EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Huge avalanche at Canyons - 15 missing
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Huge avalanche at Canyons - 15 missing - Page 3

post #61 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bob Peters
Once the ski resort is fully open, the six backcountry access gates are permanently open (with one technical exception). The avalanche hazard forecast is posted at every gate and in two places on the tram dock.
Bob, Thanks for your very insightful and informative post. The availability of information as practiced at JH is basically what I am advocating here. While some areas carry it a bit further, providing instruction, equipment and guides, the visible posting of current risk information seems to be the minimum best practice. I hope resorts with a known problem will look at their options to improve and potentially save lives, even if they do not publically acknowldge a responsibilty to control the gates.
post #62 of 79
Cirquerider, I guess we will just have to agree to disagree on most of this. But we can agree on one thing, the bottom line is education.

But the Canyons, nor the Wasatch-Cache NF is not going to go around and tell people where they can or can't ski when OB. Skiers going OB have to take responsibility for their own actions.

Although it would be a good idea, resorts have no responsibility to post the current avalanche forecast at NF access gates (like JHMR). At Grand Targhee, it is posted several places in the base, near the trail status sign at the base of Dreamcatcher and at the Summit. But GT can't force the Herb to read it, assimilate it, and heed it. He/she has the opportunity and the right to expose himself to whatever risks he/she wants to.

Also, in all my years in the NF, I have NEVER seen the fire danger posted at every enterance (decision point) into the NF. It's up to the user to be informed, decide what risks he/she is willing to accept, and then make their decisions accordingly.

As far as signage and informing people of the real danger, well, I think this says it all:




Resorts don't have any liability for what skiers do OB. Nor do they have any liability on a skier skiing a line that is visible from the lift and/or just because everybody is skiing it.


Si, laws are nice, but they don't do a d**n thing. Here are two examples of signage along the ski area boundary at Grand Targhee:

1.Wyoming Statute "XXXXX" states (paraphrasing) "Skiing in a closed area is punishable with up to a $300 fine and/or 6 months in jail."

2. "Going beyond this point may result in death and/or loss of skiing privledges."

Do they stop anyone from crossing boundary ropes and skiing in closed areas? H*ll no.
post #63 of 79
You still can't deny the facts that just beyond that sign, and next to the lift is this well tracked slope (photo from last year). They need to do something different to educate and advise on current conditions:

post #64 of 79
If you are talking about all the lines off the highest peak in the Photo? If so that is the south side of nintynine 90 and it is in bounds. The place where the skiers or rides are on top of the ridge line is outside the gates
post #65 of 79

Changes on the Way!

From http://skiutah.com/pressroom/article.ski?id=576 Someone is listening.



Park City, UT - On Thursday, December 16th, The Canyons Resort will open one of the first ever fully automated avalanche rescue training facilities in North America. The facility is free to the public and simulates single and multiple buried avalanche victims. Those who use the center can select the number of "victims" they wish to locate with a beacon during the practice session, and then receive computer-generated feedback once their session is complete.

"This is a great opportunity for the community to practice and perfect their avalanche beacon skills," said Jake Hutchinson, Ski Patrol Director at The Canyons Resort. "It will be an asset in the Park City area for many years to come, and will open up a number of opportunities for beacon and rescue skills clinics here," he added.

The facility will be located at the base of The Canyons Resort, near the Sunrise Lift, and above Sundial Lodge. Never before has an organization offered free beacon training to the public. The location for the center is provided by The Canyons and the funding comes from Wasatch Backcountry Rescue (WBR).

Each training center costs roughly 10-thousand dollars. WBR is a volunteer organization made up of snow safety professionals and their avalanche rescue dogs from eight Utah resorts, UDOT, Park City Powdercats, the Utah Olympic Park and Wasatch Powderbird Guides working with Salt Lake, Utah and Summit county sheriff's offices. Wasatch Backcountry Rescue member resorts include The Canyons, Snowbird, Alta, Brighton, Solitude, Park City, Deer Valley and Snowbasin.
post #66 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
You still can't deny the facts that just beyond that sign, and next to the lift is this well tracked slope (photo from last year). They need to do something different to educate and advise on current conditions:

What you're not seeing in that photo is the sizeable hike required to get to where the skiers/riders are standing. There is no way anybody going into that area does not know they are in the back country. Come on people, stop trying to find blame for this tragedy on anybody else except the victims. As Bruce Tremper is keen on saying "In 90 percent of avalanche incidents, the VICTIM or someone in the victim's party triggers the avalanche." The resort need to do NOTHING. The back country users need to do EVERYTHING they can to avoid avalanches. I'm so tired of lazy ass people expecting someone else to look after their own safety in the BC. Just no going to happen.

