• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
@tball , why so bent on punishing people?
You can't protect your kids from everything. It's nature. Part of being out there is you're out there. Not out there protected by someone else. It's just you. Trying to control everything just leads to this type of argument. It never ends. People are never satisfied. Someone always has to pay. That just means more rules upon rules. And people will still break them. Especially ones in their twenties.

The better approach in my mind is to declare it all wilderness in a use sense. You're on your own. We'll give you as much info as possible, but it's uncontrolled unless specifically mentioned and mitigation work done. We'll tell you where and when that's done. Otherwise, nature is in charge. Good luck.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
The point is relevant because this is precisely similar terrain to the one under discussion: avalanche prone terrain with user traffic underneath that is accessible from a ski area. In one instance, the Forest Service has clearly posted a notice that it is illegal to ski. In the other, they have not. By default, public lands are legal to ski whether they have a high risk of avalanches or not. Whether the slope is illegal to ski or not to me seems very germane to the conversation.
They are not "precisely similar" for these reasons:
  1. Those Forest Service closures are primarily if not exclusively used to protect roads. They are not used to protect trails, so the fact one doesn't exist above a trail is of no relevance.
  2. The risk to the public of avalanches on the road is far higher than that on a hiking trail, but that doesn't mean the risk isn't present. The Forest Service took reasonable measures to mitigate that risk by closing the only downhill access to the slope at the ski area boundary.
  3. In the Loveland closure you posted, you can legally ski downhill to access that terrain. There is no legal downhill access to where the snowboarders caused the avalanche. They would have had to hike up an extraordinarily dangerous avalanche prone chute to access that terrain legally. They didn't so that fact is irrelevant.
 
Last edited:

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
@tball , why so bent on punishing people?
You can't protect your kids from everything. It's nature. Part of being out there is you're out there. Not out there protected by someone else. It's just you. Trying to control everything just leads to this type of argument. It never ends. People are never satisfied. Someone always has to pay. That just means more rules upon rules. And people will still break them. Especially ones in their twenties.

The better approach in my mind is to declare it all wilderness in a use sense. You're on your own. We'll give you as much info as possible, but it's uncontrolled unless specifically mentioned and mitigation work done. We'll tell you where and when that's done. Otherwise, nature is in charge. Good luck.
Fair question.

It's the egregiousness of what these snowboarders did that bothers me. Ducking that rope in those conditions was reckless, IMO. They knew why the boundary was closed, and they knew they could be putting someone below at risk. They chose to duck the rope anyway and a father died, and kids will grow up without a dad.

It wasn't just a backcountry avalanche, in my view. It was side country on a very tightly controlled boundary. This is a boundary with areas that are legal to access and areas that are not. They made a conscious choice to ride a slope that was illegal to access as they did. I believe there should be consequences for that unlawful act and its repercussions, both as a deterrent and as punishment.

I understand how others can see this case, and justice in general, differently, but with no rules there is chaos. Especially on a ski area boundary, we need rules. If they hiked up into true backcountry it would be different. They didn't. The rode the lifts up, so they need to live within the rules of doing so.
 
Last edited:

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
@tball I guess it's useless trying to explain obvious, as you decided only thing that matters is they ducked rope. As many already wrote, they didn't trigger avalanche ducking rope. They triggered avi skiing slope. Skiing slope is not illegal as far as I understood, as until now, noone produced any evidence this particular slope is closed. As I wrote earlier already, and @jmeb also wrote, there are way to access without ducking rope. Even though I have no knowledge of the place, I'm pretty sure this slope is accessible from below, as until now I have never seen slope that can be skied, but can't be climbed up. Opposite is possible, but when you can ski it, you can climb it. Now argument that you wouldn't do this, as you would be in dangerous terrain is pretty much useless. If you go ski it, then you consider it to be safe enough to be on that terrain.
So again, if these guys would come to top of this terrain some other way, all would be cool, even if "dad of four" would be dead on the end. But since they ducked rope, they are murderers?
As far as I'm concerned it's just unfortunate accident that happens out there. Noone is really responsible for this, or if we want to really find someone responsible, then it's every one involved in same share. If guy below would be properly equipped, would ski with partner, or would avoid avalanche terrain when there was obvious avalanche danger, he would be fine. Same as those guys wouldn't ski that terrain (regardless how they accessed it).
Maybe it's just my Euro mentality, but I agree with what @James said... it's backcountry. You are there on your own, and you need to take of your own safety. Noone else will do that, even if you are "well traveled trail". It's still you and only you who should take care about yourself and your safety.
PS: Sure I agree they should get penalty for ducking rope. What's that penalty? Losing ski ticket? Paying $50? Certainly not being charged with murder, or whatever is right name for killing person, as you expect them to be.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Skiing slope is not illegal as far as I understood, as until now, noone produced any evidence this particular slope is closed.
What do these signs mean that are posted all along the boundary where the snowboarders ducked the rope?

l1070195-jpg.69837


They don't say "don't duck this rope." They say the area beyond that sign is closed to anyone inside the ski area.

