If someone ducks a rope, what would you do? - Page 3

2-Turn, thats a sad story.........My post that you quoted, unnecessarily ended the skiers young life. Ducking the rope, even on our tiny hills, is dangerous.

Paul, you're a good friend and I hate to challenge you, but the size of the hill does not negate the dangers. A skier on a dark tree run without a buddy and no chance of patrol happening upon the scene is not a test of mortality that I want to take.

Here's another idiot who thinks he knows better. This was on the front page of one of our national newspapers today (a spate of recent avalanche deaths has made this a hot topic):

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servl.../National/home

skiing out of bound doesnt equal skiing a closed run...

and they called rescue on a group of skier thats didnt need rescued how stupid is that? Now they expect a 24 year old student to pay for a rescue that he didnt need? anyone else finding this whole thing really kinda of overstepping their bounds on both sides.

If they want to go out of bounds and kill themselves let them.

also comparing western areas to eastern and midwestern areas is not what this thread is about.

curious to all the people who are saying patrol knows best all the time. My local resort in Pa wont open a slope unless its groomed, even if there is nothing underneath the snow to hurt you and there its just fresh snow. Theres no groomers on the slope and there is great coverage. You think I am not going to duck that rope to get a couple hundred feet of powder? risk = zero, reward equals great.

I am pretty sure I am 100 percent safe, and if patrol see me Ill ask why its closed? when they say we have to groom it to be skied Ill just point back up at my tracks and say no you dont.

same thing goes for the trees, there is no rule saying you cant ski the trees at this resort anywhere on the hill but patrol will still give you shit about it. why ski the trees? its the only place thier damn groomers cant go.

I'm trying to highlight the attitude of skiers that make these decisions and then get upset when they have to pay (one way or another) for the consequences of their behaviour.

Leaving people to die is a silly (but wistful ) comment.... More often than not, others have to pay for rescue costs and medical care, and patrol/rescue services sometimes have to put their own lives at risk. Hence my feeling that people who choose to duck ropes or ski out of bounds against advice are inherently thoughtless and selfish. And the people most likely to do this? Young men in their twenties.

Skiing a closed trail that has active snowmaking can be dangerous. Sometimes there are areas of extreamly slick spots mixed in with the soft snow - accident waiting to happen. Hoses can be hidden. The hoses can be damaged by skis. It's not a good place to be.

Clipping a ticket in a situation like this probably makes sense. Pulling a pass for the season would be wrong, however. Most trails that are closed should be closed.

One policy that I notice in Vermont is the closed rope across the trail with places that allow access from the sides. Goat is one example. Ski in from the side and that's ok. I like that. Another example is Needles Eye lift line. The top is often roped off, but if you can find an opening they allow it. Weeds out skiers who shouldn't be on the trail while letting stronger skiers have access.

well ducking ropes inbounds at a western area is no no all the time due to avalanche concerns that will take out innocent people.

if you didnt have the attitude that you do know better you should never even leave a open BC gate. Confidence in your own abilities is all your relying on out of bounds. the said skiers if left alone sounds like they would have been fine. The patrol just ordered a costly rescue because they were afraid themselves of the terrain. Its wasnt a rescue as much as it was boundary breaker round up.

skiers are inherently selfish, every single one of them including me and you. we pursue a meaning less to real world pasttime that sole purpose is to bring us pleasure. The more dangerous our actions the more pleasure we extract from our skiing. Anyone us of could die one day skiing. If skiing isnt selfish I dont know what is then.

Mr. Mbaho, you sir are an ass. Here you have four people who are educated, experienced and prepared for BC ventures and you seek to not only ban them from your resort, but have them blacklisted from every major resort in the west? I can maybe see the call to have them rescued but once you figured out they had it under control as much as could be hoped for, you continue on your power trip tirade? This is not only a bonehead move because it alienates you from BC skiers, it makes you look like a real jerk because you are going waaaaaaaay out of your way to abuse your power. Charging them for a heli rescue they didn't need? Calling every resort you can to have them banned? The fact your patrollers couldn't follow them off the cliffs and such might have been an indication that maybe they're kick ass skiers who pwn the BC on a regular basis. Dude, you're just being a JONG X 1000. Get a clue. You suck.

