Be Prepared

Inbounds Avys

By Carson Bennett, 12-16-08

It’s been snowing hard in the Western U.S. over the last few days, and a big dump of snow in the mountains over a short period of time is a recipe for avalanches. On Sunday and Monday, three avalanches caught three people in Utah and Colorado. Two victims died.

Avalanches aren’t limited to the backcountry. Don’t assume you’re safe from slide danger if you are inbounds at a ski resort. On Monday, an inbounds slide caught a man skiing at Vail. Luckily, the slide buried him only to his waist. He was unhurt. The same day, a side-country avalanche in Aspen caught and killed a former ski patroller. And in Utah the day before, a woman was caught and killed in an inbounds avalanche at Snowbird. It is incredibly rare, but even when patrollers bomb the slopes as they did at Snowbird and Vail, snow conditions can fluctuate and avalanches can occur.

The moral of the story: take an avalanche safety course from an organization like the Avalanche Center or the American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education, and before you head up to the mountains check the snow conditions at www.avalanche.org.

If you’re a backcountry skier, snowboarder, snowshoer or snowmobiler, an avalanche course and carrying the proper equipment is a must. If you’re an inbounds skier, pay attention to snow conditions and warnings. Be prepared. Be safe. Have fun out there.

[End of article]

I think what this phenomenon reflects is not so much a rash of in-bounds avalanches, but rather a loosening definition of what resorts are considering to be actually "in-bounds". In all three of these examples, skiers were caught in avalanches that slid in areas that up until very recently were actually "out-of-bounds" (in one case the very first day it was opened), or still out-of-bounds (the Aspen case). Where, exactly, does on-piste end and off-piste begin? Is it on-piste if it's not directly serviced by a lift - like the Aspen and Snowbird cases? If a resort calls it "in-bounds" does it cause skiers' avalanche radars to shut down? Does the resort bear some responsibility for this?

I see skiers accessing Jackson Hole's famous backcountry from the resort's gated boundary every year without packs, shovels, probes, or beacons. While Jackson's backcountry policy is explicity stated on strongly worded signs at the boundary, it's "live and let die" attitude puts everyone at risk in the backcountry. Years of experience and Level III avy training won't save you from jibbers with no beacon and less than a minute of avy school to their names triggering slides.

Should the public lands beyond the ski area's boundaries be shut off to everyone? Closed to skiing? Certainly not, that freedom is what many skiers relish. However, it used to be much harder to access the backcountry from Jackson's controlled (and patrolled) terrain, and, importantly, much more difficult to make it back to the ski area. The new trails that allow side-country skiers easy return to Jackson's lift-accessed areas make the exciting (and dangerous) backcountry feel more comfortable, more "on-piste".

It seems as though ski areas are attempting to capitalize on the increased interest in "slack-country" skiing, and the new technologies and products that make it much more possible for many more people to do it (Heck, Silvretta makes an alpine touring binding for _children_). In opening these grey areas that lie somewhere between out-of-bounds and in-bounds and providing easy access to them, ski areas are creating a false sense of security. Even though Vail was theoretically controlling avalanches in it's Blue Sky bowl, that terrain is so vast and variable I'm not sure how they can claim to be actually controlling it (though, apparently they are, given the small number of people who have been caught in avalanches there). Even though the new terrain at Snowbird is technically "in-bounds" it's true character is definitely "out-of-bounds" - so what is it??

Bozeman's Bridger Bowl has the answer, I believe. It's newly opened "side-country" terrain is lift accessed, but all skiers are required to carry the required equipment, i.e., an avalanche tranceiver. Even though it's in-bounds, Bridger treats it like it's out of bounds. Let's not define what's in-bounds and out-of-bounds by where resorts draw their boundaries - let's define it by the kinds of conditions skiers are likely to encounter there, just as Bridger Bowl does. The in-bounds/out-of-bounds distinction is clearly now obsolete