Avalanche Danger

Nadia.

Nadia.

Active member
8 snowmobilers dead near Fernie,

3-4 skiers as of tonight dead at Whistler-blackcomb, steve clarke in an avy in RUBY BOWL and 2 missing off of west bowl, 1 missing in harmony. I can't believe they reopened it after that big slide 2 days ago.

1 dead in Jackson Hole last week, headwall also slid and took out the restaurant and patrol shack

1 dead in Squaw last week

1 dead at Mt High in cali...

BIG Slides at Alta, Snowbird...

3 BIG slides set off today at WB.

If you have a beacon, wear in ON inbounds, bring your backpack with avy gear. IPODS and cell phones do screw with the signal, get trained... don't fuck around.

One of my coworkers is also a guide for whistler Heli and they're not flying til the snowpack unfucks it self, which means we need it to rain to consolidate the -20 fluffy layer with the ice under it all and now the warmer layer on top. Pray for a pineapple express.

/ icon and title





message

http://www.ctvbc.ctv.ca/servlet/an/l...shColumbiaHome

Two dead in avalanches near Whistler, B.C.

Updated: Thu Jan. 01 2009 18:24:26

CTV.ca News Staff

Two people are dead following avalanches on separate mountain ski runs near the resort town of Whistler, B.C.

CTV News' Sarah Galashan said that in both fatalities the skiers were

in areas that would normally be in-bounds but because of avalanche

warnings those areas were marked as off-limits.

The body of a 37-year-old Whistler man was found Thursday morning on

Blackcomb Mountain on a ski run called Spanky's Ladder. An avalanche

occurred there on Wednesday and a search was called for after the skier

was reported missing.

The second fatality occurred Thursday afternoon on Whistler Mountain

after an avalanche on a ski course called Hidden Chute. RCMP said the

victim was a 26-year-old man from outside B.C.

A third avalanche occurred on an in-bounds ski course on Whistler

Mountain Thursday afternoon. That part of the mountain has since been

shut down.

Staff at Whistler have been letting skiers know that the avalanche risk

was very high and have marked some ski courses as out of bounds,

Galashan said.

RCMP are expected to make a statement later Thursday. The identities of the victims have not been released.

Avalanche warnings are in place throughout much of southern B.C.

Eight men were killed on Sunday when they were struck by a series of

avalanches while snowmobiling near Fernie, B.C. Three men managed to

survive.

 
as much as i hate myself for saying this, buddy ^^ has a point. time to dust off the park skis...
 
It's okay in some places, in others not so much. The weather over the next few days looks like rising freezing levels, so you may get that wish Nadia. We need another few big snowfalls almost as badly though, the hidden rocks are pretty deadly. Narrowly avoided smashing my face apart today.
 
avalanches are serious business. not only is the avy risk high, but the base is still far too low to actually ski any big mountain/off piste shit. i was enjoying fresh knee deep pow the other day, i was having the time of my life until i hit a boulder and ripped a huge chunk of my base out. so yeah, looks like its back to park skiing for a while!
 
Same here, except I immediately popped out, went head over heels twice and landed on my side on another rock. I could easily have broken something useful. It's pretty stupid skiing at speed in these conditions, but you get so frustrated having to pussy foot around when there's knee deep to be had that it's too easy to forget common sense and do dumb things.
 
a few dead in utah, I have heard 5,

1 in washington apparently

I have heard nothing about these other two deaths in whistler, Whats the story there? And whats up with the guys banned from grouse?

My heli lodge is just skiing low altitude treed slopes. Havent had too much action here as we are jsut getting snow on top of the faceted layers from christmas.
 
If I am not mistaken one of them was none other than Graham Haywood (one of the people who was caught posted a response to the CBC article on their site under the name GHaywood.) Apparently they had proper equipment, had checked the avy report, knew the area and on top of everything were never lost. Grouse employees jumped the gun and called in a heli to rescue them prematurely and have turned the story around completely on them and also neglected to mention the facts stated above in their press report.
 
from what ive heard, i think they were a bit older: 2 24yrs and 2 25yrs. yeah, they went off the back of peak, though it seems to be unclear whether or not they actually got stranded/lost. i still think they are stupid for going out there, and if they did have the appropriate gear for out of bounds travel, they should have just had a chat with the patrollers that gave them the warning. ignoring them and continuing on your way is stupid for many many reasons. so i think NSR was called in by Grouse/the police to go get them. which, if they weren't in trouble is ridiculous. now i don't know all the details about the resorts responsibilities and liabilities, but there should be no reason that people can't travel into crown land (i.e. government, not Crown Mountain, which is behind Grouse). If this is the case and Grouse told search and rescue that these people needed to be rescued when in fact they didn't (even if they would likely needed later), Grouse should be footing the bill and should be in pretty big trouble (further legal action) as this would essentially be a publicity stunt in which they took advantage of crucial safety services.
 
