BC/OB travel & patrol responsibilities

Anyone know which ski areas employ the beacon monitor's at BC gates? The kind that won't open unless you're peepin....

I dunno LB, I think that the same patrollers that would ream you for sking OB while closed should and would still say something to you if you're heading out alone AND w/o gear. Hell I would even try to at least talk to you to see if you had any clue. I just dissuaded two 50 year old female snowshoers from heading OB just the other day. They were grateful for it too. And so was I because they had no clue, and probably would have gone if someone hadn't said something.

I still think if a patroller see's you leaving the ski area boundary without any gear, I feel he should say something if given the oppurtunity. No I do not think they should post somone there to monitor everybody who does go, but I think that the patrol has a right to say something as long as you are within the ski area boundary.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lemon boy
heh- I skied like that yesterday too, but I was alone so nobody had to hear my cries of self pity and weakness. Did I ever mention that I fhuggin can no longer ski bumps? Well I can't, I was even out on my "bump" skis (Arnos) and was getting beat up by comparatively nice bumps (skied the jane). ouch.

---

It's not you dude, the Jane bumps are completly different from 5yrs ago. I don't know why (new short skis, more people?) but they are now these irregular, small, angular kidney rattlers. Basically un GSable. Just do what I did, quit.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Foggy_Goggles
No, according to some court descion (centered around A-basin I beleive) FS permittees can't restrict access to the National Forest. That's why they have to provide a corridor for you to skin up the mountiain. I'll look for the decision.

---

I don't thinks so mang, I wish it was that way. Bridger does not have access gates, which has been debated for years. They will bust your ass if they catch you poaching. But maybe it is only if you come back on to their property???

Just because this dude was within earshot does not mean he was listening to you... Probably a stoner in a zone, chippng away at the ice, minding his own business.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lph
Yes, as a remember it is on the lo, medium, high, considerable severe scale. I would have to assume that the patrol at jackson is not responsible for that determination.

---

I would guess that forecast is from the local avalanche service, or from here:
http://www.jhsnowobs.org/

Quote:

---

Originally posted by FreakofSnow
I don't thinks so mang, I wish it was that way. Bridger does not have access gates, which has been debated for years. They will bust your ass if they catch you poaching. But maybe it is only if you come back on to their property???

---

A number of states/counties (incldng Tahoe area) have laws against in-bounds skiers leaving the resort boundary. If your skiing in the area, under your own power, they don't apply.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lemon boy
If it is a NF gate then hell no they shouldn't be saying anything it would be just like a NF employee standing at a trailhead saying you can't go because you don't have: beacon, shovels, probes, emergency shelter, food, fuel, GPS, maps, Bell A-star heli etc...

---

Was anybody saying that? Maybe I missed it. My gripe would be almost the same with this guy as with anyone else--the same as if I'm standing on a beach where I know there are sharks and I see people about to go in the water. Sure, I have no responsibility over those people, but why wouldn't I pipe up?
If you see someone about to cross a street and they don't see a bus coming that might kill them, do you think it's right to not say anything just because they didn't ask you, or because they're not officially your responsibility?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Dexter Rutecki
If you see someone about to cross a street and they don't see a bus coming that might kill them, do you think it's right to not say anything just because they didn't ask you, or because they're not officially your responsibility?

---

Good point, however, you shouldn't get sued when you try to take responsibility and things go bad. It might just be a legal problem over doing what is best.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Tyrone Shoelaces
I know you didn't take my post this way, but just for the record, I didn't start this thread as a criticism of any sort.....but just to get debate & info. flowing, especially with all the recent reports of near accidents inbounds and out.

And I'm not surprised that you ran into those skiers back there w/o any gear either. I'm willing to bet that greater than 50% (perhaps much greater) of the locals who ski something like West Shore regularly do so w/o avy gear on a regular basis. I've been guilty of that in the past as well.....but will be no more.

---

Every person I know who has skied West Shore, or any of the other lines in the Emigrant Lake area, has done it sans avy gear at least once.

foggy- I'd love to blame the bumps but it was me. There was plenty o' good lines and I even linked a few big GS arcs but primarily I was getting beat on. Hell, I even flailed down the chutes (jeffs etc..), how sad is that? The only "good" steeps and I was a flailerin ;)

Dex- The minute that the patrol starts harangin people for going OB w/o the proper equipment is when they take responsibility for it, they legally and financially can't take responsibility for it and therefore won't. :shrug:

Additionally, when accessing public lands what level of equipment (AND TRAINING) are we gonna mandate before folks leave the resort? Beacon? (useless w/o a shovel) Shovel? (how about a probe too) Probe? (sure, why not) Avalung (great to have along), 50' avy cord? (fastest search method going), one of those dumb avy airbags? (ABSOULTELY 100% ESSENTIAL GEAR!).