I hope every skier from here to Whistler has just crossed Grouse off their list of mountains to ski. Yeah it may have been dangerous, but it sounds like they have done this kind of thing before and *maybe* can do a little avalanche forecasting themselves- GASP!- My God, a skier that isn't a dumbass and knows what he's doing??? Holy crap, who woulda thought!?!?

I respect and admire patrollers who work hard to make the mountain safe, but rolling out the firing squad for people who know what they're doing & have left the boundary of the resort is just rediculous to me. Maybe I'm wrong but it's how I feel.

There's a difference between confidence and competence. Confidence alone is inadequate - and often drives impulsive decisions despite the advice of people who really do have knowledge/experience/good judgement. We don't know any of the other details that you're jumping to conclusions about.


In a general way I agree with you , but in this specific example we're talking about very different things.

We just need to turn this train around and stop protecting people from themselves. Runs are closed for a reason, areas have boundaries for a reason. If you disagree and think you're smarter than everyone else great, hit it! But don't cry to your mommy and put your lawyer into lawsuit mode because you're an idiot. Runs are closed for less and less because people have forced the resort to CYA themselves into stupidity at extreme cost. The unnecessary heli search may be an example of this. I assume people use their brains, weigh the risk and can humbly admit to making mistakes...go or don't go but know the potential costs if you do...you may have to pay I would have kept the heli on the pad. Can you ever really stop line ducking??

This topic has many sides. As a patrol member, I see the side from the mountain management and safety. As an avid skier, I love to harvest the goods.

A closed trail rope is much different than a ski area boundry marker, and I feel different rules and standards should be applied.
In discussion of: Eastern mountain, in area, closed trails, (whew!) I have to accept that trails are closed for many reasons. I can't expect anyone to know them all and evaluate risks accordingly. The patrol does not close trails arbitrarily. There are reasons, standards and protocols. The patrol is performing it's function to put up the rope, but it is management (And a lot of hard learned decision making) that sets the standard. I find it most interesting that many (most) of the poaching is evaluated AFTER the run. Those who run into snowmaking or grooming or just horrendous conditions seldom exclaim how stupid the patrol is for closing the trail. Certainly those who suffer injury or worse seldom brag of such actions.

Now for a fun anecdote:
We had some pretty severe icing several weeks ago here in S.Vt. There are trees down EVERYWHERE. One of our trails got hit with broken trees pretty hard, high hangers or tops down on the trail every 40 meters it seemed. The reality was the trail was a hazard and dangerouse due to the fallen trees (snow snakes) There had been no real snow previous, so the trail had been closed, No one likes to ski rocks and grass. 'real hard to get a toboggon through to anyone should they need it.
Then we got a good snow, deep and soft. Pure heaven here in the East. Most of the mountain was opening as fast as the patrol could coil ropes! I was on a work detail to clear the fallen trees from the described trail, trying to get it open as well (we try you know). There were about 8 patrollers, two with chainsaws roaring, the rest hauling the cut offs to the trail edges. Crappy work thigh deep snow with ice and rocks beneath for footing!
Well, because the conditions seemed soooo good, we had a steady stream of rope duckers coming down on our work party. Now in a group of patrollers, there are going to be some hard asses who would pull every ticket, and then some more easy going ones that would just let stuff happen. But remember, the trail was a hazard and dangerouse due to the fallen trees.

Well, as the small groups came down to us one of us would "greet" them. "You know this trail is roped off and closed when you ducked the rope right?"

After the admission of guilt, a proposal was made.
"Give us your tickets and passes for ducking the rope, or step out of your gear and help clear branches!"

Heck, not one complaint! We had a couple of folks who didn't want to go when the next group of "rehires" came along! And man did the work get done!
It was a good outcome for all.

