 Poster: A snowHead
|
The growing controversy over skiers going 'out of bounds' of US ski areas has been given a twist by the National Forest Service (which generally leases land for skiing in the Rockies) impressing that the use of public land is "not a crime".
Skiers and boarders are regularly involved - as they are in Europe - in incidents where they get lost or injured in wilderness areas, sometimes overnight or for several nights. Costly, and often risky, rescue efforts are mounted.
Some American skiers and boarders have been fined recently for violating the Colorado Skier Safety Act by skiing out of bounds and causing this trouble, but the US Forest Service is now on record that the freedom to roam on public land is the "prerogative" of the public.
This detailed article from Tahoe Daily Tribune examines the issues involved.
| Quote: |
Forest Service spokesman Matt Mathes:
"Our guiding principal is that national forests are public lands and we should not restrict access to the public's lands," Mathes said. "If someone wants to leave the ski area boundary and ski into the backcountry, that's their prerogative as a citizen. We do not consider it a crime." |
On the surface, this may seem to clash with the powers of local sherriffs, who have imposed financial penalties on rescued skiers recently. It is a complex issue, which appears to centre on the installation of physical 'gates' on fixed ropes or fences that mark the boundaries of the ski areas.
How should the responsibility for skiing freely, but sometimes imposing costly and dangerous responsibilities on rescuers, be squared?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
|
civilised society always looks out for its own and pays the cost through taxes, levys or voluntary contributions.. thus you have your air sea rescue for example.. or the fire brigade.. or the NHS.. if you make it illegal for people to do things a bit risky like free sking on a cost basis.. then you could argue that free eating should be illegal as well as porkers tie up valuable health resources.. on that part i think the sherrif should stop whining n do his job.. as for the danger to the rescuers.. well isnt that part of the appeal of the job? its not like they are conscripts, they know what they are signing up for.. much as no one likes to see anyone hurt, i bet those men and women love getting a 'shout' n getting out there to rescue people
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
I think that it depends on what preperations the people who have been rescued have made. If they've been grossly negligent, then I do think that they should be fined, however if they've just been unlucky, then I don't see that they should have to pay.
The attitude that people shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes seems to ignore the fact that social cooperation is one of the foundations of a civilisation if you ask me. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
I think it should depend on conditions, e.g if skiing out of bounds when there is minimal risk and you fall badly breaking a leg the rescue services will hopefully come and get you, though equally hopefully you will have adaquate insurance to cover their costs, on the other hand should you ski out of bounds when say the avalanche risk is high and you get stuck in an avalanche (for whatever reason) is it fair to ask the rescuers to put their own lives at risk because you've ignored all the warnings ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Kramer wrote: |
| The attitude that people shouldn't have to pay for other people's mistakes .. |
Mistakes and unforeseen events are one thing. Wilful stupidity is another. People must be primarily responsible for themselves and their own well-being. (IMO, of course  )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
D G Orf,
My point exactly. If a skiier enters an area declared 'safe' by whomever has responsibility for making such declarations and finds themselves in trouble, assistance should be forthcoming without penalty. If, however, they have entered an area specifically declared 'unsafe'..... 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
but it is never that black and white
to take the example of walkers in the English hills, it would be stupid for someone to go up Scafell in high heels in a storm, but may be perfectly acceptable for someone to do the same with decent equipment. But where is the line to be drawn? Is it that if you are equipped in head to toe Arcteryx you are being responsible, but if your stuff is a combination of Aldi and 20 year old army surplus you are not?
everyone's assessment of risk is different. If we try to impose a definition you can bet that the lowest level will be chosen, thereby making many theoretically risky activities "illegal". Even piste skiing incurs costs if you have an accident. If you go out in a whiteout and have an accident, were you stupid to do so meaning that you should pay for rescue?
when I was boarding at Heavenly I found a curious situation. There is a collection of unpisted double black diamond runs shown on the map. To get to them you have to go off a main piste through one of a number of gates with signs saying "Super expert skiers only!! Do not pass this point unless you accept that rescue, if possible, will be expensive". And yet they are served by a manned chairlift at the bottom! So, are they safe or are they not??
