International (Europe/Japan/Southern Hemisphere) Powder skiing in Europe versus North America

[James]

But more people than you can imagine go off-piste, because 'there wasn't a black flag'.

I have seen plenty of people go around a “closed” warning net to a Route Itinéraire in Switzerland. It took some effort to get around it.
The person I was skiing with several yrs ago had a friend who was killed near one of those routes just two weeks after we were there. I didn’t ski that route that week when they went because I thought it would be terrible. It had rained at that altitude and below earlier in the week. Then it refroze. What could possibly be wrong?? Didn’t need to experience that off piste.

Anyway, they skied it and someone fell and slid on ice nearly 100m. They were able to ski out, but needed to go to the medical clinic afterwards.

Two weeks later, 4 people were killed near there. Two were buried under 6 m of snow debris and not found till later when things melted more.

 

[Zirbl]

I know I asked this before, but I wonder if it would be profitable for a major Euro ski resort to run their ski area similar to how we do things in NA. I think the reply was that there is private property (aka farms and homesteads) to worry about. Surely though it could be done.

Permanently rope off the worst trouble zones (cliffs, crevasses, overly prone areas), but manage the off-piste everywhere else between the runs.

It might not help lift lines, but it would spread people out on the mountain better. If they in turn added lifts with the newfound acreage, it would increase the number of people you could get on the hill overall, thus increasing profits.

There are a few resorts with secured "freeride zones", but obstacles to doing it for an entire resort that spring to mind are scale, reluctance to accept greater liability than is currently the case, and a general reluctance to change. Plus you'd be reducing the habitat for capercaillie, ibex, chamois, lynxes, wolves, mice etc. Things are pretty tight for them as it is and everything has to get past environmental commissions, the forestries and what have you. The Alpine Club would also block it.

 

[fatbob]

I know I asked this before, but I wonder if it would be profitable for a major Euro ski resort to run their ski area similar to how we do things in NA. I think the reply was that there is private property (aka farms and homesteads) to worry about. Surely though it could be done.

Permanently rope off the worst trouble zones (cliffs, crevasses, overly prone areas), but manage the off-piste everywhere else between the runs.

It might not help lift lines, but it would spread people out on the mountain better. If they in turn added lifts with the newfound acreage, it would increase the number of people you could get on the hill overall, thus increasing profits.

And you had the same answer before
It's logistically impossible and economically on a limb. The only people really to benefit would be lazy skiers who aren't used to managing their own risk or willing to do training yet are good enough to ski off piste. And the majority - those who are happy skiing pistes or managing their own risk off piste are unlikely to want to pay a premium for it.

 

[JoeSchmoe]

And you had the same answer before
It's logistically impossible and economically on a limb. The only people really to benefit would be lazy skiers who aren't used to managing their own risk or willing to do training yet are good enough to ski off piste. And the majority - those who are happy skiing pistes or managing their own risk off piste are unlikely to want to pay a premium for it.

It's not about paying a premium. It's about effectively doubling your skiable acreage so you can get your paid tickets from say 10,000 skiers per day to 20,000.

As we know here in NA, very, very few people are going to get the equipment or training to ski outside resort boundaries (or in the select areas of a few resorts that require the equipment). And the best way to get more skiers on the hill is to let people ski the runs between the runs. The persistence of these threads is evidence there may be demand.

 

[Zirbl]

And the best way to get more skiers on the hill is to let people ski the runs between the runs.

They do let them. At their own risk.

 

[Rod9301]

The problem isn't Americans flying to Europe to ski powder. They fly to Europe to ski.

Skiing, by our standard, can involve groomer, trees, powder bowls... or anything in between. American skiers will ski the powder when it happens. Powder could happen "over there" just like it could happen "here". That's where the trouble starts.

For the most part, European resorts groom as soon as they can, flattening all powders! So much of the powder any American ski tourists see are either off the side of the piste, or in the "back side" of the mountain, where you sometimes see tons of tracks!