You're wrong / misinformed. About everything to do with this. They were older than that, one was a former grouse employee, one was a member of the shore cult, they were a stone's throw from the boundary, and they didn't need to be rescued. By the time the "rescue" chopper made contact they were back inbounds and about to ski out to olympic. Grouse fucked the pooch and is now trying to make themselves sound responsible and get their name mentioned as many times as possible on CKNW. Fuck. Grouse. It's actually on CTV right now... Petesnick, Hillier and Haywood were 3 of the 4.

The two guys on Whis, Brian, one hiked spanky's and Ruby slid out from under him and the other died in symphony. Both are sketch as fuck right now and both of those guys were stupid to be there.
 
"We were not rescued. We knew the terrain very well and there is a clearly marked trail that leads out of the zone that we were skiing. Moreoever, we were skiing in 25-30 degree slopes below the tree line. The report produced by the North Shore Avalanche Advisory Group this morning called for low to moderate avalanche conditions below the tree line in this area. We were all baffled when a helicopter arrived within 15 minutes of our entry to the zone that we had skied. The helicopter provided no assistance whatsoever to our ability in walking for 10 minutes to get back to the ski lift. Had we been unaccounted for for a few hours, then calling a helicopter for a rescue would have made sense. But we were literally outside the ski area for 15 minutes before the rescue team was called. This makes little sense to us, as there was no evidence that we were in danger. We had not been gone for more than 15 minutes, we had not sent out a distress signal, and we had not attempted to call or contact any emergency services. We were equipped with avalanche equipment. We had maps and gps equipment for the area, as well as summer seasonal knowledge of the surrounding terrain. The helicopter was unnecessarily called too quickly. As one previous comment said, why didn't the patrollers just wait at the bottom of the lift for us to come back? In any event, we made a bad decision to ski outside the ski area boundary and the mountain did a good job in making sure that we were ok. However, It seems unfair that we should be billed for a service that was not asked for or even required." - Haywood in response to the article on cbc.ca

I realize that this is coming from someone involved, and has the potential to be skewed to benefit them; however, I am inclined to believe that this is more or less what happened. I am genuinely pissed about this now. as i had said before, i think it was a poor decision to duck the ropes at all, and when they were yelled at probably should have eplained themselves. grouse patrollers, however, can be huge, unreasonable dicks with very limited experience. all you need is OFA III or the equivalent and good skiing abilities. you don't even need to know shit all about outdoor or winter travel and safety, or route-finding or avalanches or anything at all. If the slopes were in fact 25-30 degrees and the forecasted danger was as mentioned, there is no reason not to ski that terrain. of course doing there own analysis would have been ideal, but seriously...anyways, the purpose of this post is no longer to analyze whether they should have been there if they had made an extremely detailed, text-book analysis of the situation. I think it was perfectly fair and safe for them to be skiing those slopes.
I would rather note what a dangerous precedent this sets for all backcountry users. just because a trail is 'closed' or roped, does not mean that it cannot be used safely. which grouse, along with the media seem to want people to believe. i do not want to be worried everytime I access out of bounds terrain, whether on skis or foot, that I may be 'rescued' and fined. I thought the implementation of fines for rescues was only applicable to those who should not have needed help (ie knowingly went into terrain that they couldn't handle/weren't prepared for). to me, it sounds like these people were not only more than prepared and experienced and could handle the situation, they didn't even need help due to an unforseen natural act. basically, grouse should be paying the fine, making a donation to NSR as well as making a formal apology to the SAR team, the 4 men as well as the public. to me, this is completely unacceptable, and amazingly disrespectful on the part of Grouse Mountain Inc.
This is also very dangerous for those who may find themself in need of real help. Personally, if I found myself in a situation where I probably need some extra help, wouldn't ask for it if I thought I might face a hefty fine. instead, i would probably try to deal with the problem alone, in the end, hurting myself and others. Some may see this as prevention of possible injury or death, i see it as contributing to it.
this is too long and probably not a very cohesive piece of writing, so ill wrap it up for now, even though i have more to right. id like to keep this discussion going, because honestly, i don't want this to be the way of the future. i also dont think those 4 men should be paying anything for this. the worst punishment i could justify would be the clipping of their passes for the year, as i think it does say on the back of the passes that you can't duck ropes (i don't know for sure as I didn't buy one this year: thank god). I think that should be changed though, but that's another discussion.
I personally plan on contacting some members of north shore SAR to see what they feel, and if they have another view on what happened.
anyways, it's totally unfair to punish us for travelling in winter conditions. fair enough to warn, and if someone can be proven unprepared needs help, then they can face the consequences, but don't make an example of innocent, prepared people.
 
wow. grouse is fucking retarded. i personally want to see them foot the bill, and to apologize for humiliating every backcountry skier and snowboarder.

who else has seen patrol ski this area and think that this should be made aware to the public?
 
