BC/OB travel & patrol responsibilities

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lemon boy
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.

---

For the record, I don't think patrol have (or should have) any legal responsibility for what happens outside their boundaries (provided said boundaries are clearly marked).

Morally, I think it's a different story (and the cause of some confusion). Personally, if I'm in a position to help - be it save someone who's fucked themselves or offer some sound advice - I'm going to do what I can to ensure everyones safety (mine most certainly included).

Sick and ashamed and happy (and a bc gaper (at best)),
d.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by gincognito
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.

---

Something about that sounds fishy. I know if patrol/doctor/ENT responds to an accident, they are required to perform up to the standards they would be held professionally (negligence), but I fail to see how someone could be legally compelled to say, risk life and limb to save someone they don't know.

Interesting discussion.

Like it or not, ski areas are often (if not usually) run by big corporations. Even some of the familly-owned areas have become fairly corporate over the years. The fact is that corporations are really concerned about only one thing - money.

For these corporations, everything possible is done to minimize liability because that directly affects the bottom line. Corporations hire expensive lawyers to protect themselves from liability, and these lawyers set guidelines for the corporation and its employees to minimize liability.

I would wager that Kweed has some sort of policy, written or otherwise, that limits patrollers from volunteering advice on conditions that are outside their purview. The last thing the resort wants is to get sued after a patroller gives advice and someone gets munched in a slide.

That's America folks. Things generally work differently in Canada and Europe because people there take responsibility for their decisions. Its a societal thing.

Get knowledgable. Be safe boys and girls.

Quote:

---

[i]Originally posted by Shredhead

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

[/B]

---

Yeah, Keno's. Very good, except the top 30 ft were pretty boney and you had to tip toe through the rock areas. The rest was pure cream. I just drove up CC this morning to scope it with the binocs cause I heard a rumor it slid after the big dump. Turned out it hasnt and I saw two tracks down its gut and two other sets in the connecting gut skiers right where the paragliders take off. Saturday and Sunday were friggin great. Six more expected tonight!

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cornholio
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.

---

What happens if the same situation occurs miles from a ski area?

That's when the BC Du Hui comes in.

10 feet or 10 miles from the boundry rope is the backcountry. If you feel otherwise, you are part of the problem. If you can't accept the responsibility that what occurs If a function of your actions, stay at the ski area.

If ski patrol offers up some info/advise that's just a bonus data point. Don't expect it.

Trial lawyers dool over this thread. Don't support their existence with your ignorance.

[/lunch time rant]

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Flash
Interesting discussion.

Like it or not, ski areas are often (if not usually) run by big corporations. Even some of the familly-owned areas have become fairly corporate over the years. The fact is that corporations are really concerned about only one thing - money.

For these corporations, everything possible is done to minimize liability because that directly affects the bottom line. Corporations hire expensive lawyers to protect themselves from liability, and these lawyers set guidelines for the corporation and its employees to minimize liability.

I would wager that Kweed has some sort of policy, written or otherwise, that limits patrollers from volunteering advice on conditions that are outside their purview. The last thing the resort wants is to get sued after a patroller gives advice and someone gets munched in a slide.

That's America folks. Things generally work differently in Canada and Europe because people there take responsibility for their decisions. Its a societal thing.

Get knowledgable. Be safe boys and girls.

---

I don't know why the Americans keep getting picked on (not that I'm picking on you in particular, Flash). People in Canada sue just like in the USofA. The difference is risk -- in the USofA the monetary risk is open ended. No one how much a jury will award someone. In Canada a jury determines responsibility and a judge determines the settlement. Throw in our national (broken) health care and state pays for future health care, not the defendant. In a recent case a novice boarder broke his neck at WB on a school field trip. The jury found the student 30% responsible, the school 10%, and WB 60%. WB had already settled and it's a secret (the jury was never told, either). In the end the kid may get $100-200K.

Anyway, a company should try to reduce it's financial risks and that will mean telling employees to keep their lips zipped. I think a lot of companies take the easy way out in that respect. They could, for example, post the daily avalanche bulletin at gates. They could train employees how to present OB information (never say "you should check out..." or "there's no risk OB").

Something left out here is insurance. Companies carry insurance and some of the rules are dictated by the insurance carrier (you will not have backcountry gates; employees will not admit there is a backcountry, ...).

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Foggy_Goggles
What happens if the same situation occurs miles from a ski area?

That's when the BC Du Hui comes in.