But that's where the difference between the 2 continents becomes a problem. In the US, as long as there're no boundary or closure rope, it's a fair game to ski whatever you can see! But in Europe, while they don't put ropes along side of the piste, that's where Americans should see it as such! Anything that's not groomed or a free ride zone, is not avalanche controlled. (on top of that, there're potential of crevasses in some area).

Just because it wasn't avalanche controlled doesn't mean it's unsafe to ski it. Those who are well versed in avalanche risk can make their own assessment. And those not, can pay for guide services. No difference from skiing back country in the US. So yes, you can fly over to Europe specifically to ski powder. Plenty of people fly over to specifically do the Haute Route with hired guides. Just like us easterners fly to the west to ski powder. Sometimes we get it, other times we don't.

For those who aren't getting guides, the only difference is where the resort boundary is. In the US, it's marked by the boundary rope. In Europe, it's marked by the piste marker on the side of the run.

In the resort i ski in France, this is not true.

There are groomers everywhere, but the parts that are not groomed with powder of your lucky, have gazex guns in the ridges do they are controlled.
Sure you can venture deep in valleys where the snow is not controlled, but for this you need backcountry equipment, skins, etc, si je definition this means your more prepared that 99 percent of inbound skiers.

So for areas that are visible from lifts, the vast majority the snow is controlled, simply because ab avalanche could bury prime on groomers.

It's exactly the same in a us ski resort.

And sure, you will see instances where people got buried a few feet from a groomer, but it's the same thing in the us. At squaw, there are many instances of avalanches in bounds, in between groomers.

Nobody says it's 100 percent safe.

It's unfortunate that people make these blanket statements, ski off piste in Europe and you die. Or if you want to venture in powder adjacent to a groomer, you need a guide.

 

[JoeSchmoe]

They do let them. At their own risk.

But, what if you managed the off-piste as safe inbounds terrain... No special equipment, training, or guide needed (just like in North America). You're saying you couldn't increase your skier visits... Especially if with the newly opened territory came with the ability to install extra lifts to get more skiers up the mountain?

 

[crosscountry]

you will see instances where people got buried a few feet from a groomer, but it's the same thing in the us. At squaw, there are many instances of avalanches in bounds, in between groomers.

Nobody says it's 100 percent safe.

"Many instances" in Squaw involving skiers? How many?

 

[slow-line-fast]

Obergurgl, Austria. April 3rd, 2015. Avalanche just on the side of the groomers. Just an example of things not being controlled a few meters off the marked and groomed runs. A little terrain trap too. A few days before, two local kids were buried in a slide like this just off the groomers. They survived, luckily.

View attachment 179148

My own picture.

Another great example. The avalanche bulletin archiv doesn't quite go back that far, but the bulletin from 3 Apr 2022 (before I noticed the year on your post) coincidentally looks like rather similar conditions,

Avalanche Forecast 2022-04-03 | Avalanche.report

avalanche.report

It gives an idea of the kind of information in these reports: a number (5 point scale, with 5 not used every season, thus very extreme), but specific to an elevation range, aspect, and 'typical problem', in this case wind slab. There can be more than one 'typical problem' in a day (such as new snow, wet slides, etc), each with its own warning level, elevation range, and aspect. Browse through the archive to get a sense.

Speculatively, the picture above looks like a natural release of a windslab, not necessarily on that day. The day in the picture might have been 2-3 on the warning scale. Suppose it hadn't naturally released and a skier (not aware of the danger) takes a high traverse from the piste. They wouldn't notice any instabilitiy in the snow even in the terrain trap, as they are not yet onto the accumulation zone of the windslab. As they pushed the traverse further, looking for more loose snow to ski, they would approach the accumulation zone (what remains of it is bright in the sun), trigger the slide from below, and get buried.

The point is, as noted many times, past the poles marking the edge of the piste, skiers need all the training and gear for the backcountry.

 

[slow-line-fast]

In the resort i ski in France, this is not true.