This isn't complicated. They were riding an area that was closed to them. They didn't hike up that deadly chute, so the fact they could is irrelevant. There are different rules depending on which side of that rope you are on. It was just 100 meters onto that closed slope where they triggered the avalanche.

It also matters that the reason that boundary is closed is specifically to prevent this exact tragedy from happening.

And, no, they won't be charged with murder. There are lesser appropriate charges for when reckless endangerment causes a death. I don't know what they are, but we'll find out.
 

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
Given the circumstances many reasonable people could conclude that the ski area boundary was closed specifically to deter people from causing harm to themselves or others due to the dangerous conditions. To argue that since their private helicopter dropped them in they're not at fault is not reasonable.Not to mention that rfd data or camera footage would place them on the very lifts which access the closed area. The ocean is a dangerous place but the coast guard doesn't shut it down when there's a hurricane. There are however rules of the sea. Consider a boat going 25 knots in a no wake zone that hits a diver. Do they merely get a ticket for disregarding the signage? Sure, diving itself is inherently dangerous and a very bad idea near a marina however that does not void the responsibilities of the boat operator.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
What do these signs mean that are posted all along the boundary where the snowboarders ducked the rope?

l1070195-jpg.69837


They don't say "don't duck this rope." They say the area beyond that sign is closed to anyone inside the ski area.

This isn't complicated. They were riding an area that was closed to them. They didn't hike up that deadly chute, so the fact they could is irrelevant. There are different rules depending on which side of that rope you are on. It was just 100 meters onto that closed slope where they triggered the avalanche.

It also matters that the reason that boundary is closed is specifically to prevent this exact tragedy from happening.

And, no, they won't be charged with murder. There are lesser appropriate charges for when reckless endangerment causes a death. I don't know what they are, but we'll find out.
Sign says no skiing. Nothing about snowboarding.ogsmile
They don't say "don't duck this rope." They say the area beyond that sign is closed to anyone inside the ski area.
That's quite the interpretation. You have a legal basis for that?

Legally, I have no idea. As a non lawyer, I think I could make a case that the sign means no skiing as part of the ski area. Not no skiing ever. Maybe the sign means no skiing because it's too difficult for most people. The only words used are to tell you it's not patrolled. There's an easy case to make that the two are linked, instead of skiing is forbidden. Besides forbidden under what authority? Federal, State? This is a legal cya for the ski area it seems.
This is why I think the whole thing just gets off the rails.

The answer for backcountry skiing may be to get a license to do it. Like fishing. This is a little ridiculous but someone needs to pay for avy forecasting, rescue etc. Now, if you get caught without, I guess you pay a fine. But if you need rescue, maybe you have to pay for that. I'm not keen on the license idea but it's better than this situation we're talking about.

I remember years ago doing a two week trip in the wilderness of Wyoming. We were bringing fishing poles. I don't fish, but wanted to and eat fresh fish. The group insisted that anyone who fished had to buy a license. That was the law. Licenses at that time had to have a specific date. You could get a one day license, but who knew when we'd fish? So, I got one for the month or something. The whole thing seemed absurd. But, those were the rules.
As it turned out, I was the only one to catch a fish. First cast. It was ridiculous. Totally comical as I knew nothing about fishing. A brown trout. Tasted delicious even without butter or lemon.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
That's quite the interpretation. You have a legal basis for that?

Legally, I have no idea. As a non lawyer, I think I could make a case that the sign means no skiing as part of the ski area. Not no skiing ever. Maybe the sign means no skiing because it's too difficult for most people. The only words used are to tell you it's not patrolled. There's an easy case to make that the two are linked, instead of skiing is forbidden. Besides forbidden under what authority? Federal, State? This is a legal cya for the ski area it seems.
This is why I think the whole thing just gets off the rails.
Yes, it's all very clear in the Colorado Ski Safety Act.

The design and purpose of that closed sign are clearly identified in Colorado law:

(e) Closed trails or slopes, designated by an octagonal-shaped sign with a red border around a white interior containing a black figure in the shape of a skier with a black band running diagonally across the sign from the upper right-hand side to the lower left-hand side and with the word "Closed" printed beneath the emblem.