---

That's when you nicely tell the asshole that skied in above you that you really like his ski and ask if you can look down the base at the sidecut. When he hands it to you, you fling it over a cliff, tell him what a fuck he is and why, then ski out.

Good point, Snow Dog. Yes, people do sue in other societies. It just doesn't seem to me to be as pervasive....

Quote:

---

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???

---

when I royally fakked myself OB @ snowmass the patrol hauled me out of the couloir got me to Aspen Valley Hospital & sent me a bill from the Wildcat fire protection service for a good chunk of change.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodsy
when I royally fakked myself OB @ snowmass the patrol hauled me out of the couloir got me to Aspen Valley Hospital & sent me a bill from the Wildcat fire protection service for a good chunk of change.

---

What I meant by compensated was they are not paid by the resort to provide those services OB. Beacuse of the cost of such OB rescues it is becoming pretty common to get charged for such services. BUT they are not REQUIED to come get you in the BC, etically and professionally I doubt they would just leave someone out there but they do not HAVE to come get you.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Woodsy
when I royally fakked myself OB @ snowmass the patrol hauled me out of the couloir got me to Aspen Valley Hospital & sent me a bill from the Wildcat fire protection service for a good chunk of change.

---

Not trying to stir the pot or bring up bad memories but...did you have a hunting/fishing license or a hikers card?

Oh, do you have any ski time next Sat/Sun/or Mon? I'll be in Zion.

OK, so I knew some people would get all fussy about what I said. I totally agree that 10 feet or 10 miles out of bounds you have to assume you're on your own.

The problem I was trying to get at somehow with my little story is that by having lift accessed gates, I think that the ski area changes something somewhere. It's SO MUCH easier to get in to trouble when the gates are open, and people do just follow tracks all the time. So, maybe that's just an additional risk we take by accessing BC through an area gate, rather than by hiking.

In addition, there may or may not be some legal responsibility to the patrol (ergo, to the ski area, ergo to the big corporation) to assist if they can, EVEN if it's OB.

Now, it's possible that I'm TOTALLY WRONG. But, that said, I can't imagine that a patrol sitting in their shack would hear about a slide near their ropes and do nothing about it. I really don't know if they do or not, though. Foggy mentioned some things about A-Basin, and I do vaguely remember that they didn't respond to such an event, but I don't remember what happened.

These two opinions of mine lead me to believe that it could be in a patrol's interest to monitor gates. That's what the thread is about, so that's what I'm trying to focus on.

At any rate, I don't want any of you thinking that I ever go OB expecting help from anyone but myself and my buddies.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Foggy_Goggles
Not trying to stir the pot or bring up bad memories but...did you have a hunting/fishing license or a hikers card?

Oh, do you have any ski time next Sat/Sun/or Mon? I'll be in Zion.

---

I've heard about that license thing in CO. Also heard scuba group has a worldwide evac you get with their membership/dues paid.

Worthy of a whole thread.

And, Dex, that 22 vertical feet of 19 degree hardpack could have killed us both, and you know it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Cornholio
The problem I was trying to get at somehow with my little story is that by having lift accessed gates, I think that the ski area changes something somewhere.

---

Exactly if they don't want you out there don't put a gate there. As soon as there is a gate some gaper is going to think it is ok to go out there no matter what warnings are posted or if the gate is closed someone will poach it trying to get freshies. I guess the same could happen with a rope but the entire idea of a gate is to allow access.

I did not have one in 97, but bought one in 98, 99, &00 after the fact ( kinda like the helmet AFTER the head injury, dumb me).
actually was a wilderness card that sereved the same purpose they sold @ the avie workshops.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by splat
I've heard about that license thing in CO. Also heard scuba group has a worldwide evac you get with their membership/dues paid.

Worthy of a whole thread.

---

like this one?

I may have some insight into this discussion. I patrolled for seven years and was involved in two ob rescues while patrolling. As a patroller, I always told someone who asked that the avie conditions were pretty bad. Not becasue I was told to do so by the resort, or that the resort had apolicy on it, I did it because after seeing a frozen body get dug out of the snow, I didn't want to do it again. Purely shelfish. Luckily, the second time all three people caught in an avie were pulled out alive. I would imagine that most patrollers would tell someone who asked the same thing. It is dangerous and you are going on your own. I worked at amajor resort in UT, and never once were we told what to tell someone. Of course, the resort is almost entirely on private property (which changes everything), but it did border some Forest Service Land. There were no access gates, but the Forest Service boundary was never posted closed, only marked as an "Area Boundary".

