North Shore Rescue

Saturday, January 03, 2009

Four Rescued on Grouse Mountain

Three skiers and one snowboarder were rescued on Grouse Mountain yesterday when they ducked under a rope and headed out of bounds. Ski patrol verbally asked them to return from the dangerous avalanche prone area, which they refused. Ski patrol could not follow the men out of bounds due to the high avalanche danger but a helicopter was called in and assisted the group back to safety. Read the article in the Province "Skiers, snowboarder face bans"

Labels: , ,

posted by John Blown at 10:37 AM

51 Comments:

  • Hi John

    I'm rather surprised by the coverage of this rescue in the media, and wondering if you can share some more details of exactly what happened, and specifically how the decision to activate NSR was made.

    As an avid, and (I believe) responsible backcountry skier with avalanche training, I think this turn of events - if the facts are correct in the media - sets a very dangerous precedent. Did the four want or need rescuing? If not, then why did SAR and the helicopter go after them? If it was because the ski hill knew better than they did about the risk they were taking (which I admit is quite likely) then there is a definite need for transparency about how similar decisions will be made in future, especially if it leads to the four being charged for the costs of the "rescue".

    Next time I access the backcountry via the lifts at a ski hill, such as Seymour or Blackcomb, fully prepared to be self sufficient, and with the appropriate avalanche, survival, and navigation gear in case I run into problems, a trip plan left with friends etc, do I now have to be concerned that someone is going to call SAR because I "ducked the boundary ropes" so I then get picked up unnecessarily and charged?

    I'm not saying these four weren't being irresponsible; clearly they were being totally irresponsible if they did in fact ignore ski patrol. I wouldn't ski outside of an avalanche controlled resort right now due to the conditions, except in the most mellow, low-angle, simple terrain - but charging anyone for a rescue, at any time, would be far far more irresponsible in the long run. Not charging for rescues is well established NSR policy for extremely good reasons.

    Any more information you can provide on exactly what happened and how similar decisions will be made in future would be appreciated - at least by those of us who understand the difference between irresponsible "out of bounds" and responsible "backcountry" skiing.

    Thanks
    Matthew

    By Anonymous Matthew Carroll, at 12:11 PM  

  • There was no rescue. They were four very experienced, fully equipped back country skiers, one of whom is on the Grouse pro team and another is the former avalanche instructor to the Grouse Mtn ski patrol. They were never in any danger. They did not ignore ski patrol. In no way did they either need or ask for a rescue. They hiked out exactly as they had planned. They were also skiing the back country (ie Provincial land), but did access it via Grouse lifts, which is why Grouse got so upset, it appears. Even that is very odd, as some senior Grouse management were aware they ski back there. Grouse needs to coordinate with NS Search and Rescue WAY better than this!

    By Blogger srferninja, at 12:17 PM  

  • I would very much appreciate a clarification from NSR as well. It would be a sad turn of events if NSR was being used to enforce ski resort policies.

    The avy forcecast for the North Shore on Friday was "moderate" on Friday. If what srferninja is saying is correct, it sounds like the actions of the skiers were very much reasonable. But even if they were being reckless (if for example avy hazard was high and they had no avy gear) this still would be a very dangerous precedent.

    The skiers may have violated a contractual agreement with Grouse by using their lifts and tenured land to access crown land. I don't know, I haven't read the back of a lift ticket in a while and I'm not a lawyer. But this is an issue between Grouse and the skiers. When NSR was called, they should have had the presence of mind to look at the facts and hold off on Grouse's request for an expensive helicopter.

    By Blogger chris, at 12:51 PM  

  • Follow up rhetorical questions:

    If I see someone skiing in an avalanche prone area, should I call NSR? And will they immediately dispatch a helicopter to "rescue" them?

    What if I see someone climbing, and they are way run out?

    By Blogger chris, at 1:28 PM  

  • I should add a few more comments, having just talked with one of them again. They had hiked the area in summer and done GPS coordinates of the entire area. The area is VERY hard skiing (repeated 10 and 20 foot drops) but well within their ability and showed no sign of sliding. It was all below tree line. They had probes, beacons and shovels. They were astonished when a helicopter appeared, but were done the run and simply hiked out as they had intended.

    By Blogger srferninja, at 1:37 PM  

  • Okay, one more incremental point from me.

    Normally, I wouldn't question NSR's discretion about when to send out a search party, especially when it is error-ing on the side of caution. However part of what is so troubling about this incident is that, if you believe The Province article, Grouse is planning on sending the skiers a large bill on the basis of NSR's rescue costs and then donating the sum to NSR.

    If this is true, I would urge NSR to intervene and ask Grouse to not do so on the basis of NSR's well founded policy of not charging for rescues. In addition to the usual caveats of charging for rescues, this incident creates another hazard where ski resorts will use the threat of requesting NSR (and billing the costs) as a means of enforcing their policies against out of bounds skiing.

    By Blogger chris, at 1:56 PM  

  • Hi guys, all very interesting comments, and thank you for your feedback. I wasn't personally on this search and did not even get paged for it, so it was a very limited operation with i am assuming only a helicopter and a Search Manager.

    North Shore Rescue never self initiates - what that means is we are at the beck and call of the RCMP, Provincial Emergency Program and a few other agencies. The ski resorts cannot initiate a search without involving the RCMP first and then us.

    If we are called out we assume someone is in need of rescue and act as such. If we did not, we would not be following our mission statement, and worse case scenario people may die.

    I am not clear as to Grouse's position on what happened.

    As well, NSR does have a policy that we do not, nor will we ever charge for rescues. We are a completely volunteer run organization with the goal of helping people - that's it.

    We do not encourage the mountains to charge people for rescues.

    As I backcountry ski as well, i can understand your concerns. If you are prepared to go in to the backcountry then who is to say you can't? I guess it gets sticky when the ski resorts are liable for the activity of people purchasing their lift tickets. I'm not a lawyer or a Grouse employee so perhaps they could provide some more input on this.

    The end goal of the ski resort's actions was to ensure that people did not die when they were utilizing the resorts ski area, and perhaps they were getting frustrated with the amount of deaths, and searches that have been occuring.

    As well, many people who duck the ropes are not prepared and hence end up creating huge issues for everyone else.