Plus all the gear in the world doesn't do shit if you don't know how to use it, you want patrol to try and guage your compotence too? Take a test? Pop quiz? Show your avy certs? Make you listen to the daily report?

Ask about your route?

Hold yer dingus while you piss too?

Flat Out- IT IS NOT THEIR RESPONSIBILITY

Sure it is the bro - brah good thing to do but it just ain't gonna happen. With the way fokkers litigate in our society its either all or nothing. Don't like the slippery slope, don't start down it ;)

Patrol CANNOT and WILL NOT make decisions for you regarding outside the boundaries and they shouldn't. Furthermore, people asked for and got exactly what they wanted: Access gates that the patrol doesn't hassle you all the time about or keep needlessly closed.

Okay, flog flog flog the equine carcass...

In a not so similar story... New Years Eve day, several friends and I skied a slot on the backside of Ajax Mtn. It hadnt been skied all year, and this was before the big dumps came over the weekend. We talk with some patrolers above, then drop in as the 'trollers look on. Everyones equiped with gear, knowledge, and skiing one at a time. The skiing is perfect. At a safe zone I ski up to one of my buds from Utah, a veteran skier, and i'm shocked to hear him say: "I'm surprised the patrol doesnt alteast ski cut this occasionally since its just under their rope, so that its somewhat safe..." My reaction of course is that is precisely the point, that its beyond their rope and not their responsibility. Knowing his b/c background and that 'Bird patrollers would never be responsible for say, ski cutting White Pine (although they do check for your beacon), I just couldnt understand where that comment came from. But it served as a reminder that even some hardcore skiers still dont COMPLETELY understand that anything you do outside a ski area boundary is SOLEY up to your skills and judgement.

Perhaps it would be helpful to distinguish between the patroller's legal responsibility and moral responsibility.

Does a patroller have any legal responsibility in this situation? No, and he/she shouldn't have one. OB access is the individual's decision.

But in the sitaution Shoe describes where a group is debating snow safety, and the patroller knows of recent slide activity and other sketchy conditions, I would hope the patroller would volunteer some information. There shouldn't be much of a risk of legal liability for the resort if the patroller only warns of dangerous conditions. The patroller may have had good reasons for keeping quiet - we can't know. But if I was in the situation described, I would want the patroller to say something.

bang bang bang bang bangs head
How about his responsibility to his family to not get FUCKING FIRED FOR TRYING TO SAVE DUMB FUCKIING PEOPLE FROM THEMSELVES (note: not calling anyone dumb just saying that this COMPLETELY MISSES WHY THE GATES ARE THERE!)

Beacon Schmeacon!

(Edit) I think LPH is right. There seems to be a false sense of security concerning slides in the general Tahoe region. K-Weed OB is often seen as an extension of the resort, and with its relatively easy access, lures a lot of BC JONGS out there (myself included).

My New Years resolution - get a shovel, beacon, probe and know how to use it.

I totally agree with Lemon Boy, it just not patrols job!

Knockneed: What did you guys ski? Keno? Was Saturday sick or what.

Be careful out there kids.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Punani

My New Years resolution - get a shovel, beacon, probe and know how to use it.

---

Don't you already know how to use a probe? :p

unfortunately he hasn't learned how to keep it from reproducing.

My (educated) guess is that patrollers and every other member of Kirkwood staff who might give advice about the BC have been instructed not to do so by Cokehee and his minions, whether the advice is good, bad or indifferent.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by shamrockpow
Just curious how JH rates the BC avalanche probability? Low-medium-high? And if so, how long do you think it is before some schmuck gets caught in a slide on a "low" risk day and decides to sue the area b/c patol said it was safe to ski back there??? Don't know what the laws are like in WY, but the whole idea of patrol even assigning a rating to a section of terrain beyond their AC responsibilities seems somewhat a waste.

---

Ratings are Low, Moderate, Considerable, High, and Extreme. The reports posted at the gates are produced by the Bridger-Teton National Forest Avalanche Center. You can get the exact same report here.

