Avalanche Danger

Here comes the next level. The solicitor general of BC has seen this as an opening to advance his career and gain a little name recognition via a few shout outs from the media, and is running with it. He is proposing new legislation to penalize (fine) anyone who ducks ropes at a ski area or accesses sidecountry / out of bounds areas.

http://www.cbc.ca/canada/british-columbia/story/2009/01/06/bc-van-dongen-mountain-backcountry-penalties.html

This is just too much.

wow

exactly what i thought, i showed my dad it and he thinks it sounds perfectly reasonable. how could they say that when he said on tv that they should not have gone out of bounds?

There are too many ignorant people saying too many ignorant things in this shit. Now the dumb fucking solicitor general is flapping his know it all mouth. We are ruled by idiots and this is fucking garbage. This Mbaho fuck and the president of Grouse have crossed the line into stupidity and are trying to ruin slackcountry skiing as a whole.

I think that this could be some serious shit and this thread should be in ski gabber or something and stickied cause if the solicitor general starts fining backcountry skiiers off resorts, next they'll try to create "safe backcountry zones" as the only places we can ski out of bounds. This could be the worst thing to happen to sking in a long time because of some bullshit fucking "mountain". This is a lot more troubling than "RCR not building jumps anymore" we need to find someone to write and something to do because this is just too bad.

The vast majority lower mainland doesn't know shit about the mountains and the media is bombarding them with bullshit. They don't know that avalanches almost never get triggered on 20 degree runs below treeline. They only know the horseshit that ctv feeds them.

I am talking to Doug about how to approach this as a site for sure. It doesn't directly affect NS as a company, but it does affect the sport in a pretty disturbing way.

this shit is seriously fucked up

I posted a lot of this information in ski gabber in another thread and it wasn't well received.

Most people couldn't seem to understand that ducking ropes at W/B vs. say... colorado is a LOT different.

You duck ropes here to get to L'avalanche, CBC, khybers, a lot of other runs that aren't say PC all the time, it's not a punishable offense, it's just not patrolled so if you fuck up you're on your own.

In colorado, you duck a rope you get arrested, trust me I know it happened at the aspen comp. I managed to play the dumb blonde canadian card, as I had no idea that was how it worked there.

Basically it seems the attitude was "Fuck those idiots at whistler for skiiing OB and dying they deserved it" and "I actually feel sorry for the people who died at jackson, they had no idea"

Thats dumb shit. Since when is RUBY BOWL or HARMONY killing people? We never EVER have this kind of snow pack and at the time there was not adequate signage or information out. Only people who had a clue were people who had dug pits, or taken avy courses to realize that we had a lot of cold light dry snow sitting on a rain crust.

Its a shame more people don't take it seriously, or get the gear and get trained.

I just tried explaining this situation to my parents with the relevant facts and they still can't understand why I am siding with Haywood, Hillier and Petsnick. Even with the facts it seems most of the general public still wont get it.

This is absolutely absurd, and getting really out of hand. Now I have to send a really well-thought letter to the Solicitor General too. This is actually really serious now.

Don't worry dude, my karma dropped 25,000 after posting in the other thread about the current avy dangers. People are retarded.

dude, we're all in the right. it's grouse and the general puclic that's wrong. i agree with you about the fernie sleders, that shit just doesn't happen.

I was just watching the morning news on global, and the media coverage is still continuing, today they had the solicitor general on stating that we needed legislation to fine people who go out of bounds.

I saw it too, and I agree. The problem is figuring out how to publicly make people understand our point of view. Letters to the Solicitor General would be a good start though.

My blood is boiling.

well... there's a lot going on in my brain right now. Mostly I'm just baffled about how an afternoon of skiing for some skiers turned into... I don't even know man.

they are more than just cheep thrills....

I think that a good analogy for the ammount of danger in this situation would be that it is dangerous to drive your car at 200km/hr. Unless of course you are a racecar driver, driving a racecar at a racetrack. Then it is less dangerous than say, driving 50km/hr in richmond. It sounds to me like nobody was put in any danger at all.

I was wording it like I was a city dwelling non skier. I'm well aware of how good the thrills are.