As a frequent BC skier, I believe that anyone in the bc has the moral responsibilty to look out for other bc travellers. I get told off all the time for offering advice, I just shrug and offer the same advice to the next person who is w/o proper gear or appears to be uneducated on bc traveller. Bottom line, however, is if you go, no matter where you leave from, it is your responsibility. Too bad many people can't hold their loved ones responsibile for the self initiated actions that kill them.

I might remind everyone that patrol does have one responsibility with regards to lift-accessed b/c and that is the state of the gate.

The responsibilities (as dictated by the legal liability) of a mountain resort is surely bound to the state of the gate.

If the gate is closed, then ALL bets are off. The fact that you rode a lift to get to the line you ducked is probably irrelevant if you attempted to sue.

If the gate is open, then stickiness insues, and I'm not sure if the liability issues have been tested in court.

I know at Crystal, even the B/C has boundaries, and the patrol will come and get you if you are within B/C boundaries and the gates were open.

Now, there is no gate to the "real" B/C and if the resort helps you out there, you should count your lucky stars and happily pay the hefty bill for your rescue.

My 2c.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by joshbu
I might remind everyone that patrol does have one responsibility with regards to lift-accessed b/c and that is the state of the gate.

The responsibilities (as dictated by the legal liability) of a mountain resort is surely bound to the state of the gate.

If the gate is closed, then ALL bets are off. The fact that you rode a lift to get to the line you ducked is probably irrelevant if you attempted to sue.

If the gate is open, then stickiness insues, and I'm not sure if the liability issues have been tested in court.

I know at Crystal, even the B/C has boundaries, and the patrol will come and get you if you are within B/C boundaries and the gates were open.

Now, there is no gate to the "real" B/C and if the resort helps you out there, you should count your lucky stars and happily pay the hefty bill for your rescue.

My 2c.

---

Confused (read one of my earlier replies). Either your in the ski area or you aren't. What the F is a BC boundry. Do certain ski area's have "non avi controlled areas" accessed by gates?

Are ski area's dropping the ball by not explaining via a sign or something exactly what the rope/gate means?

Wow, this thread has become exhaustive.

To clear up some things, I spoke to a friend who patrolled at Kirkwood for 10 years:

1) Cohee has essentially NO say and NO input into the on-mountain operations, there is NO policy written or unwritten about patrollers volunteering information on o/b safety. Also, Cohee has no say in the amount of snow fall which is reported, that is done by the Cat Drivers which do not directly answer to cohee ( i incluce this out of interest).

2) Whether a patroller volunteers info on o/b safety is at his/her discretion at kirkwood. It is based entirely on the personality of the patroller. (some are old curmedgeon's ;)).

3) The Kirkwood Patrollers WILL NOT turn the sign to ACCESS for the day after a big storm or if they consider the danger severe.

4) they can legally stop you from exiting their lift served terrain into the wilderness area if the sign says NO ACCESS.

5) Also posted for interest: Cohee has no input into when lifts will open and close on any given day, it is totally at the discretion of the patrollers who make a conscensus decision.

6) For CA Chute he stated that it is indeed slide prone. Typically, it slides immediately after a storm and because of it's pitch which is b/t 40-45 it usually slides on its own.

Patroller who gave me this info was at Kirkwood on Sunday. He was amazed by the inbounds stability of the snow, and contrary to Walter's post does believe that this translates into the o/b snowpack also being more stable. He was considering a trek out to west shore and was told by a patroller friend that it was good, he didn't go because he didn't have his gear and didn't want to go to his car to get it.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Foggy_Goggles
Confused (read one of my earlier replies). Either your in the ski area or you aren't. What the F is a BC boundry. Do certain ski area's have "non avi controlled areas" accessed by gates?

Are ski area's dropping the ball by not explaining via a sign or something exactly what the rope/gate means?

---

I think the point is that many different resorts are expirementing with different approaches to B/C gates. They are all surely wrestling with these very issues, and are trying to structure things to minimize their risk. But I don't think the legal system has really weighed in on this yet.

btw. Crystal's "B/C" is somewhat controlled: they bomb back there, but basically they just close the gates when it's too dangerous. The controlling is not super through - I've kicked off small slides back there on days when the gates were open. Hence the recomendation for gear and a partner. They also will come and rescue you, but response time is much longer than on the hill and things like cliff and other obstacles are not marked.

edit: but the area that they work and rescue in is also roped off. If you duck that rope, all bets are off, as I said before.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lph


4) they can legally stop you from exiting their lift served terrain into the wilderness area if the sign says NO ACCESS.

