Grouse Mt. Backcountry Controversy

there ARE the darwin awards............

but with no names,who did they ban?
and have you ever been asked for your name when you paid for a ticket?

nevertheless, did darwin ever expect a chimp and a gorilla to get to the top?
 
hayduke":2j5mvyo8 said:
there ARE the darwin awards............

but with no names,who did they ban?
and have you ever been asked for your name when you paid for a ticket?
Click to expand...

Pretty sure the sheriff got their names after they were rescued and presumably arrested.
 
socal":35bf809o said:
Pretty sure the sheriff got their names after they were rescued and presumably arrested.
Click to expand...

The Mounties always get their man.
 
i mean,in the future,when they go back,who is going to know that the person with the ticket,has been banned?

even a season pass can be gotten in any name
 
:roll: :roll: :roll:

I'm suppose to work from home again today, but I want to respond to this at some time.

Articles about the offenders:

Without knowing the exact details from both sides (I haven't looked into it)...either they're stupid or Grouse is over reacting. They seem to be equipped, not sure about their experiences.

He can't be that bad, he's a geography student. :mrgreen:

The problem with this....is the backlash. See the editorial from the Globe and Mail in TORONTO.

There is a few things in that editorial that make me freak out. There seem to be a total lack of understanding of skiing outside Southern Ontario. Ski areas should be able to monitor and stop people that do in the backcountry? Increase the price of lift ticket to cover cost? Say what??? :shock: :shock: #-o
 
My one requirement would be that it would be ok to go backcountry that is roped off if:

a) You have to pay out of pocket for your own rescue.

b) The zone you are skiing in won't put skiers in bounds at risk; i.e. as long as the avalanche can't sweep into the in-bounds terrain or take out a house or road.

c) You are with a group of people that have the proper equipment to facilitate self rescue.

d) You must sign a sheet letting people know you went backcountry in case you are missing at the end of the day.

e) You must buy backcountry insurance as to pay for your rescue in case you can't afford it or die.

I think Europe has a looser backcountry policy based on paying for your own rescue, and it seems to work well.

However, people have to understand that roped off terrain is generally roped off for a reason.

If one of the three criteria above is broken there should be heavy fines imposed.
 
rfarren":odh5jlj3 said:
However, people have to understand that roped off terrain is generally roped off for a reason.
Click to expand...

Like it's a ski area boundary...there might be a reason for it, but...

Not taking sides here, but there is a lot of gray on this issue.
 
rfarren":2rjqoygw said:
My one requirement would be that it would be ok to go backcountry that is roped off if:

a) You have to pay out of pocket for your own rescue.

b) The zone you are skiing in won't put skiers in bounds at risk; i.e. as long as the avalanche can't sweep into the in-bounds terrain or take out a house or road.

c) You are with a group of people that have the proper equipment to facilitate self rescue.

d) You must sign a sheet letting people know you went backcountry in case you are missing at the end of the day.

e) You must buy backcountry insurance as to pay for your rescue in case you can't afford it or die.

I think Europe has a looser backcountry policy based on paying for your own rescue, and it seems to work well.

However, people have to understand that roped off terrain is generally roped off for a reason.

If one of the three criteria above is broken there should be heavy fines imposed.
Click to expand...

You're missing a key one: that hauling your sorry a$$ out of there won't put rescuers at risk. It's hard to eliminate this one.
 
Admin":6nfa0o8a said:
You're missing a key one: that hauling your sorry a$$ out of there won't put rescuers at risk. It's hard to eliminate this one.
Click to expand...

Maybe it would be better to do what they do in europe, which is to wait till summer and then pull you out. I mean isn't that what happens when you ski Backcountry that isn't related to a ski area?
 
Can someone clarify this? Am I just not understanding the article?

Did they ever need or request rescue (it didn't sound like they requested it, but I couldn't tell if they needed it)? Were they in a position where they would have been able to make it out without help?

If they never needed any sort of help, but Grouse overreacted then how can that group be liable for thousands of dollars of rescue fees?

If they were dumb and ducked a rope, caused a slide, and all died. Grouse wouldn't be liable for their deaths because the group knowingly broke the rules when they ducked the rope, so in the opposite case (in my opinion) the group shouldn't be liable.

The ski area deemed the area "unsafe" for the public, but "the public" is comprised a huge variety of skill levels and if those people think they have adequate knowledge and skills and they still wanted to risk their lives, let them.
 
dirth":2nm5f5c6 said:
Can someone clarify this? Am I just not understanding the article?

Did they ever need or request rescue (it didn't sound like they requested it, but I couldn't tell if they needed it)? Were they in a position where they would have been able to make it out without help?

If they never needed any sort of help, but Grouse overreacted then how can that group be liable for thousands of dollars of rescue fees?

If they were dumb and ducked a rope, caused a slide, and all died. Grouse wouldn't be liable for their deaths because the group knowingly broke the rules when they ducked the rope, so in the opposite case (in my opinion) the group shouldn't be liable.