So what do I do when I am patrolling, If someone poaches, and I stop them, It's all thier attitude that get's mine.
My job is to educate. Strong resistance might mean strong lessons. I like to use the "written warning" and get the participation of the guest by having them sign the warning form. Then there is the "marking your pass as a first time offender". Just a marker swipe on the face of the pass "Second mark and your pass is gone!". That works pretty well with kids because now the marked pass is obvious at every lift line check, "others" can see! not that any lift-op is going to do anything.

For season's pass holders who show an attitude,
I take the name and pass number, tell the guest that the pass will be blacked out at the liftline check. Aint electronics awesome! "You can inquire about your ski privilages at guest services".
Then I turn in the information to the hill chief.
No need to actually pull the pass. Just let everyone know they are breaking rules and may have to give up something because of it.
I let management decide. The usual consequence is mandatory viewing of a ski safety video. Then the pass is restored.

The big thing is the first thing. There are so many reasons to close a trail. How can you know?

There are no IQ tests at the ticket windows!


Cal

Great post.

I think it makes sense to somehow drive home the fact that poaching is a serious infraction. Putting it in writting is a good way to do that. I also give you credit for being lenient on a day like that. Fact is, a trail with trees down can be very dangerous to unsuspecting skiers.

It's also true that poachers don't tend to brag when they hit a trail that ruins their skis or is much more than they bargained for. I have been on some closed trails that should have been closed... over the years

Cal - awesome .

Cal that was an awesome strategy! Hopefully they passed the experience on to their buddies and it helped to educate even more than those that had to work off the infraction. Reminds me of the time my sister and I got so excited that school was canceled due to a snow day we ran outside screaming. My dad heard us as he shoveled snow, came running thinking something was wrong which caused a lot of snow going into his boots. Guess who got to finish the shoveling job. Definitely made an impact on us. Nice job!

You definitely do not want to hit a cat. I can remember skiing down a run and just about when I was feeling like I had hit top speed, I come around a slight left with an increasing slope and there's a Groomer coming up the hill right in front of me. I avoided a high-speed head-on thanks to my excellent equipment and my guardian angel. I don't know how I got on that run, which I gathered later had been roped off; the top of the mountain is pretty barren with maybe a few ghosts here and there, and I never payed much attention to where I was or where I would eventually come out on a run.

Agree with your comments 100%. That has got to be the stupidest thing I have read in a long time.

I commend you for your empathy, but please remember, you are not their mother and they are not two years old. Let them shoulder the burden of responsibility for their bad decisions.

Do you realize how high the avi danger is right now, it's higher than I can remember due to the early storms. The first avi lesson is avoidance of extreme avalanche danger.
They were educated and prepared?- because they said they were and 3 of the 4 were wearing peeps, shovel and probes? That, right there should tell you how responsible they are.
The patroller warned them not to go out. They ignored him. (probably flipped him off from the vibe I'm getting.)

The patroller had peeps, shovel, probe, and radio. He chose to use the radio, instead of heading into a dangerous avalanche area in a time of extreme avalanche danger, did he even have a partner with him?
SAR found them and guided them back to a safe area. So the question of whether or not they needed rescue was averted.

Sometimes insane people have to be committed to save them from themselves even when they claim they're sane.

2-turn, please, this is rediculous. The out come of all of this is that Mr. Mbaho wants to ban them for life and at all other ski areas as well. He's an ass, plain and simple - an epic pr!@k. He's showing off and intentionally over reacting.

Grouse... give me a break.

Yeah, I agree he is way overeacting, but from the sounds of the articles I've read, It sounds like 4 spoiled brats with a bad attitude who think they are above authority and definitely not experienced backcountry skiers making an informed decision.
It sounds like they ignored the patroller at the least, or told him to F off, or worse. in thier interview, they basically told Grouse to go F off, "big deal, we'll ski elsewhere". I'm sure they pissed off a few people at Grouse.

