At least 3 dead, 15 injured after B.C. avalanche

Here's two interesting articles about where the avalanche industry in Canada is pushing for:

http://www.avalanche.ca/adx/aspx/adx...89+pg32-35.pdf

http://www.avalanche.ca/adx/aspx/adxGetMedia.aspx?DocID=b17770fc-e30b-439d-8318-fea0a9be6983&MediaID=07844d44-dd82-45a6-9ab3-59658643dea7&Filename=AvalancheVol90+pg22-442.p

Right now the CAC/CAA receives no financial support from the sled industry. If the Government were to impose licencing and regestration fees it would be nice to see if some of that money were to get kicked back in that dirrection. One thing I think could work would be to lincence sleders in a similar way to how boat operators are licenced. They would have to take a course and a test, and would have to prove they have taken some sort of avalanche education.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backcountryislife

Hearing that people with that kind of avy knowledge/experience were sitting there in an avy runout just blows me away. I know the mob mentality sets in in large groups, but still I would think that those people would set themselves apart from that. I know SOME did, but I wish people were more vocal, it seems that people are afraid to hurt someone's feelers when it comes to saying something as simple as "hey, I REALLY don't think that's a good idea", disappointing.

---

One thing I will say from the Hang Fire guys is that I heard they were instrumental in taking control of the chaos at the scene before the organized rescue teams showed up. I suspect the death toll would have been higher had those guys not been around.

if a sledder needs to drive somewhere to sled the rcmp can read an aviy bulletin,can see if it snowed , can predict and will know when sledders are going to be sledding ... will see large trucks full of sleds to pull over

its not rocket science

x-posted from teletip but if yer interested...at 11:00 a.m. today PST

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1501313/

Karl Klassen discusses Revelstoke avalanche, takes questions, online: "What can we learn from Revelstoke."

Holy fuck!

Just heard on CBC radio that the RCMP is thinking about laying charges against the organizer, and then a lawyer (or something like that) commented that charges also may be persued against those who actually triggered the slide based on the fact that if they new there was a chance that what they were doing could start off an avalanche, then they have some responsibility.

This is a VERY dangerous precident to try to set. I don't know what we could do about this, but maybe there's something?

wow. That's scary.

I thought you Canadia-ans were above the stupid legal BS we play down here in the United Shitbox of America???

From what I keep hearing on the other sites, this wasn't even "the event" anymore anyhow, just stragglers left over from earlier. I'm not sure what to believe, but with the relative few that were there this seems more likely. It also makes sense that there were no film crews filming at the time.

In my head I want to blame the organizer, but I just can't see it legally. I also want to blame the guy who cut above a fellow sledder (rule # 2, right after rule # 1, 1 person at a time on a hill) but again, I just see this creating a horrid precedent.

Those of you on skis should be frightened as well, if this was to take hold, it could have EXTREME ramifications in the backcountry community.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

Holy fuck!

Just heard on CBC radio that the RCMP is thinking about laying charges against the organizer, and then a lawyer (or something like that) commented that charges also may be persued against those who actually triggered the slide based on the fact that if they new there was a chance that what they were doing could start off an avalanche, then they have some responsibility...

---

#1 - What the RCMP actually said was they are looking into whether any charges could be laid, while hinting strongly that it would be hard to find any criminal wrongdoing without intent.

#2 - Stop listening to CBC, it rots the brain.

Not enough information to deem it scary or not scary. What is the basis for the RCMP asserting charges? Or is the RCMP just "thinking about" it? Criminal or civil charges? Did the promoter represent safe conditions or make some other representation? Did the promoter violate any laws or regulations? Does anybody have enough information to make an informed opinion about whether RCMP pondering charges threatens future use of the backcountry by others?

It's a bit Chicken Little-ish to declare that the sky is falling before having all the facts.

Edited to add: Thanks for some additional info, Eldo.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backcountryislife

Those of you on skis should be frightened as well, if this was to take hold, it could have EXTREME ramifications in the backcountry community.

