@Brave Sir Robin[How would SkiLink provide "easy lift access to
backcountry terrain"?]Easy. Canyon lifts to the top of 99/90,
enter gate to Canyons "sidecountry," ski down to the base of SkiLink.Ironically, the only inconvenient part is taking Canyon lifts to the top
99/90. That's why I so rarely ski there.
One of the few times the feds have actually gotten something correct. They
should do nothing but advise and any idiot that goes into the backcountry and
gets caught in an avalanche is 100% responsible. There should be absolutely no
tort allowed.I was in Australia a few years ago and that is how they
hadnle things there, people are responsible for themselves. We went to one of
their national parks, whcih was an old fort, once there they just cut us loose
and said we could go anywehre and do anything in the fort, which was a huge
parcel of lan on a penninsula, but if anything happened to us it was our fault,
our choice, and our problem. At one part of the park there was a
staricase cut from the side of a cliff, it was narrow and there was no railing,
if you goofed off and fell off into the ocean it was your problem. There were even commercials running on television that prompted Australians
not to "be like Americans and sue". In short you are
responsible for yourself and neither you, nor your family, deserves any money if
you are a fool and either get yourself killed or maimed. Frankly if your
stupidity creates a cost to the tax payers to rescue or recover you then you, or
your family, should be charged for it, not paid because you're a fool.
@silas brillHow would SkiLink provide "easy lift access to
backcountry terrain"? SkiLink goes up a mountain and down the other side -
you get on in a parking lot and get off in another parking lot. So unless
you're planning to rip lines through a parking lot, you're still going to have
to hike/skin uphill a long ways to get to backcountry terrain. The only thing
SkiLink will do is get people a better look at backcountry terrain.Anyway, back to the discussion at hand....The simple solution to
the avalanche dilemma is almost already in place. The government can advise
people not to go into the backcountry, but ultimately it is their decision. The
only change we need to make is that people need to pay 100% for any rescue
efforts made on their behalf. If they die, their estate/next of kin needs to
pay. This is how they handle it in Europe and it works wonderfully.
Imagine if the so-called SkiLink between Solitude and Canyons were created,
providing easy lift access to backcountry terrain with no avalanche control.
About 15-20 years ago some skiing/outdoor types came up with a movie about
avalance safety. They talked about a lot of aspects of avalances and they
interviewed a lot of back country experts, skiers, etc. One die-hard vertical
skier who would ski off of cliffs (or almost cliffs) said that his solution was
to point his skies downhill and go. (Not a practical solution for the rest of
us.) One other observation was that care and common sense are good protection.
If you are traveling with someone who keeps telling stories about having been in
avalanches you should question if you are wise being in that persons company.When it snows, and the snows gets warm and then it gets cold and then it
snows again, the new layer has nothing to keep it from sliding. Snow maybe safe
in one location, but it may be very dangerous in another. It depends on the
angle relative to the sun, wind, ground cover, etc. You can't put a sign at the
bottom of the canyon that says whether it is safe or dangerous in all locations.
I don't think there is anything theoretical about it, if a lawyer sees the
faintest chance of winning a case or getting a settlement from someone who
chooses not to deal with the hassle of going to court, they will absolutely sue.
And why would we want them to block our freedom of choice? Why should we expect
the feds to impose thousand of dollars cost on sports and recreation where
thrill and personal challenges are the rule of law? Sports is personal and the
feds or the state of Utah has no right to impose their will on our persoanl
lives and choices. For the children and our future as a free people with free
will tell these legislators to get a life and leave mine and my family's rights
alone.What about fishermen who go fishing without a flotation
devices strapped to themselves? Just because we have legislators who live in
bubbles doesn't mean all americans want to live in bubbles.