There are groomers everywhere, but the parts that are not groomed with powder of your lucky, have gazex guns in the ridges do they are controlled.
Sure you can venture deep in valleys where the snow is not controlled, but for this you need backcountry equipment, skins, etc, si je definition this means your more prepared that 99 percent of inbound skiers.

So for areas that are visible from lifts, the vast majority the snow is controlled, simply because ab avalanche could bury prime on groomers.

It's true that there is control work, but this is focused on protecting marked pistes, infrastructure, etc. It is not focused on a designated 'inbounds' area between pistes, because this does not exist. It is not the same as the US, where you can take areas inside ropelines as an indication of safety. Control work on high ridgelines does nothing to reduce danger from windslabs on the edges of gullies further down, for example.

For the skier the only indication of safety is the markers on the edge of the pistes. Past that, you have make your own assessments of avalanche and other dangers, which requires training, knowledge, and experience. For the skier who does not have this, or much of this, it is safest to stay on the piste or go with a guide.

 

[Cheizz]

It's true that there is control work, but this is focused on protecting marked pistes, infrastructure, etc. It is not focused on a designated 'inbounds' area between pistes, because this does not exist.

This is the key, I think.

People are skiing between the marked runs in Europe. True. That doesn't mean that it's safe to do so as a default, or without some kind of risk assessment. People who ski there have either informed themselves or run a certain risk.

There is control work everywhere. True. See the quoted portion of @slow-line-fast 's post above.

There's plenty of 'risk-free' terrain. True, kind of. There is enough terrain that is sub 30 degrees in slope angle with no steeper pitches above (more or less 'safe' in most circumstances, but not in all circumstances). The thing is, though: one would only know that if one would have had some kind of avalanche training. And assuming everyone who sees and skis that terrain has the knowledge to assess the risks is a dangerous assumption

If you go beyond the piste markers, you will die. Not true. If you get educated and trained, or if you hire a guide, you can definitely enjoy the great terrain and snow Europe has to offer. And then of course there is luck.

So, you can just hop off-piste then. You just said so, @Cheizz. Not rue. That's not what I said. I Said: "You can if you know what you're doing (i.e. have the training, can assess the risks, adjust your plans or lines accordingly) or hire a guide." That's what I am saying and will be repeating over and over.

 

[fatbob]

It's not about paying a premium. It's about effectively doubling your skiable acreage so you can get your paid tickets from say 10,000 skiers per day to 20,000.

Absolute fantasy and seems to show you know nothing about European resorts.

I There are lots of them
II Many make US giants look like tiddlers
III The constraint on skiers is usually beds rather than skiable acreage

 

[BMC]

It's not about paying a premium. It's about effectively doubling your skiable acreage so you can get your paid tickets from say 10,000 skiers per day to 20,000.

As we know here in NA, very, very few people are going to get the equipment or training to ski outside resort boundaries (or in the select areas of a few resorts that require the equipment). And the best way to get more skiers on the hill is to let people ski the runs between the runs. The persistence of these threads is evidence there may be demand.

There’s no constraint on the skiable acreage. It just comes with more risk and more effort.

 

[Zirbl]

But, what if you managed the off-piste as safe inbounds terrain... No special equipment, training, or guide needed (just like in North America). You're saying you couldn't increase your skier visits... Especially if with the newly opened territory came with the ability to install extra lifts to get more skiers up the mountain?

I haven't said anything about skier visits. I'm saying that to even build a new groomer resorts have to go through loads of bureaucratic hoops and there would be enormous resistance to turning acres of terrain into a playground. Resorts don't own the whole mountain, they have to get stuff past local residents, environmentalists, the Alpine Club and the federal state. They can't just stick lifts wherever they want whenever they feel like it.

Now as for skier visits, how do I know whether it would increase visits or not. But resorts with accessible terrain are already marketing themselves as freeride areas, and the terrain gets skied out anyway. It's not like people stay out of there just because they don't have training or a guide. People don't go to Verbier or St. Anton specifically for the groomers. Loads of people ski offpiste, without the equipment. The resorts have no obligations towards them, and I presume that's how they like it.