---

Is this National Forest? Cause in Colorado this is certainly not the case. Ski areas that are surounded by USFS land are legally required to provide access which can't be closed. I have a legal friend looking for the documentation which I'll post when I get it.

Foggy- I believe what joshbu's talking about are gates into their own permit area a la the "gates" at bert, east wall etc... not a "real" gate a la out to the beavers.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Foggy_Goggles
Is this National Forest? Cause in Colorado this is certainly not the case. Ski areas that are surounded by USFS land are legally required to provide access which can't be closed. I have a legal friend looking for the documentation which I'll post when I get it.

---

No, it is a wilderness area.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lemon boy
Foggy- I believe what joshbu's talking about are gates into their own permit area a la the "gates" at bert, east wall etc... not a "real" gate a la out to the beavers.

---

Exactly, that is what I need clarification on. A perfect example is Vasques Cirque (Joke) at Wanker Pancake. Before is was anexed into the ski area boundry you simply had to pass though the exit through to FS access point at the top of the Parm (the big yellow sign), it could not be closed. Now, a fraction of the terrain is open a fraction of the time becasue the ski area can close it.

I got the court case I was speaking about earlier of WestLaw via a friend. This case only deals with whether the FS was negligent in a particular case at A-basin. They were sound not guilty in a summary judgement. My memory is that the FS effectively created access point that were never closed as a result of this decision. This is not covered here. I think their is some state law involved which may explain why it seems to be handled differently elsewhere. I try to get more information on that. If anyone whats the full text shoot me an email and I'll get it too you tonight JAMESDREWETT$%!$#%$#%HOTMALE

Here are some of the good parts:

The court's task in applying the discretionary function exception is to ascertain the precise governmental conduct at issue. Domme, 61 F.3d at 790. In the case at hand, the Plaintiff's remaining two claims are based on the Forest Service's alleged negligence in placing an "access gate" at the boundary of the Arapahoe Basin ski area through which skiers could enter the Beavers area of the Dillon District of the Arapahoe National Forest, land open to the public. The Plaintiff alleges that the Forest Service: (1) negligently allowed access to the public lands, (2) negligently breached its duty of care in constructing and maintaining the access and the premises, and (3) negligently failed to warn of dangerous conditions on the public land. The Plaintiff points to several Forest Service documents and a speech given by a Forest Service representative which the Plaintiff contends establish mandatory requirements for the Forest Service to ensure the safety of members of the public from avalanche hazards on public land. The court turns therefore to an examination of the Forest Service's responsibilities for avalanche safety in the Dillon District of the Arapahoe National Forest.

***********

*3 The Beavers area at issue in this case is governed by Forest Service Manual Title 2300 and the regional supplement section 2343 (Exhibit E to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment). The Plaintiff first argues that section 2343.13(3)(b) and section 2343.13(6) mandated closure of the Beavers area. Section 2343.13(3)(b) provides that "[c]losures outside the special use boundary" of the ski area "may be implemented through a Forest Supervisor's Closure Order under 36 CFR 261.53(3) and must be enforced by a Forest Officer." Regarding ski area boundary management practices, section 2343.13(6) provides as follows:
The main objectives of ski area boundary management practices associated with backcountry activities on National Forests [sic] lands are to: reduce public exposure to avalanche hazards adjacent to both downhill alpine and nordic ski areas; provide a reasonable degree of opportunity for backcountry skiing for those directly seeking such experiences; gain consistency in boundary management practices for the benefit of all concerned; and minimize public exposure to known avalanche risk zones by restricting access through ski operator "boundary closures" and Forest Supervisor "area closures."
Policies dealing with and reflecting boundary management philosophy and objectives are:
a. All downhill and nordic ski areas shall have and maintain a boundary management section, as part of the Winter Operating Plan.
b. Access gates shall be an acceptable way to regulate and control skiers leaving the developed ski areas in critical locations for backcountry skiing experiences. Gates shall be so located that skiers cannot pass through without physically stopping and/or climbing to gain access.
c. Appropriate backcountry warning and individual responsibility notices will be posted at "ingress and egress" access points associated with downhill ski areas on National Forest lands. The standard "NOTICE TO BACKCOUNTRY TRAVELERS" poster Exhibit 2 will be displayed at each access gate.
d. Forest Supervisor area closures, in conjunction with boundary closures under the Colorado Ski Safety Act (where appropriate), may be used to restrict access into extreme avalanche hazard zones. All such Forest Supervisor "Closure Orders" must conform to 36 C.F.R. 261.50, and will be enforced when in effect.
e. Out-of-bounds skiing or snowboarding which leads to repeated daily reentry (yo-yo skiing) to the developed ski area shall be controlled and regulated or prohibited.
f. Uniformly apply and enforce boundary management standards subject to the needs of individual ski areas.
g. Coordinate boundary management planning with local law enforcement officials and search/rescue organizations who have direct responsibility for enforcement actions. [FN3]