The illegality of skiing on a closed slope is also clear. Note this doesn't say it's illegal to duck a rope. It says it's illegal to ski on a closed slope or trail like that one was:

(3) No skier shall ski on a ski slope or trail that has been posted as "Closed" pursuant to section 33- 44-107 (2) (e) and (4).
For anyone that argues that duty doesn't apply because the slope isn't part of the ski area, "ski slope or trail" is defined to include adjoining skiable terrain:

(9) "Ski slopes or trails" means all ski slopes or trails and adjoining skiable terrain, including all their edges and features, and those areas designated by the ski area operator to be used by skiers for any of the purposes enumerated in subsection (8) of this section.
Also, it's illegal to enter upon public lands posted as closed like that was:

(11) No person shall knowingly enter upon public or private lands from an adjoining ski area when such land has been closed by its owner and so posted by the owner or by the ski area operator pursuant to section 33-44-107 (6).

Violation of these duties of skiers is unlawful as defined in this section:

(12) Any person who violates any of the provisions of subsection (3), (9), (10), or (11) of this section is guilty of a class 2 petty offense and, upon conviction thereof, shall be punished by a fine of not more than one thousand dollars.
In addition to being criminally liable, violating these duties creates default civil negligence in this section:

33-44-104. Negligence - civil actions. (1) A violation of any requirement of this article shall, to the extent such violation causes injury to any person or damage to property, constitute negligence on the part of the person violating such requirement.
Finally, snowboarders and riders of other ridiculous contraptions don't get off the hook for these duties:

(8) "Skier" means any person using a ski area for the purpose of skiing, which includes, without limitation, sliding downhill or jumping on snow or ice on skis, a toboggan, a sled, a tube, a snowbike, a snowboard, or any other device; or for the purpose of using any of the facilities of the ski area, including but not limited to ski slopes and trails.
Did I miss anything?
 
Last edited:

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
It's also worth noting that ropes and fences are an alternative way to mark a trail or slope closed in Colorado:

(4) If a particular trail or slope or portion of a trail or slope is closed to the public by a ski area operator, such operator shall place a sign notifying the public of that fact at each identified entrance of each portion of the trail or slope involved. Alternatively, such a trail or slope or portion thereof may be closed with ropes or fences.

Did I mention to never duck a rope in Colorado? ;)

Ducking a rope is not only illegal, but it also makes you automatically civilly negligent if anyone is hurt or any property is damaged as a result.
 
Last edited:

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
Do they ever close the boundary gates at Jackson Hole?

upload_2019-4-24_14-9-58.png
 

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,220
Location
Boston Suburbs
Do they ever close the boundary gates at Jackson Hole?

View attachment 72067

Yes, but it is rare.
https://www.jhnewsandguide.com/the_hole_scroll/article_da3ad170-21c8-570a-abec-e1f886a60716.html

Feb 28, 2019
"Gates exiting the region's two major resorts are closed today, as the avalanche danger rating remains "high" at all elevations for the fourth day in a row.
Jackson Hole first prohibited all backcountry travel from within its bounds on Tuesday, after consulting with Teton County Search and Rescue, Grand Teton National Park and the Bridger-Teton National Forest. It was an unprecedented move for the resort. It had previously closed specific gates, but never backcountry access altogether.

Resort officials announced Wednesday evening they hoped to reopen the gates by Friday, once the current storm cycle settles down.
Meanwhile, Grand Targhee announced it would close the Scotty's and Mary's backcountry gates, also at the request of Search and Rescue, until further notice."
 

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
We could be getting somewhere here, whether or not we agree with it.


Skiing with friend and fellow mountaineer Greg Collins, Johnston accessed the Jedediah Smith Wilderness by hiking past Mary’s Nipple when a closure was in effect. Both Collins and Johnston had their passes pulled upon returning to the resort boundary, and both men were later issued a citation by the Teton County Sheriff’s Department in Wyoming for skiing past closed gates.
.....................

“I couldn’t care less what they do in the backcountry, but unfortunately access was achieved by going up Dreamcatcher and heading out past Mary’s when the entry point was closed,” said Scott Pierpont, Grand Targhee’s general manager. “It was closed for a reason. We don’t want to put people in harm’s way.”

http://www.tetonat.com/2010/10/16/grand-targhee-resort-adds-backcountry-access-gate/
 

Primoz

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 8, 2016
Posts
2,483
Location
Slovenia, Europe
What do these signs mean that are posted all along the boundary where the snowboarders ducked the rope?
They don't say "don't duck this rope." They say the area beyond that sign is closed to anyone inside the ski area.

