WASATCH STOKE, CONDITIONS, OBSERVATIONS and ASSORTED DRIVAL 20-21

[tgapp]

It is if you live on the Wasatch Back...

well just take your fucking private helicopter to access it then, isn't that what the rest of you dentists do anyway?

[snowaddict91]

I think there are ways that it could be better managed, but I oppose closing it.

[Wings420]

And when the FS closes the BCC TH because conditions are too dangerous?

[Boissal]

And when the FS closes the BCC TH because conditions are too dangerous?

Apples and monkeys throwing oranges at each other, thanks for playing.

[jtran10]

I think there are ways that it could be better managed, but I oppose closing it.

100%

Require beacon/shovel/probe and a partner, check in/sign out with ski patrol maybe

[deeds]

well just take your fucking private helicopter to access it then, isn't that what the rest of you dentists do anyway?

heli can't fly on storm days....

[Lone Star]

^^^ hire a better pilot, one with a "can-do" attitude.

[Wings420]

Beacon/shovel/probe would be fine, but I believe the last Squaretop victim had those.

[telefreewasatch]

Thought I'd do a 'lil storytelling 'bout how I dialed things back when I was gonna be a father.
My passion in the 70's + 80's was lugging usually alpine gear into the hills to pioneer new lines.
Working on the Snowbird Patrol gave me two days a week max to pursue this passion in winter.
Tried to always ski something for me, new.
After winter season I'd adventure north and west as far as the Canadian Rockies.
Didn't have many partners, anything of consequence was usually solo.
And no phones, eh?
Check out the N face of Assiniboine and the Great Couloir on the W side of Robson for an idea.
No one else around for either of those descents.
Some of my lines haven't been repeated.
Went light and w/out a rope. Ski pole ice axe, harness, crampons, extra tool.

When Deb and I decided to have kids I was in a quandary as to where to draw the line.
I'd never found any of my objectives unreasonable, but sometimes came back in better conditions.
Winter '89-'90 found me atop the Pfeiff when the ice in the choke wasn't too bad.
Partner for the day was a hit of LSD. I found this helpful sometimes for different perspective.
Don't believe it had been skied by anyone else except Ned Randolph and I at that time.
Looked down it it looked unreasonable; the line had drawn itself to my great relief.
Never again skied something where a rope should be carried.

This passion had different risks than avoiding avalanches, obviously.
But I did change how I played in the mountains.
Thirty years later, no regrets.

[123ski]

^^^ hire a better pilot, one with a "can-do" attitude.

Isn’t that what happened to Kobe?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

[jtran10]

Beacon/shovel/probe would be fine, but I believe the last Squaretop victim had those.

That's correct. There clearly isn't a solution that makes everyone happy, but even simply requiring those tools drops the fatality rate by 50% this season. Which ya still sucks, but that's a big drop when taken over a longer time period and larger sample size.

[snowaddict91]

I could see closing it during high danger, but even that I'm not sure I 100% agree with. I think requiring gear is a good first step.

[brutah]

There's certainly a cultural difference between the skiers that ski out the 9990 gate and those that frequent the same terrain from BCC. Maybe I should extend that to say a difference in skier attitudes between PC and CC skiers.

Unfortunately, PC skiers have proven repeatedly that they aren't able to make good decisions which has resulted in close to 10 deaths in the past 20 years (way more than any other zone in Utah). In my opinion, you can't expect things to continue like they were with a track record like that.

I also don't know how you change attitudes, but I think at this point a change is merited. I'm for an open gate policy, but that has obviously failed in Park City.

[zion zig zag]

Apples and monkeys throwing oranges at each other, thanks for playing.

I'm a fan of logical conclusions, but I'll sometimes entertain illogical conclusions because logic doesn't always seem to be a strong suit of policy makers. So I'm just wondering why you give no merit at all to his question?

[altacoup]

Seems to me that moving the gate downhill, so that it would require hiking uphill to access this terrain would filter out a lot of people. And it’s not just the clueless getting in trouble with avalanches in the backcountry. But that particular gate seems to cause way too much heart break.