It's all in the attitude.

You are right about not going into avalanche territory when the danger is extreme. I guess they don't believe in forecasts. However we don't need to save insane people from themselves. Let them go, and chalk it up to the cost of freedom.

Paul is right too.

OOPS!! Deleted double post.
OOPS!! Deleted double post.

[ OK, let me understand this. Mr. Mbaho has just banned 4 skiers who deliberately and knowingly went into very dangerous conditions which could have led to a great deal of people risking their lives to save them. Then they mouth off to the world about how good they are. They were well equipped.... great. They were trained.... great. In spite of this, they went into an area of extreme avalanche danger.... Deliberately. Huh? That's not well trained, that is simply stupid and selfish. They think they are good, but the fact of the matter is that they probably escaped only by sheer luck, and Mr. Mbaho is overreacting????? Hello?????

These guys are dangerous to themselves and to anyone who will have to participate in their rescue. Every mountain should have the right to protect themselves from these kinds of idiots, as they already have to pay astronomical insurance fees, and people like this make the insurance companies raise their rates even more. I think that Mr. Mbaho is acting very responsibly. He is informing other ski resorts of a possible problem, and he is allowing said resorts to make their own decisions regarding the risk level they are ready to allow.

It was the patroller's decision to initiate the rescue, and she or he decided to do it from a position of safety, as I would have done, rather than following them down into a region of known avalanche danger. (An aside here. If I had been the patrol director and one of my patrollers followed clients into a dangerous area, I would definitely have talked to him about it, making it perfectly clear that another such performance would result in him being let go. The patroller was not, IMO, a worse skier than our yahoos. However, she or he was far more intelligent!) Grouse mountain then had to pay a good part of the ensuing rescue, because, as I stated before, they have a legal obligation to rescue any clients on their property. Banning them simply makes sense, as they have stated that they will continue their behavior, therefore they will continue skiing out of bounds, thus forcing the resort into performing costly rescues. It is quite evident to me that Grouse Mountain is NOT comfortable with this level of risk, so they have to ban the skiers. In addition, they allow the other resorts to do the same. Overreaction? No. Mr. Mbaho being an ass? Definitely not. Mr. Mbaho displaying common sense? Yes. These skiers being a group of asses? Yes. Were it my decision, I would ban them from my resort as well.

you must not of read the article.

they DIDNT NEED rescued!!!!!!

noone had to go after them, who cares if they died in avalanche they made thier choice to leave during a really dangerous time.

they werent on property any more they werent endangering anyone on property anymore. they were out of bounds. meaning not the resorts problem anymore. the could of legally hiked where they were and to be honest the proving they ever actually left the resort from inbounds would be dubious matter at best.

lastly the rescue was a backcountry skier round up, it wasnt a rescue. grouse called the rescue to 'catch' the out of bounds skiers.

next tiem before posting try to comprend the sitution before posting long rants on the net.

ok for the last time everyone.

THEY DIDNT NEED TO BE RESCUED!!!!

Doesn't this topic come up every year?

Don't we "beat the dead horse" with the same club every time?

Isn't there always those who see no harm in ducking a rope?

Isn't there always those who don't understand why you shouldn't duck a rope or ski a closed trail?

Isn't there always those who understand that you can lose your pass for skiing a closed trail or ducking a rope?

Isn't there always those who don't think you should lose your pass for any reason?

Isn't there always those who think that ducking a rope or skiing a closed trail in the East is so much different than doing so in the West?

Isn't there always those who think all Patrollers are power hungry donut eating cops?

Isn't there always those who think Patrollers are only doing their job?

Who cares anymore? Let the horse rest in peace. I'm suprised this thread hasn't morphed into the " it's ok to sell your day pass in the parking lot" thread.

Anyways, it's all up to the individual to decide if he wants to be an idiot or not. Do we speed in a car? Do we drive talking on our cell phones? Have we ever driven after a few drinks?