---

I can't say I'm really scared if you Canknuckleheads want to make it hard or
difficult to book a yurt trip because a bunch of redkneck retards didn't have enough common sense to stay out from under an avvy runout zone in high danger
well it's your tourism dollars that will be going elsewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by skifishbum

I can't say I'm really scared if you Canknuckleheads want to make it hard or
difficult to book a yurt trip because a bunch of redkneck retards didn't have enough common sense to stay out from under an avvy runout zone in high danger
well it's your tourism dollars that will be going elsewhere.

---

I live in the next state over douche. (you know, the one that filters 3/4 of the gapers from coming to steal your snow)

btw, the day that Craig Kelly died, 7 people died all on the same slope at the same time... were they rednecks, or just retards? (btw, I've got a CK is my copilot sticker on my split, no disrespect to CK)

Or how bout the day that 7 died on Cross country skis? Hippy retards?

Or how bout the 17 that were on a slope at my local area when it went? (all freeheelers btw)


btw, my fear is that a legal precedent could be set up there. I don't know how similar our legal systems are, but if someone is able to sue someone anywhere else based on a particular incident, you better bet that the USA will come up with a way to do it as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

Holy fuck!

Just heard on CBC radio that the RCMP is thinking about laying charges against the organizer, and then a lawyer (or something like that) commented that charges also may be persued against those who actually triggered the slide based on the fact that if they new there was a chance that what they were doing could start off an avalanche, then they have some responsibility.

This is a VERY dangerous precident to try to set. I don't know what we could do about this, but maybe there's something?

---

So if you've taken the classes, you know there is always a probability of an avalanche. The only way to not be liable would be to be intentionally ignorant.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backcountryislife

I live in the next state over douche. (you know, the one that filters 3/4 of the gapers from coming to steal your snow)

btw, the day that Craig Kelly died, 7 people died all on the same slope at the same time... were they rednecks, or just retards? (btw, I've got a CK is my copilot sticker on my split, no disrespect to CK)

---

I'm pretty sure they were following their guide Ruidi:eek:if you can't see a difference between a group of people following a guide who put them into a bad situation, and 200 idiots bringing their kids into a runout zone on a high danger day well there is no sense in my arguing with you.
ps gaper don't steal my snow well except for the flying powder turd ones

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deliberate

So if you've taken the classes, you know there is always a probability of an avalanche. The only way to not be liable would be to be intentionally ignorant.

---

But if you set the precedent that someone who has any avy education is then liable for any slide that they set off, that's a scary thing. I would like folks to think that they'd be held accountable for their poor judgement, but as soon as the legal system gets involved you have some serious issues.


btw, skifish, those 7 may have been just following a guide, but there have been dozens of incidents where skiers have killed more people from one slide that what happened here and those people chose to be in the situation that they were in. The 17 that set off a slid at Jones pass and nearly killed one of their friends were skinning right up a OBVIOUS avy path that looked VERY similar to the one in the pics of turbo.

At NO POINT have I said these people were not stupid for sitting RIGHT in a slide path (they were on the hill, not at the bottom) but considering how many sledder friends I have that are teachers, engineers, pilots, executives & professionals in other areas, the stupidity you show in assuming that every sledder is a redneck is kinda getting old.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backcountryislife

btw, my fear is that a legal precedent could be set up there. I don't know how similar our legal systems are, but if someone is able to sue someone anywhere else based on a particular incident, you better bet that the USA will come up with a way to do it as well.

---

Huh? I have never heard of any US state looking to Canada as a basis for establishing or modifying that state's body of tort law. WTF are you talking about?

In the US, the promoter would, in all likelihood, have obtained written liability waivers and releases, which are enforceable against adults in most states (certainly here in WA), unless the promoter misrepresented conditions. Such releases are not, and should not, be enforceable against minors. I think there were kids up there when the slide released.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Steve

Huh? I have never heard of any US state looking to Canada as a basis for establishing or modifying that state's body of tort law. WTF are you talking about?

In the US, the promoter would, in all likelihood, have obtained written liability waivers and releases, which are enforceable against adults in most states (certainly here in WA), unless the promoter misrepresented conditions. Such releases are not, and should not, be enforceable against minors. I think there were kids up there when the slide released.