[Phall]

USFS has restrictions on what they can and cannot close, for public access I believe. That being said, they close areas for wildfires, but I'm not aware of anywhere in the US where the USFS can or does cloes trailheads in winter for avy danger. The PCMR gate is on PCMR property and is not governed by the USFS as I had once thought. I believe this is the apples to oranges situation. I think it would be a MASSIVE undertaking to shut trailheads due to Avy danger, and with how the USFS is funded, traffic issues, lack of USFS LE, etc, it will never be able to be enforced in BCC/LCC. I'm no statistics wiz but I'd say that gate has the highest ratio of user vs. fatality than any other trail in the Wasatch, and with three deaths in just over a year they are feeling community pressure.

I'd love to see that gate stay open, and I think a White Pine type shack on top with beacon checks, SP signout, etc would be the best option.

ON top of all this has there been any resolution to the PCMR Patrol issues going on?

[zion zig zag]

Seems to me that moving the gate downhill, so that it would require hiking uphill to access this terrain would filter out a lot of people. And it’s not just the clueless getting in trouble with avalanches in the backcountry. But that particular gate seems to cause way too much heart break.

This seems like the best/easiest option.

[soul_skier]

There's certainly a cultural difference between the skiers that ski out the 9990 gate and those that frequent the same terrain from BCC. Maybe I should extend that to say a difference in skier attitudes between PC and CC skiers.

Unfortunately, PC skiers have proven repeatedly that they aren't able to make good decisions which has resulted in close to 10 deaths in the past 20 years (way more than any other zone in Utah). In my opinion, you can't expect things to continue like they were with a track record like that.

I also don't know how you change attitudes, but I think at this point a change is merited. I'm for an open gate policy, but that has obviously failed in Park City.

Let me preface my soapbox speech by saying that this in no way is directed at any past or future victim of a slide in the Canyons slackcountry. I've had close calls there myself and my brother nearly died in a slide just outside the gate 10ish years ago so I'm the last person to claim that I haven't made poor decisions in the past.

I'm saddened by the fact that the gate may close but I can't really blame the USFS/Canyons for taking action here. In the seasons I lived in Utah I spent more time that most heading out that gate and even with a very respectable amount of avalanche training, plenty of bc experience, and spending time on the ridge in the summer to understand what lies beneath the snow in hindsight I was just knowledgeable enough to get myself or others in my group killed. I am 100% of the mindset that we shouldn't have to cater to the lowest common denominator but in the society we live in that isn't an option, we have to protect people from themselves.

I've had some fantastic runs skiing dutch, big mac, and square-top, but determining when those runs are green lit is not something that your average skier heading out the gate can be expected to know. The combination of aspect, slope angle, slickrock in a lot of the start zones, and complex terrain is difficult to manage at best and a futile task on many days. The increase of crowds, influx of new backcountry skiers, and 3 of the 4 classic heuristic traps, familiarity, social proof, and scarcity, have created a situation where fatalities are to be expected in these zones that are so easily viewed and accessed from the lift.

My understanding is that the gates are either 100% open or 100% closed per the existing agreement with the USFS. If that is the case then as much as I may dislike the outcome I get that the USFS/Canyons may push for their closure and I can't fault them for it. I'm sure patrol also has mixed opinions about it, they can't enjoy doing body recoveries or responding to avoidable trauma and as of now they have to watch the line of people bootpacking up from 9990 with no reasonable means to stop or control them. As a collective group the backcountry skiers exiting that gate have demonstrated that they cannot be trusted to make good decisions and therefore decisions need to be made for them. If there isn't a way to close the 9990 gate and only have the peak 5 gate open, or a way to close the gates on days when the danger is deemed unacceptably high it pains me to admit that I don't see a good path forward here. I fully believe that on all but the highest danger days a super dialed party can exit that gate and ski safely, but those skiers are in the minority these days. It will be a big blow to the skiers who have spent the time and effort to educate themselves, understand the area in question, and have demonstrated the ability to safely recreate out of that gate, but patrol cannot be expected to delineate between responsible skiers and someone that is going to be a liability and make poor decisions.

I want to live in a society where you can do what you want, when you want, and how you want, but that requires a level of personal responsibility and accountability that isn't as common as I would like it to be. I am personally against closing the gates as it removes the chance to make your own decisions and once the gates close the chances of them opening up again are slim to none. I hope the powers that be can find a way to preserve access, but given the history of that ridge and the complexities of the terrain, heuristic traps, and legal/liability questions I won't fault the Canyons if they close the boundary.

