 Poster: A snowHead
|
|
Is there any reason why there aren’t any European ski areas that have adopted the controlled in-bounds skiing model that you get in North America? The times we’ve skied in Canada we’ve loved having the freedom to explore the mountain without having to worry too much about avalanche risk. You do get areas with a handful of “itineraries” or limited “free ride zones” but it’s not really the same. I appreciate that it wouldn’t be suitable for lots of resorts, but I’m surprised that none have embraced it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
@Elzy, I don't know about elsewhere but in France avalanche control is specifically for infrastructure and official ski runs. A plan is drawn up and approved by the regional authorities for each ski resort. The plan may control some itineary routes via "collatoral" damage - that is the main aim is to secure some piece of infrastructure but it just happens to control a well known off piste at a sensitive point.
Also French ski areas are vast, so controlling all the off piste would be a big task.
This is a very old interview - from 2006 but there are some interesting responses from the former boss of the Tignes piste services
https://pistehors.com/news/ski/comments/tignes-ski-piste-director-talks-safety/index.html
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
That's interesting regarding the legal restrictions. I did think that the size of the areas must be a factor. But in North America a lot of the hills are so much smaller in comparison, with far less infrastructure. I would have thought it would be a good way for smaller resorts here to compete with their larger neighbours.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
| Elzy wrote: |
| Yes, I did think that the size of the areas must be a factor. But in North America a lot of the hills are so much smaller in comparison, with far less infrastructure. I would have thought it would be a good way for smaller resorts here to compete with their larger neighbours. |
In my limited experience of NA resorts, European resorts seem to be less contiguous with more terrain that would be really difficult to thoroughly patrol and risk manage. Partly because the Alps tend to be really steep (a lot of NA resorts you can put a ski run almost anywhere)
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Baqueira Beret used to operate that skiing model, around the millenium, as they has a loose association with Whistler at that time. I'm not sure if it's still the same case
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
Partly because the Alps tend to be really steep (a lot of NA resorts you can put a ski run almost anywhere)
|
This must surely be a big part of the answer. Imagine trying to "risk control" even a small corner of the Dolomites! In many French ski areas there are already runs (or "itineraries") anywhere which can be made safe reasonably economically. Anywhere which is in the "avalanche shadow" (if that is a sensible expression) of any great steep rocky areas could only be controlled by sweeping all the snow off!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| jedster wrote: |
| Elzy wrote: |
| Yes, I did think that the size of the areas must be a factor. But in North America a lot of the hills are so much smaller in comparison, with far less infrastructure. I would have thought it would be a good way for smaller resorts here to compete with their larger neighbours. |
In my limited experience of NA resorts, European resorts seem to be less contiguous with more terrain that would be really difficult to thoroughly patrol and risk manage. Partly because the Alps tend to be really steep (a lot of NA resorts you can put a ski run almost anywhere) |
That's the reason, really. The Alps are much younger than the Rockies and tend to steepen up towards the tops. So running a scheme like, "Everything reachable by gravity is safe", would mean closing a lot of the lifts a lot of the time.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Size and resources to adequately control terrain mainly. Plus the fact that lots of alpine resorts are alpine i.e. above the tree line vs US/Canadian resorts which are significantly or wholly below treeline. Although trees are not defacto "safe" they do change the nature of the snowpack and control issues.
I can see a few smaller resorts that would be relatively easy to operate a N American model but also they probably don't have the natural snowfall or length of season to reposition in that way. Plus there would be issues in "glading" forests that maybe are skied now but to be "official" would need some physical intervention.
I think in general there is also an expectation among European skiers that a whole area will open at once. In N America with more skiing from a single base there is an acceptance on storm days that openings will be piecemeal as control work and access gets done.
Europe has greatly led N America when it comes to avy control e.g. Gasex is still relatively new and by no means universal in US resorts. Some of that may be because "manual" patrol routes and hand charges are readily accessible in a lot of places that would take far greater effort in Europe.
Last edited by After all it is free  on Tue 14-05-24 15:11; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
Isn't a lot of it going to be down to the age of the geology/topography?
