Grouse Mt. Backcountry Controversy
- Thread starter Admin
- Start date
SoCal Rider
New member
D-bags, all of them.
ski-the-face
New member
hahahahahaha that article makes me laugh
An interview with one of the offenders:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home
and the editorial it prompted:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... y/National
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... ional/home
and the editorial it prompted:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/ ... y/National
Patrick
Active member
: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
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
rfarren
New member
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.
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.
Patrick
Active member
rfarren":1lni9ive said:
Or longer... :shock: :shock: :shock: like a few thousand years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
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.
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.
Patrick
Active member
dirth":2nm5f5c6 said:
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?
Patrick
Active member
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
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.
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
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:
I wonder what's going on here.... :lol:
rfarren
New member
Patrick":qi1r7hbc said:rfarren":qi1r7hbc said:
Or longer... :shock: :shock: :shock: like a few thousand years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96tzi_the_Iceman
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.