    By Blogger John Blown, at 2:02 PM  

  • John,

    Thank you very much for posting the update.

    I think it would be in the interest of NSR and the public if NSR followed up with Grouse and/or the media to clarify the no-charge policy. The media is clearly implying that the skiers will be charged for NSR's costs of the rescue (whether directly or indirectly).

    By Blogger chris, at 2:11 PM  

  • i'm just chatting with Tim, who was on the call and is going to provide me with some more details.

    By Blogger John Blown, at 2:48 PM  

  • John,

    I'm looking forward to hearing any updates or clarifications you may have after your chat with Tim.

    By Blogger chris, at 4:44 PM  

  • Thank you John for following up on this. It's an unusual situation as far as I see it and it's worthwhile the public knowing exactly what happened and why, behind the initial media spin that it seems may have occurred.

    I should clarify that I'm not for a second implying that NSR was at fault for responding to this incident - if there is any concern someone may be in trouble then of course responding and making sure they get out safe is the right, responsible thing to do. I am hugely grateful for the lengths SAR volunteers go to to get people out of trouble, and sincerely hope I never need your services.

    That said, the very murky area, the way I see it, is Grouse Mountain's role in initiating this "rescue". If they did genuinely believe the group were in immediate need of rescue, then calling the RCMP (and consequently NSR responding) was the right course of action. I don't, however, see how that could be the case, if Grouse called the RCMP simply as a result of the four entering the backcountry. Grouse, unlike - say - Seymour isn't typically used for access to the backcountry to the same extent, and it seems one or more Grouse employees may have overreacted as a result of recent tragedies in Whistler and elsewhere, and triggered an unnecessary response. If that's the case, then trying to cover up by putting out a press release about how dumb the skiers were and how they will be billed for the rescue is the truly irresponsible behaviour, as it confuses the public about why rescues happen, and worse - leaves them thinking they may be charged if they find themselves in trouble and needing help.

    Of course, I don't know which version of events is actually closer to the truth, but I look forward to hearing anything else you (or Tim) have to add.

    Thanks
    Matthew

    By Anonymous Matthew Carroll, at 6:30 PM  

  • According to this year old CBC article this isn't the first time Grouse bills victims on behalf of NSR. At least the last two times they really did need a rescue.

    Interestingly enough Grouse admits: However, the resort has no legal recourse if the Grykos choose not to pay the fine.

    However, judging from the fact that the last person paid the charge (The fine was recovered.) and from how the subjects in that article appear to be pleading their case, I would guess that Grouse does not tell the victims that this is an optional donation.

    I really think that NSR should have a chat with Grouse because they are tarnishing your hard earned reputation. NSR has spent a lot of effort educating the public about its policy on rescue fees. It would be a shame to have that damaged by a curiously vindictive ski resort.

    By Blogger chris, at 9:15 PM  

  • Grouse Mtn - Thrasher Creek Task Jan 2 09

    Response from Tim Jones Operational SAR Manager

    I appreciate everyone's comments. I will provide a brief summary of what NSR did.

    The following response took place over approximately 25 minutes from the time I was called.


    * I was contacted by a fellow SAR MGR who volunteers for FASP on Grouse.He at this time became aware of the situation and was coordinating with Grouse Patrol who were asking for our assistance
    * He stated that 3 skiers and a snowboarder entered Thrasher Creek via the controlled ski area against the warnings of a Grouse Ski Patroller
    * At no time did anyone on the Grouse Patrol or my fellow SAR MGR know what skill level or equipment was carried by these individuals or that they had GPS's and hiked this terrain last summer. We do not have a crystal ball.
    * Given the past history of Thrasher Creek ( Father and son incident last year during considerable avi hazard)) there was a concern that this group would not know the gully exit south through the saddle to Mountain Hwy and if they continued east it would put them in very steep cliffy terrain under Fromme Mtn.
    * I requested my fellow SAR MGR to have Grouse contact North Vancouver RCMP to advise and generate a file number and I would check with Peter Marshall a local forecaster with CAC as to his assessment of Avi Hazard in Thrasher Creek specifically. Peter who is the former head of Grouse Patrol stated CONSIDERABLE.
    * Given the past history of trapped skiers and boarders in Thrasher Creek of which with one exception had missed the exit and had gone due east under Fromme, the CONSIDERABLE Avi rating in real time by Peter, the possibility of our team members having to rescue these people, and a cloud system moving into Grouse, the following very prudent actions took place in close coordination with Grouse Patrol and the RCMP
    * I called RCMP Air Services to explain the situation to see if they had their patrol helicopter Air 1 up in the air which they did. I advised them that North Van RCMP had been called and could Air 1 come up on our frequency. PEP was called and our tasking was initiated
    * Air 1 then came up on our frequency and advised they contacted North Van RCMP also to close the loop. Air 1 was over SFU
    * I advised them of the situation and gave them the Latitude and Longitude and approx elevation to look for this group estimating time distance travelled
    * The goal was for Air 1 see if they had turned south through the saddle exit to Mtn Hwy
    * AIR 1 quickly ID'd the group which by this time was spilt into 2 groups of two
    * AIR 1 confirmed they had turned south and were heading for a Grouse Patroller stationed on a snowmobile on Mountain Hwy. Air 1 gave me Lat/Long which I confirmed on my map.
    * Very quickly the first two were intercepted by the Grouse patroller with the other two later on intercepted by Grouse Patrol
    * At this point our operational involvement ceased as well as AIR 1's
    * My fellow SAR MGR who was on Grouse participated in the debriefing of the 4 individuals with Grouse Staff and the RCMP
    * I was informed by both my fellow SAR MGR and Grouse Staff that these individuals all had transceivers but only 1 SHOVEL between them.I do not know if they had probes and no one could confirm that with me

    I hope this summary helps to sheds light on the work we do with RCMP Air Services and our primary helicopter operator Talon Helicopters that often the public never know about. There is so many times I have lost count where tasks start exactly like this and turn into full blown rescues. Please understand we take this very seriously and aggressively on the front end for this exact reason.

    As for charging people for rescues NSR has a long standing team policy specifically against this for multiple reasons (i.e. inability to pay leads to evasion or a family and friend rescue attempt that goes awry)

    Grouse's decision to take the passes away for these individuals was part of their long standing Responsibility Code.I support this decision based on the information I received.