---

I'm not talking about the promoter, I'm talking about the one who set off the avalanche. Whether it's in Canada or the us, that would be a nasty precedent to set. My point wasn't that states would look to Canada to change the law, but that lawyers would look to that type of case & see a possible new precedent to set in this country. Like I said, I do not know how their legal system works compared to ours, so I don't know if that's a legitimate concern.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backcountryislife

I live in the next state over douche. (you know, the one that filters 3/4 of the gapers from coming to steal your snow)

btw, the day that Craig Kelly died, 7 people died all on the same slope at the same time... were they rednecks, or just retards? (btw, I've got a CK is my copilot sticker on my split, no disrespect to CK)

Or how bout the day that 7 died on Cross country skis? Hippy retards?

Or how bout the 17 that were on a slope at my local area when it went? (all freeheelers btw)


btw, my fear is that a legal precedent could be set up there. I don't know how similar our legal systems are, but if someone is able to sue someone anywhere else based on a particular incident, you better bet that the USA will come up with a way to do it as well.

---

After reading about 30 of your posts in this thread, I am still trying to understand the point you are trying to make and I fear whatever it is becomes more obscure with every post you make.

Is it that one group of ignorant assholes shouldn't make generalized comments about another group of ignorant assholes?

That means the end of this forum and about 1/3 of my cable channels.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backcountryislife

But if you set the precedent that someone who has any avy education is then liable for any slide that they set off, that's a scary thing. I would like folks to think that they'd be held accountable for their poor judgement, but as soon as the legal system gets involved you have some serious issues.


btw, skifish, those 7 may have been just following a guide, but there have been dozens of incidents where skiers have killed more people from one slide that what happened here and those people chose to be in the situation that they were in. The 17 that set off a slid at Jones pass and nearly killed one of their friends were skinning right up a OBVIOUS avy path that looked VERY similar to the one in the pics of turbo.

At NO POINT have I said these people were not stupid for sitting RIGHT in a slide path (they were on the hill, not at the bottom) but considering how many sledder friends I have that are teachers, engineers, pilots, executives & professionals in other areas, the stupidity you show in assuming that every sledder is a redneck is kinda getting old.

---

Dude did you read my first post in this thread
200 extreme chicken chokers sitting in a runout zone would be 200 stupid extreme chicken chokers
no where did I say all blowmobilers were stupid, but if you like i'll go dig up the uac report here on a snowmobile incident
to paraphrase
joe 4 stroke ding dong an expert rider with a top of the line sled says he expects to go for a ride every season.
Guess what IMO your doing it wrong numb nuts
this is the attitude a lot of these guys bring.
Thats not to say i'm any kind of avvy expert I've fucked up made bad decisions and paid the price.
I'm not total anti sled I've got some friends with them hell i used them for bar hopping back in the midwest.
Personally I hate the waverunner and two stroke brappp but I'm a driftboater
and a turnearning hippie and don't dig the noise. If I couldn't here them I'd like them more.
I quick check of yourr posts reveals COLOdramo should guessed:rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gorgeskier

Potentially a slippery slope but a solution to the sledding issue as I see it would be for the sledding societies (read: the guys who collect the grooming fees at the btm) to become more involved with a) checking for avi gear b) shutting their trail down when the risk becomes too high.

---

Every sled society would instantly disband. No-one would want to be a director of that society

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by backcountryislife

http://www.snowestonline.com/forum/s...32#post2240832

---

Good post.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeStrummer

Is it that one group of ignorant assholes shouldn't make generalized comments about another group of ignorant assholes?

---

FINALLY, somebody gets it!!:D


skifish, we all make mistakes... living RIGHT off of I-70 happens to be one of mine!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Eldo

#1 - What the RCMP actually said was they are looking into whether any charges could be laid, while hinting strongly that it would be hard to find any criminal wrongdoing without intent.

#2 - Stop listening to CBC, it rots the brain.

---

1) I heard the word "criminal" in the report, and don't recall any indication that the RCMP hinted it would be hard to find it criminal, though you do make a good point about intent.

