Joined: 08 Dec 2004 Posts: 496 Location: Evergreen, CO
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:32 am Post subject: A Modest Proposal
Most agree that the current situation is untenable. Here are two solutions:
1. Configure access so you have to go through Patrol to get to the BC. Under 21 not permitted. Show your ID and sign this form. Today's avy danger is [rating]. Now it is known who went back there, what time, and what the avy danger was. Turn your beacon to receive, please. Beep, beep, beep. Check. Got your shovel? Check. Be careful back there.
2. Control the area.
Either solution would probably cut down on fatalities. The idea is, this is serious business. No way in hell is some tourist going to miss the point.
Yes Posthole local backcountry skiiers were against the lift from the word get go. Must of us could careless about Dutches anymore, since powder skiing only exists there before and after the Canyons season. Many of us were against the lift because it effects a large area, Dutches, MacDonalds, Beartrap, Willow and Mill D, we didn't want to lose good ski touring terrain to a ski resort; and have to watch people die there. You say Dutches should be part of the resort, maybe your right and maybe this was the Canyons plan all along, and the bigwigs at Interwest were willing to kill a few to get more land? Hows that for a conspiracy theory If the forest service dosen't give them the land, will the Canyons keep their gate policy the same? If they do more will die.
My point was that typically during a ski area expansion proposal, lines are drawn based on public input, ski operator desires, etc. I've seen it before where this "spliting of the baby" results in some awkward boundary situations. The local input is often, and in many instances rightly so, "we're ok with expansion, but keep out of so and so area." And as you point out, once an area has become more accessible, then its backcountry value goes down. This is why I think if the terrain is very lift accessible AND comes back into the existing ski area, it should be operated as part of the ski area. I don't know what the specifics were with the Canyons approval and process, but I certainaly don't share your conspiracy theory above.
The main thing to avoid is permanent closures of federal land.
Ski areas often gavitiate towards such positions (permanent closures of land adjacent to the ski area's permit area) to mimine their exposure to lawsuits, and USFS will do what the ski corps. tell them to do. And if the rhetoric here is any indication, that's exactly what's going to happen at the Canyons.
Blackcomb, I believe due to Hugh Smythe's good planning, designed their lifts to stop just below ridges; like, for example, the Glacier Express and 7th Heaven Lifts do not provide easy access to the Blackcomb Glacier. Instead, the Horstmann Glacier T-bar must be used for access to the Blackcomb Glacier and Spanky's Ladder; so that when conditions are bad, it is easily possible to discourage the public from going there.
There isn't easy access into Blackcomb Glacier? Blackcomb Glacier is a blue run and one of the most popular ski areas on the hill. Until control work is completed there people are not discouraged, they are outright banned from crossing a Closed Avalanche signline. Nothing to do with lift placement.
If you were going to make a good point in the Whistler area relevant to the thread it would be the radical change at Whistler Mountain. There Flute peak which sounds similar to the situations down south was adjacent to the boundary and very easy to access. This year it has become part of the boundary without giving it lift access. They lay down some groomed passes and don't allow access until the control work is done. Now marketed as backcountry in bounds.
Last edited by snowspider on Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:40 am; edited 1 time in total
Thanks for setting me straight Bunion SOC might protest I don't know for sure. I would not Ducthes, is no longer ski touring terrain and something needs to be done to keep this from happening every year. I do believe the people who made the decision to put the lift where they did should have known better and come up with a way to prevent this in the first place; if they didn't see it comming they are incompentent. Ever see any of the canyons advertisements? the ones I've seen show skiers in Dutches not skiing inbounds terrain off of 9990. I agree my theory is WAY out there, but you must admitt the Canyons has been marketing Dutches in a way to make a person think its part of the resort; someone made a poor corporate decision. Anyone who knew anything about Dutches Draw knew this was going to happen. Like I said I feel bad for the victims, families and the ski patrolers who have to deal with the body recovery, screw the corp that put all those people in such a terrible situation and if thats slander so be it. Somebody, somewhere in that corp screwed up!
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:39 am Post subject: Re: A Modest Proposal
EarnYourTurns wrote:
1. Configure access so you have to go through Patrol to get to the BC. Under 21 not permitted.
What do you think? Would it work?
So who gets to check the id's?
Most kids I know have a lot more awareness than your typical tourist skier at the Canyons. And how old were the people caught this time?
I think a better approach would be to let people know that skiing is dangerous, and quit trying to find blame everytime something bad happens, IMHO. [Particularly when its "adults" making personel decisions.]
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 268 Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:37 am Post subject:
snowspider wrote:
Until control work is completed there people are not discouraged, they are outright banned from crossing a Closed Avalanche signline. Nothing to do with lift placement.
Sure the avalanche signs are an attempt to limit access by using regulations, but the fact that people can't get up there easily is a more effective way of making sure that people stay out, or can't go there for whatever other reason they may have (lateness of the day, for example). My point is that physically limiting access by intelligent lift design is the way to go.
Quote:
If you were going to make a good point in the Whistler area relevant to the thread it would be the radical change at Whistler Mountain. There Flute peak which sounds similar to the situations down south was adjacent to the boundary and very easy to access. This year it has become part of the boundary without giving it lift access. They lay down some groomed passes and don't allow access until the control work is done. Now marketed as backcountry in bounds.
The Flute situation is bad, and will get even worse if they build a lift to the summit, as planned. It is very similar to the situation down south. _________________ There are no easy solutions, only intelligent choices
1) Backcountry skiing (like life) is dangerous - and people will die - in fact we all will die, just probably not skiing.
2) Backcountry skiing that both leaves from resorts and returns to resorts should be access controlled by ski patrol with a set in stone protocol - Considerable, high, or extreme danger, close the gates.