So what implications does this have on someone like myself heading over to Whis, with zero avi experience/knowledge..i'm coming from mountains and conditions that never really see any slides

Given the conditions, Should I be getting myself a beacon for inbounds stuff?
Any recommendations on where to ski etc?

thanks, it seems like it is pretty crazy up there if you don't know the surroundings well(e.g. me)

I wouldn't think it is necessary to get yourself a beacon for inbounds stuff. I mean, it can't hurt, but if you don't have the knowledge of how to use it and/or aren't with others who have them and know what they are doing, it is of little use.

The inbounds slides that have happened at Whistler so far this season were in areas that while usually part of everyday skiing, were closed or had been closed as the time of the slide. Lesson here is, don't go into closed areas, they are closed for a reason. Stick to the groomers for now.

Interesting debate...

There must be a huge difference between Canadian and Americans in regards to a sense of entitlement at a ski resort because I don't get it. 

Regardless if it is public land or not, why does Grouse have to allow thier lifts to be used for public access, is it not a private enitity with its own rules? 

In my mind.  I have a business, lets say a ski resort.  I got rules at my ski resort.  You buy a pass agreeing to those rules.  You break those rules.  You are done, maybe plus some, depending on the violation.  If you don't like my rules, my ski resort, go somewhere else...

So uh yeah..  Sounds to me, like all you Canadians should go somewhere else that doesn't act like an American Resort?

Papasteeze.

If grouse wants to ban them for breaking their rules I think thats totally fair. But the skiers are being fined for skiing on Crown land, that Grouse does not own, therefor should not be allowed to fine them.

This is not so much the issue we are discussing anymore. THat is as you say totally Grouses decision and within fully within their power.

Basically, don't go into any closed or roped-off areas unless you've got someone with you who knows the mountain reasonably well. There are plenty of places in W/B that are safely accessible right now and there are a number of places that aren't, either for avy risk reasons or lack of coverage.

For sure.
I think common sense is probably the best advice to take with me.

Just hope there is some good snowfall between now and the end of the month!

Humph....  My problem is how they got onto the Crown Land and the liability associated with that.

Devils advocate..  for nothing more than the sake of argument. So I better understand this..

At my ski resort, while on my property, you purchased a pass to with the intent of leaving the ski boundary, then you blatantly disregarded employee warnings......  aren't I culpable in the event something happened? I think so..  I am no attorney..    JD?  help me out... 

What would the story be if after the resort employees witnessed them leaving, warning them that they were going to get in trouble and yet, they did nothing more to save the guys from .........let say... dying.

So..

A. Do I just accept that people are going to use my services against my rules?
B. Do I send employees to chase after you?
C. Do I call the authorities and cry that my rules got broken?
D. Do I call search and rescue because the info I have is that you are going to need it?

while i think i have issues with what you are suggesting here, i would just like to point out two things for now.

to anyone who would like an opportunity to  speak on behalf of the skiing community, pm me, I am currently sending an email that will be corresponded to a higher up at the North Shore news to see if an article can be printed. If there already has been one then let me know and i will ask that the email be disregard. Our opinions on this matter are important, as we represent the skiing community, and I will do my best to ensure that our voices are heard on the matter.

I've read the whole thread and the blog posted and I think I can put some stuff together where the stories don't fit....but its my threads for now because I got a fucking essay to write for school

First some background: I have skied Thrasher Creek with James and Graham. I have trusted them with my life and would do it again. I also skied trees just down the valley from Ruby Bowl, at the same elevation, on the same day the man died. I know the terrain we are talking about, and I experienced the snow pack at that time.

It’s obvious the guy who died in Ruby made a bad choice. Even in the trees the snow pack was horrific, and coverage was only marginally better, which is saying something. Taking into consideration all the factors that should have influenced his decision, if I were in his shoes, I would have NEVER dropped in.

On the other hand, if I was properly equipped, and with the now infamous Grouse Four on their fateful day, I would have dropped in a second. Skiing out of bounds is a calculated risk. It’s as simple as that. This group had the skill and experience to ski Thrasher, assessed the snowpack, knew the terrain, and were well equipped. In my opinion, those are the all the risks anyone in the backcountry can account for. The rest is out of your control. Dropping in may have been a “poor decision,” but the Grouse Four were as safe as they could possibly be, with the exception of having an additional shovel.

