22 Responses to ““HUMANS TAKE RISKS BECAUSE THAT’S WHAT WE DO””

1. David Hayes Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 1:11 pm

   This is a tricky issue because backcountry use is so varied.
   I’m not sure I agree about paying for your own search and rescue. This is likely to prompt people (friends and family) to mount their own ill-advised search this results in more people exposed to danger. The cost of a search and rescue operation could run to many thousands of dollars (especially if a helicoptor is involved). On the other hand this is the system that operates in France but everybody should have insurance to cover the cost.
   I do agree that there should be some kind of penalty for blatantly stupid behaviour but this needs to be handled on a case by case basis rather than a blanket rule.
   People will always have knee-jerk reactions to events like these. This topic comes up everywhere from time to time, usually brought up by the media and people who don’t know what they are talking about. It’ll fade in time.

2. Vancity Allie Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 1:17 pm

   I agree.. there is a definite backlash and knee jerk reaction to this every year.

   I also like the idea of paying for insurance. The reason I said I wouldn’t mind paying for myself is because I don’t want people to use the excuse that taxpayers pay for search and rescue and therefore we should ban people from using backcountry. I would be fine paying for it myself if there was no other alternative.

   Insurance is a great idea.

3. Dan Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 1:20 pm

   First of all, great post.

   I understand where your coming from. It would be a shame to have restriction laws be put into place because of recent unfortunate events. To limit access to these beautiful parts of the world would be a tragedy in itself. However, having the right training and equipment is very important as well because in the end, you not only risk your own life, but the life of the rescuers as well.

   As the above poster mentioned, it really needs to be determined on a case by case basis, and not a blanket rule.

4. Tawcan Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 1:32 pm

   Shopping guide for avalanche survival

   http://www.vancouversun.com/Shopping+guide+avalanche+survival/1137050/story.html

   Yeah don’t bother with your ASTI/ASTII trainings, reading articles & books on avalanche safety, and rescue practice b/c getting all the avalanche gear will keep you safe!

   *facepalm*

   I’ll come back and comment (more rants) on the whole search & rescue business later….

5. Mike D Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 1:35 pm

   A more European attitude of personal responsibility needs to be conveyed here.

   The problem lies with access, it’s too easy and quiet often near beginner or intermediate trails (out east any way). Also, a lot of hills promote their backcnooutry terrain, what’s not advertised is hoe dangerous it can actually be … it’s easy to assume that it’s a short glide back to the lift.

   Insurance should be carried by anyone outside an area’s boundary, regardless of training or equipment. But if the untrained venture too far, too bad, bad things happen in the real world.

   Area that offer access to OB terrain need put more focus on this kind of education. It’s come to a “not in my backyard” perception.

   When travelling, one would ussually check to see if the area is safe, the same should hold true with OB and backcountry travel … you’re on your own.

6. David Hayes Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 1:56 pm

   That Vancouver Sun article is terrible. The media really should know better or at least ask someone who does! The amount of ill-informed reporting over the last couple of weeks is staggering

7. Karl Woll Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 2:24 pm

   Great post, this has been a very touchy topic. I also ran across that article by Ian H and thought it was a nice touch.

   And yes guys, that Van Sun article is terrible!

8. Vancity Allie Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 2:25 pm

   I think it is worth everyone’s time to read the comments on the North Shore Search and Rescue blog:

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

   You’ll find comments there from Grouse, from NSR, and from one of the actual skiers who was caught in the incident!

9. Rigoberto Says:
   January 6th, 2009 at 2:26 pm

   Having to pay for your own rescue would just be stupid. The excuse that tax payer money is used for search and rescue is just a very flawed argument. Taxpayer money is used and wasted for plenty of other things that can be prevented by education and training just like going into the backcountry. The amount of money spent on avalanche search and rescue is much less than expenditures on other sport related injuries or something like car accidents.

   If people had to pay for everything or pay for insurance to do anything fun, there would be alot less people playing sports or doing anything with any amount of risk.

   So I guess I’m alright with a fine for stupidity or recklessness, but paying for your own rescue might be taking it a little too far.

10. max Says:
    January 6th, 2009 at 8:21 pm

    I think that things have been blown out of proportion in terms of backcountry use. What people are talking about is out of bounds use here. The attitudes and experience between true backcountry users and resort guests is night and day. True backcountry requires that you be prepared and are self sufficient and their experience takes a lot of time to obtain.

    I believe that the current culture of out of bounds users needs to change to parallel that of backcountry users. Bad things can happen ducking ropes too, just because you’re within ear shot of a resort doesn’t mean the conditions are safe. In fact it likely means the opposite because no control work is being done and there are no patrollers… also no onus on the resort to rescue you if something does happen. If you choose to ignore signs or boundries and leave a resort it’s up to the resort as to how severe the punishment is. If a lifetime ban comes your way for knowingly ignoring the rules, then so be it, you made your mind up when you ducked the rope, accept the consequence.

    If you go into the backcountry and make a mistake and die so be it, you made your mind up there too, the government can’t restrict the access to Crown land there is simply too much of it and no staff patrolling it, that is the reality of the situation, it won’t happen. It’s up to users to be safe.