Just for the record on the underlying (Sunday) issue here. I went to the boundary today and had a great view of the entire chute the three of them skied yesterday and saw no evidence of a slide. I am certainly in no position to rebutt the patroller's story, but I didn't see any slide activity - only some kick ass lines down the chute. Pipeline also had numerous tracks without any evidence of instability there as well.

Beacon Schmeaken ;)

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Greydon Clark
Every person I know who has skied West Shore, or any of the other lines in the Emigrant Lake area, has done it sans avy gear at least once.

---

I've never been back in that area without a beacon.

Were we hanging out on the edge yesterday. Yes.

Were we over the edge? That's our own decision to make. I don't think that I was, but am willing to listen to advice.

Earlier in the day (inbounds so not an absolutely accurate assesment) I saw people cutting hard on steep convex rollovers (which probably hadn't been skied at all this year) and set only surface sloughs with no slablike activity. From the top of Melissa Conroy peak (from which CA chute drops). Only one set of slide activity was visible on an opposing and windloaded slope right near West Shore (CA chute was on the windward slope and had only small pockets of deeper snow). Probing for layers at the top I found no significant layers. At the very top there was an old (probably at least 24 hours old) crown about 8 inches in height. At only one point in our descent were all of us simultaneously exposed, and we should never have let that happen (my biggest regret for the trip).

Should we have dug a pit? Yes. Were we too blase about going out? Yes. Do I believe that we were in significant danger. No, I did not feel that CA Chute was likely to slide at the time we were there.

Some people have said that they thought it slid after we were there that afternoon. I think that the debris they may have seen was our sloughs in the late afternoon sun. I base this belief on my knowledge that at the time and after they saw the supposed slide we had a clear view of the chute and noted no slide activity beyond the surface sloughs from our tracks as the shadow crept up to cover the vast majority of the chute.

Good, true words and insights, Greydon and Nater. I'm surprised that CA was windward. That's rare with a southern system. Wraparound wind?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by splat
Good, true words and insights, Greydon and Nater. I'm surprised that CA was windward. That's rare with a southern system. Wraparound wind?

---

I think that the windscouring happened Saturday night and Sunday following the storm. All yesterday there was a snow plume from the top of Thimble peak blowing towards the direction of CA chute. The ridge top heading towards Melissa Conroy was blown almost completely clear of fresh snow and with sastrugi development (and wind direction while we were there) indicating a southerly wind direction. Blown clear enough that I was able to boot pack it without major difficulty. There were powder deposites on the very lower (and lower angle slopes) and in the skier's left entrance (that we did not take) where it was sheltered from the wind. Other than that, the slope was primarily a heavily windpacked surface (very edgable, but not sinking in) or sub 12 inches of windpacked powder that sloughed but didn't run as a slab.

BTW, there has been some people alluding to a slide in CA Chute, there was none. From lift 4 you could see our tracks and that is it.

I have debated posting on this one, somewhat bothered by the notion of being judged on judgement made in terrain/conditions that a large majority of those who responded were not familiar with. But, as debate about conditions and routes are prudent in the backcountry, I agree that their discussion is beneficial in the frontcountry as well.

As far as the patroller goes: he did hear our conversation and was obviously listening to it, based on the facial expression he made in response to Punani's comment of "beacon schmeacon." I wish I could remember the situation more clearly to recall why none of us probed him for more information, and we definitely should have been proactive in this, as too much information has never hurt anyone. I do not, however, think that it was his responsibility to pipe up and tell us what he knew. It is/was our choice to enter the backcountry and that's the way it should be. As a fellow mountain/snow enthusiast, however, I would like to think he'd be looking out for the good of the community. Our conversation was one regarding safety, the fact that we weren't going without all our gear (lph had a transceiver, but no shovel/probe at the time and I didn't have anything, so we headed back to the car), and a healthy debate over conditions. If he had added to that conversation, it would have been perfectly natural and not suggestive of his deeming the backcountry safe. But, that's a moot point: we went, having made the decision ourselves.

Regrets? It would have been a good idea to dig a pit - never hurts to do so. But as Telenater mentioned, it had been wind-hammered hard, and the part below that hadn't been was a very mellow slope angle and, although I know it's possible that it could slide, not really a concern to me/us. There was a slide near West Shore and was likely what the patroller was referring to, but, considering the conditions/recent snowfall, it was relatively small and not surprising - triggered across a super steep chute between two large rocks . . . recipe for instability.

