Discussion extending from Bear Creek/Telluride avalanche death and legal responsibilities therein

[Kemperski]

I've reread the CAIC report, I don't see where the details of ducking a rope into permanently closed terrain are in there -- is that from another source?

Also the report mentions a lot of common landmarks in that slope, it sounds like it is not uncommonly skied. It seems to me the snowboarders are being demonized.

Is the skiers decision to go for excercise on that day under that terrain irresponsible as well?. That was a week of continuous natural triggers.

I am not trying to play devils advocate, but where is the information of ducking ropes and permanent closures

Around 10:30 AM, three snowboarders crossed the boundary of the Telluride Ski Resort into the Bear Creek drainage. Their intention was to ride a slope locally known as Temptation-East Face that feeds into an avalanche path called Temptation. Rider 1 crossed the boundary across from Alpino Vino, an on-mountain restaurant at the Telluride Ski Resort. He stopped in an open area near the top of Temptation-East Face where he spotted as Riders 2 and 3 descended a slope a bit further to the south.


Riders 2 and 3 rode the slope one at a time without incident.They both stopped at a landmark known as Big Tree, a common regrouping point. Big Tree is about one third of the way to the valley bottom, above the entrance to Temptation. Riders 2 and 3 called Rider 1 on radios, and he began his descent.

 

[SBrown]

I've reread the CAIC report, I don't see where the details of ducking a rope into permanently closed terrain are in there -- is that from another source?

Also the report mentions a lot of common landmarks in that slope, it sounds like it is not uncommonly skied. It seems to me the snowboarders are being demonized.

Is the skiers decision to go for excercise on that day under that terrain irresponsible as well?. That was a week of continuous natural triggers.

I am not trying to play devils advocate, but where is the information of ducking ropes and permanent closures

Around 10:30 AM, three snowboarders crossed the boundary of the Telluride Ski Resort into the Bear Creek drainage. Their intention was to ride a slope locally known as Temptation-East Face that feeds into an avalanche path called Temptation. Rider 1 crossed the boundary across from Alpino Vino, an on-mountain restaurant at the Telluride Ski Resort. He stopped in an open area near the top of Temptation-East Face where he spotted as Riders 2 and 3 descended a slope a bit further to the south.


Riders 2 and 3 rode the slope one at a time without incident.They both stopped at a landmark known as Big Tree, a common regrouping point. Big Tree is about one third of the way to the valley bottom, above the entrance to Temptation. Riders 2 and 3 called Rider 1 on radios, and he began his descent.

The Colorado Sun article talks about the legal aspect in more detail.

Kinda interesting, I went back to look at that article and clicked on the link to a YouTube video of someone skiing it years ago, and in the comments was this: "I was the sole survivor of 3 in this chute in 1989. My freinds Vaughan Shelly and Paul Wolfort were killed there. I road the full vetical all the way to Bear Creek, then was burried for 2 hours before being found. With all due respect, don't go there. Even on a 'good' day it's exceptionally dangerous. Todd Richards. " . I thought, "THAT Todd Richards?" and sure enough, it was THAT Todd Richards. https://www.telluridenews.com/sports/article_ea3c6c2b-f4b7-516f-a7a2-3ebcc3e28fff.html .

 

[Kemperski]

Just read the Colorado Sun reporting, and I see the greater detail. Incidentally I have seen Jason Blevins on the byline of a lot of papers, he's a good and very active reporter. I have always liked what he writes, especially compared to the TV reporting on ski issues.

Telluride seems like a test case in a bad way of how increased backcountry activity could be a glaring problem for local community members. Part of my reaction was based on waiting for the upcoming Jones pass report and there too a lot of early reaction was to condemn a hypothetical skier who triggered it remotely from above. However that is a different situation and a bullshit accusation in my opinion. This one I see is different.

But the fact that these riders had appropriate gear, searched the area and REPORTED, I hope will not make them more liable, if they are liable, because the alternative is not a good precedent to set for someone who may trigger an avalanche in the future -- I mean the lessen being don't go and help, it could put you in jail

And in all this the death of a guy just having a winter trail day is devastating and tragic..

