BC/OB travel & patrol responsibilities

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

After getting absolutely pummeled by snow for a few days, Kirkwood opened it's boundaries yesterday allowing access to the backcountry.

In the late morning, a group of us (kellie, hardrider, me, punani, telenater, lph, greydon, etc.) disembarked Chair 4 on the backside and noticed the "access sign" as well as a set of sweet tracks coming down California Chute in the distance (a 1,500 ft. OB line about an hour's hike away).

We all debated about going back there within earshot of a KW patroller. Those who had BC gear were into going....and those of us who didn't have gear weren't for obvious reasons. We also debated and speculated on the stability of the snowpack back there all within earshot of the KW patroller who even laughed at a joke that Punani made. ("Ahhh, beacon schmeacon!!").....he never said anything to us though, just continued chipping some ice away from the patrol shack door or something.

Anyway.....lph, telenater, and kellie decide to head on out. Me and Hardrider went on to scout and ski some inbounds lines we've been eyeing.

So Hardrider and I take a run to scout our lines, get back on Chair 4, and who else gets on the chair with us? The patroller who was listening to our BC debate at the top of the lift.

We start chatting with him about what it means with regards to BC conditions when they flip the signs to access. He said they just flip the signs when they've completed all their inbounds avy work...it doesn't necessarily have anything to do with the conditions OB.

We then asked if he knew anything about the conditions OB and he said he thought they were very sketchy. He said that earlier in the day he and another patroller (each with 10 yrs bc experience) were back in the area of California & West Shore and set off a fairly large slide back there. He said, "we were gripped".

So in the end.....here's a patroller, with some first hand BC beta, listening to our debate about heading to an area in which he recently noticed some slide activity, and doesn't feel the need to offer up any advice or at least say something like, "hey FYI...I was back there today and there was slide activity, etc. etc.". Granted, he wasn't specifically asked, but I would think most BC travelers offer up this kind of beta at trailheads on a regular basis.

Obviously, it's not patrol's responsibility to bomb or control anything outside the boundary, but I just thought that a patroller should have a higher sense of BC etiquette and alerted us to the conditions he had knowledge of. Any thoughts?

[rightcoast]

if he heard you talking about snowpack stability etc. and knew you were seriously thinking of venturing into the BC, i feel that not only as a patroller, but just as a fellow skier and outdoorsman he has some sort of responsibility to let you know whats up, especially if he has firsthand knowlege, and ESPECIALLY in the super sketchy conditions i am sure existed out there.

[joshbu]

Might there be some kind of liability issue invovled, like patrol can talk about it if asked but can't volunteer the info? Just a speculation...

[Pinner]

It's slightly surprising... that none of you walked over to ask him what he knew about conditions beyond the gates.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Originally posted by Pinner
It's slightly surprising... that none of you walked over to ask him what he knew about conditions beyond the gates.

agreed.

[Dexter Rutecki]

Yes, I find that strange. It has nothing to do with 'responsibility', but I would think anybody with knowledge like that would share it without prompting.

[Woodsy]

Originally posted by joshbu
Might there be some kind of liability issue invovled, like patrol can talk about it if asked but can't volunteer the info? Just a speculation...

I think this is the case.
if asked respond, but volunteering info could be twisted into an endorsement,
its a lose lose for the patroller & the resort, favorable report & he "endorsed our going"
bad report & "KW patrol dont know shit"

I am sure the higher ups have laid down a policy & been adamant abot it.

Especially in such a litigious state.
man I cnat spell fur chit

[lemon boy]

I'm sure that you can thank the lovely people who sue ski areas for that one.

Regardless-
Inbounds = Patrol's Responsibility
OB = YOU ARE RESPONSIBLE

Know before you go, if you have to debate avy conditions after a week of it storming and nobody callin into the avy line...

I have a number of personal reasons he mightn't have offered any info (including any number of sour experiences trying to save people from themselves)

[splat]

Number #1 - Although he isn't required to offer up any advice if he overhears such a discussion, I think he should have. Had someone been killed by a slide resultant of his failure to say something, (and I know no one wants to hear this) it might be easy to assume he was derelict in his duty to at least warn of the danger.

