2 tourists went out the rock springs gate without gear in moderate conditions having no idea where they were going. Dropped way too early and ended up getting swept over the cliffs between zero g and m&m. Not a good place to be thats for sure. Know before you go and be prepared. It will be interesting to hear from the 3rd guy that didnt get swept over to hear his account of the incident
japanada2 tourists went out the rock springs gate without gear in moderate conditions having no idea where they were going. Dropped way too early and ended up getting swept over the cliffs between zero g and m&m. Not a good place to be thats for sure. Know before you go and be prepared. It will be interesting to hear from the 3rd guy that didnt get swept over to hear his account of the incident
The cliff band they got swept over is also known as the Jersey Shore (for obvious reasons)... The official name "Ralph's Slide" is after an out of towner who got slide and died back in like 2001. I'm honestly surprised this doesn't happen more often.
Just last season I saw on at least 2 separate occasions a group of people without packs getting cliffed out and having to hike out... In 2014, this EXACT same thing happened, except they got extremely lucky and both people survived.
There are signs at the top that specifically tell people where the cliffs are. I don't know if JHMR could do anything more short of putting a big flashing sign up that says "DON'T SKI HERE". Of course, maybe they could stop promoting the side country like it's part of the resort....
That being said, it's tragic and I feel horrible for the families.
iLLbiLLyThere are signs at the top that specifically tell people where the cliffs are. I don't know if JHMR could do anything more short of putting a big flashing sign up that says "DON'T SKI HERE". Of course, maybe they could stop promoting the side country like it's part of the resort....That being said, it's tragic and I feel horrible for the families.
IDK if I would say the signs say specifically where the cliffs are, more like you are here, here are the chutes and cliffs. There is no scale to really let you know how far towards Cody you need to go to clear the cliffs. Granted it would be hard to say, ski 30 seconds down the traverse before you drop. Locals know where to go, and will fly through much quicker than the jersey tourists. When I skiied M&M last season, I dropped a hair early and ended up having to shimmy into the drop. Hairy place for sure.
iLLbiLLyThere are signs at the top that specifically tell people where the cliffs are. I don't know if JHMR could do anything more short of putting a big flashing sign up that says "DON'T SKI HERE". Of course, maybe they could stop promoting the side country like it's part of the resort....That being said, it's tragic and I feel horrible for the families.
I think it's insane that people ski things that are so far outside of their skill set. If you don't know what you're doing, you don't leave the boundary. Period. If you have rental gear, you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
I feel really bad for those ski patrol and rescuers... Luckily, the search was just an hour, but that is amazing considering they, obviously, didn't have beacons on.
Pro tip, if you're coming out to shred some big mountain shit and you have to rent gear to do it, stay within the boundaries of the resort. At least ski patrol will know where to find you when you fuck up.
Sorry for the dub, but just in regards to what I quoted above, I'm just super frustrated with how much the resort has to convince people that they can't ski shit. I think that people who are coming in from out of town need to start taking more accountability for their wellbeing, especially in places that are unfamiliar. Nature's a bitch and she'll fuck you up if you don't know what you're doing.
japanadaIDK if I would say the signs say specifically where the cliffs are, more like you are here, here are the chutes and cliffs. There is no scale to really let you know how far towards Cody you need to go to clear the cliffs. Granted it would be hard to say, ski 30 seconds down the traverse before you drop. Locals know where to go, and will fly through much quicker than the jersey tourists. When I skiied M&M last season, I dropped a hair early and ended up having to shimmy into the drop. Hairy place for sure.
Yeah....the whole point being that you should visually inspect lines you plan to ski. Or at minimum, be accompanied by someone(s) who is intimately familiar with the terrain and have them direct you. How could a ski area adequately describe all the myriad threats encountered in back country terrain surrounding its boundaries? I think the fact that there's any signage whatsoever beyond the "You're leaving the ski area boundary into uncontrolled Backcountry terrain where hazards and avalanches may be encountered at any time...blahblah" is above and beyond on Jackson's part. Would people rent a kayak and put in at some random spot on a river they've never been on and have a reasonable expectation of safety? Would it be the forest service or the kayak rental place's fault if something bad happened to them? And, it's not at all irresponsible for Jackson to market towards a ski savvy audience that wants access to backcountry terrain. I'm sure many many people safely navigate that terrain on a daily basis, and we as a culture need to stop constantly catering to the dumbest and least competent of people. It is self-evident that leaving a groomed trail with an 11 degree pitch in favor of an uncontrolled back country environment is incredibly dangerous.