This seems beyond reasonable and completely retarded to me. Grouse also said it was sending their ID names and all information they have to all ski resorts in BC to try to prevent then from skiing in any of the resorts. Why would grouse ever do this? trying to look like some kinda super hero to the stupid uneducated majority of the public who know nothing about mtn safety?
My dad is one of the heads of whistler SAR which operates closely with North shore SAR so i will ask him what he thinks about it. All of these search and rescue groups are completely volunteer, from people's time, to equipment to paying for helicopter fuel and time. So they usually ask people to pay for the services that SAR provides. However my best bets are that SAR is fucking pissed that grouse called them out for this. These are people stopping in the middle of their daily lives leaving their jobs and families to go out of their way to pick someone up. So one they are called out unnecessarily they are far from stoaked. On many occasions my dad will get a call, and if he deams that the people are not in danger of death then they leave them out for the night and tell them to hike out. You would be surprised how many people call from fitz creek, or the cheq to get lifts out when they are perfectly fine. So the fact that grouse called in SAR to rescue people easily within the boundary reaches, who were in fact in no trouble at all and did not want any help would likely extremly piss of SAR. However SAR would be briefed on the situtaion so the fact that they did respond shows that they were either mistaken about the situation or felt that the people did need to be rescued.
Anyways I will ask my dad if he knows any more info about this. Grouse should be kicked in the ass, pay all the costs of the rescue and offer a formal apology to the people involved.
I find it reckless and disrespectful for Grouse to pull a move like this. Personally more so disrespectful of SAR member and their purpose as a group of volunteers. If grouse wants to get mad at people for leaving it's boundaries that is fine but they should do-so with thier own private means of pass clipping or whatever, even then its a stupid way to manage these situations.
I have had my pass clipped twice, both times I found highly unfair, one was at kicking-hoarse and the ski patroller was a dick, didn't get anyway around or out of it. It was for skiing out of bounds, but in a safe area with many other people around. The other time was on Whistler for skiing some parts of the peak that are classified as permanently closed, however they never asked me how i got there or exactly where I skied and were acting on reports from a civilian watching us ski. The ski patrollers took my season pass and i bargained with them to show them how i got there an exactly where i had skied, they let me show them and followed my tracks, I had done anything wrong but hope a cliff sign, so they gave me my pass back and said sorry. - I guess that was a huge tangent, anyways i am still pissed at kicking hoarse, and even more mad at grouses apparent uncalled for actions. Maybe they are more founded, I will try to find out.
 
man. i should stop looking into this because it just makes me more angry. if any of those four men read this, and are considering paying the fine: don't. I am not totally clear on whether NSR charges, as I know Tim Jones, an NSR volunteer said that the man on Seymour would not be charged as he was genuinely lost. This would imply that in some situations they do charge. that said, the NSR website claims that they do not, and will never charge for a rescue, as it should be. it appears as though Grouse is charging the skiers on behalf of NSR which is bullshit. absolutely terrible. this hurts the hard work of NSR volunteers (and it is very hard) and boosts Grouse's image in the public eye. the important thing here is that Grouse has no legal way of pursuing them if they don't pay. it is essentially a donation. i would almost consider it fraud, if they tell them they are being charged for the 'rescue' costs.
check this link to the NSR blog:https://www.blogger.com/comment.g?blogID=34822214&postID=8415375020977796384&pli=1
Special attention to this post as well as Haywoods response immediately after:
Grouse Mtn - Thrasher Creek Task Jan 2 09

Response from Tim Jones Operational SAR Manager

I appreciate everyone's comments. I will provide a brief summary of what NSR did.

The following response took place over approximately 25 minutes from the time I was called.

* I was contacted by a fellow SAR MGR who volunteers for FASP on Grouse.He at this time became aware of the situation and was coordinating with Grouse Patrol who were asking for our assistance
* He stated that 3 skiers and a snowboarder entered Thrasher Creek via the controlled ski area against the warnings of a Grouse Ski Patroller
* At no time did anyone on the Grouse Patrol or my fellow SAR MGR know what skill level or equipment was carried by these individuals or that they had GPS's and hiked this terrain last summer. We do not have a crystal ball.
* Given the past history of Thrasher Creek ( Father and son incident last year during considerable avi hazard)) there was a concern that this group would not know the gully exit south through the saddle to Mountain Hwy and if they continued east it would put them in very steep cliffy terrain under Fromme Mtn.
* I requested my fellow SAR MGR to have Grouse contact North Vancouver RCMP to advise and generate a file number and I would check with Peter Marshall a local forecaster with CAC as to his assessment of Avi Hazard in Thrasher Creek specifically. Peter who is the former head of Grouse Patrol stated CONSIDERABLE.
* Given the past history of trapped skiers and boarders in Thrasher Creek of which with one exception had missed the exit and had gone due east under Fromme, the CONSIDERABLE Avi rating in real time by Peter, the possibility of our team members having to rescue these people, and a cloud system moving into Grouse, the following very prudent actions took place in close coordination with Grouse Patrol and the RCMP
* I called RCMP Air Services to explain the situation to see if they had their patrol helicopter Air 1 up in the air which they did. I advised them that North Van RCMP had been called and could Air 1 come up on our frequency. PEP was called and our tasking was initiated
* Air 1 then came up on our frequency and advised they contacted North Van RCMP also to close the loop. Air 1 was over SFU
* I advised them of the situation and gave them the Latitude and Longitude and approx elevation to look for this group estimating time distance travelled
* The goal was for Air 1 see if they had turned south through the saddle exit to Mtn Hwy
* AIR 1 quickly ID'd the group which by this time was spilt into 2 groups of two
* AIR 1 confirmed they had turned south and were heading for a Grouse Patroller stationed on a snowmobile on Mountain Hwy. Air 1 gave me Lat/Long which I confirmed on my map.
* Very quickly the first two were intercepted by the Grouse patroller with the other two later on intercepted by Grouse Patrol
* At this point our operational involvement ceased as well as AIR 1's
* My fellow SAR MGR who was on Grouse participated in the debriefing of the 4 individuals with Grouse Staff and the RCMP
* I was informed by both my fellow SAR MGR and Grouse Staff that these individuals all had transceivers but only 1 SHOVEL between them.I do not know if they had probes and no one could confirm that with me