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
| David Goldsmith wrote: |
| How should the responsibility for skiing freely, but sometimes imposing costly and dangerous responsibilities on rescuers, be squared? |
Are they 'imposing a responsibility' on anyone? I'm not sure that you can do that without the other person's agreement. If you go skiing out of bounds (or hill walking, mountaineering, sailing, ...) without involving anyone else, why should you expect anyone else to come to your rescue? If people choose to do so and put themselves at risk, that's their look out.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I think some of the views on the topic are overly harsh - accidents happen thats why we have mountain rescue, similarly coastguards, etc.
There needs to be a balance rather than extremes - people need to be made very aware of the risks that exist in the natural environment and know that they are responsible for behaving safely.
e.g. if I go hillwalking and slip and fall breaking my leg. Its my responsibility to have told someone to expect me back at B&B in evening and to be suitably attired with food and water to cope with bad weather and the unexpected. However I would like mountain rescue to come and get me when they realise I'm missing and get me to hospital. I wouldn't expect to have to pay the full cost of this rescue, thats part of our civilised society.
Same example but the reason I broke my leg was through acting like an idiot by being up that mountain in flip flops and wandering off the main paths in bad weather then I should be asked to contribute to the costs of my foolishness. Granted that it could be hard to prove - and the money is probably not the issue - but maybe like a community service type of thing - if I've gained the benefit of a rescue - why not put in some volunteering hours back - preferably to teach other people not to be so stupid in future.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
And who hasn't made a stupid mistake at some point in their lives. I do regularly, please see the thread about freezing my tongue to the balcony railing in Zermatt! If there are any people out there who never do anything stupid or irresponsible then I probably feel a bit sorry for them, because they must have slightly dull lives.
Also, one person's "recklessly stupid" is another person's "pushing the boundaries".
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
| mountain mad wrote: |
| However I would like mountain rescue to come and get me when they realise I'm missing and get me to hospital. I wouldn't expect to have to pay the full cost of this rescue, thats part of our civilised society. |
So who pays for the rest of the cost of the rescue?
| mountain mad wrote: |
| but maybe like a community service type of thing - if I've gained the benefit of a rescue - why not put in some volunteering hours back - preferably to teach other people not to be so stupid in future. |
Would you enforce that?
I mean, if people are told that they don't need back-country insurance, and that they'll get pulled off the mountain for less than it costs, what's to stop them thinking that they've got a cheap way out, and repeat their actions? Not everyone believes in giving back to society when it comes to their aid.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
All of off-piste skiing in Europe would be classed as back-country skiing in the US (ie it is not patrolled and not made avalanche-safe). Would those with extreme strictures about US out of bounds say the same about skiing off-piste here?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
|
snowball, I thought North American "back country" skiing was more akin to our "ski touring" than just "off-piste". Not so?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
Twice in this thread I've seen the use of the word "safe" as in an area is declared "safe" or whatever. Skiing is not safe, life is not safe, no pisteur can ever declare any ski run anywhere 100% safe. Ergo, if no area is ever really safe - are they all unsafe!!! The problem is, that if an area is declared safe then there's a potential law suit from idiots who take this statement literally??
Discuss 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
Nick Zotov, I think Out-of-Bounds is the area outside the resort boundary and is different from off-piste In-Bounds in that the latter is patrolled and potential avalanches set off. We don't have any equivalent to In-Bounds off-piste. As far as I understand it "Back Country"skiing is defined by being Out of Bounds and much of it requires skinning. But I may be wrong.
We need someone from the USA to set us straight.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
|
You've got to rescue people if you can, whether they've been stupid or not. Nothing wrong with asking for a voluntary donation though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
Well, the person's real but it's just a made up name, see?
|
| laundryman wrote: |
| You've got to rescue people if you can, whether they've been stupid or not. |
Why?