    Respectfully,

    Tim Jones, Team Leader NSR

    By Blogger John Blown, at 12:41 AM  

  • Thank you for clarifying what occurred. I was one of the four skiers, and the backcountry community may like to hear more. First of all, though, let me say that I, like all backcountry users, completely appreciate the work and quick response of NSR. I am not at all critical of you! Given what occurred, your response sounds appropriate. The value judgment that Tim Jones closes with though, that Grouse acted appropriately, I cannot disagree with more strongly.

    I have skied Grouse (and a lot of other places) for years, and am on their pro team. The first thing to know is that last year I hiked Thrasher Creek and took GPS coordinates of the area. I also studied maps and photographs. Finally, I had a conversation with a senior Grouse management person and told him I wished to ski the backside of the mountain this year. (Who this was will for the time being remain private.) I was given permission, as long as I kept it quiet - no pictures and stories of how to get there on the internet - that sort of thing.

    We did not ignore any ski patrol. If any were calling to us we had no idea. We thought we entered the area when no one could see us. There are a lot of beginners at Grouse and having someone follow us was the last thing we wanted.

    We had beacons, three shovels between four of us and three sets of probes.

    I have a lot of respect for CAC, but our assessment of avalanche danger on site was and remains Moderate.

    The Thrasher Creek area is very difficult skiing, and the line we had chosen was a particularly hard pillow line. We skied it with no incident.

    At the end, we had intended to hike out the pipeline exit to Mountain Highway, which we did. As far as I am aware, no rescuer came into the area.

    What should have been put down as a minor misunderstanding has taken on a life of its own. Hopefully it will give rise to better communication in the future.

    By Blogger graham haywood, at 10:29 AM  

  • Thank you John, Tim, and Graham.

    It sounds like NSR's response was reasonable, and measured.

    What I think remains an issue is Grouse very publicly stating that they will charge the subjects for NSR's rescue costs. This is a central theme to all the media articles I've read about this incident.

    My understanding of the no-charge policy is that the most important part of the no-charge policy is that the public is aware of it. This way they will not attempt to avoid rescues. I think NSR needs to dispel the myth that these individuals will be charged for NSR's rescue (directly or indirectly) and ask Grouse to not perpetuate this myth in the future.

    By Blogger chris, at 10:54 AM  

  • I think that these back country skiers should:

    A) Not use the ski lifts to gain access to the back country. Why not tour like everybody else?

    B) Be prepared. One guy with a shovel is not enough. Tranceivers were the right idea but what if the guy with the shovel is buried?

    C) Don't go into avalanche prone areas right after 10 people have recently died in avalanches in your community

    D) There is some debate as to whether or not you heard the patrollers but why wouldn't you give your names to Grouse officials? You likely could have saved the media attention by communicating better. Also, did you tell them who gave you permission to access the back country from the ski hill?

    I think that you were likely scapegoats but with all of the avalanche danger and mounds of snow and 10 recent deaths, the public is sensitive about people who go out of bounds and then are in need of rescue.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:07 AM  

  • I do not wish to answer every question that arises, but let me have one last post.
    1. No lift access? A lot of people who access Corona Bowl, Dekker, Singing Pass, Seymour to some extent and Cypress may have trouble with your suggestion!
    2. We had three shovels.
    3. We did not go into any avalanche prone area where we judged there to be a significnt avalanche risk.
    4. There is not going to be any debate on whether we heard ski patrol. Almost nothing in the Grouse press release is accurate.

    Regarding "giving names", one of our party was worried when he first came back onto Mtn. Hgwy. It was as if he was being apprehended! He waited until all of us were there, and then I immediately told the Grouse ski patrol who we were.

    Your last comment is accurate. Better communication could certainly have then occurred. But Grouse already had the press release out and the press on site.

    The postion of Grouse appears to be that if they call NSR then the costs NSR incurs will be paid by the party being rescued. This appears to be the case even if they neither need, request nor want a rescue. Grouse also appears to want this to be widely known.

    By Blogger graham haywood, at 11:58 AM  

  • (posted on behalf Tim)
    Thanks everyone for their response to my summary. Duly noted on the proceeds from charges by Grouse.

    We were not part of that decision on the direction of proceeds which was made in good faith by Grouse Resorts.I have respectfully requested that they direct these proceeds to some other charity such as the homeless shelter.

    I think we are at the stage now with this incident where we can agree to disagree in some things and that is healthy in the context of the North Shore winter/ terrain environment. It makes more people aware of the challenges we all face and evaluate in regards to our own and other people's safety.

    Once again thanks everyone for your kind comments on NSR. We try our best.

    Tim Jones
    Team Leader
    North Shore Rescue

    By Blogger John Blown, at 12:46 PM  

  • John & Tim,

    Thank you very much for clarifying all of this and addressing my concerns about rescue costs.

    To Graham: in case you missed my previous link to an old CBC article, I'll reiterate it here. From that article, it sounds like Grouse has admitted that this "fine", "bill", or whatever they are sending you does not have any legal weight. You don't need to pay it. (standard disclaimer: I am not a lawyer, etc, etc).

    By Blogger chris, at 12:56 PM  

  • Okay, upon further reflection I'm still a bit uncomfortable with the situation here.

    Although asking Grouse to donate the "charge" to someone other than NSR is perhaps a move in the right direction, I'm not sure if it goes far enough. The issue is that the message to the public is still "if a NSR rescue is called out on your behalf, and we find out who you are, you will receive a large bill" (footnotes: only if you have accessed the area via a Grouse tenure, the money will go to an unrelated charity). The headline hasn't changed.

    Obviously at this point NSR has officially disassociated itself with this charge and there may be nothing NSR can officially do to prevent Grouse from publicly flaunting this "bill". However, if NSR is truly committed to public education regarding the financial consequences of a NSR call-out, you should have a good faith discussion with Grouse about how these "fines" undermine your mission.

    If Grouse wants to revoke their passes, that's fine. This would likely have been a consequence of getting caught going out of bounds even if NSR hadn't been called. But the fine was issued as a direct consequence of the NSR callout and this is how it is being played in the media.