Anyone who blindly plunges into the fall line or traverses a piece of consequential, non-mitigated terrain is a fucking idiot. What are the chances that those people knew what aspect they were on? Think they looked at any weather info, or avy forecasts beforehand? Think they had any conception whatsoever of the significance of wind direction and aspect? Do we believe they did ANY recon whatsoever on the terrain, even something like asking a local? I'm going to guess that's a resounding no. These kinds of accidents can't be avoided all together, and it certainly isn't on Jackson Hole.
I had two skiers today make it to the top of a lift serving >TL expert terrain that was freshly windloaded, vis was in and out, windchill something like -15F. They had to come inside the shack because the guy was tingly and obviously having a panic attack.
They read all of the signage at the bottom indicating experts only, the danger, and what did they do in response? Posed for pictures in front of that signage in order to share on social media as a kind of claim. They were from the midwest, just got to Denver yesterday, drank all night, hungover, completely dehydrated, inappropriately dressed, on rental equipment and then they came up to 12,800ft with no acclimatizing whatsoever, riding a lift that they couldn't see the top of. They were really nice people, and I had no problem helping them out and sharing the shack for a bit while they got their bearings, but it was a series of poor decisions that led to them being in way over their heads.
All of this is simply to say that people truly do not respect skiing and see it in the realm of a trip to disney world as opposed to a physically challenging "adventure" sport. They disregard signage and instead of it acting as a deterrent, it's like a beacon to people who want to be able to say they've done it. It's the people who say shit like, "yeah I ski all the blacks!" who see signs warning of danger and get excited to see what the fuss is about.
People don't take any responsibility for their own safety and wellbeing. And, this incident outside of Jackson Hole is a sad example.
I have a theory that our overly sanitized culture where each and every little potential threat, no matter how seemingly minor or improbable is accompanied by CAUTION!!!! and scary warnings about imminent death has led to people completely ignoring such signage and warning. We are surrounded by these types of warnings and as people are more and more inundated with that kind of shit, they start consciously and unconsciously disregarding all these seemingly needless warnings. The result of course is that when these warnings are really warranted, they go unheeded. I don't know this to be fact, but I really wonder.
P.S. even though I quoted your post, I'm talking in a lot of generalities, not really directly responding to you or disagreeing with you.
the.hellion.I think it's insane that people ski things that are so far outside of their skill set. If you don't know what you're doing, you don't leave the boundary. Period. If you have rental gear, you DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU ARE DOING.
You know, one thing that drives me crazy about our industry is how much backcountry/sidecountry is being pushed right now.
I mean all marketing and media is going ham on this idea that the only thing that is pure, true skiing is going out of bounds. They're doing it because rich weekend warriors spend a fuck ton of money on all the accessories and equipment needed for it. Its a cash grab.
Is it any surprise that with all this hype people are going out there trying to search for the "real" skiing experience?
I for one think its incredibly irresponsible of all the companies taking part in this.
Mr.BishopYou know, one thing that drives me crazy about our industry is how much backcountry/sidecountry is being pushed right now.I mean all marketing and media is going ham on this idea that the only thing that is pure, true skiing is going out of bounds. They're doing it because rich weekend warriors spend a fuck ton of money on all the accessories and equipment needed for it. Its a cash grab.
Is it any surprise that with all this hype people are going out there trying to search for the "real" skiing experience?
I for one think its incredibly irresponsible of all the companies taking part in this.
You're definitely dead on as far as how hard it's being pushed by retail companies. Everyone basically has a touring specific ski, binding and/or boot these days. Even worse, resorts like Jackson Hole market their sidecountry like it's a controlled area. They even added runs off of Cody to the official map this year.
I get the appeal though... The resort skiing experience can kinda suck these days (unless you're a park rat like 99% NS'rs). Ridiculously expensive tickets... long lines... "powder hours" instead of "powder days"...
More people in the BC simply means more people are going to die. You can try to mitigate that fact with better safety equipment and fancy brand sponsored education videos, but when snow starts to fly, people get excited and are going to make bad decisions. To make things even worse, when the BC gets crowded, people get competitive over turns and make hasty decisions (see teton pass).
On the bright (morbidly dark) side, the most influential lessons I've learned have been from almost killing myself or watching other people die. More people in the BC means more chances to learn from mistakes (hopefully not mine).
iLLbiLLyI get the appeal though... The resort skiing experience can kinda suck these days (unless you're a park rat like 99% NS'rs).