At what cost to yourself?
And where do you draw the line?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
What we're grappling with here is what bedevils every insurance scheme - peverse incentives. I.e. the better the cover, the more 'rational' it is for an individual to engage in more risky behaviour. There are never any particularly good solutions to this problem!
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
Wear The Fox Hat,
Why? - because it's instinctive to help others in distress; because at the point someone needs rescuing, you can't know what chain of events led to the emergency and cannot fairly attribute recklessness; and because it's good practice for other, 'more deserving' cases.
At what cost / where do you draw the line? - taking calculated risks if necessary, which will obviously depend on all the circumstances.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
laundryman, I agree with your reasons, but where I struggle is that some people believe they have a right to be rescued again and again, and it is not their responsibility to either have a modicum of safety, or to support the rescuing organisations, i.e. they will persist in their actions, expecting and demanding rescue, but doing nothing to reduce their risk, or to contribute to the costs.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
In France there's a offence (French penal code 223-6) in the event of what amounts to voluntary abstention from helping someone in distress (non-assistance à une personne en danger). I think there's something similar in Germany. And what about the North American "Good Samaritan" law, isn't that more or less the same thing?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| laundryman, I agree with your reasons, but where I struggle is that some people believe they have a right to be rescued again and again, and it is not their responsibility to either have a modicum of safety, or to support the rescuing organisations, i.e. they will persist in their actions, expecting and demanding rescue, but doing nothing to reduce their risk, or to contribute to the costs. |
Putting aside the moral obligation (or not), don't people have to pay to get rescued? I have ski insurance, at least in part because I know if I require evacuation from on-piste or off-piste I will be billed by the rescue agency. Is this service free-of-charge in the USA?
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
You'll get to see more forums and be part of the best ski club on the net.
|
|
rob@rar.org.uk, no, not free, but laundryman seems to be pushing for it to be made free.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Wear The Fox Hat wrote: |
| rob@rar.org.uk, no, not free, but laundryman seems to be pushing for it to be made free. |
OK. I should have read this thread more carefully because I think I missed that point.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
Wear The Fox Hat, I'm not pushing for it to be made free, exactly. Sure, insurance should be claimed against where there's cover - which people should be encouraged to have. But if someone doesn't have valid insurance, I wouldn't want to bankrupt them if, for example, a helicopter is called. I don't have a problem with them being asked for a reasonable contribution, but what would amount to reasonable would be different for Bill Gates than for a student.
I take your point about repeat offenders.
|
|
|
|
|
|
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
And love to help out and answer questions and of course, read each other's snow reports.
|
|
laundryman, so you mean like a tax, or means-tested insurance plan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Wear The Fox Hat, I'm happy with the idea of a tax-funded rescue service (like the fire brigade) or a voluntary-funded one (like the RNLI). In either case, I'm happy for them to make claims against rescued persons' insurance. I'm also happy for them to exert moral pressure on uninsured persons to pay what they can afford.
My points of principle are that you rescue people first, and ask questions about money second; and that you shouldn't bankrupt people for being rescued, no matter how negligent they've been (at least, not for a first offence).
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| rob@rar.org.uk wrote: |
Putting aside the moral obligation (or not), don't people have to pay to get rescued? I have ski insurance, at least in part because I know if I require evacuation from on-piste or off-piste I will be billed by the rescue agency. Is this service free-of-charge in the USA? |
In California, on-piste evacuation is free of charge.
Off-piste rescue is also free. There is a network of Mountain Rescue organizations, mostly staffed by volunteers. Helicopter evacuation is done by the State Police, Private Agencies, or Military. State or Federal Agencies pay helo fees, provide meals and on-scene coordination for rescuers.
But don't cancel your policy - you'll pay for ambulance and medical services.
You might find this interesting: http://www.friendsofyosar.org
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
