This is fearmongering:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
(emphasis supplied).Quote:
Originally Posted by backcountryislife
Printable View
This is fearmongering:Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
(emphasis supplied).Quote:
Originally Posted by backcountryislife
Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Steve
Get over yourself, it's the INTERNET, they're opinions. And obviously I'm behind the curve anyhow, as fatfish points out, this is already being litigated. From a liability standpoint, I guess I could care less about how you feel or whether it scares you, but the idea that an avy triggered by another skier could put you in court scares the hell out of me. How many avy's ONLY affect the one who set it off?
Preliminary report from CAA is now available, with photos:
http://www.avalanche.ca/Default.aspx...9-373138567eba
Maybe I'm missing something, but I don't think it's been suggested that anyone other than the person triggering an avy could be prosecuted...Quote:
Originally Posted by backcountryislife
I don't think we would see every avalanche prosecuted - if an investigation shows that the triggerer had knowledge,was carrying gear, and understands/acknowledges that an error may have been made, then I can't see it going anywhere (or being convicted if it did).
OTOH, if some dumbass (ie. no knowledge/gear/acknowledgement of mistake) endangers themselves or others, then I don't really have a problem with them getting charged.
It's kind of like driving your car on the wrong side of the road - if you're stupid enough to do it then you deserve to get charged. Those of us driving on the correct side of the road don't have anything to worry about. I'd rather they left the road open and tried to deter/target the idiots, than restrict things for everyone.
As far as I know, and as they have in the past, the event moves from bowl/hill to bowl/hill - starting closest to the cabin/trailhead and moving farther away. Turbo is the farthest big hill away from the cabin before you go really far like Turtle which is in another area. Turbo being the slope that it is doesn't get much compaction due to a) how far away it is and b) the fact that it is a demanding hill for sleds. I believe that it doesn't get climbed too many times per year (especially in the winter) and I have heard that there has hardly been anyone on it this year (low snow?)Quote:
Originally Posted by srsosbso
So ya - having all of the other events (drags, etc) on the other more used hills was probably relatively safe. If the new snow didn't slab up then it would have probably been fine (armchair qb'ing from 100km away here).
That said - you never know when you are going to hit a patch of the hill that hasn't had compaction so why risk it??...
I'm not particularly worried about the judicial system handling this.
If somebody has knowledge that the avalanche danger is very high and that person effectively cuts across a slope knowing full well that a slide is at least very possible or even likely to come down on others, and that slide does come down, what is the issue with bringing negligence (criminal [i.e. manslaughter or similar] or civil) charges against that person? If the person was ignorant, then they're unlikely to be found liable (criminally, at least). Knowledge or intent is the required "mens rea" in the U.S. for the majority of crimes (and I'd imagine it's the same thing in Canada due to the common grounding in English common law). There are a few "general intent" crimes, but bringing down a slide is probably not one of them. Civil liability is a different story, but that's not what people in this thread were worrying about when discussing the RCMP investigation.
This post is only addressing the individual who cut the slab... and not any potential organizer of the event.
Incidentally, shorty_J, I don't think charging somebody for knowingly ripping a slab that causes injury to others creates a disincentive to learning about safe backcountry practices. If you don't learn, you'll die. That's a fairly powerful counter to that disincentive.
BTW, if this didn't make any sense, my excuse is that I'm commemorating the patron saint of Eire.
Edit: Singel, knowledge is actually the key. If somebody, say a Level II certified sledder (I don't know what you guys have up there but AAIRE Level II is pretty decent down here), ripped a bowl knowing it was *likely* to hurt the people in the runout, then that person is that much more culpable than some dumbass flatlander who didn't know anything. I guess my point is more academic because I don't think I know anybody who would still do stupid shit knowing they were likely to bring thousands of tons of snow down on people, but given the CAC forecasts prior to this incident it seems that one would have to be lucky *not* to bring that slope down if you were highmarking it. Bottom line: If somebody can prove the guy that cut the slab loose knew that he was fairly likely to do so (and the consequences are obvious), what's the problem with charging him? If there was no knowledge, there'll be an investigation and nothing will happen. Shit, even if there was, I still think it's unlikely for charges to come down. I don't think I'm being a litigious American prick here (;)), I just think there should be consequences for one's actions.