I really don't think that your average NSer is a park rat - or that you can so easily say that park rats only ride park. I mean I was just skiing with LJ Strenio, Sandy Boville, Shay Lee, Lucas Wachs, Keefer.... all of them love the park but also were out in the sidecountry and went touring yesterday.
The thing is, most people are resort skiers - and that is OK. People would be perfectly happy riding the resort if they're of average skill. Just like grown up park rats - when you get good enough at the mountain eventually it is appropriate to explore.
However, I still do not think its responsible to be promoting to every skier the idea that they should go even into the sidecountry. They should be promoted equipment that is appropriate for general resort skiing, an the BC/SC left as something for the crazy expert niche people.
At least when we promoted them to ride park the risks are a lot more apparent. hitting the wrong sized jump is a lot more easy to realize its dumb than making one bad turn in a backcountry situation and having the mountain slide down on you.
casualP.S. even though I quoted your post, I'm talking in a lot of generalities, not really directly responding to you or disagreeing with you.
I agree with every word that you said! I def do not think that there should be signage put up with 'EASIEST WAY DOWN' with an arrow, thats just asking for more trouble than the tourist photo op signs with the skull and crossbones that you mentioned! I think it was 3 or 4 seasons ago that the sign saying you are here with spacewalk, zeroG and M&M marked got put up. I wonder what the ratio of incidents/rescues were before and after the sign.
Like IllBilly said, JH markets heavily on the fact that there are over 3000+ more acres just waiting to be explored right outside the resort boundaries. This lures the average tourist who thinks b/c then can slowly meander skiing down from the tram they are ready for the next crazy JH experience. I almost wish it wasnt as accessible and there was a way to setup a beacon/info check hut at each gate but that isn't realistic for JH to do. Bridger has a mandatory beacon check on one lift correct?
While this is a huge tragedy and my vibes and thoughts go out to all the parties involved, imagine what happens when an incident like this cause a slide ABOVE an otherwise responsible BC group and it takes a bunch of them out?
this article has a photo of the slide
http://www.firsttracksonline.com/2016/01/25/three-more-die-in-western-avalanches/
I took the 3:30 tram that day and walked off into 30-40mph wind and limited visability. Was unaware of the incident at the time and just skied the bowl to a cruiser lap. Props to the responders who put themselves in a risky places to help out. It was during a relatively light storm that snowed nearly a foot at that elevation in 24hrs and winds that caused some loading in exposed zones like the one in the photo.
My friend has a video clip from a few years ago that shows similar unknowing tourists ride up to this same cliff, unclip their gear, and hike out that open area. I'll try to dig it up.
For those of you who don't know JH, this zone is a few min traverse from the tram, with no hiking before or after you leave the resort boundary. Not far to the viewers left of this shot is the end of the cliff band where many NSers have hit a jump zone called kicker cliffs. Not defending the terrible and in this case tragic mistake of going there, just saying it can happen easily by bearing left too soon.
japanadaI agree with every word that you said! I def do not think that there should be signage put up with 'EASIEST WAY DOWN' with an arrow, thats just asking for more trouble than the tourist photo op signs with the skull and crossbones that you mentioned! I think it was 3 or 4 seasons ago that the sign saying you are here with spacewalk, zeroG and M&M marked got put up. I wonder what the ratio of incidents/rescues were before and after the sign.Like IllBilly said, JH markets heavily on the fact that there are over 3000+ more acres just waiting to be explored right outside the resort boundaries. This lures the average tourist who thinks b/c then can slowly meander skiing down from the tram they are ready for the next crazy JH experience. I almost wish it wasnt as accessible and there was a way to setup a beacon/info check hut at each gate but that isn't realistic for JH to do. Bridger has a mandatory beacon check on one lift correct?
While this is a huge tragedy and my vibes and thoughts go out to all the parties involved, imagine what happens when an incident like this cause a slide ABOVE an otherwise responsible BC group and it takes a bunch of them out?
Yes, Bridger does have a huge swath of terrain only accessibe with avy rescue gear and if memory serves the terrain is also not "patrolled" in the conventional sense. In other words, patrol isn't coming to get you because you threw a shoe. I think it is a fantastic policy, one for the safety aspect but also I think it's genius from a marketing stand point. There's a market for these bc-lite experiences, and it seems to simultaneously mitigate risk with respect to litigation as well as attract skiers looking for a more "adventurous" ski experience but perhaps are intimidated by bc route finding/accessibility, etc. I wish the area/lift I work would institute the mandatory beacon program, but I dont think it's likely.