    Thanks for all the important work NSR does. Obviously this is a minor issue compared to all that you deal with.

    By Blogger chris, at 1:45 PM  

  • I hear some concerning things here.

    1) member of the grouse mtn. pro team....well you should know that grouse patrol has that area closed because of the inherent risks and difficulty in performing a toboggan rescue. The frustrating thing is, you never once mentioned the critical reason why Grouse closes that area...simply put...what happens if you fall and break your leg? Well the answer is people have to come into that hazardous terrain after you. Argue away about being competent, but responsible decisions require a little bit more thought about how your actions may affect others.

    2)You mention a shaddy deal with grouse upper management. To me, saying this is the same as admitting you knew that the area was hazardous and highly politicized due to past incidents. I don't care if the police chief of Vancouver tells me it's all right to drive drunk...I still won't because I know it is stupid.

    3) You mention that you had 3 shovels...well you should have had 4.

    4) By statistics...the majority of avalanche related fatalities occur when avalanche risk is moderate....LOOK IT UP.

    5) You would have to live under a rock not to realize what is going on right now in this province. You took a irresponsible risk at a very very bad time.

    What does this all mean. It means that you and your group exercised bad judgement regardless of your planning and scheming.

    I do not support mtn's charging for rescue...but I do encourage people to take responsibility for their own screw ups....and sir, this was not Grouse's screw up, it was yours. Planned and executed perfectly at the absolutely wrong time. Own up and move on.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 2:49 PM  

  • Whistler-Blackcomb will also charge for rescue costs if skiers knowingly go out of posted controlled areas and require rescue. There is no obligation to pay these fees but the point is made clearly.

    Accessing Crown Land for ski touring is done at your own risk and no ski resort operator can block you from accessing that terrain whether you use their lift for access or not. If you travel through permanent closures on the resort's privately held land however, they can do as they wish (e.g. revoke passes, impose fines, bans, etc). If this area was Crown, Grouse really has no recourse to people accessing it and the Ski Patrol would certainly NOT have any right to deny access. If it is private Grouse Resorts land, you guys screwed up.

    As for traveling safely in the backcountry - if you are properly prepared, equipped, and trained for the environment, then go at it. If not, stay away and play in bounds. In my opinion, being properly equipped includes carrying a transceiver (and having the skills to use it properly), probe, shovel, first aid kit, appropriate clothing, navigation gear, emergency bivy gear, and some form of communication. The transceiver, probe, and shovel part of the equation has to be carried by EVERY person in the party to be effective - this is a no brainer and not doing so questions the competence of the group. If you can't perform a self rescue in the event of an emergency, you shouldn't be there.

    Many (but not all) of the new breed of free-skiers that participate in lift serviced backcountry travel that we see these days have some of the gear but very little actual experience using it. They have even less skills, experience, and training to accurately assess the terrain that they are traveling in and often end up in harm's way. This unfortunate fact is clearly demonstrated by the two recent fatalities at Whistler-Blackcomb and the snowmobile tragedy near Fernie. These were predictable events and came to reality due to exceptionally poor decision making in the field and a complete disregard of BLATANTLY OBVIOUS observations by avalanche professionals and weather forecasters prior to the respective events. These were not accidents and you guys hitting that line in these kinds of conditions may not have been completely prudent. Choose your times wisely, this may not have been that time.

    I agree that NSR should not be charging for rescues (although I must admit that going out on crappy nights in exceptionally dangerous conditions looking for completely negligent, unprepared, and foolhardy people quickly tries one's patience - it quickly brings to mind the concept of significant charges to get the point across to dumb-assess that just don't get it). In this case, it appears that Grouse has tried to make a very strong public statement about their views on backcountry access. They may have also crossed the line in what they can actually enforce on the people that choose to access backcountry slopes.

    By Anonymous Dave, at 3:17 PM  

  • 4) By statistics...the majority of avalanche related fatalities occur when avalanche risk is moderate....LOOK IT UP.

    Will do...

    Fig 7-3 (pg 210) of Bruce Temper's "Staying Alive in Avalanche Terrain" 2nd Ed, 2008:

    "Most avalanche fatalities occur at the 'considerable danger' rating because it is the maximum interaction between people and avalanche hazard."

    The table indicates that 9% of fatalities in Canada occur at the "moderate" rating compared to 49% at "considerable" and 35% at "high".

    Anon, you might want to take your own advice before you start spewing out random 'facts'.

    By Blogger Andrew Strain, at 4:11 PM  

  • Hi all, I was also one of the four skiers involved in this incident and would like to take this opportunity to thank the NSR for their services.

    Like Graham has noted, we had ridden the area many times in the past and were equipped with avalanche and touring gear. I personally spend 50+ days in the backcountry/side country each year and a great deal of discussion and research takes place before every day on snow.

    I am confident that this misunderstanding could have been avoided if backcountry skiers were able to maintain open lines of communication with patrollers at Grouse Mountain. The "zero tolerance" policy they appear to have adopted regarding backcountry access puts experienced, knowledgeable and well equipped backcountry skiers at increased risk. Furthermore, it makes it impossible for ski patrol to differentiate between those who know what they are doing and where they are going and those inexperienced riders who don't know any better.

    At resorts such as Mt. Baker, which take a more harm reduction oriented approach to side country access, we are able to discuss snow stability and routes with patrollers. Rather than being forced to evade patrollers, we demonstrate that we have the necessary skills, knowledge and equipment to access this terrain and are often joined by them on trips into the side country.

    The north shore mountains have fantastic side country and it is admittedly impossible to police all access to this terrain. I am confident that by facilitating communication between riders and patrollers at the north shore mountains, lives will be saved.

    With regard to the anonymous comment that we are putting the lives of search and rescue personnel at risk, I am curious how our accessing sidecountry might be putting these individuals at higher risk than those who access backcountry terrain. Are you suggesting that skiers should never venture into the backcountry...especially when the avalanche danger is moderate? We cut the slope on several aspects and it was very stable.

    The recent deaths were of course tragedies, but we know that stability varies widely on a single mountain and is certainly not identical on mountains throughout our province. We make educated decisions regarding if and how we will access backcountry terrain based on more applicable and reliable sources than the media.

