Results 51 to 75 of 204
02-25-2012, 12:34 PM #51
I think having a sign out sheet would be a good start. Maybe toss in some questions like, "If you selected NO for avalanche gear, please enter your blood type and whether or not you would like to be an organ donor. Thanks and have a good run!"
Or just changing the sign on the gate to something more effective like..
"You are leaving the resort boundary. The runs accessed from here are super lame and boring and your facebook friends wont think you are any cooler for skiing them."
02-25-2012, 12:37 PM #52
"Tight pants and skinny skis recommended for travel beyond this point"
02-25-2012, 12:42 PM #53
Bwaaaaaahhhh ..Thats good. Both of em.
02-25-2012, 12:43 PM #543 bean salad
- Join Date
- Aug 2009
- Wasatch Front
the signs say it all. they are enough. even without the signs a persons self respect would normally be enough to tell them whether or not they possess the necessary knowledge and equipment to travel in certain terrain. the wasatch in winter or summer is no walk through the park. these mountains feast on human sacrifices year round. the mountain asks nothing of us and certainly makes us no promises. even when we do everything right we can die - accidents happen. personally this is a year i have decided that the backcountry is "off limits" to me. last year i lived in the side country of brighton but that was that year. when i ski with a posse i don't feel bad saying that i don't want to do a certain run inbounds - i know my limits and energy level and try to live within that. peace and blessings to all the riders we just lost - this was a sad week for the community.
02-25-2012, 12:49 PM #55Life is a lot like climbing: there isn't anything much more comforting than a good #2.
02-25-2012, 12:54 PM #56
to the furfurfureak or whatever: Except, since it accesses public National Forest service land, the gate stays open and has to. Its the same with the gate at the bottom of Mineral Basin at Snowbird. always open. Granted, they can shut down mineral basin due to avy/weather conditions then you cannot access the gate, but closing terrain that has been controled and is OK'd by patrol inbounds because its dicey out of bounds is a bad move. Snowbird would never shut down mineral basin because people might go out the low gate on dangerous days.http://coldsmokechronicles.blogspot.com
"If we can't bring the mountain to the party, let's bring the PARTY to the MOUNTAIN!"
"especially if you beat it like AKPM on a lonely alaskan night" brice618
I told you I was retarded!!!!
and the truth comes out
02-25-2012, 12:54 PM #57Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2008
How about this:
A nice sign with the names of all of the people who were caught, injured, or killed by an avalanche in that side country, and maybe a picture of one of the many times those shots have slid from wall to wall.
I hope those gates don't close. One of my best days of skiing was through those gates into desolation bowl.
02-25-2012, 01:04 PM #58
with respect to the passed.
ski areas should not be responsible for peoples decision making.
people will do the wrong thing and die.
people will get unlucky and die.
people will do both of the above and live. such is life.
everyone will be dead at some point regardlesswhatever I feel like i what to do!
02-25-2012, 01:04 PM #59Life is a lot like climbing: there isn't anything much more comforting than a good #2.
02-25-2012, 01:05 PM #60
TGR FORUM HAS JUMPED THE SHARK
what a bunch of panty waisted whiners we have here now.
close the gates for good?
close them on high days?
mandate beacons and gear?
make the gates an hour hike?
FOR FUCK SAKES ACKNOWLEDGE THAT WHAT WE LIKE TO DO CAN RESULT IN DEATH.
SKI FREE OR DIE
FOR FUCKS SAKE, TAKE RESPONSIBILITY FOR YOUR OWN DECISIONS
Sorry that the ignorant tourists are dying. They need to learn to read.
The only other contribution I might make is that if the skull and crossbones is encouraging kids then maybe gory photos of mangled corpses that have ridden avalanches through the trees might help."Fakers are Maggots" - T. Hall, 2011
only a fake Rasta could make a claim like that
02-25-2012, 01:16 PM #61whatever I feel like i what to do!
02-25-2012, 02:29 PM #62
Are there any signs at Canyons which show what the current avalanche danger rating is?
If not, then it might be a good idea, not for liability reasons, but because it would be HELPFUL and CONSIDERATE, especially since some of its customers use the lifts to access avalanche terrain.
I fully agree that people need to be responsible for their actions, and I don't think access should be restricted, and I don't think The Canyons is 'responsible' (regardless of the thread title I hastily chose).
What makes the Canyons situation unique is that the OB terrain is very visible from the lift and easy to access, and the terrain leads right back inbounds. It is very accessible to the 'casual' backcountry skier or visitor, so maybe the Canyons could make a little more effort to give its users good information with which they can make decisions, beyond just putting up scary looking signs and falling back on 'he should have known better'.
Maybe also consider bringing the 2 bowls either side of the top of 9990 inbounds and control them.
Sorry 4-Teef to you and your family, and no disrespect intended to Canyons patrol either. i am sure it has been a traumatic week and these are issues you have been wrestling with.
02-25-2012, 02:50 PM #63Registered User
- Join Date
- Sep 2008
I'm really surprised about the responses here, and I'm with core shot here. Saying "well, the resort could at least do this for people" really begs the question, when does the resorts responsibility end? In my opinion it ends at the gate with the warnings. If someone disregards the warnings and dies, that is their fault. They were given warning, and anything that happens to them must be THEIR responsibility.