RIP to the deceased.
LightRanger speaks well, for an Irishman.
Did I miss something, or is the trigger guy's wife still saying this was his second time riding in the BC? And his 'friends' let him try and ride something like that face? With 2X worth of riding?
Something doesn't add up there...
I think it might have been the downslope guy who was the greenhorn (not sure though).Quote:
Originally Posted by sftc
Knowledge/intent is an interesting one here - not having avy training doesn't mean you shouldn't be aware that avalanches can occur. Does one need to be a firefighter to know that playing with fire is risky? Maybe not the best example, but it isn't exactly rocket science.
Not based on what I read: the widow of the guy who was high-marking is calling for tighter regulations for snowmobile events. There is no mention of this guy being a novice. The other victim (a spectator) was a novice: "Reynolds said her husband was not an avid sledder and that this year was only the second time that he had attended the event. "Kurtis was just a spectator who happened to be at the wrong place at the wrong time," Reynolds said in a statement.""Quote:
Originally Posted by sftc
Read more: http://www.cbc.ca/canada/edmonton/st...#ixzz0iVPwLDSE
Shay, the man who died at the top of the hill, who was stuck & a guy rode above him, had been out twice (2 rides? 2 month long trips? not sure). I find it hard to believe that a guy with two trips would be trying to climb a monster like this, but I see it on a regular basis where I ride. I'll climb up the edge of the snow, practically in the dirt(windblown) to avoid avy danger, then some noob will crank right up the face right in the middle of the windload & get stuck. really bright.Quote:
Originally Posted by sftc
Funny that the guy that really got people together for the rescue effort & stayed level headed was a guy called the Krazy Canadian... :biggrin:
Did you not read the CBC article Van_skier linked to? Shay Snortland, who was stuck at the top, was an experienced sledder, Kurtis Reynolds, who had no experience, was at the bottom watching the show. Reynolds was a business partner of Snortland's.Quote:
Originally Posted by backcountryislife
What is alarming is the inability of so many people to read and understand a newspaper story, or listen to a TV or radio report and recognize the "angle" that the media outlet has decided to take.
I work in this business, and stories that are "alarmist" are like catnip for editors, so people need to relax and take with a grain of salt some of the stuff you are reading/hearing. Anyone worried about the government or the legal system over reacting to this incident should maybe stop doing that themselves.
Or you could emphasize these words instead...Quote:
Originally Posted by Big Steve
Quote:
Originally Posted by backcountryislife
I fully agree... proper credit should be given for digging that many people up... it is indeed impressive. I still think it's contradictory to call people hero's for the two reasons that were listed in that post.Quote:
Originally Posted by backcountryislife
By the way, the quote given of you from that last forum is excellent... kudos to you for stepping up to make those comments! What kind of reaction did you get?
I don't know how to mention any more clearly that I still can't see how you can determine whether or not a person knows how like a slide is at any given point? The avi forecasts are vague generalizations by definition and INDIVIDUAL user responsibility and acceptance of risk is implied. I.e. anyone below the path of a large avalanche has to be responsbible for themselves if they don't like what's going on above them on the hill, and get out of the area if it's not safe.
Something would have to be used as a frame of reference to determine if a person causing a slide should have known it was likely to happen, and I can't think of anything else that could be used by the avi forecast. I don't like the idea of that.
Fair enough... I respect what you're saying. I still think it's worth talking about, I don't feel like a discussion is necessarily an over-reaction.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldo
Honestly after the kinds of reactions that were on there before, I expected to get nailed to the cross, but as one of 3 (there actually MAAAY be 4) left leaning snowmobilers in this hemisphere... I'm kinda used to it.Quote:
Originally Posted by Shorty_J
Actually the response was overwhelmingly positive (got 1 neg feedback & about 20 positive), the problem was that the one guy that was stating the position that I had was a tool that was just doing it to piss people off, so everybody went the opposite way, someone just needed to turn the conversation around to get into more constructive conversation of what went wrong & how can we keep from repeating it.