I'm conflicted about whether the ease of access to the bc is a good thing or not. We have two gates that are technically forest service gates and permanent access points. We do not have the ability to close them for any reason, avy danger whatever. I really like that savvy, competent skiers can access great terrain from our lifts, it adds to the overall ski culture and as a guy stoked on skiing in all its forms, I'm into it. I like having the option for myself too.
The flip side which you mentioned is absolutely terrifying. I've had to deploy to the bc to dig people out and it's not a positive experience. To think that the same cautious, considerate, well prepared skiers recreating in the bc could be done in by a couple of yahoos with no concept of the potential con sequences of skiing uncontrolled terrain is awful and yet very plausible, especially when you consider the "sidecountry" and access points within ski area boundaries. The signage and gates should all be accessed by some kind of a hike and you should be forced to literally step around the warning signage (this is all my opinion). But in the end, I don't think any amount of signage would provide a deterrent to people of the disposition to enter the bc with no skills, gear, plan, etc.
These people definitely pose a threat to responsible parties, but in my eyes, that possibility should reinforce the practice of safe bc travel skills (particularly not stopping below avy terrain or in runout zones/terrain traps etc.)
It's complicated shit getting into debates about personal freedoms when they overlap with potentially someone else's safety.
I don't know if you read many avy accident reports, but it's frightening how many read similarly. "Two men with passing familiarity to the terrain ducked a rope/left the area through a bc access point in an attempt to ski untracked snow when one skier triggered a slide. Neither party had avy rescue equip or beacons and the unturned skier returned to the base area to get patrol help". Plenty of experienced people die too of course, but you read a lot of summaries like the one I just made up. It's life and death shit, and unfortunately, a lot of people completely apart from the ski culture are oblivious to the differences between controlled and uncontrolled terrain.
casualThese people definitely pose a threat to responsible parties, but in my eyes, that possibility should reinforce the practice of safe bc travel skills (particularly not stopping below avy terrain or in runout zones/terrain traps etc.)It's complicated shit getting into debates about personal freedoms when they overlap with potentially someone else's safety.
I don't know if you read many avy accident reports, but it's frightening how many read similarly. "Two men with passing familiarity to the terrain ducked a rope/left the area through a bc access point in an attempt to ski untracked snow when one skier triggered a slide. Neither party had avy rescue equip or beacons and the unturned skier returned to the base area to get patrol help". Plenty of experienced people die too of course, but you read a lot of summaries like the one I just made up. It's life and death shit, and unfortunately, a lot of people completely apart from the ski culture are oblivious to the differences between controlled and uncontrolled terrain.
I have noticed that I have seen more unprepared people out in rock springs at JH than I have at the top of the headwall/casper bowl/crags, just because they dont want to spend the 15-30 minutes doing the boot pack and hike up. These are the areas they should be in, marked cliffs. avy controlled, no charge ski patrol rescue too! Part of me thinks just getting rid of the gates or like you said, making them a pain to get around may deter at least a few ppl that shouldnt be there.
I dont know if you have ever ventured into the RS, 4 Pines, Cody, granite, green river areas at JH, but its sometimes hard avoid being in or crossing through a runout, drainage, terrain trap just due to the sheer steepness of the valley walls that are all around you. Not to mention the amount of hang fire that is just waiting to go on a lot of these slopes. I do get the feeling through reading about all the avy incidents that occur there that for the most part people have the gear and a bit of knowledge, it is more the ego/bro brah attitude that catches up with them. Complacency plays a big role too, when you ski an ob zone everyday, its easy to ski right past the danger signs that are glaring back at you.
Unfortunately, I have a feeling incidents like this will become more and more of a commonplace with the further promotion on fresh tracks and untouched turns.
I do realize that I, as well as those I associate with, are not your 'normal' skiers, but I think a number of you are missing a very important part of the bigger picture.
