Whistler Avalanche Triggers Debate
January 04, 2008
When you play on the mountains there are inherent risks. These risks often lead to the adrenaline induced moments that are so addictive! And so the cycle begins...
We recently had an avalanche on Whistler Mountain. The strange thing about this incident is that it happened on a permanently closed section of the mountain.
Permanent closures are much different than the ski area boundary. All mountains have a certain boundary that they are obligated to maintain safely. This means the lifts run safely, there is ski patrol rescue and avalanche control. Outside of this boundary the mountains have no obligation for rescue or avalanche control. You are on your own and should have the proper touring gear including a transceiver, shovel, probe, and some experience with knowledgeable backcountry enthusiasts.
Now here is where things get a little tricky. This avalanche occurred in a permanent closure. This is an area WITHIN the ski area boundary that the mountain has deemed unsafe to ski. They are marked loosely on the trail map and on the mountain they are roped off with signage. But they really do not look much different than an area boundary markings. Because these closures are located within the boundaries people may feel a false sense of security.
Now the local police are thinking of pressing charges. Trespassing charges come to mind. Or wilful endangerment. Or something else. While these riders need to accept the consequences - one has already passed away - another question is - should permanent closures have a more permanent and stark demarcation to make them, and the risk they carry, more obvious?
I have skied the line these gentleman were on. It used to be a 'soft' closure until someone died there in similar circumstances many years ago.
Tragic situations will always start a finger pointing situation. Let's be frank. The mountains can strike at any time and without warning.
Respect to the victims and their families.