Yeah, that's kind of why this thread is unsettling to me.If you want a ski reopened and a wedding venue opened, just say that.
Thinly veiling it as a response to an avalanche fatality and public safety is so tacky.
I was thinking this when the recent fatality at Breck came up.Also just dropped today from CAIC: "Since the winter 2009 - 2010 almost 16% of fatal avalanche accidents in Colorado occurred when people left a ski area to recreate in the backcountry."
I honestly feel that making Berthoud a resort again would result more accidents of all types, including fatal avalanches, because of the "sidecountry" problem. Yes, proximity to the road is a factor making Berthoud a junk show much of the time, but proximity to a ski area is most likely even worse, because of the false sense of security it brings.
So -- let's drop the avalanche safety canard and focus on some other reasons to reopen Berthoud.
Building a resort doesn't guarantee reduction of avvy deaths.
I just watched Buried the 1982 Alpine Meadows Avalanch documentary last night for the 2nd time.
7 deaths in one avalanch in bounds.
And wasn't there a stat earlier in this thread that there have only been a few deaths on BP since the resort closed? That would mean that there have been more avalanch deaths in resorts than BP in the same amount of time.