    I agree that we certainly should have had a fourth shovel.

    Thanks,

    Sean

    By Blogger Sean Nixon, at 4:29 PM  

  • Thoughtful responses from the guys involved (both the would be rescuers and the guys skiing the line)......it's too bad that this thing has blown up into such a shite storm but it certainly has brought to light some interesting points of discussion.

    Play safe out there and make the best decisions you can incorporating all of the available data and a healthy dose of conservative planning and extra caution. Your life, and the lives of others that may be called upon to assist you when things go sideways, may depend on these crucial decisions. Nobody minds helping out someone who has experienced a legitimate accident in the backcountry - nobody wants to be put into a situation that has them bailing out someone who should not have been there in the first place.

    By Anonymous Dave, at 4:45 PM  

  • excuse my slip up in terms I do realize that there is significant difference. I actually meant to say considerable, which I believe was the rating placed on the terrain by the Canadian Avalanche Forecaster during this event according to Mr. Jones' post. If I am not mistaken, the CAC forecaster is an avi level 2, with significant experience with the exact terrain. Semantics are the last resort of the guilty.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 8:54 PM  

  • ha..ah ha...ah ha... calling someone out for resorting to semantics when he clearly is not and you were clearly mistaken... resorting to semantics implies that the difference in words used is minimal, which is clearly not the case here. and doing so while hiding behind an "anonymous" identity. that is grand. i tip my hat to you, sir, you've got some serious brass.

    By Anonymous Jeff Diamond, at 10:27 PM  

  • Hi Guys,
    I encourage comments, but anyone posting any comments after this one "flaming" other posters will be deleted immediately.
    Im not here to moderate this blog, i'm here to provide information and more importantly help rescue people.
    Play nice.

    By Blogger John Blown, at 10:33 PM  

  • Sean. You profess to be an experience and knowledgable backcountry skier. One question I'd like you to answer... did everyone in your party of 4 carry their own set of rescue equipment?

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:32 PM  

  • Hey guys,

    It's a real shame that this is degenerating to an argument about how many shovels they had and what exactly the avy forecast was. I don't think chastising someone over their risk tolerance is productive.

    There are a couple fundamental issues here of importance to NSR and the community. It would be a shame if these got lost in a sea of comments about how dumb or intelligent these fellows were for making the choice they did.

    Issues of importance to NSR:

    1- In what situations is a "pre-emptive" search, such as this one, justified.

    2- Should NSR ask the ski resorts to not "charge" for rescues because it undoes the public education campaign about rescue fees that NSR has carried out.

    Issues of importance to the backcountry community:

    1- Is backcountry access from a ski resort a right, privilege, or something that is/will be entirely banned?

    2- Is the media campaign carried out by Grouse stoking the current mainstream media theme of portraying all non-ski resort winter sports as obscenely dangerous? What negative impacts could backcountry skiers (even those who do not use the resorts) feel from this?

    Again, I think there are real issues of importance that go way beyond this single incident. Let's not let the minor issue of how safe or unsafe these four were being overshadow these.

    By Blogger chris, at 9:18 AM  

  • @Anonymous.

    Point 1 - The avalanche rating for the day below tree line by the forecaster was MODERATE. Any more after-the-fact back-pedaling?

    Point 2 - Even if the avalanche rating for the day was CONSIDERABLE or HIGH or (god forbid) EXTREME that does not automatically render all backcountry travel in all terrain covered by that geographic area to be unsafe.

    Point 3 - The forecaster did not render a forecast for the Thrasher Creek drainage. The only people who were in that drainage in that day were the 4 skiers who presumably made their own snow safety assessment.

    Do you have any more red herrings and armchair quarter-backing to throw out for all to debate?

    ---------------------
    Lee Lau

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:05 AM  

  • @ chris

    Issues of importance to the backcountry community:

    1- Is backcountry access from a ski resort a right, privilege, or something that is/will be entirely banned?

    [lee - my comments inline. Currently most ski resorts in BC practise open boundaries. In effect backcountry access from the boundary is a quasi-right. I mean it's a quasi right in that some resorts (Grouse in particular) will revoke your access privileges if you cross resort boundaries. I make no comment about the rightness and wrongness of such an action as that is very terrain and situation-specific.

    2- Is the media campaign carried out by Grouse stoking the current mainstream media theme of portraying all non-ski resort winter sports as obscenely dangerous? What negative impacts could backcountry skiers (even those who do not use the resorts) feel from this?

    [ Lee comments inline - The media campaign is both negative and misinformed. The negative impact is that people whom I care about (parents for example) think that backcountry skiing is akin to suicide.

    Otherwise, the negative coverage has minimal impact. This issue is of the "if it bleeds, it leads" variety fueled by the public's desire for sensationalist black and white right and wrong portrayals (the scapegoating of the 4 individuals who skied the Thrasher Creek pillow gnar being a classic example).

    The typical journalist producing this drivel and public consuming said drivel thankfully have the attention spans of gnats. They will move on to other more glamorous topics.

    The only way for this to affect backcountry access will be regulators to pass laws. This will not be very unlikely. In my naivety, I assume that regulators have better things to do then to try to control something that is practically uncontrollable (ie backcountry access

    Side note - of course I also agree that NS SAR is entirely not at fault in this matter. Not that I am qualified to pass such a judgment or that I seek to pass such judgment.
    Lee Lau

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 11:15 AM  

  • Sounds like these guys were prepared.

    Unfortunate over reaction.

    Perhaps Grouse could adopt a similar policy as Cypress? You need to get a (free) backcountry pass to access the backcountry. Not that they check to see if you have gear.

    I tried to find the property boundaries for Grouse mt.

    Anyone know if Thrasher creek is Grouse Property? Or GVRD?

    This is the only map I could find on the DVN GeoWeb that even includes the upper area. Unfortunately it doesn't include property boundaries.

    http://www.geoweb.dnv.org/maps/thematic/topo_grouse/topo-grouse.html

    Sharon.

    By Anonymous Sharon, at 12:37 PM  

  • Sharon,

    I don't know were the boundary is. But I strongly doubt much if any of the land up there belongs to Grouse. I suspect Grouse merely has a commercial tenure to operate the resort on crown land.

