• For more information on how to avoid pop-up ads and still support SkiTalk click HERE.

Avalanche Fatality - Berthoud Pass should become a ski area again

Status
Not open for further replies.

princo

Getting off the lift
Skier
Joined
Oct 30, 2017
Posts
263
Location
Denver
I am not being judgy, I have gone through such gates many times. But what ELSE can be done to save people from themselves? Close them completely? As history shows, people will still leave the area. In fact, I would put down $1000 right now that says more than one person a decade would die at Berthoud if it returned to more of a "resort" type area.

I think that instead of all the signage above, taking a copy of the newspaper article and framing it could get the proper attention. Something like this on a frame (taken from Summitdaily)



Avalanche Dead.JPG
 
Thread Starter
TS
tball

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
And yes, this is why the "it's safer" argument needs to just go away. It's completely disingenuous. If we are serious about wanting fewer deaths, then we start crusades to stop grooming blues, especially next to trees! Shut down Mozart at Keystone. Hell, just close Eldora for good.

But that is a straw man, and we all know it. The guys at Breck went through this gate:

7b6dsduzl9s4y49nd1lisypmw3k5


I am not being judgy, I have gone through such gates many times. But what ELSE can be done to save people from themselves? Close them completely? As history shows, people will still leave the area. In fact, I would put down $1000 right now that says more than one person a decade would die at Berthoud if it returned to more of a "resort" type area.
It's the rate of fatalities per visit that's important. There are orders of magnitude more visits to ski areas than to avalanche-prone backcountry, so it's not an apples-to-apples comparison.

You might be correct about fatalities increasing if Berthoud had the visits approaching a resort, but the rate of fatalities per user would likely still be lower. And spreading overcrowded front-range resort skiers out over more acreage should reduce the overall fatality rate.

I'm not saying I want to see resort-level skier visits a Berthoud, but the math is the same. My ideal would be the minimum number of users to support mitigation, patrol, and a couple of lifts.
 
Thread Starter
TS
tball

tball

Unzipped
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
4,362
Location
Denver, CO
But what ELSE can be done to save people from themselves? Close them completely? As history shows, people will still leave the area.
Building a ski area and making it “difficult to make a deadly decision” isn’t gonna stop people from making stupid choices.
I very much disagree and feel the Forest Service should consider what can be done to improve overall safety. There are 14.5 million acres of FS land in CO, and backcountry avalanche deaths are concentrated in a tiny fraction of one percent of that land.

Bringing some of that terrain inbounds will undoubtedly improve overall safety. Other changes could improve the safety of other terrain. I'm not saying it should be closed.

Avalanche safety was a key point in the Forest Service rationale for the Beavers expansion at Arapahoe basin:

PURPOSE OF AND NEED FOR ACTION
Dating back to 1982, six avalanche fatalities have occurred in the backcountry immediately adjacent to ABasin’s operational boundary – five in The Steep Gullies and one in Beaver Bowl. Currently, the Beavers can be accessed legally through backcountry access points located along the western extent of A-Basin’s operational boundary. From these points, skiers may exit the controlled/patrolled portions of A-Basin’s operational boundary to access adjacent backcountry terrain in The Beavers, the Steep Gullies and the Rock Pile. In particular, these areas receive heavy backcountry use by the public once the snowpack is sufficient. The Proposed Action proposes to incorporate The Beavers into A-Basin’s operational boundary to improve the safety of recreating in that area.

Documentation of the popularity of The Beavers can be traced back to the 2002 WRNF Forest Plan FEIS, which provides detailed information on “Future Expansion” areas at existing ski areas across Eagle, Garfield, Pitkin, and Summit counties. Related to A-Basin’s SUP area, and specifically related to planned projects discussed in this proposal, the 2002 Forest Plan FEIS states:

“The Beavers are popular with backcountry skiers and snowboarders who access the site from Arapahoe Basin ski area. Steep north-facing chutes above treeline with numerous rock outcrops characterize the terrain. Most skiers hike or hitchhike uphill to return to their vehicles. Avalanche risk to the public is potentially high. The risk could be partially mitigated if the Beavers site was developed for skiing as part of the ski area”

 
Last edited:

Drahtguy Kevin

Après aficionado
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 9, 2015
Posts
1,817
Location
Northern Colorado
Your safety is your concern. My safety is my concern. The Forest Service doesn’t need any part of either. The most dangerous thing I do on a ski day is get in my vehicle and drive.

When an investor/investment group submits a plan for this pipe dream on BP, we can revisit this. Until then we’re just pissing in the wind, and my feet are getting wet. Yinz enjoy beating your heads against a wall.
 

SBrown

So much better than a pro
Skier
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
7,847
Location
Colorado
I very much disagree and feel the Forest Service should consider what can be done to improve overall safety. There are 14.5 million acres of FS land in CO, and backcountry avalanche deaths are concentrated in a tiny fraction of one percent of that land.
Because only a tiny fraction of those 14.5 million acres are even skiable. Kevin's right. Although I think it's more like trying to kick a ball through moving goalposts, because the arguments keep changing. Enjoy.
 

jmeb

Enjoys skiing.
Skier
Joined
Nov 13, 2015
Posts
4,490
Location
Colorado
Because only a tiny fraction of those 14.5 million acres are even skiable.

It's a meaningless stat. It's just one that sounds good as a talking point if no critical thinking is applied. There's a reason why people ski tour a great deal in the ~2500 acre zone of berthoud pass. One acre isn't fungible for another.

IMHO a more meaningful way to look at it is acreage of inbounds skiing expansion--at least this land is comparable (i.e. treeline and above, skiable, accessible). I'm pretty sure making popularly skied zones (from First Creek to No Nome on the west, and Vortex through Floral park on the east) inbounds would be the largest expansion of inbounds skiing in CO in...40? years.

For those not familiar with this zone, this is a general map of the frequently skied zones of Berthoud Pass. In general it follows the most popular existing guidebook for the area.

1673199055445.png
 

Andy Mink

Everyone loves spring skiing but not in January
Moderator
SkiTalk Tester
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
12,912
Location
Reno
It appears this thread has run its course and is bordering on becoming contentious. Locked before someone says something that will be moderated anyway.

Mod team
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Sponsor

Staff online

Top