 

[tball]

@Kemperski I was flabbergasted when I read in the report they exited the area from Alpino Vino. That's nowhere near the backcountry access gates. It's downhill from the lifts. It's not like they cut the hike short to the backcountry gate. They ducked a rope of a ski area boundary permanent closure far from any legal access.

 

[tball]

This is from the Telluride Ski Area map. The lower arrow is Alpino Vino where the rider that triggered the slide cut the rope. The upper arrow is the closest backcountry access gate.

That ski area boundary is a big deal and has been fought over for decades. What they did was clearly illegal.

But the fact that these riders had appropriate gear, searched the area and REPORTED, I hope will not make them more liable, if they are liable, because the alternative is not a good precedent to set for someone who may trigger an avalanche in the future -- I mean the lessen being don't go and help, it could put you in jail

Where do you see they reported the avalanche?

All I see in the CAIC report is they talked to hikers and warned them to turn around because of the slide. The victim's wife reported her husband missing at 4:20 pm. The avalanche happened around 10:30 am. Sounds like they NEVER REPORTED the slide but were somehow found by the Sherriff later that evening.

When Riders 1, 2, and 3 arrived at the valley bottom they found a large pile of avalanche debris. There were numerous ski and snowboard tracks in the area, but no people. Though the group was fairly certain that no one was in the slide path ahead of them, Rider 1 performed a transceiver search and spot probed for about an hour while Riders 2 and 3 watched from a safe area. He did not find anything in the debris and the three riders headed down the Bear Creek Trail and back to the town of Telluride. On the way down the trail, Rider 1 talked to a family walking the trail toward the falls. He told them about the avalanche and advised them to turn around due to unsafe avalanche conditions.

Skier 1’s wife reported him missing to the San Miguel Sheriff’s office at 4:20 PM. Sheriff personnel pinged Skier 1’s cell phone and located it in the Bear Creek drainage. The Town of Telluride temporarily closed the Bear Creek trailhead at 5:24 PM for search and rescue operations. Telluride ski patrollers and two avalanche dogs searched the avalanche debris below Temptation for approximately two hours. Searchers noted a skier’s uphill track leading into the debris, but found no other indications that anyone was involved. The Sheriff’s Office identified and contacted the snowboarders that evening. They confirmed that they triggered the avalanche earlier in the day.

https://avalanche.state.co.us/caic/acc/acc_report.php?acc_id=705&accfm=inv&view=public​

Also notable that Riders 2 and 3 watched from a safe area as Rider 1 (who triggered the slide) searched. They sound more like scared accomplices than Boy Scouts.

What nobody did is systematically probe the debris, or call for help.

​

 

[Primoz]

What nobody did is systematically probe the debris, or call for help.

I'm happy to say I have never triggered avalanche, and I hope it will stay with that, but you do come across slides when skiing in backcountry, and at least for me, normal procedure, especially if you see ski trails going into slide zone, to swipe debris with transceiver in search mode. If nothing beeps, I move on. I never start probing. Maybe I would do differently if I would trigger that slide and I would certainly do differently if I would think there's someone buried under it, but when you don't think someone is there, transceiver search is pretty much all I do, so personally I wouldn't blame them for not probing whole slide path. I also think having one rider observing from safe spot is good idea, especially if conditions are tricky, but I agree, second one should join search.

 

[raisingarizona]

I've reread the CAIC report, I don't see where the details of ducking a rope into permanently closed terrain are in there -- is that from another source?

Also the report mentions a lot of common landmarks in that slope, it sounds like it is not uncommonly skied. It seems to me the snowboarders are being demonized.

Is the skiers decision to go for excercise on that day under that terrain irresponsible as well?. That was a week of continuous natural triggers.

I am not trying to play devils advocate, but where is the information of ducking ropes and permanent closures

Around 10:30 AM, three snowboarders crossed the boundary of the Telluride Ski Resort into the Bear Creek drainage. Their intention was to ride a slope locally known as Temptation-East Face that feeds into an avalanche path called Temptation. Rider 1 crossed the boundary across from Alpino Vino, an on-mountain restaurant at the Telluride Ski Resort. He stopped in an open area near the top of Temptation-East Face where he spotted as Riders 2 and 3 descended a slope a bit further to the south.


