Berthoud Pass Proposal

[Yossarian]

Crossposted from another thread, and in response to this Avalanche fatality.

I have been thinking about a sign at Berthoud for a couple seasons now. Given the other thread out there...maybe it would help. I could perhaps see one at Loveland Pass too.

One nice wooden sign on each side, up in the air 10' on two big wooden poles/logs, with enough space in between the poles to set the track right in between and under the sign. Placed 10m back from the back of the parking lots where people gear up and start skinning. We get people to start setting the track there, and everyone has to pass the under the sign to start. A physical reminder.

The sign says something like:

"You are now entering hazardous snow avalanche terrain. If you proceed beyond this point without avalanche training, rescue gear, and backcountry partners, you are taking a life-threatening risk which may affect others as well as yourself. X people have died here in avalanche-related accidents since 19xx. Remember, if there's enough snow to ski, there's enough to slide. Put safety first.
For more information, please contact CAIC or FOBP at xxx.xxxx or xxxx.com."

The sign(s) would be a good place to meet in the morning, a good place to do beacon checks, and so on. How much would it really cost to do this? I'd sponsor one of the two signs myself, and help dig the postholes. Hey FOBP, where you at?

EDIT: please recommend improved language/opinions if you want. Looking for forceful but helpful, broad but tangible, and concise but complete.

[Buster Highmen]

EDIT: please recommend improved language/opinions if you want. Looking for forcefull but helpful, broad but tangible, and concise but complete.

Oh, you are so asking for it.

But seriously, this is a great idea.

[gincognito]

Sounds solid to me. I think the "x people have died here..." is key, sadly. I know the names listed at Tuckerman's go a long way to keeping me sober.

Sick and ashamed and happy (and not that I have anything to do with either place you mention),
d.

[Yossarian]

I mean, how could it hurt?
The FS can flip the hinged boards I just added to the design for fire danger warnings in the summer.

[edg]

You could do a simple, euro style one :



edg

[jstead]

Sounds solid to me. I think the "x people have died here..." is key, sadly. I know the names listed at Tuckerman's go a long way to keeping me sober.

seeing that list of names grow always kept me on point as well.

[Yossarian]

edg,

that's the right general idea, but it needs to be more specific and more pointed. Berthoud is a from-the-road access area which sees a lot of "tourist" activity, where the hazard is often downplayed because the terrain is smaller and the usage is high.

I'm afraid for the sign to be effective, actually stating that people have died there is required. The trick is to do it respectfully, to do it in terms that will be meaninful to the traveling family as well as the experienced backcountry user, to do it in a manner which encourages sane use instead of discouraging interaction with the natural world, and so forth.

I have to believe that Sam, RIP, might have walked the 10 steps back to the car if he read it. What a bummer.

[Ireallyliketoski2]

A few years ago there used to be a "Bootpack here, and skin in the skintrack track" that the forest service removed because it was unauthorized signage. So, the forest service would need to approve, which is probably more difficult than you might imagine.

[bad_roo]

In my experience, people take notice when they see a whelk.

Seriously though, that's a damn fine idea and it does need to be very explicit in its breakdown of the dangers involved.

[Foggy_Goggles]

I'm at right here! And in full support. I/we/FOBP have been talking about this with the FS for a couple of years. Keep this tread going, I'm brainstorm off it and then get back in touch the with FS. They have been pretty meh about it previously (they beleive sufficient signage is in place as is) but perhaps the recent event will push them over the edge. Good idea, let me if we can make it happen.

[Yossarian]

A few years ago there used to be a "Bootpack here, and skin in the skintrack track" that the forest service removed because it was unauthorized signage. So, the forest service would need to approve, which is probably more difficult than you might imagine.

Fair, but since we're not going to get it up this season, we've got 10 months to get it in the ground for next year.

Surely, there has to be way.

EDIT: thanks fogs, keep us posted.

[Foggy_Goggles]

A few years ago there used to be a "Bootpack here, and skin in the skintrack track" that the forest service removed because it was unauthorized signage. So, the forest service would need to approve, which is probably more difficult than you might imagine.

I'm trying to remember who's garage that got made it. Wait...I remember.