Powdr
post #67 of 79
cirquerider i thought you took the public flogging quite well. :>

Just to add some info to this thread, its a good idea to wear a tranceiver in a standard place because once a rescuer finds you, standard practise if its a multiple burial is to switch the beacon off. I know there's debate about this practise but i'm just reciting generalities here.

Also a beacon worn in the standard spot is close to your face and if its a multiple burial - sometimes there;'s only time to expose the face and clear passageways for breathing and then on to next burial.

I cant comment about Dutches since I don't know the area. What a waste - so sad to see it happen. :<
post #68 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Si
This seems like an udesirable alternative but it's happening:
Out of bounds skiing is never a good idea and can be a fatal one.
[/color][/size]
Yea, undesirable to say the least! "out of bounds skiing is never a good idea" what a load of horse manure..
post #69 of 79

Good news -- only 1 suspected dead now...

http://www.sltrib.com/ci_2528244

Reading the article it appears that Mixner (?) may have actually crossed the rope line instead of hiking the boot pack. Tough to tell for sure.
post #70 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Powdr
What you're not seeing in that photo is the sizeable hike required to get to where the skiers/riders are standing ...
I would agree there's no confusion of going OB. I would also agree the resort has zero culpability in this tradgedy.

But, I would not call this a "sizeable hike". This has to be one of the easiest accesses to BC I've ever seen.
post #71 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodee
I would agree there's no confusion of going OB. I would also agree the resort has zero culpability in this tradgedy.

But, I would not call this a "sizeable hike". This has to be one of the easiest accesses to BC I've ever seen.
I debated using the word sizeable for the exact same reason: It's really a piece of cake. But when looked at in the context of the unconditioned public in general, I assert that the barrier to entry is considerable enough that the casual skier/rider will not venture there by mistake. They have to know that they are crossing/climbing into uncontrolled areas.

Powdr
post #72 of 79
Yep, point well taken. If someone is going to look at that as a lot of work then they are obviously in or headed to the wrong place to begin with.
post #73 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by HarkinBanks
2. "Going beyond this point may result in death and/or loss of skiing privledges."
Duuuuude, I just HATE it when they won't let me ski in the afterlife...

Kidding - probably in poor taste, but I couldn't resist.
post #74 of 79
ski areas have NO DUTY to skiers who go outside their boundaries

likewise they have NO DUTY to warn skiers of the manifold risks of skiing backcountry.

like everything else in life, people are obliged to learn about a new adventure if they plan to do it. preparedness is part of being a responsible human. if you're unprepared, it's YOUR FAULT and NOBODY else's.

I don't know why cirquerider wants such explicit signs and warnings. that makes utterly no sense to me.

it's nobody's place EXCEPT a child's parents' place to warn of the manifold dangers of life.

jeezus.
post #75 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by gonzostrike
ski areas have NO DUTY to skiers who go outside their boundaries

likewise they have NO DUTY to warn skiers of the manifold risks of skiing backcountry.
Agreed

The resorts are kind of "no win" here. If they didn't allow access through their resorts to the BC, they be criticized for closing off "public land". If they do, people expect them to garner the risk that goes with skiing there. It's not going to work both ways, and people should be prepared if they pass by those signs and through the BC gates.

If the resorts assumed responsibility for safe access to those areas, would it really be considered BC?
post #76 of 79
http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/vi...=2451&start=90

Note pictures and 1st person account in that thread
post #77 of 79
thanks for the link, Lee. I think there's some strange attitudes at play and work in that thread.

1) elitists who want to make people "earn their turns" and therefore want The Canyons to shut the gate and/or remove the lift.

2) paternalists who want to regulate all behavior that in some remote way might cause injury

3) realists who think that at the very least, we should recognize that some overamped teens who really DO NOT "know better" will end up over in the Dutch's Draw area, and therefore need to do something about those unfortunate youths (pronounced "YOOTS" as in My Cousin Vinny)

4) sensible people -- with whom I agree (hence the label) -- who think that the only logical and practical solution is better information made more available, but NOT warnings or reprimands of the type that the folks in (2) would impose.
post #78 of 79
Seems like a few of the local back country skiers are still pissed at the Canyons for thier expantion. Most of that area back there was well known secret stasses? Well known to locals that is. When the Canyons announced thier plans for 9990 the angry heated letters to the editor in the Park Record could started a fire. I got that thread is they were more concerned about the losing battel of years past then the most resent deaths.
post #79 of 79
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cirquerider
The backcountry at lift 1099 is fully lift served and is used by thousands each year.
Do they rename the 9990 lift the 1099 lift just for tax season? (tic)
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: General Skiing Discussion
EpicSki › The Barking Bear Forums › On the Snow (Skiing Forums) › General Skiing Discussion › Huge avalanche at Canyons - 15 missing