It sucks when unknowing people go out of bounds and end up dying from their bad decision making, but skiing is a demanding sport, and the mountains are not an amusement park. Sure, the retail industry is all about touring, but from where I stand, they are supplying the ever growing demand from their customers/athletes and not the other way around. The beast/kingpin didn't create a market, the market demanded a hybrid tech binding and they listened. For years the Duke was the only real option for someone who wanted to tour with something beafy, and all other companies would have been fools to not follow suit. To think that a retail company would do anything but follow the demands of its consumers is naive. All the new stuff that is being introduced and marketed to ski touring is making things safer out there, and the more people that are getting into it, the more the culture shifts to one of safety.
Skiers in the backcountry is nothing new, and personally, the thought of being told I'm not allowed to go somewhere puts a horrible taste in my mouth. I don't like ski hills that have 'permenantly closed' areas let alone anything in the backcountry that tries to deny me from travelling where I please, when I please. There are very little rules out there, but a lot of etiquette and it's very important to remember that. There have been times (usually between Christmas and New Years) where I've seen some very questionable acts go down in the mountains, but it's not up to me to decide what they should or shouldn't do, but instead make sure I distance myself from their mistakes. For example: Yeah, it's suck if an inexperienced group set off a slide that took out an experienced group below, but it's just as important for the experienced group to not be lingering below potential danger. It could easily be the other way around with an experienced group make a ski cut, or drop a cornice to test the slope with an inexperienced group in the run out zone.
Sometimes people do stupid things. It's not the retail companies fault, it's not the ski hills fault, sometimes there really is no one to blame, not even the victim. We as humans often rush to a conclusion of blame when most of the time it's not so simple. If you don't respect the mountains, you're gonna have a bad time.
DrailSometimes people do stupid things. It's not the retail companies fault, it's not the ski hills fault, sometimes there really is no one to blame, not even the victim. We as humans often rush to a conclusion of blame when most of the time it's not so simple. If you don't respect the mountains, you're gonna have a bad time.
THIS. Mr. Bishop, why is it the retail companies fault for people deciding to do things outside of their abilities ? You can go out and buy whatever you want but you need to also choose to get the right education. More and more people are buying the toys and not taking the time to learn the basic skills for success and survival. That's not on anyone else but the person partaking in the activity.
People need to stop and look at the terrain around them. If you're looking at skiing some steep, rocky, terrain with trees you should simultaneously think to yourself, shit, this could go terribly wrong. And if you aren't from the area and you don't know what you're doing, it is entirely your responsibility to ski within your limits no matter what equipment you want to wear.
Putting the responsibility on anyone else is unfair and I think detrimental to society. Take responsibility for your own fucking safety and stop relying on outside influences, using common sense is a good start.
DrailI do realize that I, as well as those I associate with, are not your 'normal' skiers, but I think a number of you are missing a very important part of the bigger picture.It sucks when unknowing people go out of bounds and end up dying from their bad decision making, but skiing is a demanding sport, and the mountains are not an amusement park. Sure, the retail industry is all about touring, but from where I stand, they are supplying the ever growing demand from their customers/athletes and not the other way around. The beast/kingpin didn't create a market, the market demanded a hybrid tech binding and they listened. For years the Duke was the only real option for someone who wanted to tour with something beafy, and all other companies would have been fools to not follow suit. To think that a retail company would do anything but follow the demands of its consumers is naive. All the new stuff that is being introduced and marketed to ski touring is making things safer out there, and the more people that are getting into it, the more the culture shifts to one of safety.
Skiers in the backcountry is nothing new, and personally, the thought of being told I'm not allowed to go somewhere puts a horrible taste in my mouth. I don't like ski hills that have 'permenantly closed' areas let alone anything in the backcountry that tries to deny me from travelling where I please, when I please. There are very little rules out there, but a lot of etiquette and it's very important to remember that. There have been times (usually between Christmas and New Years) where I've seen some very questionable acts go down in the mountains, but it's not up to me to decide what they should or shouldn't do, but instead make sure I distance myself from their mistakes. For example: Yeah, it's suck if an inexperienced group set off a slide that took out an experienced group below, but it's just as important for the experienced group to not be lingering below potential danger. It could easily be the other way around with an experienced group make a ski cut, or drop a cornice to test the slope with an inexperienced group in the run out zone.
Sometimes people do stupid things. It's not the retail companies fault, it's not the ski hills fault, sometimes there really is no one to blame, not even the victim. We as humans often rush to a conclusion of blame when most of the time it's not so simple. If you don't respect the mountains, you're gonna have a bad time.
Completely agree, guess I don't see where we see it so differently.