Riders 2 and 3 rode the slope one at a time without incident.They both stopped at a landmark known as Big Tree, a common regrouping point. Big Tree is about one third of the way to the valley bottom, above the entrance to Temptation. Riders 2 and 3 called Rider 1 on radios, and he began his descent.

It’s a very regularly skied route by locals when conditions aren’t too dangerous. I’ve talked with locals and the victim was definitely aware of the possible dangers being below there. The snowboarders triggered the slide on the more eastern facing aspect of the bowl, a very well known trigger point that is often more dangerous than the more often used other aspect. It’s not technically illegal to ski tempter, it’s just illegal to enter from the ski area.

One person (telluride local) i talked with said it seems like the powers that Be are going to make an example of this group. I kind of think that sucks and whoever released the Slide is probably going the their own personal hell of a guilt trip. Shit happens and everyone that lives in telluride understands the character of those mountains.

I’ve skied Tempter a dozen or so times and if things are stable it’s a beautiful run but if it goes it’s a horrifying terrain trap.

 

[fatbob]

It’s a very regularly skied route by locals when conditions aren’t too dangerous. I’ve talked with locals and the victim was definitely aware of the possible dangers being below there. The snowboarders triggered the slide on the more eastern facing aspect of the bowl, a very well known trigger point that is often more dangerous than the more often used other aspect. It’s not technically illegal to ski tempter, it’s just illegal to enter from the ski area.

One person (telluride local) i talked with said it seems like the powers that Be are going to make an example of this group. I kind of think that sucks and whoever released the Slide is probably going the their own personal hell of a guilt trip. Shit happens and everyone that lives in telluride understands the character of those mountains.

I’ve skied Tempter a dozen or so times and if things are stable it’s a beautiful run but if it goes it’s a horrifying terrain trap.

I've no idea what the area is like but if you describe it as a horrifying terrain trap it seems to me that the victim dug his own grave going in there in high conditions without a buddy and avi gear. He'd be just as dead with a natural release with no-one to make an example of. That's not to say the snowboarders aren't guilty of breaching the boundary rule/law but if the terrain they were on was not per se illegal then I'm struggling to see how you they can be convicted for homicide etc.

FWIW it's often discussed in Europe that Italy has fairly draconian laws that those who set off an avalanche are responsible for any consequences but I'm not sure how many get successfully prosecuted vs given a stern talking to by the Caribinieri.

 

[tball]

There were three snowboarders. They had radios. One could have been spotting from the bottom. Not much fun for the rider at the bottom, but Salvador Garcia-Atance, a father of four, would be alive today.

I don't buy the "he knew the risks" argument. Road bikers know the risks of riding on the road. We still prosecute drivers who kill a cyclist while breaking the law.

 

[tball]

One person (telluride local) i talked with said it seems like the powers that Be are going to make an example of this group. I kind of think that sucks and whoever released the Slide is probably going the their own personal hell of a guilt trip. Shit happens and everyone that lives in telluride understands the character of those mountains.

I very much disagree. This sh*t didn't just happen. The snowboarders caused this slide doing something illegal, and it killed someone. They knew or should have known that was possible when they ducked the rope.

They also knew or should have known the legal consequences. The Sherrif posted this at the end of December :

“Ducking a rope is considered a petty crime, but skiers who venture into a closed area with people below can be charged with reckless endangerment, “ Sheriff Masters said. “And if those people are then injured or worse, you’re talking about a serious felony. The District Attorney has assured me he will prosecute poachers to the fullest extent of the law.”

Sherriff's full post: https://www.sanmiguelcountyco.gov/CivicAlerts.aspx?AID=339
Found in the Colorado Sun article "A ducked rope line. A massive avalanche"
​

 

[Primoz]

As I wrote earlier, I have no idea about this place, and honestly, I have no idea about US "standards" when it comes to this. My assumptions are based on this what we have here in Europe, so they might be way off.
But let's just forget about ducking rope for a minute, as in my mind, it's completely irrelevant. They didn't trigger slide with ducking rope. They triggered slide skiing down the slope. Now if they would get up that slope some other way then ducking rope, what then? Would they still be painted as only and sole bad guy in this story and "father of four" (like that matters when it comes to this) would be only a victim and nothing else? In my mind, again based on how we deal with stuff in Europe, you are responsible for yourself when going in backcountry. That includes being cautious about slides coming from above, and not just about possibilities to trigger slide yourself. Going into backcountry, even if it's just short skimo on well known trail requires full gear (transceiver, showel, probe). In Italy you actually pay 300eur if their police catches you out there with it.
So in my mind, this is just plain accident and definitely not "criminal case". Yes unfortunately shit happens and unfortunately "father of four" is dead, but in my mind, those snowboarders are not the only one to blame.