Did I feel like we took an unreasonable risk? No. I agree with the point that lph made about the multiple aspects of danger in skiing. That's part of what makes it adventurous, fun, and thrilling. Does that mean we should be stupid or naive about the situations we put ourselves in? No. But can we choose to take risks which we deem acceptable? Yes. We all do it every time we step on snow.

Anyhow, I hope this has not become a rant. I welcome input that people have on avalanche experience, and like the debate on the roll of patrol in the BC, but am hesitant to take the criticism that comes from afar.

On a sidenote: the policy at Mt. Baker is that the backcountry is always open subject to those entering it having a transceiver, shovel, friend, and knowledge of their terrain/route. Their permit with the forest service is contingent on them upholding these standards, as I understand it. The punishment is a talking-to for those who obviously don't read the mulitple signs, and a taking of the pass for those who are repeat offenders/ those who are consciously breaking the rules. Patrol will often post the forecasted ave danger on white boards at the gate, and they often man the gate with transceivers on recieve, or just to engage in conversation with those going out.

I am shocked that Kirkwood doesn't have a similar policy, or at least a recommendation that the knowledge and gear be a part of the BC experience. On our way out to CA chute, we ran into two people who were skiing the area (off the headwall, I might add) with ave gear in the car that they couldn't tear themselves away from the snow to obtain. Furthermore, the first tracks in CA chute, and those put in subsquently to the lookers right, were done about 2 hours apart, indicating that the first two to venture were alone (or the same person) . . . I was surprised, to say the least. One of the biggest hestitations I have with the backcountry outside a ski area's boundaries is the impact it recieves . . . it's certainly not that cool to have someone ski down on your group because they don't act with backcountry etiquette, and the sheer numbers that go can sometimes be scary.

Sorry if I offended any of you by seeming judgemental, kellie, lph, and nate. I was under the impression the snowpack in the CA chute was similar to the last time I was on the hill, which was Friday. I am blown away by the stability and in quite a quandry over the death of the guy buried north of Truckee, whose body was recovered today in one weird set of circumstances, as reported on local news.

How about a beacon pracitce night this saturday for the tahoe maggots?

Can I volunteer LPH's house for it! :D

Quote:

---

Originally posted by The Suit
Ratings are Low, Moderate, Considerable, High, and Extreme. The reports posted at the gates are produced by the Bridger-Teton National Forest Avalanche Center.

---

Shamrockpow-- A low rating still means there is a chance for slides and it's definitely not 100% safe to go out.

Skidawg-- Just because there are tracks on a line doesn't mean it won't slide for the next skier. I know you're refering to the ski patrol's comments on seeing slide activity, but it's worth pointing out.

And Walter is right on in his last post.

All this info you can learn in a Level 1 class, it's all pretty basic stuff. I'm no expert myself.

I have a question about how a BC rescue is initiated if its close to a ski area. If, for instance, three people leave KW boundaries through a gate to hit a line, and that slope slides, wouldn't the KW patrol be first responders? (assuming they're alerted somehow-- visual, radio, etc)

If this is true, then couldn't we say that helping in an avalanche rescue anytime he could be useful, in or out of bounds, is a patroller's responsibility? Really, couldn't we say that it's anyone's responsibility who is capable of helping? *

If that's true, then I wonder if it is the patrol's LEGAL responsibility to monitor BC access, because they have a primary job to keep the inbounds skiers safe. If part of the patrol force is focused out of bounds, they are certainly diminished in their capability to perform this job.


*(There is, in fact, some law about this. I can't remember if it says that you have to help if you can, or you don't have to help. At any rate, I think the patrol would be responders. KQ? Rusty? Any thoughts?)

[QUOTE
*(There is, in fact, some law about this. I can't remember if it says that you have to help if you can, or you don't have to help. At any rate, I think the patrol would be responders. KQ? Rusty? Any thoughts?) [/B][/QUOTE]

Not sure if this entirely relevant but I think you are talking about good smaritan laws??? If so they probably vary state to state. Basically good smaritan laws are designed to protect
"bystanders" who give aid during an emergency. I does not cover personell who are compensated for giving aid. With that being said there are laws that say someone who is trained to give aid in an emergency must do so as long as they are not putting themselves in physical danger by doing so. To me that means that patrol has to respond if someone is injured or a slide happens within reasonable distance to the resort OB lines.

IMHO Monitoring OB/BC access through a "gate" should be done by patrol. The gate is there for a reason to let people have access. If they don't want people out there then don't provide a gate.