I hope this summary helps to sheds light on the work we do with RCMP Air Services and our primary helicopter operator Talon Helicopters that often the public never know about. There is so many times I have lost count where tasks start exactly like this and turn into full blown rescues. Please understand we take this very seriously and aggressively on the front end for this exact reason.

As for charging people for rescues NSR has a long standing team policy specifically against this for multiple reasons (i.e. inability to pay leads to evasion or a family and friend rescue attempt that goes awry)

Grouse's decision to take the passes away for these individuals was part of their long standing Responsibility Code.I support this decision based on the information I received.

Respectfully,

Tim Jones, Team Leader NSR
 
That is EXACTLY what they are trying to do. They are attempting to turn their own incompetence into a publicity stunt in their favour. If there's any way to embarrass them for this garbage, it should be done, including SAR representatives pointing out whose fault this is and the irresponsibility of implying that ANYONE should have to pay for their own rescue. Personally, I won't be skiing Grouse for as long as these guys are banned, and I suggest everyone else join me in that. If you want to send them an email, info@grousemountain.com
 
what happened to the thread Graham posted in the cult? we got to hear his side of the story, instead of the bullshit which is all over TV.

i have never liked grouse, and the only time i ever skied there last year was during the 24hr night. i dont even like talking about grouse, but this pisses me off so much. it is so unfair for such an experienced skier to be banned from western canada because he was out of bounds. he wass equipped, experienced, and knowledgable about the area. help was not asked for. grouse is all about fucking stupid publicity stunts which brings them into the public eye. fuck grouse.

email CTV, Province, Global, Sun and tell them the story from our point of view. media are making grouse seem like the heroes when they are the true villains.
 
one shovel? please tell me that is not true guys. that is not prepared

although this has no relevance to the charges and banning, I would like to hear that this is misinformation James, Graham, or Andy
 
Three shovels. If you go to the link to the blog, responds to Tim's post. it's a little ways down the page; his name on the page is also Graham Haywood. Splitting into two groups, when someone doesn't have the appropriate gear is somewhat of a bad idea as far as Im concerned, but honestly, I don't think there is any need to rip apart their approach to this. in general, they made a very educated and safe decision to ski, and got screwed huge by grouse. i plan on asking some news places to re-run the story with the inclusion of more (complete) information.
 
As a representative of Grouse Mountain I am posting the following letter from our owner Stuart McLaughlin on the recent situation and outlining the key facts and our stance. Hopefully this helps to clarify many of the discrepencies that are circulating on various blogs.



January 5, 2009



Grouse Mountain’s Position on Accessing Uncontrolled Recreational Areas

It seems that the conversation about Friday’s incident where four individuals knowingly went beyond the recreationally controlled area boundaries on Grouse Mountain against oral commands to return has now shifted its focus to minute details like how many beacons the group had, or how many shovels they were carrying.

We need to be clear that the issue here is not how well prepared the individuals thought they were. The bottom line is this: Grouse Mountain does not tolerate skiers and riders going beyond the recreationally controlled area boundaries. And we will continue to pursue stern action against those that knowingly do.

Moreover, in the case in question, the four individuals transgressed a boundary within Grouse Mountain property. This is not a right to backcountry issue. As a private landowner and the area operator, it is at our sole discretion and responsibility to determine when the terrain on our property is safe to use and to ensure that it is used safely. This is the requirement of the Occupier’s Liability Act. We made that determination, posted boundaries, made a verbal admonishment to the group, and we still found ourselves having to address individuals in a precarious position on our mountain.

It needs to be said too that every case is different. We do not seek to punish those who, through inexperience or honest error, find themselves in trouble and in need of assistance. But to brazenly thumb your nose at signage, roped areas, and a patroller and put yourself and others in danger is not acceptable and cannot go without consequence.