I don't think ski areas should have to cater to the least competent of skiers. People should fully comprehend the inherent dangers of skiing, and in my opinion, there's an implicit acceptance of potentially fatal consequences the moment someone steps into a pair of bindings. That goes tenfold for people recreating in the BC. Ski areas don't maintain or establish BC gates, those are mandated by the forest service (at least as far as I'm aware of), so it follows that individuals are solely responsible for their own wellbeing outside of area boundaries. Then again, while I'm more than happy to help people who need it, I think there's far too little self-responsibility in general within the boundaries as well.
I don't agree with one small point you made, that sometimes not even the victim is to blame. Maybe it's just semantics, but if you're the victim of a slide, you invariably made a mistake somewhere along the line, even if the slide was a once every 30 years kind of slide or whatever. Now, that mistake can be glaringly obvious where even a quick glance at the circumstances reveals warnings missed/unheeded, or it can be much more subtle—so much so that maybe most other experienced people would've made the same mistake given the same circumstances, but it's still a matter of risk aversion/acceptance. We might look at an accident report and conclude, "fuck....they did a lot of shit right, and given all the info available to them at the time, I probably would've done the exact same thing", but that doesn't mean they're blameless really because they accepted the risk.
You'd probably agree that "Successful" decisions aren't necessarily indicative of being "right", as they are possibly the result of simply being lucky, but on the flipside, unsuccessful trips/decisions are confirmation of being wrong.
I totally agree with you on the point though that it is on individuals to protect themselves from any/all hazards, and increasingly, one of those hazards is other people with little to no knowledge. If the hypothetical experienced skiers are on their p's and q's, they shouldn't put themselves in positions where someone else's bad decisions can kill them. Sure, there are situations we could come up with where we could agree that they were just incredibly unlucky and got a raw deal somehow, but I think the point remains.
As for ski areas or manufacturers somehow shouldering some of the blame due to marketing AT gear, or BC skiing, or fresh snow, or making less controlled/managed terrain and snow available, I think that's bullshit 100%. If I went on a surf trip as someone who's never stood up on a wave, is it someone else' fault if I go to Pipeline or Mavericks or wherever and fucking die? No. That doesn't mean it's irresponsible for quiksilver or Surfer mag to promote big wave surfing.
In response to you japanada, I don't know JH or the surrounding terrain at all, outside of reading about it, but gullies are gullies, benches are benches, exposure is exposure, and valley floors surrounded avy paths are just that. Complicated terrain is everywhere, and again, it comes down to risk acceptance. If a particular area is so dangerous that it seems like there is no safe zone, well, that's really on the people choosing to ski it at the end of the day. A huge part of making decisions is weighing the likelihood of something happen vs. the consequences if it does. If the likelihood is low but the consequences lethal, that's a decision to be made, and if the likelihood is high but the likely consequences relatively low, that's different, but still a decision. I know I'm stating the obvious and none of this is revelatory to you, so I'm not trying to school you or some shit, I just like the conversation and talking these things through.
Mr.BishopYou know, one thing that drives me crazy about our industry is how much backcountry/sidecountry is being pushed right now.I mean all marketing and media is going ham on this idea that the only thing that is pure, true skiing is going out of bounds. They're doing it because rich weekend warriors spend a fuck ton of money on all the accessories and equipment needed for it. Its a cash grab.
Is it any surprise that with all this hype people are going out there trying to search for the "real" skiing experience?
I for one think its incredibly irresponsible of all the companies taking part in this.
I don't agree at all, and I'm sort of surprised you see it that way. Like Drail said, the explosion of touring equipment and powder skis wasn't propagated by ski companies, supply follows demand, not the other way around. That equipment is being manufactured because people have been asking for it.
I think right now one of the biggest issues here is the conflation of skiing skill/ability level, and safe travel/route finding ability. Those two things are completely different, and I know a hell of a lot of people who are SAVAGES with skis on their feet and are just top notch athletes who don't know what leeward means or can't tell you what sastrugi is. I know people with extensive snow science backgrounds, degrees in hydrology, who go on hut trips, etc. who ski in the backseat and pick up their inside foot to make turns. It seems to me that there's a huge misconception that being a good skier is correlated with being a good bc traveller. *Obviously a baseline of physical skiing competence is necessary to even navigate terrain outside areas, but that baseline isn't very high and there is little gained in terms of safety in the bc with incremental increases in ski ability.