North American skiing tends to be on geologically old, heavilly weathers mountains while European skiing tends to be on geologically young, pointy ones. This means you get a lot of vertical but mostly above the tree line in Europe while NA gives you lots of bowles below the tree line, just because time has weathered the mountains and smoothed them out to give you shallower bowles. It's easier to have a controlled in-bounds ski area in a bowl when you know people who keep going down will end up at the same bottom so it's only the ones who don't you need to worry about - and also know avalanche risk is lower and predictable (you don't find lots of mature trees where avalanches are common) so AV control isn't too expensive. It's not so easy when going 100m through the trees off either side of the piste brings you abruptly to the top of a 500m vertical cliff (no, not always the case but also not unknown/uncommon) and where there are no/only very young trees (indicating avalanches are common so global AV control not ecconomical).
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@Elzy, and, arguably, the flipside exists.
Chamonix, for example, where like, everything gets skied. It's just down to the individuals to understand (or not) the risks, etc. There are rumours that for certain lifts, if the security isn't comfortable, the lift won't open (or only for pedestrians).
It's obvs nothing like the NS system, but everything skiable gets skied.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
There are plenty of resorts in n America with steep above treeline skiing. So I'm not sure I completely buy that being the reason. Although, yes it does make things easier in general.
I think size is an obvious reason.
Also I think there is just a different mindset/culture. For many in N America skiing is a sporting pursuit where groomed runs are just a way of getting to or from the more interesting stuff. For many in Europe it's more of a holiday/leisure activity with many having no ambition of ever leaving a piste, and being quite put out if grooming is not up to satisfaction. Of course there are exceptions to the rule (chamonix, la grave) and it's a bit chicken and egg, did that culture develop how the resorts have been set up or vice vesa.
But yes I think it is quite surprising none of the smaller euro resorts have attempted to go down that route to differentiate themselves. I would think theres a market.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
It is good to have choice.
Inbounds for the folks who get scared.
Backcountry for the hardcore.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| boarder2020 wrote: |
| There are plenty of resorts in n America with steep above treeline skiing. So I'm not sure I completely buy that being the reason. Although, yes it does make things easier in general. |
Hardly “plenty”.
A tiny proportion more like it.
Even those resorts that have “some” above tree line skiing, it typically complies a small fraction of the skiable terrain. The majority of skiing are still mostly below tree line.
As you alluded to, it’s a lot easier to secure below tree line terrain. So resorts only bother to open above tree line terrain last, after all the below tree line terrain had been opened after any storm.
And if you look at any large resorts in North America, they too, cut a few strips of groomed “lanes” in the open terrain above tree line. And the number of skiers on those groomed “lanes” are far higher than on the open terrain. It’s clear even in North America, far more of the skiing public prefer European style piste skiing.
Last but not least, right after a snow storm, the off-piste is fun to ski. But after a few days, either they all turned into moguls, or worse, ice sheets! The amount of time the off-piste is “in play” is far shorter than pistes. So for all the effort to secure and open off-piste for a relative minority of skiing public, the resorts would be far better off focus on best groomed piste!
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
A good, interesting question.
There are a number of reasons why lift tickets are so expensive in NA relative to the Alps, and this is one of them. I don't love paying the higher price for (among other things) the greater extent of avi control work, but I do like the additional terrain and peace of mind that it unlocks.
Remember, the answer to nearly every question is "money". So as far as answering the OP's question: because the slope operators don't think it would pencil. How would the average SH feel about paying another, say, €30/day for things to "be like NA" in this regard? I'm guessing this would not fly. Piste skiers would ask "why should I pay for this control work in areas I don't go?".
I'd like to know more about how the people in the Alps who make the decisions about this stuff make them. In particular, I see lots of terrific off-piste terrain that is adjacent to and upslope from groomed pistes. I presume this terrain is avi controlled, because if it weren't, it could slide directly onto the piste. But others here have said to make no such presumption; fair enough, but more clarity on this would be nice to have.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
@Scooter in Seattle, I'm not local but I skied Whistler twice in the early 2,000s, Utah 2004 and 2006 and lift passes were nowhere near what they are now, but the avvy control was as-is.
I think the outrageous prices are Vail and the other one raising prices to the limit, price gouging if you like ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
I think the lift pass cost is a bit of a fallacy - arguably US lift prices aren't any more expensive than in Europe just the pricing model requires that you buy a season pass. European areas seem to generate sufficient surplus to reinvest in new lifts for instance.