The area that these four individuals put themselves into is dangerous. It is counterproductive to debate how dangerous (moderate, high, or extreme) as it is not Grouse Mountain’s practice to dispatch assistance based on the level of danger. Danger is danger and we would be remiss to simply wait and see how the situation turned out.

Further, there has been fruitless debate over whether or not North Shore Rescue (NSR) needed to be called. It is our standard practice to engage search and rescue professionals in case where very real dangers like avalanches present themselves to our on-site patrol team who would have to respond to people in danger at the earliest point possible. We are not new to winter sports operation and our experience has shown us that it is always better to be cautious. The NSR has confirmed that Friday’s course of action was appropriate.

That the four individuals were able to hike out from the drainage area they ended up in is called good luck, not good planning. At the time of their transgression, Grouse Mountain had only one option: prepare for the worst. It’s akin to saying that a firefighter should simply stand by to see if people make it out of the burning building on their own. Of course not. If people put themselves in a dangerous position it is our responsibility as an operator to take action. Had they triggered an avalanche or been drawn inextricably into the depths of the drainage, there would be no debate.

Grouse Mountain will never hesitate to be proactive when it comes to safety.

As for invoicing the individuals for the costs associated with the operation (labour and transport), we are taking a hard-line approach to this matter to add another deterrent to keep people within controlled areas. If personal safety is not a strong enough motivator, then perhaps a hit in the pocket book is. There are very real costs associated with dispatching patrollers, operations teams, and snow transport. We feel that these costs are incurred unnecessarily by people who flout the rules and we intend to pass the expense on to them. The fact that the four hiked out of the area under their own volition changes nothing. This is also an opportunity for the individuals to take some ownership for there actions and do the right thing.

We fully respect North Shore Rescue’s stance on the matter of invoicing and will only be passing on the costs incurred by Grouse Mountain.

If these measures prove to be ineffective in improving the prevention of blatant boundary transgressions, perhaps it is time that we as a community seek to introduce legislative repercussions that are enforceable by our government.

In any event, Grouse Mountain’s message remains clear: accessing non-controlled recreational areas on our mountain will not be tolerated.

Meanwhile, one of Friday’s transgressors- Graham Haywood- can, and likely will, continue to spread his self-serving mistruths. The facts are his group was unprepared and ill equipped. We only hope for their own sake, and for the sake of others, that the group will reflect on this situation and realize that they need to modify their behaviour in the future whether they choose to ski at another resort or in the uncontrolled backcountry.

Sincerely,

Stuart McLaughlin

President

Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd.
 
From reading Haywood's side of the story there was so much wrong with what was just posted from the grouse rep.
 
Do you realize the kind of precedent you are setting here? In the future when people are lost in or around Grouse mtn, some of them may try to avoid being found on the mtn entirely to avoid these costs, this will bring search costs for grouse mtn, and and local search teams involved to much higher levels and can further place people (staff, searchers and the people in question) in an area of higher risk.
Taking a hard line on this matter is one way, but to many people that may increase the appeal, the risk and the thrill of these types of adventures as well as making it more dangerous for everyone involved.
Wouldn't it be better to develop an open communication system such as seen at Mount Baker, to try to reduce risk all around and educated people further on the matters at hand. As well as reduce potential liabilities involved by making it more clear that these out of bounds areas are not associated with Grouse mtn and further exemplifying this in the eyes of the media.
Your hard line approach shows that Grouse mtn. does not care for any of their personal consumer relationships or people's general well being. They only care for their image among the uneducated general public to try and make Grouse appear as the safest resort in the area and thus hopefully generate as much profit as possible.
Billing people is only going to make matter more complex, dangerous and with overall worse outcomes for everyone involved. It was an extremely stupid time to go out of bounds, but Grouse's reaction appears to more of a publicity stunt then anything else.
 
hey grouse.. what about the whole story in the paper? shouldn't you get a new front page article saying that there was in fact no rescue and the people involved assessed the terrain to be safe, skied it and exited with no real difficulties. that grouse was infact not a hero and is now just trying to use the skiers who ducked a rope as a scapegoat for their mistakes.come on grouse. man up. you over reacted and made a mistake. dont pin it on someone else.
 
Dear Stuart McLaughlin,

your mountain is the worst run mountain in the history of snowsports and you are a douche.

sincerely,

Zavier.

To further that, Haywood, Hillier and Petesnick were all very prepaired, contrary to what you'll have us believe. All of them had the necessary avalanch safety equipment, and have more avalanch safety knowledge/experience than your entire ski patrol combined.

They followed all backcountry protocol and checked snowpacks and avy reports before dropping and were inbounds before a heli arrived. You just can't blow off that shit and contest it, that's immature and very un-professional. The same can be said about your mountain and especially douche bag cbc liason Chris D.
 