With all due respect, these deaths also help build awareness. If there's a group of tourists that don't take the necessary precautions to ski the backcountry safely and one of them dies , rest assured none of the other guys will take backcountry safety lightly ever again. For experienced people, shit also happens and they can get unlucky, or flat-out complacency can lead to mistakes. Ask any serious backcountry enthusiast, and they realize that they're taking matters into their own hands going out into the backcountry. Maybe some people don't realize that they are doing that leaving the ski area boundary, but I don't think it's because of the lack of resorts making it obvious that it could potentially be dangerous.
02-25-2012, 03:07 PM #64Registered User
- Join Date
- Aug 2010
- Park City
Am I responsible when a kid walks into my neighbors yard and drown in his hot tub or brakes his arm on their tramp. The Canyons is not at fault here. The sad reality is that the choice to ski that face on any day this year is bad.
The choice to ski it without gear is something that will haunt this group. This was not a Canyons issue. This was a cluster that cost a great young kid his life.
It is really sad on many levels, but not a Canyons issue. I think Talisker is about is a horrible local citizen, but they don't own this one.
02-25-2012, 03:08 PM #65
How 'bout people who are thinking about going into backcountry call the avalanche hotline, check the center's website, twitter, etc. instead of asking Canyons to provide information about conditions outside their boundaries?
It's like asking Mickey Mouse to do something different because tourons get mugged/killed in Anaheim after leaving Disneyland.
A lot of people this year have overestimated their ability to interpret & manage avalanche conditions, and underestimated the forces of mass & gravity. Sadly, the price has been high. My condolences to the survivors of these events. 4Teef, good on your family for donating organs.
02-25-2012, 03:16 PM #66
brighton posts the danger rating as well as soli soli used to post the uac report prob still does most already know before they go
soli opens and closes the highway2heav and fantasy and solibright gates at snow safeties discression and based on control work and other everchanging factors
brightons gates are all different and clearly marked as no patrol/ control work and there is a shack @ millie and crest.
Snow basin has their policy as does every other resort.
Not sure if canyons management reads the tgrz or care what e-kooks think
but you and others should definitely send your suggestions to mike g or patrol/snow safety as they make policy and are the only ones who can or will change things.
Self responsibility/preservation trumps imo
strong posts slag and mntg gnarw etc and a lot of good discussions on risk tolerances and decision making are taking place in a lot of good threads
death sucks"When the child was a child it waited patiently for the first snow and it still does"- Van "The Man" Morrison
"THIS IS WHAT WE DO"-AML -
ski on in eternal peace
02-25-2012, 03:34 PM #67
So they can't limit access/ask skiers if they have backcountry gear bc its USFS land. What if the parks placed a ranger who was allowed to check for proper equipment at select access points near popular areas. I'm sure this would require crazy legislation and get DBTs panties in a wad, but its got to be considered if it helps save lives.Take everything you like seriously, except yourselves.
02-25-2012, 03:49 PM #68Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
But, the cost to society for losing individuals, perhaps needlessly, is high. And if such things continue unabated then maybe the backcountry will be closed period. So I wouldnt just write-off reasonable ideas because you only care about your beautiful self.
Living always runs the risk of dying, but thats not a sound argument for safety talk .
Looks like SFB made another very cogent and relevant post for this discussion punctuated with death sucks.
02-25-2012, 03:55 PM #69Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
Stevens pass (RIP), not really ignorant tourists. Dude at canyons, not really ignorant tourist. Kessler dude, not tourists. RIP all and condolences to families. Nothing wrong with seeking a better solution, something wrong with FOOOOOTBALLLLL!
02-25-2012, 03:56 PM #70
Will enforcement of that law begin after the first snow in the September? And will I be breaking the law if I walk near a snowpatch while backpacking in July without the "proper gear?"
Would posting the avy forecast have changed outcomes of Thursday accident? Since the party ignored the vocal and aggressive warnings of other skiers on the ridgeline just before dropping in, it seems unlikely to me that a bulletin along the bootpack would have effected the group's decision making.
The UAC does not make itself hard to track down. There is a preliminary dawn patroller 5am phone forecast, the full 7am phone-in forecast, the website, twitter, facebook, iPhone app, email forecast, and also forecast discussions with real live forecasters on KPCW, KCRL, X96.3, and probably other stations. That's at least 7 different mediums where the UAC is broadcasting their assessment every day.
02-25-2012, 04:08 PM #71Registered User
- Join Date
- Jul 2010
The Canyons should just build a gondola to solitude = problem solved.
02-25-2012, 04:14 PM #72
If the individuals involved in the Kessler accident, the Stevens Pass accident, and the Dutch Draw accident were all savvy, experienced people then would posting the forecast in yet another place, or adding a flashing light, or mandating a beacon check, really have changed any outcomes?
It's interesting to hear survivors/bystanders of the Kessler and DD incidents claim that, in both instances, they tried to explain the err in the victims thinking to the victim yet were unable to convince that person to change their behavior. In both instances the victim was committed to skiing the route to such a degree that they totally ignored some pretty explicit warnings. I have a hunch that there were probably some serious familiarity/commitment heuristics at play in the Stevens Pass incident too.
02-25-2012, 04:15 PM #73
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???
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.
02-25-2012, 04:17 PM #74northern lights and southern comfort...
02-25-2012, 04:20 PM #75Registered User
- Join Date
- Feb 2012
GnarGnar et al. You must have missed the Tiny dancer comment Death does suck too.
You have somethin against frats or football?
Living to die dyning to live....