According to accounts from Grouse and NSR, the Four were already back on the saddle by the time the helicopter arrived, and at that point without a doubt considered safe. As a result they are only being billed for Grouse’s “rescue” costs. NSR has not and will never charge for their services, and you don’t have to be the sharpest knife to understand why. For Grouse to understand why and take the opposite approach is a very serious statement. They have a zero-tolerance policy on leaving the ski area. Unfortunately, zero-tolerance policies have been consistently proven to fail spectacularly at prevention and succeed wildly at punishment. The punishment Grouse could impose on someone as a result of their policy is death. This is a very serious reality for them to accept, and I don’t think it should be taken lightly.

According to Mr. McLaughlin, the Four put themselves “and others in danger.” Without a doubt, these men took a calculated risk and were technically in “danger,” but how much danger is dependent on perspective. As for these mysterious “others,” I have not read one single account anywhere of someone other than the Four being in danger. No patrollers skied after them, nobody left the helicopter, and from what I understand, they were met on the Mountain Road. If you know of someone else being in danger, I stand corrected. McLaughlin goes on to say, “The area that these four individuals put themselves into is dangerous.” Also obviously true, but I have already established that danger is relative, not absolute. It is also completely preposterous for McLaughlin to say, “That the four individuals were able to hike out from the drainage area they ended up in is called good luck, not good planning,” when all evidence points to the exact opposite. I won’t even address that bluff any further.

Placing this event in the context of that devastating week and an undoubtedly image conscious resort, it’s easy to see why, “At the time of their transgression, Grouse Mountain had only one option: prepare for the worst.” If four guys die out of bounds at Grouse, it does not look good. From Grouse’s perspective at the time, I don’t consider the redirection of an airborne RCMP chopper to see if the Four were safe as an overreaction. Call it a preventative measure to what in 90+ per cent of other cases would have meant a rescue.

The overreaction lies in Grouse’s insistence on fining the Four for assistance they never needed. If any kind of actual “rescue” had taken place, it would be different. Yes, Grouse dispatched patrollers and transport to meet them, but they were not needed for more than a glorified arrest. McLaughlin states that, “these costs are incurred unnecessarily by people who flout the rules,” when in fact the costs were unnecessarily incurred by Grouse even after it was known the Four were safe. The Four have taken ownership over their actions from the very start, and now it is time for Grouse to take ownership over their response. I am clearly not alone in my belief that the Grouse Four should not have to pay for services they never asked for, nor required.

The Four have taken appropriate ownership for their actions. Once this blows over, Grouse will be forced to take ownership for their actions whether they like it or not, which is fitting considering they foolishly choose to deal in absolutes. Now it is up to you to take ownership for your actions. Grouse has made it explicitly clear that skiing out of bounds on their private property is unacceptable. If you have a problem with that, put your money where your mouth is, and take your business elsewhere.

These are the only two reasonable assumptions you can make when you see a Ski Area Boundary sign:

1) The area beyond is not patrolled.

2) If you don't know exactly where you're going, don't.

^^Very Well Put Dave.

well I found out today that my moms friend who I was trying to contact has retired from the north shore news, so I will not be able to provide an article voicing our side and our opinions on the matter. sorry if i got anyones hopes up, looks like we'll have to go about it another way.

Today on the way to work, I heard James Hillier talking about what happened at Grouse on CBC radio. I looked around and actually found the MP3 podcast. Definitely have a listen. I think it aired the first time the other day but have seen no mention of the interview.

I must say that James was extremely articulate and well-spoken. He did a great job of clarifying the issue for the layman, made some great analogies and explaining his thoughts on SAR. It's definitely worth checking out.

http://podcast.cbc.ca/mp3/bcearlyedition_20090106_10618.mp3

A groomer was caught in an avalanche off of Pika's traverse yesterday, carrying the machine and groomer down 100m. The groomer suffered minor injuries from broken glass, but will be ok. The area had been heavily bombed and other machines had worked in the area without issue for most of the week.