    To compare things that are the norm of mountain culture and those of what is the norm of our general population isn’t fair. Backcountry skiing and driving are totally different things and aren’t even in the same ballpark. Publicly funded agencies such as ambulance and fire are different than volunteer SAR. Public ambulance is there for the benifit of the large porton of society that may need to access the service, unlike SAR, which is there for the small proportion of us that choose to use the mountains. Believe it or not, in a good number of ambulance and fire rescues, people ARE billed as well.

    I’ve worked for BC Parks and Alberta Parks in mountain parks for the entirety of my career. I’ve been a rescuer and I’ve spent a great deal of time in the backcountry. I also understand the risk involved and have spent a ton of time training to complement my experience. The concequence of just reading a book, or just taking a course, or just buying the gear is too great. None of these things make you safe, it takes a lot of time and isn’t the type of thing you can just jump into the deep end with. Experienced people get hurt too, even though they do all the right things. I’ve seen the concequence when experience lacks and people exceed their abilities. If people aren’t willing to pay for rescue, are opposed to fines, and are opposed to backcoutry insurance then there is no deturrent for reckless abandon and placing others at risk when all else fails and rescue is required. Simply put this is not responsible or acceptable.

    This issue at it’s core isn’t about retrictions or fines, it’s about us as backcountry users to assume responsibility for ourselves. If all people that choose to go off piste were skilled, prepared, and could ignore the lure of attractive, yet risky, out of bounds areas this likely wouldn’t be as big of an issue. Fact is people will continue to go to the backountry or out of bounds, avalanches won’t stop happening, and accidents will continue to happen. As more and more people are using the backcountry more accidents are likely to happen and if the users aren’t willing to train andprepare themselves to be safe perhaps the idea of insurance isn’t such a bad idea. At least then it is user supported and can perhaps lead to more effective programs than what currently exist. I’m not against people getting out there, I’m not against risk either, but there needs to be some form of monitoring or control over what happens when people don’t know where to draw the line or where they are at with their abilities… 10 deaths in 2 weeks is too many.

    These areas aren’t a right that we’re entitled to, nobody is entitled to these places; however, they are a tremendous privillage that need to be respected, the inability to do this leads to this kind of debate.

11. Tawcan Says:
    January 6th, 2009 at 11:46 pm

    Totally agree with what Max said. The issue I have with this whole ordeal is the fact that the general public is getting the impression that if you need to be rescued you will need to pay for the rescue cost. This is completely wrong. In fact, North Shore Rescue is pure volunteering work and will not charge anything for rescue. It’d be really sad if some average Joe hikes/skies in north shore one day, breaks his leg, needs to be rescued but doesn’t call for rescue b/c he is scared of being charged thousands of dollar. Would we rather see someone in need getting rescued or someone in need die in the backcountry?

    Backcountry skiing does not equal to out-of-bound skiing. One can backcountry ski on completely mellow terrain (touring) and still have a great time. Where as out-of-bound skiing is usually associated with going off steep terrain.

    Kind of generalization here but usually backcountry skiers are outdoorsy people who hike in the backcountry in the summer time and ski the backcountry in the winter time. They know what they’re doing and resume responsibility for what they do. On the other hand, people who deck under the rope to go out of bound in resorts are generally risk seekers who think too highly of their abilities and may not have the required training & equipment to take care of themselves. Because of these factors they often get themselves into troubles.

12. Tim Z. Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 6:26 am

    I completely agree with every eloquent word in this post.. Without risk, there is no adventure, and in these modern times, I feel we may be too sheltered from that intrinsic desire to be out in nature, in the wild (where yes, bad things do happen).

    Little by little, Big Brother creeps in, telling us what is good for us and how we should fit into a mold. Riding down snow-covered mountains is one of the last ways that I can personally feel a sense of autonomy, and I’d be damned if that was taken away.

    Have you seen the documentary Steep ( http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1003118/ )? I think in light of this early season’s tragedies, it is more relevant now than it was when it was released last year.

13. vxla Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 8:59 am

    As many other skiers have mentioned elsewhere, beacons were often the norm even up until the 1990s, inbounds. Part of the problem is the growing popularity of winter sports (probably since things are more accessible to those who do not live in convenient proximity to mountains) and the lack of knowledge and training.

    I’m all for people being able to make informed decisions and take their own risk, but they should (must?) be trained on how to do so, have the right equipment, and shoulder a bit of the cost…perhaps through BC insurance or something.

    It’s a slippery slope, indeed.

14. Karl Woll Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 11:27 am

    Getting a coffee at the local cafe this morn I saw this headline on today’s 24. “Ski out of bounds go directly to jail?”

    haha this is getting nuts.

15. Davin Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 12:08 pm

    I’m with you here, I think banning is over the top. Education and responsibility is the answer. I don’t think people should have to pay for their own search and rescue though – I don’t think it would make a difference either. People are not making decisions on what is good for them in the long term when they decide to go hiking on a mountain, out of bounds, in the winter. That is certainly not to say these folks don’t care about themselves – it is more to say that I don’t see a monetary attachment to being rescued being at all effective in deterring people from what they love to do.