As for resort decision making in the Alps clearly it helps that safety directors only really have to factor in securing the piste and thus can invest in the right equipment and resources for it, though I would suspect that they also have regard to heavily trafficked adjacent off piste as a matter of social responsibility. For the clarity question - you can ask pisteurs, they are generally quite forthcoming but you need to do that on a local basis, the legal answer is that it is always at your own risk, the practical answer is that risk is often pretty low. If you have some knowledge about slope gradient, terrain traps, aspect and weather history you can usually work things out for yourself although scoping terrain is not neccessarily as easy as in N America.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Elzy wrote: |
| Is there any reason why there aren’t any European ski areas that have adopted the controlled in-bounds skiing model that you get in North America? The times we’ve skied in Canada we’ve loved having the freedom to explore the mountain without having to worry too much about avalanche risk. You do get areas with a handful of “itineraries” or limited “free ride zones” but it’s not really the same. I appreciate that it wouldn’t be suitable for lots of resorts, but I’m surprised that none have embraced it. |
I'd say the 'sue culture' of the US legal system.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
I think the biggest issue has been missed in all of the above - ownership of the land. As I understand it (might be wrong) in the US the terrain of the ski area is owned by the company that runs the resort whereas in the Alps it is generally a mosaic of public land and individual land owners. Little or none of the ski area is owned by the lift company but rented or otherwise (access given freely by local council) during the winter season. In the US there is an incentive to open all the land owned by the resort whereas in the Alps why pay to rent land outside the pistes or official ski routes. Generally folk are not stopped from skiing outside of any secured areas, if they want to ski such terrain it is down to them (rightly so in my opinion). As ever it comes down to money, it works in North America (perhaps reason for higher ski pass cost) but not in the Alps.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
Nz is the same deal - controlled inbounds and most spots within the boundaries are fair game on an average day (there are some exceptions)
There’s a fairly simple reason for it - most ski areas are in bowls and the risk sits above the infrastructure and access, so it has to be controlled regardless.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
|
Dunno about Canada but fyi in the US most ski areas are on federally-owned land, with a single LLC leasing the land and owning and operating the lifts.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
|
@Scooter in Seattle, Maybe I have this wrong but I understood that in North America the lift company owned (or leased) the entirety of the terrain of the area ie all the inbounds. That is not the case in Europe, much of the land might be publicly owned in one way or other but a good deal of it is owned by local farmers etc and the lift company negotiate access for the winter months. There are often agreements to clear the snow on tracks etc by a certain date to allow farm access.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
@munich_irish, I’m not convinced I see your argument?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
except all these, do you think that it is possible in Europe to say one day : the whole mountain is open for skiing , go where you want from this point until this...
There are many ski resorts, which are struggling to make some improvements because they are Nature Protected areas , then come some Nature Protect XXXXX Organisation and try to stopped a new lift or an improvement in the artificial snow, imagine what will happened if one resort try to do something like in US-CAN
plus what already mentioned for the owners of the land.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@turms2, uhhh, but, rando??
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| turms2 wrote: |
| except all these, do you think that it is possible in Europe to say one day : the whole mountain is open for skiing , go where you want from this point until this... |
Vast majority of Alps resorts do this already. Just safety is your own responsibility.
|
|
|
|
|
|
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
snowHeads are a friendly bunch.
|
| turms2 wrote: |
except all these, do you think that it is possible in Europe to say one day : the whole mountain is open for skiing , go where you want from this point until this...
|
In point of fact this is the default situation across most of the alpes. Apart from a few wildlife/protected zones, which tend mostly to be forested parts, you're pretty much free to ski anywhere you want.
At your own risk.
And of course this is the real reason that the US model hasn't been adopted in Europe - there is simply no need for it. In my mind a large part of the enjoyment of off-piste skiing comes from the knowledge that you're not in a controlled area, and that it's up to you to take appropriate precautions to mange your own risk.
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
@Chaletbeauroc, and you get away from all the people ...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| turms2 wrote: |
| except all these, do you think that it is possible in Europe to say one day : the whole mountain is open for skiing , go where you want from this point until this... |
Vast majority of Alps resorts do this already. Just safety is your own responsibility. |
but that was the question? why in the Alps they do not controll the whole area and not only the slopes?
Theoretically you can go everywhere you want. But it is supposed that in the USA/CAN a big area is avalanche safe (at least theoretically). DId i miss something?
@Elzy wrote : without having to worry too much about avalanche risk.