I should also note that this is specific to the 9900 gate. It is my opinion that the skin/hike up the ridge from peak 5 would serve as a great filter and remove a lot of the traffic the ridgeline currently gets. I'm also not at all concerned about this serving as a precedent for closing other BC access as the 9990 gate involves a for profit company giving you access to permitted land on privately owned equipment.

[brutah]

well said^^^

Thought I'd do a 'lil storytelling 'bout how I dialed things back when I was gonna be a father.
My passion in the 70's + 80's was lugging usually alpine gear into the hills to pioneer new lines.
Working on the Snowbird Patrol gave me two days a week max to pursue this passion in winter.
Tried to always ski something for me, new.
After winter season I'd adventure north and west as far as the Canadian Rockies.
Didn't have many partners, anything of consequence was usually solo.
And no phones, eh?
Check out the N face of Assiniboine and the Great Couloir on the W side of Robson for an idea.
No one else around for either of those descents.
Some of my lines haven't been repeated.
Went light and w/out a rope. Ski pole ice axe, harness, crampons, extra tool.

When Deb and I decided to have kids I was in a quandary as to where to draw the line.
I'd never found any of my objectives unreasonable, but sometimes came back in better conditions.
Winter '89-'90 found me atop the Pfeiff when the ice in the choke wasn't too bad.
Partner for the day was a hit of LSD. I found this helpful sometimes for different perspective.
Don't believe it had been skied by anyone else except Ned Randolph and I at that time.
Looked down it it looked unreasonable; the line had drawn itself to my great relief.
Never again skied something where a rope should be carried.

This passion had different risks than avoiding avalanches, obviously.
But I did change how I played in the mountains.
Thirty years later, no regrets.

This thread needs more Jimmy tales!

[mc_roon]

I think there are ways that it could be better managed, but I oppose closing it.

Agreed.

Every time there is a death out that gate this question gets dredged up; guess it took 2 separate fatalities & the knowledge that there could easily be more to come later this season unless they act to drive a real discussion.

Requiring gear would be a start, but i believe that runs into issues about artificial (ie - $$$) barriers to entry into public lands which from a FS perspective is really hard to approve.

I would bet that almost all or all PC ridgeline human triggered avalanches and fatalities in the past decade have been accessed out the 9990 gate.

What if they permanently closed the 9990 gate, kept the Peak 5 gate open & added a gate at the top of saddleback?
- Force all tourists who view the gnar from the top of 9990 to ski down & take another lift - adds time/effort/ route-finding complexity & tempers the impulse decision
- Force all people who want access to work more for it & come better prepared - you would cut the unprepared bootpackers down by a massive %
- Force everyone to skin/hike past safer BC lines before they hit the main offenders (Conehead & Squaretop), instead of having those two be the two easiest/most accessible peaks from the current 9990 gate (Easter Bowl & Cinder Chutes would be exceptions to this statement)

I havent skied there in years, but back in the day probably spent 100+ days touring that ridgeline out the 9990 gate. I almost died in an avalanche off of squaretop. I was lucky when I was starting out to connect with a group of knowledgable locals who kept me ontop of the snow & that, to my recollection, there was never a PWL like this any of the seasons I was there. I dont think closing the gates is right, but something needs to happen to prevent this cycle from repeating endlessly.

[Canada1]

I am firmly against closing the gates. We are responsible for our own actions. I have seen as many slides above Peak Five as I have in Dutch Draw. Just smaller scale, but still catastrophic if it catches you. Would most of us have thought the slide that took S.J.'s life would happen how and where it did above Sun Peak?

There isn't a good answer. I don't think the Forest Service or the Resort want to be the moderators of what is the right level of risk, and any associated liability with that choice. In this most recent circumstance, it seems Kurt understood the risk he was taking.

[schindlerpiste]

I would like to see Vail do something for the community And place three or four sound control devises also Alta on Dutch and Square. I’m sure that that type of donation would be a tax deduction. I think that McRoon’s idea about Peak 5 gate is a good one. People would actually have to work a bit for their turns and this would discourage 75 to 80% of the people who are going out the 9990 gate

[mc_roon]

Seems to me that moving the gate downhill, so that it would require hiking uphill to access this terrain would filter out a lot of people. And it’s not just the clueless getting in trouble with avalanches in the backcountry. But that particular gate seems to cause way too much heart break.