Number #2 - When I read your post that those guys went out there after these storms, a couple thoughts ran through my mind.
Did they dig pits? What kind of windload was present?
But the one thing that comes to mind most is - Did they ask patrol what their take on the conditions were in terms of windload, slide potential and which aspects were the most potetially dangerous?

Consulting patrol and/or avie reports for sufficient information to make the call is an onus that falls upon the b/c skier. Also, one track down a slope does not a safe slope make. It could go on the 35th skier down it. And windbuff that appears safe on the surface could simply be the surface condition of a dangerous slab underneath. There's a lot of things to consider. But consulting patrol, who likely have a good handle on conditions, before doing the California Chute should be the first step.

[Odin]

Originally posted by splat
Also, one track down a slope does not a safe slope make.

Rusty and I could tell you from personal experience, watching someone skier trigger an avy last year, that this is 100% true. The slope we were watching had (I believe) 7 tracks, all in the same area. All it takes is one person finding the instability.


I have seen pictures where the slope may have 20 to 30 tracks on it and the skier chooses the line farthest to skiers left to get freshies. He happens to trigger the weak spot because of loading, a convex roll, or whatever the case may be.

[splat]

I watched Honc get caught in a slide while cat skiing in BC last year - a slope the guide, Karl Stall (I think), and I had already skied. I was standing in a safe zone (ridgelet beneath rocks between two chutes) Honc hit the convex on one side and triggered it. Slid right by me.

Although a lot of slopes around Tahoe didn't slide after this storm, S&R is still searching for a guy caught in a slide on New Years Day north of Truckee. It was a north slope, which is how the California aspect lies.

I just got a call from hardrider on his way to KW. He told me there were tracks off Slide Mountain below Mt. Rose ski resort.
It an east aspect that loads pretty good. I've told him about skiing it (5,000 verts to the valley floor) and how you ride the ridges, just in case. He just told me there a bunch of tracks - all in the terrain trap gullies off the mountain. A scenario totally similar to the snowboarders that died in Utah. Unreal. It's just a good fukkin thing the snowpack has been stable enough to support those skiers, because they made one bad call on their route selection.

[Clack]

I know this isn't the point of the debate, but you guys should have hit Thunder bowl instead. It looked sick!

edit - after checking with patrol, etc. etc. etc.

[InspectorGadget]

Originally posted by splat

Consulting patrol and/or avie reports for sufficient information to make the call is an onus that falls upon the b/c skier.

In light of the potential for disaster in the BC/OB, I couldn't agree more splat.

I think that posing a simple question - to the patroller at hand - is as valuable as the requisite shovel, probe and beacon in the BC/OB.

IG

[tibaher]

I think Patrol definitely has a responsibility to make sure whoever is going back has at least the gear and a partner. It is your responsibility to offer the information to them as to where you're going how long you'll be there etc...directly. Expecting them to come to you might be a little overboard... In the end it is always the skiers call anyway.

[AH]

Originally posted by tibaher
I think Patrol definitely has a responsibility to make sure whoever is going back has at least the gear and a partner. It is your responsibility to offer the information to them as to where you're going how long you'll be there etc...directly. Expecting them to come to you might be a little overboard... In the end it is always the skiers call anyway.

I'm sorry, but I think skiing with a partner and having the right gear (and skill) is solely the responsibility of the skiers in question, especially when it concerns skiing oob. You just simply cannot 'idiot-proof' the b/c by putting patrollers at the gates. Besides, that implies that the same patrollers would be liable/to blame in case an accident occured and that's just a wrong mindset.

My guess is that's about the same thing happening inbounds with all the lawsuits, leading to more restrictive access to certain areas because of some irresponsible assholes looking to blame someone other than themselves.

In Europe (or at least in France) it works like this, if you go into the bc, the skier with the most experience is responsible for the group. I think that is pretty fair (better than holding the patrol responsible), being responsible for ones own actions.

But this brings me to another point, a bit more practical. How is this stuff arranged during maggot summits? Are there certain experienced people who make the calls (and have the info?) to go into a certain area, are patrollers involved, or is everyone making it's own decision? And for those who can answer that question : Do you think named group-descision-making is effective?

[lemon boy]

I absolutely disagree that patrol has any responsibility for anybody venturing out one of the access gates (a true gate to NF land not one they control into their IB avy terrain).

You are leaving their purview and are 100% on yer own. Just like if you'd hiked up there. :shrug:

[STD]

I think the patrol acted in the correct manner in this instance.