So many stupid people today went apeshit and went out of bounds, when they obviously didn't know what they were doing and what the conditions were. There was this line of people just hiking towards Harmony...
 
Grouse Mountain is not, and is not likely ever to be, a partner of Newschoolers.com. Consequently I see no further reason to allow their staff to continue to post here in reference to their hill. I would delete the above if it weren't so thoroughly educational as to how completely ignorant and out of touch the management at that so-called ski resort (which might be better referred to as a Starbucks with a gondola) really is.

Graham et al., if you're reading this, do not pay that bill. Hire a lawyer, and please allow the Grouse management to experience the fun of attempting debt collection on something like this in a BC court. I fail to see on what grounds they could support an action in debt. If you need help, shoot me a PM or an email. There may be several avenues available for a counterclaim.

Mr. McLaughlin, your own employees ski that area frequently. Other passholders have skiied there in the past to the knowledge of Grouse staff with no repercussions whatsoever. Your policy as to when to contact SAR, how to treat payment for rescues not required, and your complete inability to act responsibly in talking about this issue in public has pushed the general opinion of Grouse mountain beyond passive disapproval and fully into the realm of vehement disdain. The fact that the president of a ski resort (I again use the term loosely), in an official statement, chose to personally attack a respected member of the skiing community in Graham Haywood (who I might add has been nothing but civil in telling his side of the story to the media) speaks volumes about your character. Simply put, this was an incident that was fumbled by your company from the very beginning, and your staff's inability to effectively do their jobs when it comes to safety and SAR policy is underscored by the management's unparalleled arrogance in refusing to admit your mistakes and publicly making scapegoats of innocent people who knew exactly what they were doing and did it exactly as it is supposed to be done: with proper scouting, training, experience, equipment and preparation. Your absolutist treatment of boundary lines betrays a complete lack of understanding about sidecountry skiing, avalanche risks, SAR, and the group of people who form the foundation of your customer base. And now you're upset at the backlash from those who see you for what you and your management team for what they are? It's certainly no more than you deserve, and in a fairer world it would garner the same publicity that your recent self-aggrandizing stunts have.

As far as the Vancouver skiing community is concerned, it is incumbent upon those of you who disagree strongly with this decision to encourage friends, family, customers at shops you may work at, colleagues, and anyone else who may be considering skiing at Grouse to support one of the other alternatives on the North Shore. Tomorrow I will be sending an email to a mailing list of 60 people to exactly that effect... not much, but it's something.

Mr. Mclaughlin seems perfectly happy to cater to the uneducated mainstream and to tourists at the expense of the real skiers in this city, and consequently one hopes he will be happy with their custom and no one else's.
 
Postscript: this is more or less totally irrelevant, but I'm a stickler... I find it parodical of the juvenile tone of your resort's behaviour and your recent statement in particular that you're unable to grammaticize simple sentences at the level of a ninth-grade English student. I believe the word you were looking for was "their".

Next time ask one of the Starbucks baristas down at the base to do a quick proofread for you. At least one of them must be a former Arts major.
 
holly fuck! is this news story actually real? imma gonna shit myself.

It's time to bill idiots for rescue

The ProvinceJanuary 4, 2009

The moral imperative to save wayward snowboarders and skiers can not be denied. As much as we may want to ignore those who enter an out-of-bounds area on a mountainside, fact is, our collective conscience compels us to save these idiots from themselves.

Despite the fact that 10 people have lost their lives in the last week as a result of treacherous avalanche conditions throughout British Columbia, skiers and boarders continue to ignore regulations by entering forbidden snow packs.

On Friday, three skiers and one boarder ignored orders from a Grouse Mountain patroller and crossed under an out-of-bounds rope into a dangerous gully. So treacherous were the conditions, officials couldn't pursue the morons, so a helicopter was called in to get them off the mountain.

These four clowns put numerous people at risk just so they could enjoy a few minutes skiing in fresh powder. One of the four had a season pass revoked. The others had day passes. All have been banned from Grouse for life, and they have been billed for the cost of the rescue.

That's not bad for a starter.

They should also be banned from every ski hill in British Columbia and legally compelled to pay a hefty, hefty, hefty fine.

What the heck, let's add one more hefty.

As long as we have a moral imperative to save these numbskulls from themselves, there's no reason they shouldn't pay dearly for the cost of our kindness.

