Berthoud Pass Proposal

[Cornholio]

And, not to be tooooo cynical (because I think this is a great idea that needs to be pushed), I wonder if it wouldn't be easier to fund a memorial.

Just thinking out loud (crassly).

[DJSapp]

Very good point Foggy, how do we create awareness when they refuse to pay attention - very good point ...

That's simple, just have a guy standing at the begining of the skin track with a tranceiver and a lead pipe. If the party is beeping and has their gear, they may go, if not, apply lead pipe until desired effect is achieved.

It worked in dogtown. [smileywinkything]

[pde20]

pde20 ... don't put words in my mouth dude - you are completely misinterpreting what I said re: signs ... I never said put them all over, every 2 miles - I said in high-risk high-traffic high-gaper areas.

These "Avie Warning" signs should go up statewide - all over, everywhere. For example: Berthoud, Independence, Loveland, Vail, all road accessed passes with "killer" terrain ...

I don't think I misinterpreted you, I didn't evey misquote you. The point is, pretty much every road in the high country with snow and relief accesses "killer terrain." Just going around to a few select and heavily used areas and putting up more signs "all over, everywhere" is like throwing darts in the dark if you want to hit the problem of increasing numbers of inexperienced , or willfully ignorant, backcountry users.

I don't care what you think, signs have worked for centuries ... still do. Signs work, so I'm sticking to that;

Signs have worked for centuries? Signs work unconditionally? Hmm...that doesn't stand up to much scrutiny in relation to avalanches. At the Canyons, where you have to run a veritable gauntlet of billboards to get to Dutchs Draw and Square Top they have deaths every year. At A Basin, top of Lenawee heading off into Montezuma, again explicit signs, deaths just about every year. Heading to East Vail/Mushroom Bowl: Signs followed shortly thereafter by deaths. Top of Catherine's at Alta: signs and none too rare deaths. Top of Loveland, CDOT signs. At many Bertoud turnouts, if not at the top, signs. These are the places I am familiar with, I'm sure there are many more. There are signs already in place in "high traffic high gaper areas" as you put it. they are large and orange and to anyone with the ability to read, they spell out the fact that there is avalanche danger. Yet we had Sunday. It is poor, ineffective policy to take the path of least resistance that doesn't get at the underlying problem, and this is what i see increasing signagae as being a symptom of.

Additional education and personal responsibility are the main part of the equation, a given and not what we're discussing ...

That is exactly what we are discussing: negelecting to focus on personal responsibility and education in favor of patronizing and ineffective measures.

Here is an analogy that I think works well. We all like to have sex about as much as we like to ski fresh. none of us like abortions, STDs, or unwanted pregnancies and the implications that go along with them any more than we like losing frineds and fellow riders to avalanches. Yet the solution you are so passionately defending/advocating for BC skiing is equal to: letting a young male (the overwhelming demographic) think about sex for a week or maybe an entire summer, go over the the girls house, get himself naked, get himself a raging hard on, get her naked, but make her wear a small sign around her waist that says, in bold letters "YOU CAN GET AIDS OR HERPES AND DIE, MAKE A BABY YOU DON'T WANT, OR TAKE PART IN A MEDICAL PROCEDURE YOU WILL REGRET FOREVER IF YOU HIT THIS SHIT RIGHT HERE." While that would be gross and make you question how skeezy a girl you were with, realistically, 9 of 10 times the little head is going to think for the big head and go for, it dealing with the consequences later. Now, unless you are a very conservative christian, you will agree that focusing as much effort as you can on educating this boy as to all the fucked up shit that can happen and what he can do to avoid it as far in advance of him getting naked as is possible is a much more rational solution. And even then, you are going to get people with AIDS, herpes and unwanted babies and you are going to get people killed in avalanches because at some point, there aint any more you can do and it is up to that person to make their choice.

collective efforts work as well (State, local, FOBP, media, CoSkiCountry, ski areas ... a REAL EFFORT TO EDUCATE all of us actively persuing this lifestyle, create an awareness).