********


FN3. It is undisputed that the access gate to the Beavers area was posted with a sign displaying the "ACCESS POINT NOTICE TO BACKCOUNTRY TRAVELERS" as follows:
As a user of National Forest System Lands, you have significant responsibility for your personal safety during any activity you might pursue. The Forest Service does install signs and other information devices at various locations where site conditions warrant. However, the size of the National Forests and the variety of natural and man-made conditions limits placement of signs or other specific warnings and necessitates the use of more general education efforts.
Hazards are not limited to, but include: changing weather conditions; snow; avalanches; landslides; caves; overlooks; falling trees or limbs; high or rushing water; contaminated water; wild animals; becoming lost or over exerted; hypothermia; remnants of mining and other activities involving excavation, tunnels, shafts, decaying structures and a variety of equipment; and changing road and trail conditions. You may also be exposed to unreasonable acts of others.
The Forest Service does not manage or control all of these occurrence [sic]. It is your responsibility to know the hazards involved in your activities and to use the proper safety procedures and equipment to minimize the inherent risks and hazards related to your activity.

*******

Indeed, the Forest Service's alleged conduct was properly grounded in public policy considerations because it involved the balancing of many resource and recreation considerations concerning use of and access to the backcountry. The Forest Service was required to assess the trade-offs between providing the opportunity for backcountry skiing and alerting the public to exposure to avalanche hazards adjacent to ski areas. Decisions based on a balancing of various interests in the National Forests are obviously grounded in Forest Service policy and are not appropriately second-guessed by the courts. Black Hills Aviation, 34 F.3d at 976. The challenged conduct of the Forest Service involved the exercise of the kind of choice and policy judgment that the discretionary function exception was designed to shield. Gaubert, 499 U.S. at 332; Tew, 86 F.3d at 1006-07. The Plaintiff's claims essentially criticize the manner in which the Forest Service exercised its discretion. Because the Plaintiff's claims are based upon the reasonableness of the Forest Service's decisions regarding backcountry access, application of the discretionary function exception is proper. Black Hills Aviation, 34 F.3d at 976.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lph
No, it is a wilderness area.

---

Uh, newsflash - wildernes areas are classifications of government land. Kirkwood is on the Eldorado National Forest (look at the back of your lift ticket!) and the land that abuts it is National Forest.

Kirkwood may be on national forest service land, but outside the boundary is wilderness. big difference.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by lph
Kirkwood may be on national forest service land, but outside the boundary is wilderness. big difference.

---

It's a wilderness area administered by the National Forest service. Motorized vehicles etc. are not allowed in Wilderness areas. If your party is human powered you are free to go. Here's there map:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/maps/topo.html
There are also Wilderness areas in National Parks, National Monuments as well as National Forests.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cj001f
It's a wilderness area administered by the National Forest service. Motorized vehicles etc. are not allowed in Wilderness areas. If your party is human powered you are free to go. Here's there map:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/maps/topo.html
There are also Wilderness areas in National Parks, National Monuments as well as National Forests.

---

great, thanks! I am learning alot! :rolleyes:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by cj001f
It's a wilderness area administered by the National Forest service. Motorized vehicles etc. are not allowed in Wilderness areas. If your party is human powered you are free to go. Here's there map:
http://www.fs.fed.us/r5/eldorado/maps/topo.html
There are also Wilderness areas in National Parks, National Monuments as well as National Forests.

---

If you're going to try to be accurate, be accurate.

It's not non-motorized, it's non-mechanized. This has generally been interpreted to mean nothing with a motor or wheels (ie. no bicycles). I know of people who have been fined for taking a baby stroller into a wilderness area. Generally however exeptions are made for handicaped access (they won't ticket someone in a wheelchair).

Other significant restrictions in wilderness areas are the prohibition on the creation of new roads (with most old roads haveing been returned to as natural a state as possible) and most other man made structures. Air craft not engaged in a specified exemption are required to remain 2000 feet above the land surface of wilderness areas (long drop out of a heli onto Round Top). Stashing food and equipment is also prohibited.

Wilderness areas are not standalone entities they are areas within a Federal agency's land that is given specific protections. (as was previously stated).