    I imagine the way this "violation" works legally is that there is some buffer of land between where the boundary rope (with the "do not cross" sign) is and the edge of the Grouse tenure. Therefore, although most of the skiing took place outside of Grouse's tenure, the group had to cross a portion of land that was still in Grouse's tenure but signed as closed. Therefore the group violated the rules of the ski resort and the contract (lift ticket) they had with the ski hill by disobeying a sign. It would be interesting to read the terms of Grouse's tenure to see if they have a duty to not restrict access to the backcountry from their tenure.

    By Blogger chris, at 1:12 PM  

  • I believe this document may govern the terms of Grouse's tenure. But IANAL.

    By Blogger chris, at 1:21 PM  

  • Hi Chris,

    I'm involved with mountain biking on Fromme. Grouse mountain owns the top of Grouse and most of Fromme South to the 6th Switchback. I don't know the more northern boundaries.

    I assume their western boundary would be the the Dam Mt. trail head and the Capilano watershed. I don't know where GVRD starts north of Grouse property.

    The McLaughlin family bought shares the property in 1974 and bought it outright in 1989.

    It is my understanding that they only have tenure at their base area through the GVRD.

    My point is, if Thrasher Creek is part of their property then they do have a say in who should access it as opposed to if their ski boundary was directly adjacent to BC Parks as in Cypress/Seymour and Whistler Blackcomb, when they shouldn't have the right to restrict access or force people to pay for rescue.

    By Anonymous Sharon., at 1:37 PM  

  • Sharon,

    Thank you for correcting me. I was clearly talking out of my ass!

    As for Grouse's right to charge them for rescue costs. They have publicly acknowledge they have no such right. But they seem to be happy for the myth that they can to be perpetuated. So far I've only found one article specific to this incident that has mentioned this important fact (Mbaho said there is nothing forcing the skiiers to pay for the rescue effort, but that it is the right thing to do.). How many news outlets are running headlines saying "... will be forced to pay"? Shame on Grouse for encouraging lies to be spread through the media. And some (lesser) shame on the media for not doing their homework.

    NSR has already acknowledge that they will not accept the money, but instead ask Grouse to donate it to another worthy cause. Personally, if I was to make a donation to NSR or any other charity, I would not do so by funnelling my money through a company that has publicly vilified me.

    By Blogger chris, at 2:15 PM  

  • January 5, 2009

    Grouse Mountain’s Position on Accessing Uncontrolled Recreational Areas

    It seems that the conversation about Friday’s incident where four individuals knowingly went beyond the recreationally controlled area boundaries on Grouse Mountain against oral commands to return has now shifted its focus to minute details like how many beacons the group had, or how many shovels they were carrying.

    We need to be clear that the issue here is not how well prepared the individuals thought they were. The bottom line is this: Grouse Mountain does not tolerate skiers and riders going beyond the recreationally controlled area boundaries. And we will continue to pursue stern action against those that knowingly do.

    Moreover, in the case in question, the four individuals transgressed a boundary within Grouse Mountain property. This is not a right to backcountry issue. As a private landowner and the area operator, it is at our sole discretion and responsibility to determine when the terrain on our property is safe to use and to ensure that it is used safely. This is the requirement of the Occupier’s Liability Act. We made that determination, posted boundaries, made a verbal admonishment to the group, and we still found ourselves having to address individuals in a precarious position on our mountain.

    It needs to be said too that every case is different. We do not seek to punish those who, through inexperience or honest error, find themselves in trouble and in need of assistance. But to brazenly thumb your nose at signage, roped areas, and a patroller and put yourself and others in danger is not acceptable and cannot go without consequence.

    The area that these four individuals put themselves into is dangerous. It is counterproductive to debate how dangerous (moderate, high, or extreme) as it is not Grouse Mountain’s practice to dispatch assistance based on the level of danger. Danger is danger and we would be remiss to simply wait and see how the situation turned out.

    Further, there has been fruitless debate over whether or not North Shore Rescue (NSR) needed to be called. It is our standard practice to engage search and rescue professionals in case where very real dangers like avalanches present themselves to our on-site patrol team who would have to respond to people in danger at the earliest point possible. We are not new to winter sports operation and our experience has shown us that it is always better to be cautious. The NSR has confirmed that Friday’s course of action was appropriate.

    That the four individuals were able to hike out from the drainage area they ended up in is called good luck, not good planning. At the time of their transgression, Grouse Mountain had only one option: prepare for the worst. It’s akin to saying that a firefighter should simply stand by to see if people make it out of the burning building on their own. Of course not. If people put themselves in a dangerous position it is our responsibility as an operator to take action. Had they triggered an avalanche or been drawn inextricably into the depths of the drainage, there would be no debate.

    Grouse Mountain will never hesitate to be proactive when it comes to safety.

    As for invoicing the individuals for the costs associated with the operation (labour and transport), we are taking a hard-line approach to this matter to add another deterrent to keep people within controlled areas. If personal safety is not a strong enough motivator, then perhaps a hit in the pocket book is. There are very real costs associated with dispatching patrollers, operations teams, and snow transport. We feel that these costs are incurred unnecessarily by people who flout the rules and we intend to pass the expense on to them. The fact that the four hiked out of the area under their own volition changes nothing. This is also an opportunity for the individuals to take some ownership for there actions and do the right thing.

    We fully respect North Shore Rescue’s stance on the matter of invoicing and will only be passing on the costs incurred by Grouse Mountain.

    If these measures prove to be ineffective in improving the prevention of blatant boundary transgressions, perhaps it is time that we as a community seek to introduce legislative repercussions that are enforceable by our government.

    In any event, Grouse Mountain’s message remains clear: accessing non-controlled recreational areas on our mountain will not be tolerated.

    Meanwhile, one of Friday’s transgressors- Graham Haywood- can, and likely will, continue to spread his self-serving mistruths. The facts are his group was unprepared and ill equipped. We only hope for their own sake, and for the sake of others, that the group will reflect on this situation and realize that they need to modify their behaviour in the future whether they choose to ski at another resort or in the uncontrolled backcountry.

    Sincerely,

    Stuart McLaughlin
    President
    Grouse Mountain Resorts Ltd.

    By Blogger Grouse Mountain Resort, at 3:00 PM  

  • Stuart,

    Thank you for posting.