Unless someone asks them, it is not their responsibility. And even if you do ask patrol, they have to be very careful what they say & how they say it. In this case, some valuable information was learned once info was solicited.

[lph]

I think the responsibility lies with the skier/rider.

Shoud we have asked him, YES, absolutely!!! Should he have offered, i'm not sure. When myself, kellie and Nater got back to the top of lift 4, the access was still open, i went immediately to the shack to ask him about conditions, slide activity, etc... Same patroller was gone, should this have stopped us???

We got to the gate, ran into two other skiers who had were going back for seconds, neither had any b/c gear, Kellie was surprised, I was not. There is a prevailing attitude in Tahoe that, "Tahoe doesn't slide".

I had a friend ski Mt Tallac two years ago, during the second day of a huge dump, while it was snowing, she and her boyfriend saw repeated slide activity and still kept going. They survived.

I have seen friendships irreperably damaged because of poor b/c ettiquete, basically allowing the group to splinter on the climb.

Tahoe has a strange attitude towards the b/c to say the least.

We ARE lucky in Tahoe in that we do not have the slide activity of Utah or Colorado. The bottom line is that when you make that call it is your responsibility.

Obviously, we took a risk when we decided to go through those gates. The same way DTM takes a risk hucking 75', the same way we all take a risk when we tree ski during the biggest dump of the year, the same way Shoelaces does when he skis a straightline requiring him to duck under an overhanging cliff while simultaneously lifting one ski over a rock. As hardrider said to me at the end of the day, "Whenever you are skiing you are always a second away from death." In my experience as a radiologist, most deaths and serious internal in bounds injuries occur from skier to skier, skier to tree, skier to rock, and skier to snow collisions.

IMO, you pick your poison. For me, the chances of seriously bodily injury/ death are probably greater hucking 75', or triing to follow shoelaces than they are skiing the California Chute.

OK, let the onslaught of criticism and debate resume.

[Odin]

It is your responsibility to find out information about your trip, as it is your life you are trying to save. Patrol should bear zero responsibility upon terrain that they do not maintain. Exiting the IB terrain to go into a BC area is the same as if you are standing at a forest service trailhead and leave the parking lot. The only difference is that there are more people around to ask about conditions.

What if, in shoes situation, the patroller had piped up and said that it was safe to go in. Then, while out in the BC, the slope slides and takes someone for a ride.

Asking questions is a good thing.

[Tyrone Shoelaces]

Originally posted by lph

OK, let the onslaught of criticism and debate resume.

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.

[lph]

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.

Of course not. I know you well enough to know that isn't the case. Hence the winky face.

One other thought, at Jackson, they are nice enought to have the avalanche risk posted at the OB gates that i have gone through. We have turned back more than once because of the posted risk as well as gut instincts.

That is the first time I have gone through the gates at Kirkwood, and I plan on doing more of that, but only with the proper gear and companions.

[splat]

You made the call and accept responsibilty, lph. Good enough for me. I was kinda freaked that kellie wanted to ski the Headwall, which is a notorious windload typically reserved for spring. After having all of West Shore break loose on me last year, running all the way to the lake, I just can't emphasize enough the potential out there and want to see my friends (and me) exercise due caution on informed decisions. The snow is sooooo unforgiving.

[tibaher]

what I was saying is if Patrol see's you going out from a gate or otherwise w/o a pack... partner etc.., they should say something. again, it's always the skiers call in the end.

[lph]

Originally posted by tibaher
what I was saying is if Patrol see's you going out from a gate or otherwise w/o a pack... partner etc.., they should say something. again, it's always the skiers call in the end.

Agreed, another fact that surprised kellie. She was surprised that there wasn't some sort of requirement that you carry gear to go through the gates.

The times i went OB at Jackson hole, we would stand there with our beacons set to recieve just to see how many people were wearing them. Even in an area known for its out of bounds and in bounds slides, majority of people did not have beacons and many were alone.

[Foggy_Goggles]

What type of closure/area is it? I'm confused. If it is National Forest, isn't the ski area required to allow egress (i.e. it can't be closed)? If it is part of the ski area permit area, aren't they declaring it relativley safe of avi hazard by opening it? I've never been to Kirkwood so I'm just wondering.