This isn't complicated. They were riding an area that was closed to them. They didn't hike up that deadly chute, so the fact they could is irrelevant. There are different rules depending on which side of that rope you are on. It was just 100 meters onto that closed slope where they triggered the avalanche.
Like it or not, it's not irrelevant that they could hike. What is irrelevant is if they ducked rope or not. They didn't cause slide ducking rope, at least I understood report so, that they triggered slide snowboarding lower down the hill, not by ducking rope. That means ducking rope is completely irrelevant. It's just the way they came to that terrain. They could as easily be parachuted down to spot, dropped down with heli, entered terrain in different place where gates to BC are and hike/ski to this point, or hiked up from valley. It's just how they came to terrain, but this has absolutely no effect to what happened later on. Now is this terrain really closed? This table on your photo says end of ski are. Are there such tables on other entrance points, including the one in valley where they could hike up? And I have feeling this table is set there by ski area, which I doubt has right to close terrain out of their control... even in Europe ;)
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
We could be getting somewhere here, whether or not we agree with it.


Skiing with friend and fellow mountaineer Greg Collins, Johnston accessed the Jedediah Smith Wilderness by hiking past Mary’s Nipple when a closure was in effect. Both Collins and Johnston had their passes pulled upon returning to the resort boundary, and both men were later issued a citation by the Teton County Sheriff’s Department in Wyoming for skiing past closed gates.
.....................

“I couldn’t care less what they do in the backcountry, but unfortunately access was achieved by going up Dreamcatcher and heading out past Mary’s when the entry point was closed,” said Scott Pierpont, Grand Targhee’s general manager. “It was closed for a reason. We don’t want to put people in harm’s way.”

http://www.tetonat.com/2010/10/16/grand-targhee-resort-adds-backcountry-access-gate/
Yep, thanks for the article. That's exactly how it works in Colorado too. Always has.

Here's a quote from the Forest Service in the article:

Kurt Kluegel, U.S. Forest Service special use permit administrator, said the law is upheld by his agency.

“It doesn’t matter if skiers are accessing wilderness or another part of the Caribou-Targhee National Forrest or private land,” Kluegel said. “If Grand Targhee has posted a closure, we support that. It doesn’t mean the forest is closed. If people still want to access the backcountry behind Targhee, it just means they’ve got a lot of skinning to do.”
http://www.tetonat.com/2010/10/16/grand-targhee-resort-adds-backcountry-access-gate/

If the snowboarders wanted to access that slope legally it meant they had a lot of climbing to do. There is no way to access that chute without climbing. They didn't, so they were riding it illegally.

@Primoz, I understand that not how it works in Europe, but that's the law in Colorado. It seems Wyoming too, and likely many states that model their skier laws after Colorado's.

It's always been this way. We skied a lot of rope lines at Berthoud Pass Ski Area 30 years ago. Same rules applied back then. You had to be careful which side of the rope you were on and how you got there, or risk losing your pass and paying a fine.
 

James

Out There
Instructor
Joined
Dec 2, 2015
Posts
24,453
So, legally, you may have a point. I still would support arguing against it all thw way to the top. Because it's ridiculous.

What I don't get is why someone who gets hit by an avalanche from above you don't consider negligent or responsible. Primoz's point is anyone could have been there above them. You can't assume your safe because a freakin gate sign. Sorry, that's stupid. In fact, the more you make a case about it, the more it points out what a bad decision was for those who got hit by the avalanche. Because gates are violated all the time. Everyone knows this.

So, the only way to be sure you're not going to get hit by an avalanche is not to go out in avalanche terrain. So sayeth Andrew McLean who mountaineers all over the world. (In movie Steep)
So, if dad was really, really, concerned about his kids, he shouldn't have been out there. Harsh, but true. Plenty of safe skiing available and safe back country skinning available. He chose to put himself at risk.

Just the fact that you're in an area able to be accessed by somebody from a lift should have you either avoid that area or assume some jackass will ski it from the resort.
If you cross a street in the middle, and someone hits you, is it really the person in the cars fault? Even if it is, you're an idiot for not looking.
 

dbostedo

Asst. Gathermeister
Moderator
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Feb 9, 2016
Posts
18,096
Location
75% Virginia, 25% Colorado
Did I miss anything?

Maybe?

(9) "Ski slopes or trails" means all ski slopes or trails and adjoining skiable terrain, including all their edges and features, and those areas designated by the ski area operator to be used by skiers for any of the purposes enumerated in subsection (8) of this section.