    I think at this stage, most of the people who have posted here believe that you initiated the rescue in good faith, and we thank you for your commitment to safety. What I think is more of an issue is what happened in the aftermath of this incident.

    I'm hoping you can clarify some points that have come up here (and a few more that I think your post raises).

    1- Is the area where the skiers left the CRA private land or tenured?

    2- Although I can understand that Grouse can disallow leaving the CRA and entering other private land. However are you also implying that Grouse would disallow leaving the CRA and entering crown land (whether tenured or not)?

    3- What exactly is the signage where the group left the CRA? Is it "ski area boundary" or is it "closed area"?

    Again, thank you for bringing clarity to this.

    By Blogger chris, at 3:22 PM  

  • Stuart,
    Can you please explain Grouse's policy on allowing access TO the resort from out-of-bounds/closed/dangerous areas (namely hiking/snowshoeing/skinning up from the Grind during winter)? I have seen this behaviour first-hand repeatedly and as far as I've seen Grouse's policy is to willingly sell those engaged in the dangerous behaviour a lift ticket back down.

    Can you explain the difference in Grouse's stance between this activity and Friday's events?

    By Anonymous animalchin, at 3:57 PM  

  • Hi Animalchin,
    The GVRD actually closes the Grind on a regular basis if there are safety concerns. I would assume not selling them a ticket would then encourage them to enter the "dangerous" terrain again to get back down. This obviously wouldn't be a great policy. Grouse has no control over who enters from the backcountry, it would be impossible to police.

    I'm going to allow a few more comments on this topic, and then I will be closing the comments.

    Again, if there is any "flaming" your comment will be deleted.

    By Blogger John Blown, at 4:06 PM  

  • Okay, if this risks getting shut down I better get my last word in! ;-)

    If the issue here is that the group entered private property that is not part of the recreational zone, this is important and new information. So far all we were told was that they left "in-bounds". At most resorts, that simply means they are now in the backcountry. For example, have a look at Whistler's page about their signs. It is clearly stated that leaving the ski area boundary is perfectly acceptable.

    This, it seems, may be a different situation. But Grouse needs to make that clear with the media and their customers that their ski hill is different (both by choice and by the legal status of the land they are on).

    Grouse needs to clarify the media reports and state that the group will be invoiced for Grouse's (only) costs because they entered an area on private property that was not part of the resort and that Grouse incurred costs related to ensuring their safety on private property. If possible, they should mention that Grouse is different from other resorts in that the ski boundary does not represent the line where you enter unregulated crown land but rather a line that delineates private property where you are not welcome. If this is the case, and the policy is clearly stated, I don't have an issue with it. But simply stating that they will be billed for rescue costs because they left the ski area boundary serves no purpose but to confuse the public.

    It would still be great if Stuart could confirm the legal status of the land just outside of the boundary that was crossed.

    By Blogger chris, at 4:38 PM  

  • Well, quite a debate...

    Anyway, 12 hours of my Christmas day was not spent with my wife and three kids, nor with my invited parents, sister and brother in law, their two kids visiting from Ontario, nor with friends outside the rescue team. The 18 pounds turkey and all the dishes were taken care of when I got home after helping to rescue three out of bounds skiers (all of whom believed they were well prepared, ho hum).

    I also left our 23rd wedding anniversary dinner to help rescue the young snowboarder who got lost in heavy fog on Dec 28th who didn't think he'd be in such a pickle that night.

    That same Dec 28th fog was the likely cause why I spent all New Years Eve helping to search for the guy who survived after three miserable nights in the backcountry. He is one tough dude.

    I'm a volunteer with NSR and proud of it. When the team is called to help we do it for you dear reader. We don't ask for money, just as much common sense and a polite response when we do show up.

    This group might about the families of the deceased folks the rescue community just couldn't get to in time. But if that doesn't seem very nice, talk to my wife.

    Mike G.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:38 PM  

  • Stuart McLaughlin said:

    Meanwhile, one of Friday’s transgressors- Graham Haywood- can, and likely will, continue to spread his self-serving mistruths. The facts are his group was unprepared and ill equipped. We only hope for their own sake, and for the sake of others, that the group will reflect on this situation and realize that they need to modify their behaviour in the future whether they choose to ski at another resort or in the uncontrolled backcountry.

    With all due respect, your remarks about the alleged lack of preparedness of the 4 skiers is frankly astounding. There is no indication that anyone other then his group was in the Thatcher Creek drainage therefore calling into question your "facts".

    Your remarks appear more and more of an attempt to turn this into a witch-hunt

    Knowing that the property in question is Grouse Mountain's is a new fact. GMR has an action in trespass against the 4 skiers. GMR bears potentially liability for accidents occurring to the 4 skiers. That is an important clarification and thank you for that.

    Having said that, the overbearing, accusatory, nature of GMR's comments and remarks are apparent.

    ---- Lee Lau

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 4:54 PM  

  • John,

    If you do decide to close comments on this post (which is understandable) I'd like to thank you (as a volunteer) for taking the time to make the discussion that has happened so far possible. It has been interesting, and far more insightful and respectful (for the most part) than other discussions I have seen about this incident elsewhere online, of which there are many. This clearly has widespread interest because of the issues raised. Again, thank you for all that you do, and for taking the time to get the facts from Tim about NSR's involvement.


    Stuart,

    Thank you for sharing Grouse Mountain's position on the incident.

    I hope you will find the time to respond to Chris' questions, as I think these are still very relevant, and haven't yet been clarified.

    Whether the skiers entered a closed area within Grouse Mountain's property, or left the CRA for crown land is of interest to me as a backcountry skier, but isn't actually what is most important here.

    What is most important coming out of this is the issue of being charged for rescue. Grouse issuing the press release stating the skiers would be charged certainly acts as a deterrent to others who might "duck the ropes" in future. It also, however, also acts as a deterrent to calling for help. Someone who read an article about this incident this week, and some time later gets in trouble in the mountains perhaps through no fault of their own, then does not call for help because they they remember the press coverage of this incident and are afraid they might be charged, could make a life and death decision based on the misinformation in the last few days. People often make irrational decisions in difficult situations, and it's vital the public receives a consistent message on this issue. I hope Grouse will consider this very carefully and be willing to put the broader safety of the public at large who might need assistance from SAR across B.C. ahead of seeking to send a scare message to potential out of bounds skiers at one resort. This requires a very careful handling of messaging when dealing with the media, and in my opinion Grouse got this very wrong this time. I realise you have said that you will only now be charging the costs Grouse incurred, but in terms of public understanding the damage has to a large extent been done.