Sorry man, didn't mean to put BS info out there. Don't know how I got that switched around.:redface:Quote:
Originally Posted by PaulB
Dude, You've got to keep in mind, my brain has been clouded by 2 stroke smoke. And, being a snowmobiler... it's pretty amazing that I can even still read at all.
I'd be interested to know exactly what Canadian media's (especially the CBC's) "angle" or agenda on over reporting avy incidents is. This made front page top headline on CBC news for at least 4 days straight. In fact, even if a single skier gets caught in an avy it's national headline news. Is it just the sensationalism factor (maybe because of Michael Trudeau), or do you think someone within CBC has taken it upon themselves to turn public opinion in order to get more regulation enacted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldo
One thing to consider is that the people writing about this have absolutely no idea about what they are writing about, they will not be critical, and, if you read the CBC news frequently, can barely string a story together.
This thread needs to just die.
The summary is...
Better than 1000 sledders knew shit was dodgy and stayed home.
Two guys were dumb and unlucky and died.
The once that went out, and sat at the bottom of a bowl to watch invincible gnar core dudes rip are: incredibly lucky to be alive, stupid, and should be subject to scorn and criticism, because: they are/were ignorant or stupid, endangered others (SAR), and still don't get it.
The out cry to educate a group (not all but a large sub portion of the sledding pop) of people that are willing to spend a fuck load of cash but not put in the time to learn and be attentive to conditions and ride with personal responsibility, is ridiculous. There is a large portion of this population that will buy gear (avi packs at 1K a shot) to save their shit rather that put in the time to learn and adhere to a responsible b/c user paradigm.
You can argue and discuss all sorts of bull shit angles and litigation and responsibility but it does not matter, stupid people do stupid shit and some times they die.
Amen brother.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Pit
Maybe I'm off, but I don't know anyone who has no avy education but has spent the money on a pack. Maybe that will be a new trend though, spend $1k on a pack... so you don't have to get avy education.:rolleyes: :rolleyes:(cause hey, that PACK is what will save you right?)
Other than that.... gotta agree 100%
Another thing to mention that I doubt a lot of you can see. On a sled it is a bit deceiving to talk about slides compared to skis/ board. Now, I know this is going to sound callous or naive to many, but on a sled you can play with slides in a way that you just can't without a motor. You can hit a slope & set off a decent size slide & ride away rather consistently (hopefully, knowing that it's going to come down & you're planning your climb/ decent based on that) My only point here is it's very easy to get lulled into complacency when it comes to smaller slides. (being on the mountain, not sitting at the bottom)
Backcountryislife, you need an avi course badly - or several - b4 you get hurt or killed or hurt or kill somebody else. Best of luck man. Hopefully you are nowhere near my zone buddy.
A couple of more things to consider. 2 of the guys either in harms way or doing nothing while watching those in harms way actually teach these guys avalanche courses. That says a lot about the mindset of this particular crowd but still excludes those that stayed home.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Pit
The idea of treating these types as hapless victims and downright heroes does not seem to work. Witness just over a year ago a short distance away as the crow flies. A mass tragedy and the survivors were treated very gently. That apparently did not produce a message that sunk in.
The group in that bowl were fucking idiots and that's the bottom line and that should be made clear to them. Unfortunately they also represent a significant portion of the sledding community. Maybe not the majority but still significant and two of them there have been responsible for training another portion of the community. One would think those two would represent the safest of the bunch, yet there they were.