This seems like the best/easiest option.

For clarity - as it stands today you get off a chairlift and bootback 10 minutes up to get to the gate in the first place. From there, you drop down the ridgeline in either direction before either bootpacking the ridgeline, or skinning up the backside to get to either squaretop or dutches. So everyone is hiking uphill to access this terrain, but it is super easy, you likely see an army of others ahead of you, & requires zero route finding ability to figure out how to do it yourself

[brutah]

I am firmly against closing the gates. We are responsible for our own actions. I have seen as many slides above Peak Five as I have in Dutch Draw. Just smaller scale, but still catastrophic if it catches you. Would most of us have thought the slide that took S.J.'s life would happen how and where it did above Sun Peak?

Unfortunately, individual rights are not absolute. Those rights are limited by general interest and public welfare. It seems like the amount of accidents out the 9990 gate would merit a change for the sake of public welfare at this time.

i can't think of one area in the lower 48 that has seen the amount of avy accidents as the terrain accessed out that particular gate.

[Sirshredalot]

Agreed.

Every time there is a death out that gate this question gets dredged up; guess it took 2 separate fatalities & the knowledge that there could easily be more to come later this season unless they act to drive a real discussion.

Requiring gear would be a start, but i believe that runs into issues about artificial (ie - $$$) barriers to entry into public lands which from a FS perspective is really hard to approve.

I would bet that almost all or all PC ridgeline human triggered avalanches and fatalities in the past decade have been accessed out the 9990 gate.

What if they permanently closed the 9990 gate, kept the Peak 5 gate open & added a gate at the top of saddleback?
- Force all tourists who view the gnar from the top of 9990 to ski down & take another lift - adds time/effort/ route-finding complexity & tempers the impulse decision
- Force all people who want access to work more for it & come better prepared - you would cut the unprepared bootpackers down by a massive %
- Force everyone to skin/hike past safer BC lines before they hit the main offenders (Conehead & Squaretop), instead of having those two be the two easiest/most accessible peaks from the current 9990 gate (Easter Bowl & Cinder Chutes would be exceptions to this statement)

I havent skied there in years, but back in the day probably spent 100+ days touring that ridgeline out the 9990 gate. I almost died in an avalanche off of squaretop. I was lucky when I was starting out to connect with a group of knowledgable locals who kept me ontop of the snow & that, to my recollection, there was never a PWL like this any of the seasons I was there. I dont think closing the gates is right, but something needs to happen to prevent this cycle from repeating endlessly.

I'll be Grade-A Annoyed if the gate is shut permanently because of this. But it's Vail, so I'm sure that fucking over locals who are competent skiers is not something that enters into their cost-benefit analysis.

I've skied out of that gate as my second most frequent backcountry access point for 8 years now. And the culture there is absurd because it is such a gaper magnet. You STFU on the lift and sprint up the booter. STFU at the gate while you step into your skis and try to disappear as quickly as possible lest some beacon less knob sees you and tries to follow. It's the exact opposite of the sort of communication and info-sharing that ought to take place between skiers and between parties. So I guess that's a sign of the dysfunction.

Booting up to the ridgeline from the Peak 5 gate is just awful, by the way. once you get above the Python chutes, it's wind-loaded and exposed in addition to being long and steep. There's a reason most people don't make the hike.

I think regularizing the dirt bag skinner at the top of Saddleback could be a potentially good substitute for the current 99 gate. And obviously a beep to get out scenario would be an improvement over what we have now.

Moving the 99 gate down the hill on the same ropeline will result in beacon less knobs beatering along a traverse right in the gut of Dutch's Draw or people zigzagging a skinner right up the middle of it. That seems like a recipe for disaster.

I don't expect any of the potential fixes to happen, though, because that would require a small expense in order to provide services to actual skiers. More likely, Vail will just kill the gate and tell people to get fucked, like they did with night skiing and the terrain out by Scott's Pass.

Sent from my Pixel 3a using Tapatalk