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