Sledders are not being painted as moronic risk takers by the media. Many sledders themselves are repeatedly painting THEMSELVES as moronic risk takers and the media is picking up on it. That doesn't mean all sledders but the ones that resent it should focus their anger on the fucking morons causing the problem not the media that is reporting the repercussions of some sledders actions.
aye L7 - quite a few sledders have articulated how PO'ed they are that even though they were safe now they're getting lumped into the same group as the sledders who parked at Turbo
To be fair - that's like painting all backcountry skiers like the mindless twat that pow11 pulled out of the Circle Lk - Decker area
glad we had this talk pal.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICE
Been touring, hiking, or splitting for nearly 20 years, been taking at absolute minimum one class per year, most years more than that to stay fresh & not get complacent as I mentioned in that post.
I stated a fact that I knew people like you wouldn't understand, but it's something that is notably different between sleds & skis. I'm also stating what is a PERCEPTION & how sledders CAN/COULD get complacent.
What is a "test" slope to you & what is a test slope to me are very different.
And the idea that anyone would do a cut while you or anyone nearby is around is absolutely moronic.
The biggest difference between a sled & skis is the fact that we cover nearly 50 times the ground that a skier will in a day, this allows one the ability to isolate particular aspects that have greater risk much quicker than on skis (obviously we also check CAIC or whatever local avalanche center as well) so we can find a 100 foot slope of similar aspect, cut it, drop it & see what slid & learn from this.
Does every sledder do this... of course not, but many of us that are students of the snow see the sled as a better way to understand it.
just for an example, this is a test slope that we use because it tends to go. There are a number of similar aspect slopes nearby that this test is indicative of. I wouldn't likely cut this type of thing on skis as it's a terrain trap & may be hard to get away from. The reality on a snowmachine though is that this is a very small slide that is very easy & safe to get out of & will offer up more information than just highmarking till something slides on you.
I'm not talking about playing with class II or III slides here, I'm just trying to give an example of the differences.
http://photos-h.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos...1_249690_n.jpg
Btw, take a look at the front page that we see very time we log into our local sled site, the conditions aren't exactly something that is far from our mind around here.
www.sledmods.com
Michel Trudeau was so long ago he was probably wearing leather tele boots and Canadians don't have it together enough for OR are they really big on conspiracy theories ...we leave them to our American cousinsQuote:
Originally Posted by Shaggy
good discussion happen here. L7 too funny about the zac's guy really.
BCisL nice example, i was thinking about this just the other day... the whole concept of slope testing and terrain management. its totally different between sledding and skiing.
d
Qoute>>>"the whole concept of slope testing and terrain management"
"Terrain management"? ?? That slope should have had at least a three pounder lobbed onto it before it was pilaged like that. Tisk tisk.
Quote>>>"Been touring, hiking, or splitting for nearly 20 years, been taking at absolute minimum one class per year, most years more than that to stay fresh & not get complacent as I mentioned in that post."
So, like that makes you avi XX or -20 or something??? Avi I, II, III??? :rolleyes:
200 people in an obvious avi runout in avi conditions without control work and without at least a sign-in or check-in??? how the fuck do you keep track of all those sheeple knuckleheads?
Another Revelstoke area slide, another dead sledder:
http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...ritishColumbia
read on snow & mud that guys were seeing other stuff move on other slopes. So it really makes you wonder what is going thru their mind. "Hey that just slid, lets go park underneath a hill that is twice the size and watch some boyz see how big their balls are"
Another thing I was thinking of was culture related. When you look at the fact that the guys who were giving the avi courses were right there combined with the fact that (to my knowledge) there are no Mountain Guides who guide sledders it somewhat makes sence that these guys have the attitude that they do.
All the BC skiers I know have had Avi training with guides and usually very good ones. Mine was with Jim Bay and I can't say enough good things about him. He definitely doesn't instill a "let's go ski everything attitude" - more of a "there are old guides and there are bold guides, but no old AND bold guides" approach.
Perhaps the ACMG should look into doing something for this market - apparently they have the money to spend on professional guides??
Can't argue with this... well said.Quote:
Originally Posted by Moose Pit
1 dead & 12 missing in class 4 slide west of Revy this aft
apparently two seperate groups were sitting at the bottom of the slide path
unreal.