Just one more example of how fucking crazy it is out there. Be careful.

Also, as mentioned on TGR, some people talking to a couple Patrol guys said there is a chance areas like the Peak and Spankys may not open at all this season due to these crazy unstable facets being buried now. I hope that isn't the case, but I'd rather that than hear about more people getting caught in slides.

Intrawest just issued a press release warning of snowpack instability that ended with this paragraph:

There are no plans for Whistler Blackcomb to change policies and impose penalties on guests who ski beyond the Ski Area Boundary, which is very different from a Closed area. "Beyond boundary access is not something that we can or want to restrict entirely," says MacFarlane. "Backcountry travel in BC is very popular and many who venture in uncontrolled areas are prepared for the hazards that exist. Those who cross the Ski Area Boundary are responsible for their own safety and need the appropriate training, equipment, route finding skills, partners and self rescue capabilities."

However going into designated closed areas will still result in passes being pulled for the remainder of this season.

righteous. that's a totally honest, fair and legitimate way to deal with terrain access issues.

I think everyone can guess where I stand on this, as it really isn't a complicated issue.
I am going to keep this short, as everyone and their dog have put their thoughts in.

James, Graham, or Andy...Was it 3 skiers or 4 skiers involved. I am amazed that a detail like this isn't even clarified.

Most importantly though, I want to emphasize the shovel issue here. I know you guys have admitted it was a mistake being one short, but it has just been lightly dealt with on here where there are a lot of younger guys with little experience. I am not lecturing the "Grouse Four," I just want to emphasize this point for the less experienced. Not having a shovel is a stupid mistake and means you are not prepared for back country travel. What would happen if everyone but the shovel-less person is buried? I would never enter the backcountry with someone who did not have a shovel.

It sounds like you guys are in the clear as the fine is not mandatory and the Grouse ban is understandable to some extent. I hope the ski world doesn't get screwed because of Grouse's actions.

Exactly, and the boundary that Graham and co. crossed was a ski area boundary, not a closed area.

hey veteran is it possible for you to post the link for that TGR thread, i've been searching for it because i heard whispers of this happening, but haven't read anything for myself.

Cheers

Yeah my parents are the same way, they have no idea why im siding with the Haywood,etc. They started bitching at me saying that if i support the skiers than they think that im goign to be stupid and go out of bounds. Fuck grouse, im going back to seymour if they dont fix this

Thanks for posting that. That was really good. The interviewer was either a real dick though, or plain stupid, or had already prepped his questions before and was going to ask them no matter the answers to previous ones...

my mommy and dadddy think grouse are a bunch of dumb fucks because of this. Ya for parents that tour

my mom is a lifty this year. she's in her early 60's and can rip a groomer to shit.... she's thinking of getting into snowboarding though... I told her she's gotta come visit me in BC more and learn about pow and trees and get into touring... i won't let her cross over to the dark side.

Lucky!

Here is a link to another interview if you are interested:

Interested to hear what they sent you, particularly what Whistler had to say.

That was great, I think you did an even better job on that one than on the previous interview. I think the interviewer was more inclined to let you speak your piece, too. His "other side of the story", though, didn't really contradict you; no one's saying go into the backcountry with the mindset that if anything happens someone will come along and rescue you, which is why all of the preparation is obviously key. I think the key thing that doesn't get through to the mainstream is what you were talking about re: out of bounds vs. closed...

This was actually the interview I heard on the radio, not the first one. I couldn't listen at work to double-check.

Anyway, props on this interview!

Im sorry if this had been mentioned, I didnt get to read every post on the second page.

Just wanted to post a heads up to a crown that i saw last sat off quasar on blackcomb, about 1-1.5m with quite a bit of runnout. Also franz meadows was breaking off above the crust, very scary because its only like a 20-30 degree slope. Cant comment on the conditions since it warmed up, but i should be there this weekend on the rock skis.

Remember to wear your beacon even inbounds, we had several of our group fall in tree wells due to wumping out of bounds as well.

That was good. The critics' opinions didn't really criticize you at all though, since you already made the distinction between closed and out of bounds. They're still trying to paint you as bad people though...