 

[Zirbl]

Obviously people are entitled to make recommendations or post anything else they like under this, but I'd like to emphasise that the opening post doesn't do anything other than point out the differences between Europe and North America.

As a point of fact, anyone is entitled to ski off piste in Europe, whether they have the training or not, and it's certainly not the case that everyone sticks to the groomers. You'll often see instructors taking groups off piste without any special equipment. Just an observation, not a recommendation.

 

[fatbob]

In the resort i ski in France, this is not true.

There are groomers everywhere, but the parts that are not groomed with powder of your lucky, have gazex guns in the ridges do they are controlled.
Sure you can venture deep in valleys where the snow is not controlled, but for this you need backcountry equipment, skins, etc, si je definition this means your more prepared that 99 percent of inbound skiers.

So for areas that are visible from lifts, the vast majority the snow is controlled, simply because ab avalanche could bury prime on groomers.

It's exactly the same in a us ski resort.

And sure, you will see instances where people got buried a few feet from a groomer, but it's the same thing in the us. At squaw, there are many instances of avalanches in bounds, in between groomers.

Nobody says it's 100 percent safe.

It's unfortunate that people make these blanket statements, ski off piste in Europe and you die. Or if you want to venture in powder adjacent to a groomer, you need a guide.

Again this is I think more of a problem trying to make blanket assertions about a whole continent from one particular local area. Much of what you say is of course correct for someone with local knowledge (or frequent visitor knowledge) for a single resort. And terrain in many resorts has similarities so the knowledgable or observant can use those skills. But Gasex is not universal and not universal in a resort and it is not public knowledge how often it has been fired on any single slope. If you are a visitor for instance do you ski areas where there are avy barriers because the risk below should be mitigated by the barriers above? Or do you take the existence of the barriers as a cue that it is a pretty major slide path and avoid?

Have the kit and know why a slope you are on is probably ok (basics of angle, aspect, snowfall, wind. temperature, time of day and no terrain traps) if you are going to do it.

 

[crosscountry]

It's not about paying a premium. It's about effectively doubling your skiable acreage so you can get your paid tickets from say 10,000 skiers per day to 20,000.

Where in Europe had you skied?

"Doubling the acreage"? It's more like 10 times the acreage if one were to control all of the "in between run" areas like in the US!!!

European resorts are so much bigger than US resorts. Yet their lift tickets is half or what typical US resorts charge. How much do they have to "expand" to charge more? Or how much more avalanche control work they have to put in to "spread out" their visitors?

Creating "freeride zone" is Europe's answer to "free" off piste skiing. But that doesn't seem to catch on all that much. Majority of off-piste skiers are paying guides instead. I can kind of see why. Guides can take you so far away from the lift yet still finish up in a village pub. It's nothing you can compare with yo-yoing up and down a free ride zone.

 

[Rod9301]

Ski tickets are 50-70 dollars in Europe, i heard back is 275, i know squaw is 225

 

[crosscountry]

i know squaw is 225

Since I haven't skied Squaw for some years, I had to go to their web site to find out what their lift ticket is. From what I can see, it ranges from $110 to $225.

Since you keep on using Squaw as an example, I presume you know it well. (hint: the "many instances" of avalanches in Squaw in your earlier post). But you use the highest price as a single number to compare with, why?

 

[Rod9301]

Since I haven't skied Squaw for some years, I had to go to their web site to find out what their lift ticket is. From what I can see, it ranges from $110 to $225.

Since you keep on using Squaw as an example, I presume you know it well. (hint: the "many instances" of avalanches in Squaw in your earlier post). But you use the highest price as a single number to compare with, why?

I have a pass there, so i don't know eu the day pass prices, but 110 sounds really low, i never heard of this price so low in many years.

I see it's a4 pack. Great