3) From what I see on maps and read about this particular area - they should just include it in their avalanche control system and make it a hike-to area within the boundaries - like Devils Castle at Alta.
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 1893 Location: State Hospital of the United States (Utah)
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 6:31 am Post subject:
The body of a 27 year old Montana man (most recently from Sandpoint ID) was recovered today, along with clothing items which did not belong to the recovered victim.
They are bringing in ground penetrating radar from out of state. And they are talking about using heavy eqipment to dig through the debris.
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 7105 Location: Breckenridge CO
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 2:39 pm Post subject:
ed wrote:
The body of a 27 year old Montana man (most recently from Sandpoint ID) was recovered today, along with clothing items which did not belong to the recovered victim.
They are bringing in ground penetrating radar from out of state. And they are talking about using heavy eqipment to dig through the debris.
I can't remember for sure but I think it took four days to find the last of the Breckenridge Peak 7 victims. They talked about using cats to peel away the top layers of the debris but I'm not sure if they ever ended up having to do that or not.
Does anyone know if they are 100% certain of how many and who they are looking for? I know how notoriously poor the mainstream press is at getting correct imformation published about avalanche accidents. From what I have read and heard on the radio, they make it sound like the rescuers are still not sure of how many are buried. _________________ Creeds and doctrines are like a raft to get you to the other shore and then to relinquish. Neither cling to the raft or reject it when drowning. Even better, become a strong swimmer.
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 5265 Location: 4-corners, NOT BOZEMAN!
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:14 pm Post subject:
screw the corp that put all those people in such a terrible situation and if thats slander so be it. Somebody, somewhere in that corp screwed up!
Yes Brian, the ski corporation put a gun to the head of whoever went through that gate and forced them through, the gate you must physically push open in order to exit, the one with a skull and crossbones, red warning signs, information that the avalanche hazard was considerable etc.....
It was an evil corporation in an evil world full of evil people who forced those people to go there and it was a corporation that killed them... do you work for a corporation?
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 789 Location: just below the radar, just above the paraquat
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:27 pm Post subject:
maynards $0.02
if the canyons would have replaced the glue on their lift tickets with bacon grease, the buried skiers may have been found quicker becuase every dog in summit county would have been at the scene and searching. this would make every dog in town a certified resuce dog.
my condolences to the families........ _________________ Home in time for supper with some tales to tell!
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 268 Location: Beautiful British Columbia
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:37 pm Post subject:
Realistically, why not promote the use of RECCO chips more? When bought in bulk, they cost less than a buck apiece.
I don't think it is too much to ask that everyone who ventures out of bounds carry one so that rescuers are not unnecessarily exposed to hazard, and next of kin get some closure faster.
The RECCO receiver can even be used in a helicopter to track down a victim. _________________ There are no easy solutions, only intelligent choices
Joined: 06 Dec 2004 Posts: 1575 Location: This is the Place
Posted: Mon Jan 17, 2005 3:53 pm Post subject:
Snowman wrote:
This is the third fatal incident from the same lift.
In discussions after the last incident I got the impression this area is used at least tacitly in promoting the resort. How does it appear on their maps and in their advertising? I doubt its shown as a managed run, but is it presented in a way that makes it look appealing to alpine skiers?
I don't have a current trail map & what's available from the Canyons website isn't very legible. But I do have a trail map from '98 - '99 which points out the 9990 backcountry on the map.
Hutguy they don't have an exact count, only estimates. I've heard it was being gang skied w/spectators in the runout. _________________
Quote:
Best to have an unobstructed path if yer taking a long ride.
Backcountry skiing that both leaves from resorts and returns to resorts should be access controlled by ski patrol with a set in stone protocol - Considerable, high, or extreme danger, close the gates
Not so sure about that plan. That is how they used to do it in here Jackson. Two big problems:
1)The Patrol has no interest in putting themselves in danger chasing people into dangerous avalanche terrain when the gates are closed and shouldn't be expected to.
2)Opening the gates in moderate conditions implies to some that it is safe and the guide who got his tib/fib broken in a slide up here on saturday in moderate conditions can tell you that that is not the case.
Open the gates and emphasize education. I can't believe no one in that slide had a transceiver. Well, I can but it still sucks.
No Bunion, I work for a non profit. Maybe my attack on the Canyons is too stong? But my arguement is the Canyons knew this WAS going to happen, and did very little to prevent it from occurring. What did they expect was going to happen, put the lift in and open a gate to Dutches. Most people I ski with knew this was going to happen as soon as they put the lift in, why didn't the Canyons? Now hopefully they can come up with a plan to prevent this from happening again, because if things stay the same more will die.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
All of the comments above are owned by the
poster, telemarktips.com is not responsible in any way for the
content. The views expressed by the posters are not necessarily
those of Tt.com, its management or owners. Ski safe, be happy,
rip it up, smile on your brother and sister!
FAQ
Search
Memberlist
Usergroups
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
If the forest service dosen't give them the land, will the Canyons keep their gate policy the same? If they do more will die.
SOC might protest I don't know for sure. I would not Ducthes, is no longer ski touring terrain and something needs to be done to keep this from happening every year. I do believe the people who made the decision to put the lift where they did should have known better and come up with a way to prevent this in the first place; if they didn't see it comming they are incompentent. Ever see any of the canyons advertisements? the ones I've seen show skiers in Dutches not skiing inbounds terrain off of 9990. I agree my theory is WAY out there, but you must admitt the Canyons has been marketing Dutches in a way to make a person think its part of the resort; someone made a poor corporate decision. Anyone who knew anything about Dutches Draw knew this was going to happen. Like I said I feel bad for the victims, families and the ski patrolers who have to deal with the body recovery, screw the corp that put all those people in such a terrible situation and if thats slander so be it. Somebody, somewhere in that corp screwed up!