That could mean that "adjoining skiable terrain, including all their edges and features" still must be within the ski area. I.e. that statement is meant to cover anything in the ski area that you wouldn't call a slope or trail. It might NOT mean adjoining areas outside the ski area boundary. Is that specifically indicated anywhere?

My interpretation would actually make more sense (to me), because I'd be surprised if a ski area was allowed to close out-of-bounds terrain by marking it with boundary signs. Unless it's only closed to those entering from the ski area - but that wouldn't make much sense to me either.
 
Last edited:

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
So, legally, you may have a point. I still would support arguing against it all thw way to the top. Because it's ridiculous.

What I don't get is why someone who gets hit by an avalanche from above you don't consider negligent or responsible. Primoz's point is anyone could have been there above them. You can't assume your safe because a freakin gate sign. Sorry, that's stupid. In fact, the more you make a case about it, the more it points out what a bad decision was for those who got hit by the avalanche. Because gates are violated all the time. Everyone knows this.

So, the only way to be sure you're not going to get hit by an avalanche is not to go out in avalanche terrain. So sayeth Andrew McLean who mountaineers all over the world. (In movie Steep)
So, if dad was really, really, concerned about his kids, he shouldn't have been out there. Harsh, but true. Plenty of safe skiing available and safe back country skinning available. He chose to put himself at risk.

Just the fact that you're in an area able to be accessed by somebody from a lift should have you either avoid that area or assume some jackass will ski it from the resort.
If you cross a street in the middle, and someone hits you, is it really the person in the cars fault? Even if it is, you're an idiot for not looking.
I agree the dad shouldn't have been out there if he wanted to be perfectly safe. And, your point is a good one about it being even more dangerous because it was below a ski area boundary and its jackass risk.

The dad was perfectly legal being there, though. The snowboarders violated a closure specifically designed to reduce the risk of an avalanche on the trail below then triggered an avalanche on that closed slope. There is no equivalence.

The other thing that gets me is the amount of traffic that spot sees. It's not like the snowboarders didn't know they would potentially be putting someone at risk. It's a short hike from town and every backcountry skier exiting the gates above comes back down past that point.

Yes, the victim in this case probably knew the risks or should have. But given the popularity of that trail, there's a decent chance someone could have been there with zero backcountry experience and totally unaware. It's not a typical backcountry slope. That's why the ski area boundary is closed above.
 

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
Maybe?

(9) "Ski slopes or trails" means all ski slopes or trails and adjoining skiable terrain, including all their edges and features, and those areas designated by the ski area operator to be used by skiers for any of the purposes enumerated in subsection (8) of this section.

That could mean that "adjoining skiable terrain, including all their edges and features" still must be within the ski area. I.e. that statement is meant to cover anything in the ski area that you wouldn't call a slope or trail. It might NOT mean adjoining areas outside the ski area boundary. Is that specifically indicated anywhere?

My interpretation would actually make more sense (to me), because I'd be surprised if a ski area was allowed to close out-of-bounds terrain by marking it with boundary signs. Unless it's only closed to those entering from the ski area - but that wouldn't make much sense to me either.
I've read the "adjoining skiable terrain" section and the definitions of the terms a number of times. The more I read it the more I'm convinced it's worded to allow ski areas to close terrain outside their boundaries. "Ski area" is a defined term they specifically didn't use in defining adjoining terrain, for example.

I'm sure it can be argued, and possibly will, but it's pretty clear how I read it. I'm happy to hear what I'm missing:
https://www.coloradoski.com/sites/default/files/uploads/Colorado-Ski-Safety-Act.pdf

It also makes logical sense. Ski areas need to be able to close and enforce their boundaries. (Not political!) If they didn't have the legal teeth to do so, they would be rescuing bozos all day who ducked the rope for some powder.

For backcountry access, if allowed, you typically need to exit through a designated backcountry gate, and it's illegal to exit the ski area otherwise. The backcountry gates are often located where they are hard to get to and require some uphill to keep the unprepared in the ski area.
 
Last edited:

Wilhelmson

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
May 2, 2017
Posts
4,328
If you cross a street in the middle, and someone hits you, is it really the person in the cars fault? Even if it is, you're an idiot for not looking.

Both, but in that case we shouldn't even be skiing at most resorts on busy weekends. Safer to stay home.
 

Seldomski

All words are made up
Skier
Joined
Sep 25, 2017
Posts
3,052
Location
'mericuh
The snowboarders violated a closure specifically designed to reduce the risk of an avalanche on the trail below then triggered an avalanche on that closed slope.

Do we know this as a fact? And in the legal sense, does it matter?
 

Sponsor

Top