First some background: I have skied Thrasher Creek with James and Graham. I have trusted them with my life and would do it again. I also skied trees just down the valley from Ruby Bowl, at the same elevation, on the same day the man died. I know the terrain we are talking about, and I experienced the snow pack at that time.
It’s obvious the guy who died in Ruby made a bad choice. Even in the trees the snow pack was horrific, and coverage was only marginally better, which is saying something. Taking into consideration all the factors that should have influenced his decision, if I were in his shoes, I would have NEVER dropped in.
On the other hand, if I was properly equipped, and with the now infamous Grouse Four on their fateful day, I would have dropped in a second. Skiing out of bounds is a calculated risk. It’s as simple as that. This group had the skill and experience to ski Thrasher, assessed the snowpack, knew the terrain, and were well equipped. In my opinion, those are the all the risks anyone in the backcountry can account for. The rest is out of your control. Dropping in may have been a “poor decision,” but the Grouse Four were as safe as they could possibly be, with the exception of having an additional shovel.
According to accounts from Grouse and NSR, the Four were already back on the saddle by the time the helicopter arrived, and at that point without a doubt considered safe. As a result they are only being billed for Grouse’s “rescue” costs. NSR has not and will never charge for their services, and you don’t have to be the sharpest knife to understand why. For Grouse to understand why and take the opposite approach is a very serious statement. They have a zero-tolerance policy on leaving the ski area. Unfortunately, zero-tolerance policies have been consistently proven to fail spectacularly at prevention and succeed wildly at punishment. The punishment Grouse could impose on someone as a result of their policy is death. This is a very serious reality for them to accept, and I don’t think it should be taken lightly.
According to Mr. McLaughlin, the Four put themselves “and others in danger.” Without a doubt, these men took a calculated risk and were technically in “danger,” but how much danger is dependent on perspective. As for these mysterious “others,” I have not read one single account anywhere of someone other than the Four being in danger. No patrollers skied after them, nobody left the helicopter, and from what I understand, they were met on the Mountain Road. If you know of someone else being in danger, I stand corrected. McLaughlin goes on to say, “The area that these four individuals put themselves into is dangerous.” Also obviously true, but I have already established that danger is relative, not absolute. It is also completely preposterous for McLaughlin to say, “That the four individuals were able to hike out from the drainage area they ended up in is called good luck, not good planning,” when all evidence points to the exact opposite. I won’t even address that bluff any further.
Placing this event in the context of that devastating week and an undoubtedly image conscious resort, it’s easy to see why, “At the time of their transgression, Grouse Mountain had only one option: prepare for the worst.” If four guys die out of bounds at Grouse, it does not look good. From Grouse’s perspective at the time, I don’t consider the redirection of an airborne RCMP chopper to see if the Four were safe as an overreaction. Call it a preventative measure to what in 90+ per cent of other cases would have meant a rescue.
The overreaction lies in Grouse’s insistence on fining the Four for assistance they never needed. If any kind of actual “rescue” had taken place, it would be different. Yes, Grouse dispatched patrollers and transport to meet them, but they were not needed for more than a glorified arrest. McLaughlin states that, “these costs are incurred unnecessarily by people who flout the rules,” when in fact the costs were unnecessarily incurred by Grouse even after it was known the Four were safe. The Four have taken ownership over their actions from the very start, and now it is time for Grouse to take ownership over their response. I am clearly not alone in my belief that the Grouse Four should not have to pay for services they never asked for, nor required.
The Four have taken appropriate ownership for their actions. Once this blows over, Grouse will be forced to take ownership for their actions whether they like it or not, which is fitting considering they foolishly choose to deal in absolutes. Now it is up to you to take ownership for your actions. Grouse has made it explicitly clear that skiing out of bounds on their private property is unacceptable. If you have a problem with that, put your money where your mouth is, and take your business elsewhere.