Btw in GER there is also something like this : Skiroute Dammkar
|
|
|
|
|
|
You know it makes sense.
|
| turms2 wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
| turms2 wrote: |
| except all these, do you think that it is possible in Europe to say one day : the whole mountain is open for skiing , go where you want from this point until this... |
Vast majority of Alps resorts do this already. Just safety is your own responsibility. |
but that was the question? why in the Alps they do not controll the whole area and not only the slopes?
Theoretically you can go everywhere you want. But it is supposed that in the USA/CAN a big area is avalanche safe (at least theoretically). DId i miss something?
@Elzy wrote : without having to worry too much about avalanche risk.
Btw in GER there is also something like this : Skiroute Dammkar |
Maybe I mis-read you? I thought you were asking if in Europe it would ever be possible to ski where you want and have that freedom (which is what we already can and do have).
Basically in the Alps a lift takes you up and you can ski wherever you want to, apart from a very small number of wildlife protection areas, just the vast majority of the terrain is not controlled. In North America, generally all of the terrain in the resort is controlled for avalanches, but 1 this area tends to be much smaller than typical Alps resorts and 2. You are often not allowed allowed to leave the resort after taking a lift up (or are only allowed through specific gates which can also be closed).
| turms2 wrote: |
Btw in GER there is also something like this : Skiroute Dammkar |
Yep, essentially inbounds terrain in North America is like a ski route here, just it's all the terrain rather than only a specific route.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
Otherwise you'll just go on seeing the one name:
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
| turms2 wrote: |
| clarky999 wrote: |
| turms2 wrote: |
| except all these, do you think that it is possible in Europe to say one day : the whole mountain is open for skiing , go where you want from this point until this... |
Vast majority of Alps resorts do this already. Just safety is your own responsibility. |
but that was the question? why in the Alps they do not controll the whole area and not only the slopes?
Theoretically you can go everywhere you want. But it is supposed that in the USA/CAN a big area is avalanche safe (at least theoretically). DId i miss something?
@Elzy wrote : without having to worry too much about avalanche risk.
Btw in GER there is also something like this : Skiroute Dammkar |
Maybe I mis-read you? I thought you were asking if in Europe it would ever be possible to ski where you want and have that freedom (which is what we already can and do have).
Basically in the Alps a lift takes you up and you can ski wherever you want to, apart from a very small number of wildlife protection areas, just the vast majority of the terrain is not controlled. In North America, generally all of the terrain in the resort is controlled for avalanches, but 1 this area tends to be much smaller than typical Alps resorts and 2. You are often not allowed allowed to leave the resort after taking a lift up (or are only allowed through specific gates which can also be closed).
| turms2 wrote: |
Btw in GER there is also something like this : Skiroute Dammkar |
Yep, essentially inbounds terrain in North America is like a ski route here, just it's all the terrain rather than only a specific route. |
of course you could ski every you want, but i thought the primary questions was why not "controlled areas in Europe as in N.America", or i mis-read it?
In the Alps you could ski wherever you want, but expect the slopes there is not a safety controll.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Poster: A snowHead
|
|
@munich_irish, I think we may be saying the same thing. The land (whether in bounds or out, whatever land that is included in the permit area) is almost always owned by the feds and leased from them by the area operator who also owns the infrastructure.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person
|
| Scooter in Seattle wrote: |
| In particular, I see lots of terrific off-piste terrain that is adjacent to and upslope from groomed pistes. I presume this terrain is avi controlled, because if it weren't, it could slide directly onto the piste. But others here have said to make no such presumption; fair enough, but more clarity on this would be nice to have. |
That's really not a safe assumption to make at all. Yes there will be AV control in the general area to protect the piste but that doesn't mean the piste adjacent areas are also protected. In fact the reason some of those areas next to the piste are left alone rather than being pisted/part of the piste is to be the designated destination for any avalanche, natural or triggered, debris to end up so it doesn't make the piste.
I can think of a few spots in the PdS (just as the resort I visit most) where it's common to see loads of track on the side piste...with breaks in them where they've been covered by avalanche debris.
Last edited by Obviously A snowHead isn't a real person on Wed 15-05-24 14:43; edited 1 time in total
|
|
|
|
|
|
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?
|
|
Can you ski wherever you want in the US? The handful of places I've been, banned you from using the lifts to access areas outside the resort boundary. Much more restrictive than Europe.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You need to Login to know who's really who.