.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lph
BTW, there has been some people alluding to a slide in CA Chute, there was none. From lift 4 you could see our tracks and that is it.

---

Just like Bushwhack Bill of the Ghetto Boys my eyes (mind) must have been playing tricks on me. Seriously, we weren't trying to scare you or be overly dramatic, or what not. The setting sun must have created a weird shadow.
http://www.addreviews.com/images/alb...4-11-23-49.jpg

Bushwhack is the little person on the right.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Telenater
I've never been back in that area without a beacon.

---

Pussy.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Vinman ... there are laws that say someone who is trained to give aid in an emergency must do so .... To me that means that patrol has to respond if someone is injured or a slide happens within reasonable distance to the resort OB lines. [/B]

---

Wow.

The patrol is mandated to provide inbonds safety, but is legally obligated to respond to an emergency close to, but outside of, the area. Presumably, any slide triggered by a skier who used an area gate would qualify.

So, even if the patrol isn't obligated to control access, it for sure sounds like its (at least) in thier best interest to do so.

On the other hand, they almost certainly would drain more resources (over the long haul) from thier primary duties by monitoring every gate than they would by responding to the occasional OB emergency, no?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cornholio
Wow.

The patrol is mandated to provide inbonds safety, but is legally obligated to respond to an emergency close to, but outside of, the area. Presumably, any slide triggered by a skier who used an area gate would qualify.

So, even if the patrol isn't obligated to control access, it for sure sounds like its (at least) in thier best interest to do so.

On the other hand, they almost certainly would drain more resources (over the long haul) from thier primary duties by monitoring every gate than they would by responding to the occasional OB emergency, no?

---

I'm pretty sure this is incorrect (at least in CO). If I remember correctly, the BP ski patrol was not required to respond to any wrecks/avis out of bounds (or car wrecks for that matter). Now, what actually happened is/was much different. Ask me sometime about the head-on I was 1st responder on by the current creek turnoff sometime.

Paging STD or Jack Merde...they both know a ton about this stuff.

Also, excellent points by everyone. These type of discussions are great.

Here's one more thing I just thought of:

Let's say my buddies and I carefully check our gear, do practice searches, wear peepers and carry our diggers and pokers. We go through a marked area gate. We dig a pit. We discuss the weather, layers, and wind loading. We arrive at a careful, rational decision to ski. We find our line, and work down it one at a time to a safe spot halfway down.

Right about now, a crew of 3 non-peeping, non-digging, non-poking, non-smart gapers start traversing across and above the line we're skiing because they don't know any better.

Those fuckers are endangering my life FAR beyond the considered danger in to which I've already placed it.

I'd rather have the patrol turn them back, because they're not just risking thier lives, they're risking mine. That's unnaceptable.

OK, man, why don't you just come out and say it. You're referring to the time at Boston Mills that I traversed above you while you were OB above North Bowl. I told you I was sorry and it wouldn't happen again. Now can you let it go?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cornholio
Wow.

The patrol is mandated to provide inbonds safety, but is legally obligated to respond to an emergency close to, but outside of, the area. Presumably, any slide triggered by a skier who used an area gate would qualify.

---

Not sure about the legality of responding to anything outside of resort boundries. And that is not exactly what I was talking about.

What I meant was that within boundries that are required to respond. This may differ state to state but I am pretty sure that is who it works, other wise what are they there for?

Outside of a resort boundry I think it would be different. They are not compensated to provide rescue outside the line and therefore would not have to respond. I guess that would be kind of a sticky point if the skiers let through a gate the resort set up though??? I don't know I am a confused JONG. Thinking about stuff like this and all the situations makes my head hurt.

This may be way silly and perhaps not comparable...but can't a lifeguard get into serious shit if they don't respond to someone drowning, regardless of whether they are on duty or even anywhere near their place of work? I.e. if they are the closest, qualified person to perform a resuce, they have to do it.

I doubt the same thing applies to patrol (and I doubt I worded any of that very clearly).

Sick and ashamed and happy (and should stick to just lurking in this thread),
d.

I find this thread VERY bizarre from a mag collective mind point of view and what's going on in people's heads.

I am also REALLYsurprised (a bit sadly in fact) at the number of respondants who think that ski patrols do (or should) have some responsibilty for what goes on outside their permit area.

I dunno, just pretty surprised, not at all how I thought it would turn out.

Double post sorry