Just don't complain when the consequences catch up with you.

Lars will you rent me your day pass?
I just want to do a coupla runs!

You'd need a mustache to pass for me TC

And I'm not double jointed, you'd get busted.

We're both Swede

In their opinion.


They got there by the resorts lifts, so depending on State laws, they could be perceived as the resorts responsibility.

Then they would be on their own, and the resort wouldn't have any responsibility and wouldn't have been involved until they really got in trouble. But they didn't, and if they got hurt, their mommy's would be crying to a laywer about how the resort let them go OB.

did you read where the article said they were found and directed to a safe area? or did you just choose to ignore the facts.

goes both ways.

Says you and the four. people don't need to be bleeding, dying, or buried to need rescue.

Ducking a rope is a question of responsability. Or lack of it. If someone representing hill management has decided that a particular trail should be closed, there is a question of responsablity involved. If a trail is closed, it technically should not be patrolled during the day and during the sweep. If someone skis a closed trail, it forces the patrol to sweep that trail to make sure everyone is safe putting the patroller in a situation of possible jeopardy.

One has to know the rules to bend them and as patrollers we know the rules, and from our training/experience we know to recognize signs of danger and usually have some form of communication device to call for help if something goes bad.

If you want to bend the rule, you have to be able to justify the reasons should shit hit the fan.
So the bottom line is that if someone ducks the rope and you let it happen, you take responsability. It's easier to advise the skier, hoping that they'll understand and if not, report to hill management or whoever has pass pulling authority( on some hills, patrol have that authority however it should be a hill management responsability).

As a matter of fact, I did. Three times, to be exact.

As they did not consult the nearby patroller, he or she was not given the luxury of making that decision. The patroller saw them ducking the rope, and then he saw them heading into extremely dangerous terrain. At that point he probably called the patrol leader for the day, and they probably made the decision to initiate the rescue. I doubt the patroller on the scene initiated the rescue on his own. One thing is for sure. If they called the RCMP, helicopter support and North Shore Rescue, the avalanche conditions must have been extreme.


WRONG. The law obliges us to go after them. Yes, they made their choice, but Canadian law stipulates that a person in danger must be rescued. Of course, we (the rescuers) do have the right to refuse to go into dangerous conditions, and in fact, that is what was done in this case. But a rescue WILL be initiated, even if the rescuers have to wait on-site for conditions to improve. Rescue or recovery, someone WILL go after them.

Once again, you're wrong. As in many other places, Grouse Mountain's property line does not end at the rope. In fact, Grouse Mountain's patrollers are often called to participate in rescues in other parts of the mountain that do not belong to them, and in return, they get help from other organizations, such as North Shore Rescue, whenever they need it. The rescue was initiated while they were on Grouse Mountain property, and it is quite probable that it finished that way. But nevertheless, they were always the resort's problem, and proving where they started from has absolutely no bearing on the matter.

I take it you are not Canadian. Look up North Shore Rescue. Look up R.C.M.P. They had some of the best rescuers in the country there, so this was anything but a "backcountry skier round-up". Grouse had to make a decision based on very little information. They could not know if the skiers were wearing transceivers, or if they had shovels and probes, and the proper training to use them. One of the things that struck me as odd was the fact that the skiers talked about their abilities and their equipment, but they never mentioned the risks. Did they dig a pit? Did they know the avy risk level for that day? From the time frame mentioned, it seems to me that they could not have dug a pit, and from their actions, they did not know the risk level. Four skiers, variable, recent snowfall, changing temperatures, all in all, a recipe for disaster. It was the right call.

I do comprehend the situation very well. If you had understood it better yourself, you may not have felt the need to scream using letters that are 15 times larger than everone else's. While they did not need a rescue in this case, rescues ARE needed in about 90 percent of similar situations. These yahoos should have known better, and they should pay for the "unneeded" rescue.



Not this time...... but if they continue, they will, soon enough. The Canadian Rockies are far less forgiving than are the Alleghenies.