You need to Login to know who's really who.
|
|
Ski wherever you like in Europe, as long as it’s not a nature preserve, it’s a good idea to have insurance to cover a rescue though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
Anyway, snowHeads is much more fun if you do.
|
| clarky999 wrote: |
In North America, generally all of the terrain in the resort is controlled for avalanches,
…
You are often not allowed to leave the resort after taking a lift up (or are only allowed through specific gates which can also be closed).
|
That’s not generally true.
Many resorts have “open boundary” policy. You’re usually “allowed” to leave the resort if you want. The boundary rope is just to inform you that if you go that way, you will not find a lift at the bottom!
For 99% of the punters not on BC gear, they’re thankful the ropes are there. But people on rando gear frequently go under the rope. A fellow I share a chair with last month gave me very specific directions where to go outside the boundary. It would end on a road, and one can simply thumb our way back to the base. At the end of his description, he thought better of it “Well, maybe not go in there alone”. When I got to the top, I indeed saw streams of people exiting at the spot he mentioned. But since I didn’t have a buddy with me, I turned back.
Specific area prohibited from entry are usually mark very clear as “Permanently Closed” with more specific warnings (avi control area, private property etc).
Exit gates to “side country” are open or close based mostly on avalanche conditions.
|
|
|
|
|
|
You'll need to Register first of course.
You'll need to Register first of course.
|
| Quote: |
For many in N America skiing is a sporting pursuit where groomed runs are just a way of getting to or from the more interesting stuff. For many in Europe it's more of a holiday/leisure activity with many having no ambition of ever leaving a piste, and being quite put out if grooming is not up to satisfaction.
|
I didn't know this. I thought Americans skied pisted runs most of the time and that they are bashed frequently.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| under a new name wrote: |
@Scooter in Seattle, I'm not local but I skied Whistler twice in the early 2,000s, Utah 2004 and 2006 and lift passes were nowhere near what they are now, but the avvy control was as-is.
I think the outrageous prices are Vail and the other one raising prices to the limit, price gouging if you like ... |
Lift ticket pricing in North America has always been higher than in Europe all along. It’s just the disparity wasn’t half as glaring 5-10 years back. The avi control and inbound “ski anywhere” was the obvious benefit that can easily justify the somewhat higher prices.
The daily lift ticket prices of the last few years are indeed quite shocking. But that’s offset by the low multi-resort season pass price.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| snowdave wrote: |
| Can you ski wherever you want in the US? The handful of places I've been, banned you from using the lifts to access areas outside the resort boundary. Much more restrictive than Europe. |
Got more liberal with gated access over time. Though if gates are shut it's generally a pretty good indicator of stability (or ease of return conditions). Some cases it's a condition of the terms of their lease not to allow access to neighbouring property so there is probably a risk of shotgun threats over actual avalanche some places.
e.g. Kirkwood's policy
| Quote: |
Backcountry Warning
The ski area abuts US Forest Service land that may be beyond the ski area boundary. The ski area assumes no responsibility for individuals who elect to go into the backcountry terrain beyond the ski area boundary. To access the backcountry, use designated ski area exits. Areas beyond the ski area boundary are not patrolled or maintained. Avalanches, unmarked obstacles and other natural hazards exist.
Be aware: the backcountry avalanche hazard may be extreme. Rescue in the backcountry, if available, is the responsibility of the County Sheriff. It will be costly and may take time. If a sign indicates the area beyond the sign is closed, do not ski in the terrain beyond the sign. Skiing in closed areas is against the law and you may be criminally prosecuted. |
Though you need to think about taking that up (the backside to Silver Lake always looks tempting but micro terrrain and deep unconsolidated snowpack)
https://www.tahoedailytribune.com/news/skier-spends-night-tahoe-wilderness-kirkwood/
|
|
|
|
|
|
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.
|
|
Honestly, there's probably no national laws, just how health insurance and liability insurance is structured. I'm sure if Compagnie des Alpes, for example, wanted to work with a commune to open an in-bounds back/side-country US-style resort, they could. But they would need to hire a lot more avy patrollers and medical staff, not to mention sort out liability. I imagine at that point a lift ticket would cost...as much as it does in the US...
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
How is this handled in Japan?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