 

[Mike King]

As I wrote earlier, I have no idea about this place, and honestly, I have no idea about US "standards" when it comes to this. My assumptions are based on this what we have here in Europe, so they might be way off.
But let's just forget about ducking rope for a minute, as in my mind, it's completely irrelevant. They didn't trigger slide with ducking rope. They triggered slide skiing down the slope. Now if they would get up that slope some other way then ducking rope, what then? Would they still be painted as only and sole bad guy in this story and "father of four" (like that matters when it comes to this) would be only a victim and nothing else? In my mind, again based on how we deal with stuff in Europe, you are responsible for yourself when going in backcountry. That includes being cautious about slides coming from above, and not just about possibilities to trigger slide yourself. Going into backcountry, even if it's just short skimo on well known trail requires full gear (transceiver, showel, probe). In Italy you actually pay 300eur if their police catches you out there with it.
So in my mind, this is just plain accident and definitely not "criminal case". Yes unfortunately shit happens and unfortunately "father of four" is dead, but in my mind, those snowboarders are not the only one to blame.

Except that ducking the rope is not irrelevant.

1. Boundary is closed due to risk of avalanche not only to those skiing/riding the terrain, but to others below the slide path.
2. Warning issued by Sheriff to same effect
3. Disregard both 1 and 2, exit via closed boundary and
4. Trigger slide resulting in death of person below.

Seems pretty straightforward to me.

Mike

 

[Primoz]

@Mike King again, I have no idea how terrain is there, and again, I have (only) European background, so some of these things might be weird for me, and some of stuff I write, might be weird for you.
But let's again assume those guys skinned up there from this trail below or came to their drop in point elsewhere and not from ski resort (no idea if it's possible or not). This way, they would still ski that slope, without ducking rope. They would still trigger that slide and all would be same, except this way, they wouldn't do anything illegal. That's why I said ducking rope is irrelevant.
2. Might be Euro thing, as here noone can prevent you from venturing into backcountry, regardless of avi danger. Sheriff issuing warning actually means you are not allowed to be out there and are breaking law if you are? If so, ok, but for me (yeah that Euro thing and lack of laws ) this is impossible thing to imagine. But if it's just warning like I understand warning, like "hey guys it's dangerous outside watch out what you are doing and try to stay safe", that's also irrelevant.

 

[Mike King]

The issue is not that it was illegal to ski/ride the chute, it is that it was prohibited to cross the boundary rope. The act of crossing the boundary rope is illegal, and their illegal act caused a death.

Had they hiked up or used a backcountry gate, it would not have been illegal to ski/ride the chute. As to whether they could be held guilty of gross negligence and/or negligent homicide is something that an attorney would need to answer.

 

[tball]

Yep, very straightforward. I'll add to Mike's comments that:

• There is no practical legal way to access this terrain. Just look at the map. The ski area boundary was designed this way to protect users below by keeping folks off this dangerous terrain.
• The trail where the victim was caught sees a ton of traffic. In addition to folks making the short hike from town, it's a run out for the entire basin entered via the legal backcountry access gates. There are days when hundreds of backcountry users pass the point of the fatality.
• The victim would still be dead if he had full gear (transceiver, shovel, probe) per the CAIC report. No reason to shame the victim for not having gear that is not legally required, while defending the riders who broke the law and killed him.

 

[fatbob]

It's not very straightforward at all. No challenge that they broke the law in crossing a legally enforced boundary. But what is that law? Trespass? Defined Penalty under a specific code?

Sheriff was generically gunning for reckless endangerment? Will courts agree? Not like small town sherriffs might shoot their mouths off on emotive isses without being trial attorneys or judges.

Pugskiers going for homicide? Like I said above seems a stretch. Particularly if it is objectively true that being on the terrain rather than crossing the rope is not actually illegal.

