Grouse 2010/11

So how good is Thrasher Creek? What are the benefits?
Amazing pow that nobody else skis and amazing lines that are straight out of fucking video game land:
Courtesy of Newschoolers.com/static/images/flash_video_placeholder.png

So my question for you Obswski and tweezy is:
Do you support Grouse's actions as appropriate?Do you support denigrating backcountry users who are properly equipped and knowledgeable?Do you support prematurely calling in Search and Rescue?Do you support a ban on out of bounds skiing?

We come from a ski culture where backcountry access is supported and encouraged.We have proper search and rescue policies to follow.Grouse broke these standards.Grouse supports policies that endanger the lives of skiers.
You both are factually or implicitly supporting Grouse's policies.
 
Ya I think that pow is super sick and I'd love to ski that but like Thrasher Creek is on Grouse Mountain property so it's at their discretion whether or not they decide to make it out of bounds. So why not just go somewhere else to ski pow?

How am I factually supporting Grouse's Policies?
 
indeed grouse would be a sick place if they got off their high horse, stopped worrying what non-skiers like my stepmom who thinks that people who ski recklessly should not be rescued think about them, and adopted a safe backcountry policy that included a backcountry gate, avalanche blasting and avalanche safety lessons like seymour does. (unless they actually have safety lessons)but grouse is just a tourist trap... maybe they will put that hotel in soon?
 
That is a retarded argument in Grouse's favour. It's pretty simple, teach people that you do not ski out of bounds without the right knowledge and skillset. People die every year and it's all over the news, it's not like it's a mystery risk that the average skier has never heard about it.
 
should probably start a different post about grouses shite backcountrythis one is about how dumb grouse is and how it sucks hardcan we stay focused?
 
It is at Grouse's discretion whether it is "out of bounds" or not. But you are ALLOWED to ski out of bounds at resorts in Canada. If they did not want you skiing there at all, it should be PERMANENTLY CLOSED terrain, like at Whistler-Blackcomb and other properly managed resorts. If Grouse does not want you to ski an area, it is their responsibility to mark it as permanently closed. They know, as well as we all do, that in BC and Canada, out of bounds terrain simply means that you enter it at your own risk - not that is is prohibited from being entered.
Thrasher Creek and The Ridge beyond Outer Limits continues to be demarcated as out of bounds and not closed, so it remains eligible terrain for skiers and snowboarders to ride, it remains eligible terrain for me to encourage people to ski, and it has the best features and powder to ride.
Unlike obswski's explicit factual support, you are only implicitly supporting Grouse's policies. Your argument that we should not ski out of bounds because Grouse will immediately call ski patrol is implicit support for Grouse's pre-emptive rescue policy, which I would like to point out yet again, is counter to North Shore Rescue policy. Your admonishment that I should not be encouraging people to ski out of bounds, as is their right, implies that it is responsible backcountry users who are the perpetrators for the launch of search and rescue teams.

Grouse is the guilty party which prematurely launches search & rescue.Grouse is the guilty party which has enacted a rescue policy inconsistent with that of North Shore Rescue.Grouse disregards advice from NSR to launch a wasteful and unnecessary rescue then tried to justify it with absurd punishments and illogical rhetoric.Grouse disregards advice from NSR and knowingly enforces a punishment mechanism that will endanger lives.

 
Grouse has annual skier visits of 535,000 skiers and a lift capacity of 8,200 where as whistler has 1.6 million annual skier visits and a lift capacity of 28,000 they are just not comparable. From the available numbers it is clear to me that Grouse does not have in place the appropriate infrastructure to deal wit the expansion into the backcountry nor are they attempting to cater towards them. Unfortunately they realize that this is not where the money is.
If anyones interested seymour lift capacity is 5,600ish and they don't have their annual visits published
 
Not doubting you, and I agree with your views, but is it the standard that users are allowed to enter out of bounds/backcountry in all cases, or just when said backcountry is either crown land or part of a provincial/national park? In the case of parks, the resort operator has no ability to limit travel onto that land (unless it's within resort area or creates a hazard to the resort so it's a PC).

If the land is privately owned, couldn't it be trespassing? In the latter case, the owner of the land would have to post adequate signage stating that, which is not the case here. I agree with you, I don't understand why they don't just make it a PC if they own the land and don't want people in there, or create a PC perimeter to prevent people from getting in without crossing a PC fenceline.
 
I don't think you understand what I'm saying, and you keep on ignoring my questions/changing them.

I may somehow be factually supporting Grouse's policies from your perspective, but are you not in turn, supporting Grouse [financially] by recommending people to ski there? Are you not telling Grouse "implicitly" that whatever they're doing is fine?

Let me get something straight, I agree with you on how Grouse is "guilty". That's been my opinion since it happened, so I don't know what you're trying to convince me of here. I'm also going further and saying don't contribute to Grouse, directly or indirectly, by skiing there or paying for their services/products, if you don't like their policy.

Is Grouse really the treasure trove you speak of, and is it really better enough than Seymour, or Cypress, or Whistler, where there is no risk of conflict? Is it THAT good, that worth it, to take a risk when we have so much great(er), and accessible backcountry elsewhere? Answer me that.
 
lets all reunite and talk about how much we love the local mountains at IF3 tomorrow! cant wait to hear what you all have to say in person!
 
seymour does have a gate and blasts occasionally and such, or something like that... I think it's just for people going out to first peak... but who cares because ski season is finally on! yay!
 
yea they have a gate where you can access Crown land, which is different then Grouse which is all private land. From my knowledge they never blast anything in the backcountry at Seymour. I agree ski season is on!, i'm icing my shin bang from riding Seymour today and couldn't be happier
 
who cares which resort is better than which anymore! it's mid-november and the snow is amazing. let's all ski and be happy. let's postpone these pointless arguments until may when we are all pissed off and have too much free time
 
jesus-thumbs-up.jpg
 
spencer is right its time to drop the grouse vs seymour shit and move on

... to seymour brown spy vs grouse brown spy

rahim_5F00_dina_5F00_37.jpg


v

spencer-watson.jpg

 
rails in quicksilver are so fun, so much variation, perfectly set up. DFD in jib park is hands down the most fun rail i have ever skied.
 
The DFD is pretty fun but i liked the DF alot more better in jib park. Also does anyone know when they will be putting in some jumps in quick park?
 
Yep. There was sick cliffs all over Olympic, even a couple decent pillows. Let's hope this snow keeps up
 
i almost got my passed clipped for doing the last bit of cofin on saturday. lifties were beeing goons and called ski patrol on me. they were waiting for me at the top of olympic chair. luckily I talked my way out of it.
 
yea it was still puking when i was leaving friday so i guess it kept on over night for ya guys. It was weird though everyone else was avoiding the peak left side like the plague. Their loss i guess
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top