16. mike works Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 2:16 pm

    as someone who doesn’t ski or snowboard at all, what are the advantages of going to these out of bounds areas (aside from less human traffic)?

17. Vancity Allie Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 2:17 pm

    Fresh, fresh powder my dear sir

    Also terrain that is challenging, the feeling of exploration, no one else around, and natural obstacles (pillow lines, cliffs etc) that may not be present on ski resorts.

18. David Hayes Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 2:32 pm

    Mike Works: That is a really good question.
    For me it’s about many things
    1. Riding fresh untracked snow
    2. Getting away from the hustle and bustle of the resort
    3. The sense of achievment from pushing myself to explore the mountains without (as much) use of machines.

    I enjoy reaching the top of something under my own power and the anticipation of the amazing turns I’ve just earnt. I’m pretty sure there are as many reasons as there are people who enjoy the backcountry

19. max Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 2:48 pm

    All be it, things have been blown out of proportion by the media, and is every year when people die. It does however draw attention to the issue, which I believe is important even if it is overblown because it at least ignites important debate on mountain safety.

    Again, fines and payment for rescue aren’t likely to happen. Saving a life in the mountains far outweighs any bills associated with the rescue. Rescue agencies won’t let it happen. Even in Alberta and National Parks, where the public safety programs are government funded, there is never a charge for any rescue or recovery for the very reasons stated: nobody should ever feel like they are going to be penalized when they require a rescue and nobody should ever have to think twice about making the call for resucue. Accidents happen.

    It is going to be up to the resorts as to how people are punished for breaking their rules. This won’t/ can’t be monetary, they don’t have the authority to do this, so you’re likely to lose your pass or they will refuse service, which they do have the right to do. So keep that in mind while a guest at a resort and you consider breaking their rules. They are going to do what they need to do to prevent injuries, bad press, and perform due dilligence and avoid civil action against the resort.

    Backcountry closures and restrictions already happen on Crown land for safety issues, conservation issues, or land zoning regulations. They will continue to happen and penalties for this can already result in fines, equipment seisures, or court appearances. It’s been this way for years. So again, if you decide to break the rules on Crown land (depending on the jurisdiction), be prepared for the consequence. Blanket backcountry closures to Crown land aren’t likely to happen though. As I mentioned before, the logistics of patrolling that much land, split between too many regulatory agencies, just isn’t possible so the government won’t do it. Seeing as the land is managed as a public trust for the citizens of the province I believe that the government would not be able to successfuly do this even if they wanted to, the will isn’t there to do it and there would be too much public backlash.

    Every year without fail this same thing happens. I in no way advocate payment for rescue; however, I would like to see some sort of a system where people are more accountable to the mounain community when things happen. There is assumed risk to all outdoor persuits and it is time for the growing mountain culture to shift and recognise this. Education, experience, preparedness, and prevention should be a bigger topic than the role and cost of search and rescue. SAR is a last result, rescues take a minimum of an hour and often can far exceed this, far too late to save a burried or severely injured person. It is up to individuals to be safe and nobody else. Often people can’t afford the training or equipment or they simply don’t know where to get it. A backcountry insurance system doesn’t need to be viewed as a penalty or restriction to the use of the backcountry, it can be used to better fund search and rescue, or create programs to better coordinate or connect users with SAR agencies in the form of check in systems, equipment loans, or more broad reaching/subsidised training that is supported by the actual users themselves. A system like that may be far fetched though, but something needs to be done to shift the culture and make people safe even if they currently refuse to do it on their own.

    I think viewing the actions/reactions taken be resorts or governments over this issue as an infringement on our rights and freedoms isn’t constructive and more cohesive solutions should be formed through cooperation and consultation with all stakeholders involved. I very strongly believe that the places we love are not a right. Just because we can see it doesn’t mean we can do it, we need to have a better apprecitation and respect for these places than that. We have the great privilage to be able to connect with and enojoy these places. With that users should take the responsibility and provide the stewardship to these places that they deserve and to use them in a safe and suitable manner.

20. max Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 2:53 pm

    Sorry, I’d also like to say that this isn’t just an issue with skiiers and snowboarders, it applies to climbers, ice climbers, mountaineers, snomobilers, hikers, snowshoers, hunters, fishermen… pretty much anyone that likes to get out there. The mountain community has a lot of user groups and every individual connects to these areas for different reasons. It’s a more complex problem than just figuring out how to get snowboarders to stop ducking ropes… that’s about all the input I have on the issue.

21. Tawcan Says:
    January 7th, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    Just read a news article that I’d like to share with everyone who’s following on this topic:

    http://www.canada.com/northshorenews/news/story.html?id=0fff5e36-5893-48d1-b46e-5a73afa81591

    Hopefully this will make it to the TV news so the general public understands that it’s ok to call for rescue when he/she needs one.

22. max Says:
    January 11th, 2009 at 10:44 am

    http://archives.cbc.ca/environment/natural_disasters/topics/1483/

Leave a Reply

Add an Image To Your Comment (Note: This is not an avatar. If you want an avatar, please go to www.Gravatar.com)