Amount of traffic or common usage of trail - not relevant to whether a user should make themselves aware and take mitigating action to protect themselves from risk from above. What if it had been a natural release - guy is just as dead. You might say that it was a fluke accident. If so why is it that snowboarders are not particpants in a tragic accident rather than murderers?

I'm not an expert in US law but I'd be grateful if anyone could post up the precise statute under which you think they'd be charged and how it is linked to the boundary signage. I'm not condoning ducking ropes at all but I'm pragmatic enough to realise it happens all the time - does everyone caught get convicted for reckless endangerment?

 

[Monique]

But let's just forget about ducking rope for a minute, as in my mind, it's completely irrelevant.

Except that ducking the rope is not irrelevant.

@Primoz and @Mike King , you're arguing apples and oranges. Mike, you're talking about the specifics of this case. Primoz is asking a more general question - if they had entered from a legal entry point, what would US law say about that? And furthermore, aside from the law, what is "right"?

It’s a very regularly skied route by locals when conditions aren’t too dangerous. I’ve talked with locals and the victim was definitely aware of the possible dangers being below there. The snowboarders triggered the slide on the more eastern facing aspect of the bowl, a very well known trigger point that is often more dangerous than the more often used other aspect. It’s not technically illegal to ski tempter, it’s just illegal to enter from the ski area.

There is no practical legal way to access this terrain. Just look at the map. The ski area boundary was designed this way to protect users below by keeping folks off this dangerous terrain.

@tball , your post is directly contradicted by @raisingarizona ... I would have to assume that if someone who skis that area tells us it's accessible legally, then that is the case.

I also think @Primoz is being unnecessarily vilified for pointing out that skiing under a potential avalanche trigger zone when everyone knows that the snowpack was historically unstable. If we were not talking about this specific incident, everyone in this thread would agree that you should avoid terrain traps. The avalanche materials I've read have specifically pointed out that trails (most used in the summer) often pass through terrain traps, and that you should not just blindly follow an existing trail in the winter. In that exact week, I gave thought to hiking some highly trafficked trails. They have very small sections where the trail runs below potential avy-angled slopes. I decided that it was too risky. I also gut checked with a friend who spends a lot of time in the back country and knows the trails well, and she agreed. Now - I have stupidly hiked those trails with lots of snow in the past. I routinely make the mistake of forgetting about snow dangers just because I'm not on skis. But the snow doesn't care what's on my feet, or that I'm personally traveling on a low angle trail.

The snowboarders broke the law by entering the backcountry without an open gate. The snowboarders triggered the avalanche that killed a man (primoz is right - his kids add to the pathos, but don't change the liability) in a situation where they were well apprised of the risks. I'm not a lawyer, but these facts seem relevant to me.

The man who died was traveling in the back country in historically dangerous conditions, and he traveled under a known terrain trap. While he did nothing illegal, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that we cannot learn something from the incident, which is what we usually say when someone dies in an avalanche. It's what we said in another thread where a photographer/guide died on Berthoud Pass when another group triggered an avalanche. And we CAN learn something. This is a clear case of the familiarity trap - it's the first F in FACETS. Clearly, multiple human factors were involved in this accident/tragedy/incident.

Familiarity refers to an individual’s use of past experiences to make decisions within present situations in familiar terrain.

Acceptance represents the tendency of individuals to engage in activities they feel will be approved by their peers or those whom they hope to impress.

Consistency is the propensity for someone to stick with prearranged decisions – those often focused on timelines, routes and descents (e.g., summit fever). Consistency can also refer to attachment to a self or group image.

The expert halo describes how individuals in a group may rely on the decisions of those perceived to have more experience, skill, knowledge or assertion (i.e., perceived experts).

Scarcity, also known as “powder fever,” is ignoring potential risks or concerns in favor of experiencing finite resources, in this case “first tracks” on un-skied or freshly fallen snow.

Finally, “tracks” (or, social facilitation) is someone’s tendency to decrease or increase the amount of risk he or she is willing to undertake depending on the presence of other group members.

https://ski.utah.edu/feature/addressing-human-factors-in-avalanche-accidents/

 

[Mike King]

It's not very straightforward at all. No challenge that they broke the law in crossing a legally enforced boundary. But what is that law? Trespass? Defined Penalty under a specific code?

https://www.telluridenews.com/the_watch/news/article_4c55ef38-1f8a-514e-90f1-b677b67a2ceb.html

Sheriff was generically gunning for reckless endangerment? Will courts agree? Not like small town sherriffs might shoot their mouths off on emotive isses without being trial attorneys or judges.