    Thanks
    Matthew

    By Anonymous Matthew Carroll, at 4:55 PM  

  • Chris with respect to your question re how this incident may affect backcountry user's access to backcountry see the note from Stuart McLaughlin:

    If these measures prove to be ineffective in improving the prevention of blatant boundary transgressions, perhaps it is time that we as a community seek to introduce legislative repercussions that are enforceable by our government.

    GMR takes the position that it should the legally enforceable right to take action against blatant boundary transgressions (whatever that may be). Query whether their property rights as a land-owner allow them to do so already.

    Currently ski resorts do not have such a right to take action against blatant boundary transgressions.

    Perhaps GMR would like to clarify the excerpt quoted above:

    1. What "community" they are speaking about? The community of reactionary resort-operators? The community of conservative back-country users? The community of radgnarcore backcountry users?

    2. What would GMR consider to be a blatant boundary violation? Certainly GMR considers these 4 skiers incursion to Thatcher Creek to be such a case? Does the influx of Grouse Grinders from GVRD land via the Grind to GMR property constitute such an incursion. Does an egress of mountain bikers riding up Old Mtn Highway to GMR land fall into this category?

    3. What sort of "legislative repercussions" does GMR advocate against blatant boundary transgressions? Fines? Jail time? As a backcountry user and passholder I'd like to know what kind of pillorying and civil and/or criminal penalties I'd face should I ever use a Grouse pass to ski lines off Kennedy Lake.

    -----Lee Lau

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 5:16 PM  

  • In response to Chris's comments made at 3:22:

    1.Yes, the well-marked area where the four were admonished not to exit it is private land.
    The entire Grouse Mountain Ski area is contained within privately held lands. The violators did not leave the CRA in the manner that you infer, they violated our area boundary.

    2. Grouse Mountain does not condone trangressing marked area boundaries to access Crown land. We are not a suitable access point for those lands. Naturally we have no objections to crown land accesss, it just is not to be done via our freehold land..
    As above Grouse Mountain holds in fee simple the entire ski area. None of our boundaries are adjacent to Provincial Crown lands, Municipally owned lands or GVRD owned Crown or private lands. Every boundary in the Grouse Mountain ski area is set completely within our own landholdings. The ropeline violated was from private lands to private lands owned and controlled by the same landholder Citizens can access the Crown, municipal and GVRD lands surrounding our ski area any way they wish except by violating our area boundaries. Most ski areas that do provide access to the uncontrolled backcountry do so through organized gates with appropriate signage warning the backcountry user that they are on their own and in some cases will charged if they require rescue. This was not the circumstances in this situation.

    3. The entire area along which the four traversed is marked “Area Boundary", while at their specific point of exit there is a 4 X 6 sign that reads as follows: "The area beyond this point leads to natural terrain traps and cliff bands. It is extremely dangerous. Violators will have their lift privileges suspended. Please do not go past this point". Over and above this, the four individuals were explicitly told by patrollers not to pursue their course.

    By Blogger Grouse Mountain Resort, at 7:01 PM  

  • In response to animalchin's post re: access to our mountain from Crown land:

    The Grouse Grind is owned and operated by Metro Vancouver (formerly GVRD), who pursue the measures they see fit to keep hikers off the trail; it is not Grouse Mountain's land to regulate. Further, the issuing of download tickets to those who hike the Grind (or claim to hike the neighbouring BCMC) is a good faith preventative measure by Grouse Mountain that directly prevents hikers from undertaking yet another dangerous hike back down the trail. Those violating the GVRD closure are violating a GVRD closure. Grouse Mountain has no rights or responsibility to police GVRD policy.

    By Blogger Grouse Mountain Resort, at 7:04 PM  

  • In reference to hikers on the Grind, I was hoping Stuart could clarify why they've never initiated a rescue of someone accessing the grind during a closure, and never fined/banned those entering the resort from out-of-bounds. It seems a different standard is being applied to different users of the Grouse's backcountry.

    As a side-note I must add many of the hikers I see in the winter are extremely ill-equipped to spend any amount of time in the backcountry (often they're sporting only a water bottle and jogging outfit).

    By Anonymous animalchin, at 7:19 PM  

  • I skied down half of Cypress last year with a broken leg because I was not going to be ridiculed by the press.

    I know now that I am never calling for rescue for myself. I'll do it for partners in my group or a partner might for me if I already passed out. Charging or attempting to charge for rescue will only get Grouse into more trouble from people not wanting to be rescued.

    I hope NSR goes more public (Vancouver Sun / metro / 24 / etc) in separating itself from GMR and its attempts to charge for rescue.

    By Anonymous Miguel, at 7:41 PM  

  • Hi Everyone,
    Great comments and thank you everyone for your constructive feedback. I think this is a healthy discussion to have in terms of backcountry access.

    I am going to stop any more comments, mainly because I don't have any more time to moderate these postings and deal with the various parties involved, including emails and phone calls.

    I do have a full time job as well as volunteering hundreds of hours a year to rescue work - so my apologies to those who don't get to post.

    I think this was a very healthy discussion with some good points brought up by both sides.

    I think that online discussions can sometimes degrade into "flaming" wars and the true issues can be passed over. In this case, many good points were raised and discussed.

    Perhaps there are backcountry organizations that may want to take up discussions with Grouse to determine what (if any) backcountry access is allowed through the resort, and perhaps the other resorts so that this point is made clear to the outdoor community. I think that face to face discussions may be more contstructive (if any party is interested) than continuing to argue various points online.

    Oh and speaking of NSR being a 100% volunteer run non-profit we are always in need of donations - especially since we don't charge for rescues ;-). Feel free to donate online!

    No one ever expects to need us, but maybe one day we will save your ass or someone you care about!

    Have fun and be safe!

    By Blogger John Blown, at 10:46 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home