regulation in the BC? WTF is happening to our community?

Enough of the shitty analogies, it's not like this and it's not like that, it's like exactly what it is, that's what it's like.

Originally Posted by RaisingArizona

Yep, Imagine if a safety group with pull was trying to tell the American people that their cars are too dangerous and we need to start giving em up, people would freak out.

they do close highways during big storms when they are deemed to dangerous to drive on.

No. That answers the question that is the title of this thread. With the lack of good snow days in many areas this year, I am wondering if any of those that have died in avalanches this season went out when avy danger was high, whereas in years passed they would have stayed in. Are any of you willing to go out into the backcountry or have you gone out on a high danger day this season due to a lack of good quality snow days?

I go out the gate just about every day due to bad snow quality inbounds, even on deep years...but ya, inbounds is pretty bad this season... Honestly, there is acres and acres of safe, lowangle, tree-skiing out the gate at canyons if you know where to go. Problem is everyone, gapers and the experienced, are attracted to the big, steep faces

Sent from my DROIDX using TGR Forums

A long period of drought can unarguably weigh in heavy on the human factor, I am unwilling though to talk about what may or may have not been factors involved with those that have been killed, I have no real insight so I wouldn't judge or speculate.

Originally Posted by dos bolsas

People are going to start "lobbying" for change if people somehow how misconstrue these accidents as "problems."

In Europe, there are millions more skiers, most of which are not from the mountains and thus haven't had avalanche respect and protocol drilled into their heads since they were kids. What happens there? Most stay on the piste. Some venture off piste unprepared and sometimes bad things happen.
But you don't see anyone saying close an area, or that is a probelm per se. Unfortunate, yes, but a problem which is to solved with regulation? no.
In the States, these accidents are relativley rare. Maybe that's why they get blown out of proportion.

What are you talking about? Italy can fine you for off-piste skiing (or various bits within it) on high-hazard days and the fatfuck carabineri will yell at you. France is considering bans; there's various bullshit in other areas as well.

Originally Posted by philth

More feds and regulation in the BC? WTF is happening to our community?

And it's not like the Forest Service can really pay for an LEO to just hang out at BC gates, I don't know about your NF but ours here in Flagstaff just had 20 or 30% of their budget clipped.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

What are you talking about? Italy can fine you for off-piste skiing (or various bits within it) on high-hazard days and the fatfuck carabineri will yell at you. France is considering bans; there's various bullshit in other areas as well.

Their was recently an interesting article in Backcountry magazine about the increasing pressures on big lines in Cham and the growing likely hood of huge accidents because of crowding. Things just aren't what they were just ten years ago, with the popularity of back country and side country skiing we are starting to develop issues that most of us didn't really see coming years ago.

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

What are you talking about? Italy can fine you for off-piste skiing (or various bits within it) on high-hazard days and the fatfuck carabineri will yell at you. France is considering bans; there's various bullshit in other areas as well.

Its true that there is more attention over past years about the issue in europe. But has Cham changed its policies? Has La Grave? Val Fukkin thorens? No.
And Italy has actually loosened their off-piste "ban" over the years, not tightened it.

So while they are "talking about" the issue, bans aren't going to happen.

Originally Posted by RaisingArizona

Their was recently an interesting article in Backcountry magazine about the increasing pressures on big lines in Cham and the growing likely hood of huge accidents because of crowding. Things just aren't what they were just ten years ago, with the popularity of back country and side country skiing we are starting to develop issues that most of us didn't really see coming years ago.

aside from some scribe in backcountry needing an angle, what's new? Big avalanches have killed people in crowded areas before. Same shit, different spin

Originally Posted by Hugh Conway

aside from some scribe in backcountry needing an angle, what's new? Big avalanches have killed people in crowded areas before. Same shit, different spin

You don't think there is way more people out and about nowadays then there where years ago?