The ski area deemed the area "unsafe" for the public, but "the public" is comprised a huge variety of skill levels and if those people think they have adequate knowledge and skills and they still wanted to risk their lives, let them.
Click to expand...

I had the same thoughts. Some important points are missing in these stories (G&M) before you can say the offenders are dumb asses or Grouse are zealots when it come to the rules. I've too lazy to look it up (maybe because I'm trying to finish this work here), but what was the Avy danger on the North Shore of Vancouver that day?
 
I just looked it up.

Quick summary for that Friday for the North Shore (of course, it can vary).

Considerable at Treeline, Moderate below Treeline.

http://avalanche.ca/Forms/Bulletin/View ... inID=19171

Date/Time issued:
Thursday, January 01, 2009 at 3:00 PM
Valid until:
Sunday, January 04, 2009 at 6:00 PM
Next Scheduled Update:
Friday, January 02, 2009

Friday
Alpine ~ ~ ~
Treeline 3 - CONSIDERABLE
Below Treeline 2 - MODERATE
Confidence: Poor. There is some uncertainty about the track, timing, and extent of the low-pressure system forecast for Saturday night.

Primary Concerns:

* Storm Snow: Around 100cm of new snow has fallen since December 28th. Lingering storm snow instabilities could be susceptible to triggering by the weight of a person.

* Wind Slab: 25cm of new snow sits on a variety of hard and soft windslabs on exposed slopes at all elevations and aspects.

Special Message: Happy New Year from the forecasters at the CAC! Please continue to check back for daily updates throughout the holidays.

Travel Advisory: Issued: Thu, Jan 1 Next Scheduled Update: Fri, Jan 2
We should see a brief break in the weather on Friday and possibly Saturday. Travel conditions have improved considerably with over a meter of new snow that is much more supportive. Cool and dry weather should allow for a decrease in the avalanche danger; however, don't let the powder and sunshine tempt you into making hasty and careless decisions. Watch for obvious signs of instability like recent avalanches, whumpfing or cracking, and moist surface snow from sunshine. If these signs are present then it's best to stick to simple terrain. Avoid steep solar aspects in the middle of the day, large and steep convex rolls, and traveling in or above terrain traps. We are expecting conditions to rapidly deteriorate on Saturday night with the arrival of an intense frontal system.

Avalanche Activity: Issued: Thu, Jan 1 Next Scheduled Update: Fri, Jan 2
Several size 1-2 avalanches were observed on NW aspects on Wednesday afternoon and ski testing produced several small slab avalanches up to 30cm deep on Thursday. In southern Garibaldi Park on Tuesday, a skier on a NE aspect near ridge top intentionally triggered an avalanche that was large enough to bury or kill a person. This avalanche released on a thin layer of surface hoar, down approximately 80cm. This area has a very similar snowpack structure to the North Shore, and similar avalanches are possible on steep open slopes at higher elevations.

Snowpack: Issued: Thu, Jan 1 Next Scheduled Update: Fri, Jan 2
Around 100cm of snow has fallen during recent storms. This brings the average snowpack depth to around 200cm. Consistent strong SE-W winds have created areas of hard and soft windslabs and wind-pressed snow in all exposed terrain. A feathery surface hoar layer, down 80-100cm, is still producing moderate to hard "pops" shears. It may be possible for a small avalanche to step-down to this layer in smooth open slopes at higher elevations.

View Avalanche Observation Summary (NEW!)
Weather: Issued: Thu, Jan 1 Next Scheduled Update: Fri, Jan 2
Northwesterly flow should result in cold and dry conditions on Friday. The freezing level should drop to sea-level and mountaintop winds should be NW 20-40km/h. Periods of flurries or snow should develop on Saturday with an accumulation of 10-15cm. An intense frontal system should reach the South Coast on Saturday night and bring heavy snow, strong winds, and slight warming. We could see 40-60mm of precipitation in a mix of rain and snow as the freezing level briefly rises to 1500m.

Prepared by: Peter Marshall
Click to expand...

I read the first link again. Not sure if the group was in trouble (except for not listening) or required assistance. I know that people in the ski business in BC are walking on eggs after a few high profile deaths, but I can't pass judgment on this one.

The title of this thread, Darwin's principles don't always work might not really apply here, unlike in that Brighton slide.
 
I agree with all of Patrick's comments above. Lots of missing info, hard to draw proper conclusions without it.

I wonder what's going on here.... :lol:
 
Tony Crocker":5z7oxi8c said:
I agree with all of Patrick's comments above. Lots of missing info, hard to draw proper conclusions without it.

I wonder what's going on here.... :lol:
Click to expand...

Now you cut that out!!! :lol: :lol: :lol:
 
Patrick":qi1r7hbc said:
rfarren":qi1r7hbc said:
Maybe it would be better to do what they do in europe, which is to wait till summer and then pull you out.
Click to expand...

Or longer... :shock: :shock: :shock: like a few thousand years. :o

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
Click to expand...

Nice!!! When my father went on his European speed-skating vacation last year (he only skied one day and was in innsbruck and davos for over a week! :shock: ) he saw the iceman museum and said it was absolutely fascinating.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top