[Elkhound Odin]

As an FOBP member I would support this. But, what about other passes, like Loveland? It probably has more skier traffic. If there is a sign at Berthoud touting the avalanche danger, could someone assume (if they are an assuming kind of ignorant) that other passes without such signage are safer?

[berko]

What about a sign that displays the current avalanche danger a la the smokey the bear/fire danger signs?

[Yossarian]

If we have to jump through hoops to show a proper design, asthetic rendering, cost estimate, etc, I am sure we can pass the tests. We probably have the network we need to take care of every aspect of this from within the community already. And like I said, I'll pay for one of the two signs myself if it can get cleared.

[Yossarian]

As an FOBP member I would support this. But, what about other passes, like Loveland? It probably has more skier traffic. If there is a sign at Berthoud touting the avalanche danger, could someone assume (if they are an assuming kind of ignorant) that other passes without such signage are safer?

Great question, how about you refine my language to make it site specific? Two minds are better than one.

Berko, Elkhound: I'm a bit leery of the idea of posting the avalanche rating for a given day. That has much bigger problems, from administrative to qustionable user impact (as pointed out). I just think we need to make the possible outcome of improper travel at Berthoud more real. I have to believe it would make a difference.

[Cornholio]

Nice idea. Thoughts of mine:

-> Somewhere (Tuckermans?) there's a list of names of people who have died in accidents. God knows getting something like this added to the Proposal would suck ass but it would be sobering to the uninitiated and veteran alike.

-> Rather than say "For more information, contact..." I'd say "For today's Avalanche Safety Information, Call CAIC at ..."

-> I like the "putting others at risk" text-- can it be more forceful somehow? This is a huge deal, in my opinion.

-> Getting nitpicky: I don't like the cliche "if there's snow to ski there's snow to slide" 'cause I don't like cliches. I would just say "Deadly avalanches are possible even with extremely little snow. Always put safety first."

[PlayHarder]

Parks Canada has installed Avy risk signs along the highways through the mountains similar to the fire danger signs in the summer.
Basically "You Are Entering Avalanche Terrain and Could Die" with a current danger level posted.
They're definitely not as to the point as what Yoss is proposing, but do catch the eye on the way by.

[skieurmalade]

I think, after last season, we may have a window of opportunity to get the attention of authoritive higher-ups... the smokey bear slide sign sounds like all we would need! Imagine the educational benefits that would be caused by such a series of signs posted all over the forest service's many skiable passes.

[Particle]

Nice thought Yoss. I have thought about something similar for BCC & LCC after last winter's brutal avalanche fatalities...several of whom were people who simply did not understand the danger at all. At BP at least you have a clear starting/staging area...much harder to put a sign on the road that people will actually read going up LCC/BCC. Any thoughts along that line also appreciated...

[Crinkle]

good thoughts and ideas. Definitely an idea i have heard mentioned before. If FS doens't have to pay for the signage and all they have to do is approve the verbage and placement of the sign, I hope that this would ease the decision.

[Yossarian]

this is actually an interesting debate. Many of you seem to be in favor of a Today's Rating. I'm not so sure I like that, for various reasons. Could have lots of unintended consequences.

Also, my thought on Contact xx For More info is the same - I was thinking of trying to get people who have no idea what the sign is talking about educated in the longer run, as opposed to giving a way to check on conditions for the day.

Thoughts?

I was going for a tangible warning of the danger, for a gut check to all the people who either don't realize what they're doing, or for those of us who think it'll be okay just this once.... but I'm just not sure of the daily rating stuff.

And somebody, please, re-write my first pass, don't just give "I like... I don't like..."! Propose an alternative! Build, add. Move it forward.

[Mountain Junkie]

Do they still have the signs at the East Vail access gates? If I remember correctly, those were pretty similiar to what Yoss is proposing. Might be a good starting point?

Edit: I don't think posting 'current' conditions is a good idea for a variety of reasons. I think it's better to direct people to the CAIC info line. Much more detailed and accurate than a sign.

[Phatstix]

Why not put the CAIC phone number on the signs?

[Yossarian]

oh, P.S. to the 220 of you who have read but not responded...just remember, the FS will need to be shown that this is actually desired by more than just a few internet kooks, so if you're in support (or not, for that matter), you'd better find your voice now.