We almost agree...if you mean they work also as opposed to they work equally to signage, which I've already discussed. Finding real ways to educate and to KEEP THE EMPHASIS ON INDIVIDUAL RESPONSIBILITY AND GATHERING OF THE ESSENTIAL KNOWLEDGE AND POWER TO USE THAT KNOWLEDGE is what I want to see, putting up signs has virtually nothing to do with that. We need more avenues to get knowledge out to users at the appropriate time, and at the bottom of the boot pack or skin track ain't that place.

So pee20, throw 'em a rope dude, most inexperienced BC skiers are not as "educated" as you are ... a sign might stop them long enough to think; and if it saves 1 life - or they stop for an instant and think DEATH is possible and their (my) behavior adjusts toward safety, it was well worth putting in the sign

So Hyrupz, that is very witty of you to replace the "d" with an "e" (he called me urine!) and try and make this personal or about my level of education vs. anyone elses level of education, which is as far from the point of my post as can be. If we want to engage in a debate about how to affect behavior and how to do so in the context of limited resources within this community and limited resources in the larger area of public policy and public funding, then that is what I am talking about. I want to implement the most effective systems, not "throw them a rope" at the last possible minute that they may or, more likely, may not grab on to. The questionsi not whether a sign might cause one person to change his mind and is therefore worth it, the question is whether by focusing energy and $$ on other methods we save 50 lives and don't contribute to the continued abrogation of personal responsibilty in favor of band aid solutions.

The "localism" toungue lashing and beat downs idea is, obviously, tounge in cheek. Yet it is bizarre that some of you who reject this is a poor way to educate or counterproductive have also said that you would support USFS or other personnel doing beacon checks and issuing fines. You think that either an ornery grommet or a willfully ignorant, frequent BC user is going to take to "the man" any better than he takes to being consistently confronted by fellow users? The idea is peer pressure rather than government pressure. While not the first or best choice, I think it holds a certain amount of promise none the less.

Again, to end with more contructive suggestions:

• Retailers already do a lot, but if you want an actor who is sensitve to customer input, bark up this tree rather than the USFS.
  Petition REI to include admission to free avalanche education seminars with every purchase of backcountry bindings, backpacks, skis, boots...
• Do retailers contribute to CAIC? Encourage individual retailers (is their some tradegroup of outdoor retailers?) or a group to dedicated x% of their BC related profit to CAIC.
• I'm all out of ideas and time thinking about this for the morning.

PS. Nothing wrong with a tasteful memorial to those who have lost their lives in the BC.

[HyRUPz]

Well said PDE ... was speaking in generalisms but, given the seriousness of the issue, we'll stay on point. Excellent comments, rebuttal. Thanks for making me look stupid

Responsibility + Awareness + SCARY Signage = Greater chance of survival in the BC?

I was kidding re: pee-thing ... just a joke.

I should post then eat, not the other way around like yesterday.

I though more about this today and it is very very sad to lose a member of our community. Pray this will create awareness + appropriate and thoughtful action. Good job on thinking this through ... I concede.

[Cornholio]

pde- well thought out post.

Does the (well taken) fact that a sign doesn't address the fundamental problem of poor decision making make a sign/memorial an ineffective idea?

And to toss another (absurdly inflammatory) idea out there:
What if you had to show completion of a Level One class before you could buy a beacon?

[Foggy_Goggles]

A small update. I and the Friends of Berthoud Pass are in communication (I just send an email) with the Forest Service about signage. The proposed trail head for which funding has been awarded, contains a significant amount of signage as well as an informational kiosk. We intend to have a large roll in developing the content for this. I have also requested that current signage be enhanced in the interim. The trailedhead is scheduled to be constructed as soon as the snow melts in the spring. Keep the ideas coming. Don't think your input doesn't count. The project leader was at the PW05 event collecting information from backcountry skiers. The FS's hands are tied in some respects, but they are trying.

[HyRUPz]

ACTION, nice!

[Foggy_Goggles]

Here is the current signage. These are posted on the east and west side access points. They say absolutley zero about any of what we have discussed. It is simply the sledding/motorised closure.