© Copyright (c) The Province

 
Dear Stuart McLaughlin,
I would like to take some time now to look more closely at what you have written. A number of quotes, taken directly from your message will be analyzed in here. I feel that you made a number of either outright false claims, or that you are attempting to portray (what I believe to be) the now clear series of events, incorrectly. Right from the beginning of your piece, I cannot help but take issue with what you are writing. You claim that we are arguing over insignificant "details like how many beacons the group had, or how many shovels they were carrying." It has been made clear, and accepted by all parties, that these men were skiing in an uncontrolled area; their level of preparedness is therefore highly important in determining the level of punishment that they should receive. How can we justify punishing those who were more than equipped to handle a situation, which may or may not have put them in harms way? I would also like to note here your later statement, regarding their lack of equipment. According to your own argument, this should have no bearing on our discussions, and would appear to be no more than an ungrounded gibe at the men in question.
It did not take me long to become confused as to what you were trying to express. You first state that "Grouse does not tolerate skiers and riders going beyond the recreationally controlled boundaries", suggesting that you are are against any backcountry travel by people on skis or snowboards. Yet nearly immediately after this, you write: "Moreover... the four individuals transgressed a boundary within Grouse Mountain property". Are you saying here that it is unacceptable in any circumstance to deviate from groomed resort runs, and it is especially heinous to do so on privately owned land? This is just unclear, though I assume what you are trying to say here is that while you don't like it, you have no choice but to allow access to public land (i.e. areas outside the boundary), but that you will most definitely punish those who 'transgress' marked boundaries on your land.
After I struggled to comprehend this section, I stumbled upon a statement that simply astonished me. I would like to ask you to take a trip up Peak yourself, right now, before making any other claims, and have a look at the boundary that was crossed. Look for the nice clear signs that were so nicely put up by the hardworking volunteers that patrol your area. I believe they have the words "ski area boundary", or something very similar, on them. These signs differ from other signs indicating closed areas of the resort, which, suitably say "closed". Now maybe I have been mislead by these signs, but do the "ski area boundary" signs not indicate that once past them, an individual is no longer on resort property? I feel that this is an assumption that any reasonable individual would make. Now, this is crucial, as if you are suggesting that people should be charged or punished in any other way for crossing roped lines on your property, it is essential that that the extent of that property be made clear. How accessible is the exact property information of your corporation? I didn't work really hard to find it, but was able to find no information on where your land begins and ends. I did a simple Google search. Perhaps you could direct me to this information? In any event, it is amazingly immoral to prosecute for a crime that no one knew existed. If the information is not reasonably accessible, it is actually not legal.
I will just look at two more quotes from your piece, as I have already given you plenty to think about for now. I will simply leave a list of the other quotes that I found inappropriate, allowing you and others to ponder them yourselves; I think they are quite self explanatory. The second to last comment that I will discuss here is your statement that "danger is danger." Really? Are you actually saying that there is no difference between walking to school and making a bomb? You would be equally at ease handing your child a parachute as you would a swimsuit? Skiing is dangerous, believe me, I have purchased enough ski and other sporting equipment to know that just about anything is inherently dangerous and irresponsibility or negligence can lead to harm or death of myself or others. So skiing is dangerous. And danger is danger. So Grouse should also not operate, especially with all those people being moved around in trams and chair-lifts. That is just irresponsible, think of all the possible death and pain. Sorry for the sarcasm there, but honestly, this is more-or-less what you argue when making a claim such as that. We have levels of risk for a reason: to keep people safe. Many people worked extremely hard to develop the avalanche system currently in place. Are you suggesting that this was in vain and that people shouldn't enjoy life because it is too risky?
Finally, these men were prepared and had a plan, which worked, not surprisingly. You say that they were lucky to end up in the 'drainage basin' and come out where they did. Of course it is just a random coincidence that they ran into no issues getting there and that they had travelled there previously, planning to exit at that exact, safe spot. Actually, I am pretty sure it had a lot to do with planning, and very little to do with luck.
I do not want to attack you because you are trying to run a business here and we are not exactly your focal customer base. I realize that your image as perceived by the general public is paramount to your success. I am also confident that you yourself are quite aware of the reality of this situation. There is still opportunity to accept that you made an error, though fortunately it was one of caution, not neglect. The public will not stop skiing your runs because of this. They will remain confident that Grouse Mountain takes alpine safety very seriously. You will also be able to redeem yourself in the eyes of other, more serious participants in alpine sports: an unfortunate minority. I am sure you've seen the many pages of disgust on other community sites as well. As your response on these forums suggests, you do actually value our views and business. The ramifications of this event extend well beyond your resort alone however, as you are setting the course for further situations of backcountry access and the rescue of people's lives. Accept the mistakes of your employees and yourself and do the right thing.
Other things to think about from your letter:- "It's akin to saying that a firefighter should simply stand by to see if people make it out of the burning building on their own." These men went into a house, unfortunately not a new construction, outfitted with sprinklers: you called the fire department. Not quite the same as if the house had actually been on fire.
- "legislative repercussions that are enforceable by our government" That will be a popular suggestion. I don't even want to comment any further on this, lets all just think about this; there are many different considerations that can be provoked by this.

Sincerely,Cameron H.R.
 
Wait, is that an editorial or article. Either way, I am surprised that it would be printed. I hate how people become so involved and emotional about what they hear in the news. I realize that it is somewhat difficult when you only hear the media's interpretation, and have found myself making claims based solely on what I've heard on the radio, but come on. Don't make such aggressive attacks without actually knowing what you are talking about. That's kinda off topic of this already highjacked thread, but it actually kind of speaks to how the media's representation of our sport is detrimental.
 
