There are no easy answers in this discussion. In every case the dynamic is different. As I see it there are at least 4 separate user groups with vastly different sets of skills and goals.
1. People without a clue, gear or skills that figure the other side of the rope is just as safe and doesn't have any tracks.
2. People with the gear and some knowledge that overestimate their skills and underestimate the consequenses.
3. People with the gear, the skills and the knowledge that may make a poor decision in terms of terrain or hazard.
4. People with the gear, the skills and the knowledge that can select appropriate terrain under any conditions and ski safely in spite of hazard.
In each case cited in this discussion, be it EV, the Canyons or Whitefish the results can be fatal.
All it will take is some Congressman or Senator up for office that decides this is an issue to get some press and the next thing you know the areas will be forced to protect us from ourselves.
What answers can anyone think of?
If you were some Joey at the top of 9990 and were about to exit that gate after having your picture take by the You May Die! signage and its a bluebird day and other people are streaming out that gate like lemmings to the cliff, would you listen to reason?
In the end little good is going to come from this and some access may become restricted. I used to exit Snowbird from the Gad II gate, the Patrol did a check out, looked at your gear and signed you out. Thats a helluva thing to hang on a company and most patrols would rather not deal with that shit, but if ski areas provide the access that may well be the future.
I have been in this State for 30 years and I am willing to admit that I am part of the problem.
"Happiest years of my life were earning < $8.00 and hour, collecting unemployment every spring and fall, no car, no debt and no responsibilities. 1984-1990 Park City UT"
Bookmarks