The Sheriff consulted with the local prosecutor.

Pugskiers going for homicide? Like I said above seems a stretch. Particularly if it is objectively true that being on the terrain rather than crossing the rope is not actually illegal.

The area was closed by the USFS.

Amount of traffic or common usage of trail - not relevant to whether a user should make themselves aware and take mitigating action to protect themselves from risk from above. What if it had been a natural release - guy is just as dead. You might say that it was a fluke accident. If so why is it that snowboarders are not particpants in a tragic accident rather than murderers?

By your logic, there is no difference between a tree falling on an individual and someone purposefully or negligently toppling a tree onto a person causing death. I doubt you are correct.

 

[Mike King]

@Primoz and @Mike King , you're arguing apples and oranges. Mike, you're talking about the specifics of this case. Primoz is asking a more general question - if they had entered from a legal entry point, what would US law say about that? And furthermore, aside from the law, what is "right"?





@tball , your post is directly contradicted by @raisingarizona ... I would have to assume that if someone who skis that area tells us it's accessible legally, then that is the case.

I also think @Primoz is being unnecessarily vilified for pointing out that skiing under a potential avalanche trigger zone when everyone knows that the snowpack was historically unstable. If we were not talking about this specific incident, everyone in this thread would agree that you should avoid terrain traps. The avalanche materials I've read have specifically pointed out that trails (most used in the summer) often pass through terrain traps, and that you should not just blindly follow an existing trail in the winter. In that exact week, I gave thought to hiking some highly trafficked trails. They have very small sections where the trail runs below potential avy-angled slopes. I decided that it was too risky. I also gut checked with a friend who spends a lot of time in the back country and knows the trails well, and she agreed. Now - I have stupidly hiked those trails with lots of snow in the past. I routinely make the mistake of forgetting about snow dangers just because I'm not on skis. But the snow doesn't care what's on my feet, or that I'm personally traveling on a low angle trail.

The snowboarders broke the law by entering the backcountry without an open gate. The snowboarders triggered the avalanche that killed a man (primoz is right - his kids add to the pathos, but don't change the liability) in a situation where they were well apprised of the risks. I'm not a lawyer, but these facts seem relevant to me.

The man who died was traveling in the back country in historically dangerous conditions, and he traveled under a known terrain trap. While he did nothing illegal, I think it's disingenuous to suggest that we cannot learn something from the incident, which is what we usually say when someone dies in an avalanche. It's what we said in another thread where a photographer/guide died on Berthoud Pass when another group triggered an avalanche. And we CAN learn something. This is a clear case of the familiarity trap - it's the first F in FACETS. Clearly, multiple human factors were involved in this accident/tragedy/incident.

Familiarity refers to an individual’s use of past experiences to make decisions within present situations in familiar terrain.

Acceptance represents the tendency of individuals to engage in activities they feel will be approved by their peers or those whom they hope to impress.

Consistency is the propensity for someone to stick with prearranged decisions – those often focused on timelines, routes and descents (e.g., summit fever). Consistency can also refer to attachment to a self or group image.

The expert halo describes how individuals in a group may rely on the decisions of those perceived to have more experience, skill, knowledge or assertion (i.e., perceived experts).

Scarcity, also known as “powder fever,” is ignoring potential risks or concerns in favor of experiencing finite resources, in this case “first tracks” on un-skied or freshly fallen snow.

Finally, “tracks” (or, social facilitation) is someone’s tendency to decrease or increase the amount of risk he or she is willing to undertake depending on the presence of other group members.

https://ski.utah.edu/feature/addressing-human-factors-in-avalanche-accidents/

Monique, the area was permanently closed by the USFS. It evidently is not just an issue of the boundary being closed -- see the article in the newspaper I included above.

 

[Monique]

Monique, the area was permanently closed by the USFS. It evidently is not just an issue of the boundary being closed -- see the article in the newspaper I included above.

Thanks.