They are two almost completely unrelated skill sets. Many people buy randonee or dynafit or whatever setups and skin exclusively in bounds on groomed terrain, and come back down the same route in a power wedge. I would be dubious of that claim if I didn't see these people every single day. Powder skis, have plenty of utility for people who will never ski a single line outside the confines of an area boundary.
I just really don't believe that companies or ski areas should be held responsible for people making poor choices. Let people make their own choices, and let them reap what they sow.
casualYes, Bridger does have a huge swath of terrain only accessibe with avy rescue gear and if memory serves the terrain is also not "patrolled" in the conventional sense. In other words, patrol isn't coming to get you because you threw a shoe. I think it is a fantastic policy, one for the safety aspect but also I think it's genius from a marketing stand point. There's a market for these bc-lite experiences, and it seems to simultaneously mitigate risk with respect to litigation as well as attract skiers looking for a more "adventurous" ski experience but perhaps are intimidated by bc route finding/accessibility, etc. I wish the area/lift I work would institute the mandatory beacon program, but I dont think it's likely.
They only require a beacon to ride that lift, nothing else unfortunately. They also offer beacon rentals and ticket/beacon bundles without giving any real training on how to properly use one. The beacon "check" at the lift is laughable and pretty much any yahoo who can figure out how to strap the damn thing on can go ride that terrain. It's been causing quite a bit of issues the past few years, many slides have been triggered by clueless college kids going out the bc gates without any real knowledge. The avy mitigation there is also fairly minimal considering the nature of the terrain.
casualI just really don't believe that companies or ski areas should be held responsible for people making poor choices. Let people make their own choices, and let them reap what they sow.
This. We dont blame harness companies for climbers missusing their gear. The warning is there for external dangers and the device will not fail under proper conditions; where they take it and how they use it is up to them. Rule number one of mountaineering: mind your own goddamn business. If you chose to ignore the warning, thats you. But they told you so...
But, in climbing, the risk and consequences are obvious. In skiing, they are hidden and deemed non-urgent. A hidden tree or rock, falling uncontrollably, tree wells and bombs... the list goes on. For people who grew up dealing with snow and mountains, they are exposed to this dangers and know how to avoid them. How the fuck do Australians dont die from everything over there? They are conditioned to avoid nests and high risk areas for predators... like people who ride big mountains recognize the risks and deal with them instinctively. So should we only sell touring gear in big mountain areas? thats stupid...in Quebec and Ontario, its really cool to have deep powder snow to show off how rich you are. They are not doing to ride real pow so everyone wins.
Last week at Whitewater, someone impaled themselves in the anus by a buried branch when they crashed. Was the ski center responsible? of course not. No one could predict it either. Like an avalanche, it cant be predicted with certainty either. Statistically, you should be able to blindly ride 97 deep lines before something happening. Thats damn good odds. A great rider will never set anything off. Avalanche awareness will have to play a role in fixing the problem. Most mountains with avy terrain will offer free tours with the information you need....but even I think they are lame as fuck.
So here some ideas thrown out there to help out;
-Extra discharge papers from the resort if someone is going out of boundaries
-Warning labels on gear with a quick CAC avalanche terrain assessment table included.
-Explain clearly on the trail map the differences between slackcountry, backcountry and inbounds
-Ban the marketing of slackcountry or backcountry as "extreme" areas to avoid encouraging noobs to huck their meat by being "extreeeeeeeeeeme"
-Ban boot packing in key areas of a mountain
-Make avalanche kits mandatory to leave the boundary lines, but no need to enforce at all.
Otherwise, I think everyone in the industry is playing their fair part in making our sport safe. Responsibility lies with the rider at all times.
YoungDaphThey only require a beacon to ride that lift, nothing else unfortunately. They also offer beacon rentals and ticket/beacon bundles without giving any real training on how to properly use one. The beacon "check" at the lift is laughable and pretty much any yahoo who can figure out how to strap the damn thing on can go ride that terrain. It's been causing quite a bit of issues the past few years, many slides have been triggered by clueless college kids going out the bc gates without any real knowledge. The avy mitigation there is also fairly minimal considering the nature of the terrain.
That's a shame.....sounds like a great idea, not particularly well executed.
japanadaLooking like the 3rd skier that survived by clinging to a tree was a JH local. The sad story keeps getting worse. Locals should lead the charge for safe BC travel. Sadly, that isn't always the case.
Local like... year round, long term local?
Or local like... Just moved here this winter... or owns a second home and visits for 2 months out of the year?