My neck was still sore from the head shaking I did after the slide last week.
Nope, doesn't look like the message is getting through....
Sorry Eldo, listening to CBC does not rot the brain, television does.Quote:
Originally Posted by Eldo
I know a couple of different groups, my boss and some other guys I work included, that go a couple of weekends a year with guides to get a good tour and some extra avy education while they're out.Quote:
Originally Posted by gorgeskier
The guys I know certainly seem to get it and any that I've talked with since the first slide know how many bad decisions had to be made for this happen. I wouldn't hestitate to go out with any of them, but I know a few skiers and boarders that I wouldn't want to be around in sketchy conditions.
Seems like sledding is more of a group activity for a lot of riders, though. When I've gone out it's only been a couple of us using them for ski access, but most of the pure sledders I know go as groups and/or families. To me, it seems like the biggest difference is the number of people caught when someone makes a bad decision. You just don't tend to see 200 skiers gathered in a group, outside of a resort, or 16-20 buddies heading out on a tour.
I feel that it's the few bad apples thing going on, just with high consequences leading to big publicity.
unfuckingbelievable.Quote:
Originally Posted by af403
ok, I give up. Maybe I just happen to know the 17 intelligent sledders out there. The rest just MUST be morons.:confused:
If people can't figure this shit out even after one of the most highly publicized avy incidents in recent history, there's just no hope for some of them. I sure as hell wish people could figure this stuff out, it's not THAT complicated. Hell, two rules could save a majority of these lives... #1 one person on the hill at a time, and #2 ONE PERSON ON THE HILL AT A TIME!!!!!!
Oh, and ICE... Yeah bud, it's just like atari, I'm a level 19 now dipshit. So you figure you know all there is to know? You figure that after a class or two you're set? How bout this, you stay away from MY terrain because people like you who don't understand that this is a CONSTANT learning curve don't belong in the BC. It's not about being able to swing around the fact that you're a level 3, but haven't had a refresher in 10 years. Snow science changes constantly, even some of the basic assumptions made by the best in the field. If you're not keeping educated on a consistent basis, #1 you lose your edge & tend to forget little things that could make the difference between life & death, & #2 you're not being exposed to new ideas from outside your group. It's very easy to get into a rut in the way you go about your day, every class I take I'm reminded of something I had forgotten, or I get some new little idea that I hadn't thought to implement in the past, even the simple classes.
Headline in todays paper regarding latest dead sledder. 'Dead sledder not a hot dogger' and went on to say below 'he practised avalanche recovery'. Again not saying all sledders nor even the majority BUT a significant group or subset seem to see avalanche training as recovery response. Yea that's great but the more important message of course is avoiding recovery response. The media seems willing to allow the public to buy into overselling of recovery.
One of the problems with a lot of the sled community up here is they seem to keep letting the morons speak for them. The head of the BC sledders association said nothing to instill confidence or faith in intelligence of the group he spoke on behalf of. Again I know there are lots of smart and knowledgeable sledders out there but apparently they aren't yelling loud enough to make it to spokesman positions or even get interviews. Let alone yelling loud enough to get a helpful message across.
I see what you mean about people thinking that they'll just dig out, that does seem to be the idea with some folks. The part I don't get is that if you've EVER had any education, one of the first things they mention is how likely you are to die from trauma, and the time frames required to excavate a person from, say, 6 foot deep, etc. I just don't understand how anyone with any education AT ALL can think that the odds are acceptable to be in such a high risk area & riding the way that many of these guys are.Quote:
Originally Posted by L7
I also will never understand how someone that has even a clue ends up in a multiple burial situation. Hearing this crap just makes me want to scream:cussing:!!!!!! (and then there's the heli skiers that felt the need to prove that they can make poor decisions as well, sad)
It seems that it's not just the redneck sledders that are dying in the Canadian Rockies... CMH guides with 35 years of combined experience are killing their clients...
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/...rticle1507219/