2) CBC is the best radio I know of... if you have something better, please share.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JoeStrummer

Is it that one group of ignorant assholes shouldn't make generalized comments about another group of ignorant assholes?

---

If this standard were widely adopted, the cable TV news industry would take a big hit.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by sparkletarte.

increased regulation was already coming before this happened. I don't think the backcountry will be regulated but what is going to happen is licensing and insurance for sleds and quads. This should have happened ages ago- they are motorized vehicles, they are driven like other motorized vehicles are.

---

This type of regulation is fine and I find it stunning that sleds don't have to be registered yet.. It's the whole restricting access regulations that concern me.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shorty_J

Just heard on CBC radio that the RCMP is thinking about laying charges against the organizer, and then a lawyer (or something like that) commented that charges also may be persued against those who actually triggered the slide based on the fact that if they new there was a chance that what they were doing could start off an avalanche, then they have some responsibility.

This is a VERY dangerous precident to try to set. I don't know what we could do about this, but maybe there's something?

---

Everyone involved is trying to say the event is "unorganized", because they know the lawsuits will be flying all over the place soon.

Apparently the Sled Revy Society collected additional trail fees, plowed additional roads, managed parking, and provided employees and volunteers to pick up trash, etc. They're trying to say they're not the event organizer, but I have a feeling that the lawyers will poke holes in that claim in a hurry.

Once the lawyers establish that someone was the event organizer, that orgranizer will probably find themselves liable for ensuring the event was safe. I'm on the fence, but I tend to think they should bear some responsibility.

Like I said before, that Society had best have director's insurance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Shaggy

This type of regulation is fine and I find it stunning that sleds don't have to be registered yet.. It's the whole restricting access regulations that concern me.

---

Yes, pretty amazing, since I thought the canucks paid more taxes than down here in the states? Every year I pay the great motorized state of Utard to register my 4-wheeler and sled. If you saw where I lived you'd know why I have these vehicles...and a skid-steer (very handy).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Steve

It's a bit Chicken Little-ish to declare that the sky is falling before having all the facts.

---

I am not an alarmist at all, and I'm not saying it's all over by any means. I do think that I have a reasonable concern about the fact that it has even been suggested that the person who triggered an avalanche can be held responsible for triggering it.

We all go into avalanche terrain in varrying forecasts of low to high probability for an avalanche and make efforts to mitigate our risk knowing that it's possible/probable/whatever that an avalanche might occur. I do have a concern that people could be held liable for a chance occurance. If I have to worry about being liable for triggering an avalanche in conditions that are set by someone who has a limited sampling of the field conditions, and is by definition a generalization, that is ridiculous.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by deliberate

So if you've taken the classes, you know there is always a probability of an avalanche. The only way to not be liable would be to be intentionally ignorant.

---

That's exactly my point... how do you define "intentionally ignorant" given that the avalanche forecasting system is a generalization, and the proper interpretation of that warning and safe decisions are entirely the responsibility of the individual in the backcounty?

What if it turns out that someone wants to press charges against the people on the slope that started the slide and it turns out they were (like one of the victims from Alberta) a sledding JONG with no avi training? Does that make them not liable because they were not smart enough to inform themselves before going into the backcountry? And at the same time, what if it turns out that the person(s) who started the slide had some avi training, and were thereby liable? Now you have just created a dis-incentive to taking the training!!

I think we all agree that in the case of this tragic event, most of the people there were ignorant, but it might not be so cut and dried in other cases (and in fact, it might not be so cut and dried here). Some were clueless and some were actively dumb, but to seperate them for the purposes of criminal charges seems sketchy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Big Steve

Not enough information to deem it scary or not scary. What is the basis for the RCMP asserting charges? Or is the RCMP just "thinking about" it? Criminal or civil charges? .

---

to clarify, the RCMP "only" investigates and submits their criminal findings to the Crown Council (like a DA) who then decides if there is enough info to go ahead with any charges, which can then be laid. (being stupid isn't a basis for laying charges...doing stupid things may sure turn out to be!)