WOW is all i can say about Grouse. That is fucking brutal.
Boys i hope you guys come out of this without losing a bunch of money and i definitely will NOT be skiing there until this is settled with you guys winning.
jesus fuck this is stupid
 
It is a shame that in your haste to spread your 'moral imperative' that proper due diligence and research were overlooked. If you look at North Shore Rescue's website, it is explicitly stated they will never charge for a rescue as it creates genuine moral hazards: (a) those in need of rescue may not call for rescue fearing the expense and may instead perish trying to escape unassisted, (b) those not in need of rescue will evade to avoid the cost and will needlessly distract important rescue resources. In addition, it was four skiers who ventured out of bounds - no snowboarder. In the future, I hope the Province will perform the required due diligence and fact checking before demonizing backcountry users who accessed the terrain with the proper avalanche equipment, training, and terrain knowledge and before making dangerous appeals for regulations which will in fact only further jeopardize lives.James Hillier

Thanks James. William Mbaho, manager of public relations and communications for Grouse Mountain, says the four have been billed for the rescue. They are not likely to pay, of course. However, it is our opinion they ought to be legally compelled to pay.

You are certainly entitled to disagree with this point. If you wish to write a 400 word column on the issue of paying for being rescued, I will certainly welcome it.

As we did not mistate the facts of the situation, according to the Grouse Mountain spokesperson, I must disagree with you that due diligence on our part was lacking.

Moreover, as of this afternoon, authorities maintain it was three skiers and a snowboarder.

They may be wrong and you may be right. I will certainly seek clarity on that point tomorrow.

Regards
Wayne Moriarty
Editor-in-Chief
Feel free to email Wayne at:wmoriarty@theprovince.com

If due diligence meant accepting the press release at face value, Bernie Madoff's investors would still be banking 12% a year.
 
That is SPECTACULAR. "No, we did investigate. We asked one of the parties, which has a vested interest in public relations regarding this story, what the facts were. We then printed what they told us. That's called being 'responsible'."

Amazing. Has anyone posted this yet?

http://www.northshorerescue.com/blog/2009/01/four-rescued-on-grouse-mountain.html

Saw you guys on CTV, wish they'd given you a bit more time. And please, don't pay these assholes any money. They have no cause of action.
 
the only solution. seymour, get your park game on. grouse has three banger jumps. as soon as you get a park, i will forever switch allegiance to your mountain.
 
for anyone online right now and can listen to the radio, tune to CBC am690. after the news, they are having a phone in thing regarding fining people for rescues, particularly the grouse guys. now is a great opportunity to let some people know the truth about this situation. it was also the top story at 12, which is pretty sweet.
if you don't have a radio near by, you can listen athttp://www.cbc.ca/radio/
click on the link that says "BC almanac" (it's the bottom one and says "PACIFIC" beside it)
 
ClubTread is also having a huggge discussion about this issue too, I didn't read nearly 5% of it as it is over 12 pages long but for anyone interested here she be : http://www.clubtread.com/sforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=29396
There are some really good points in some of the posts,
Basically I still see Grouse as highly in the wrong here with many of the misinformed public behind them. The implications of what are going on here could be disastrous for future generations of backcountry users.

 
Oh yes, Hucksplat i really hope you write a 400 word column, out lining the dangers of charging people to get rescued ( how many of them will hide and cause further danger) and the dangers of making ti illegal to go out of bounds, making the ski resort an all powerful god and only allowing british columbian's to enjoy the outdoors in designated areas or indoor sports arenas slowly turning ourselves into consumeristic underground dwelling neo-humans who call the mall home.
 
I saw this thing on the news and couldn't believe it. It seems to me the media is getting a lot of facts wrong and circumventing many important issues. I'm not sure whether these guys crossed the " ski area boundary" or into a "permanently closed area".

I'm not certain of the laws but if a skier crosses the boundary onto crown land the resort has no right to prosecute them or make them pay any fines. They do, however have a right to take away the pass as they have the right to refuse service outside of discrimintaion. If the skier skied on a permanently closed run, I think they can be charged with tresspassing, but that's it.

All the hills I ski at in Alberta and interior BC have a gate a sign or rope saying "ski area boundary" and they have an open door policy towards sidecountry access. If it's not illegal for resorts to restrict access to skiers beyond their leasehold area, then it definately should be because that is (for the extreme most part) public land. Passing legislation, to fine skiers for crossing boundaries, like that public relations guy suggested, would be absolutely disgusting. Restricting public access to the backcountry because it is dangerous is a restriction of our freedom. We in Canada have come so far in the abolishment of restrictions on backcountry access since thirty years ago, and if some sort of precedent is set by this "joke of a mountain" then it will, no doubt become the most hated mountain in Canada among skiers and snowboarders, and I underline that for a reason.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top