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

Safety The term “Side country”

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
Recently on a different thread there was some brief discussion of the term “side country”. I know about this controversy and have been wondering about it.



many of the skiers call it "side country" which is a fake term that doesn't exist.


“side country" is a term and it is real. It means back country that is accessible from a lift, typically allows you to get back to the lift on the same day before nightfall. It does not mean it is any safer than any other back country, nor does it mean it requires any less safety consideration.

I understand that some people/organizations feel that way, and I applaud the intention of wanting to be clear on the risk. However, I don’t see the big risk.

If people were using a term like “almost inbounds” or “resort-country” or so, I would feel different. Basically, if it was a word that sounded like, or was derived from, “inbounds” or “resort”, I could see how it could be confusing, making people think of inbounds, Resort controlled terrain.

In fact, in Europe, the term “off piste” is very common. Same issues: uncontrolled terrain. Yet, in that case, the word does have a ring of what it is not: controlled terrain (aka piste), all though it also clearly has a negation, so maybe that helps.


But the term “side-country” if anything, reminds you of “backcountry”, “out side” or “country side”, all places that invoke the opposite of a resort idea.

In other words, I don’t understand what possible association there might exist between the term “side country” and “inbounds” or “controlled”.

What do others think?

To be clear, I am talking specifically about the nomenclature. So not discussing the risks and decisions of heading out of bounds from a resort. Only discussing whether the word “side country” is a risk on it’s own.
 
Last edited:
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
Lift served backcountry.
I see what you are trying to do here, but what I don’t like about that term is two fold:

1: it is incorrect. By definition, if it is near a road, lift, train or other acces, it is not “back” country.

(If you tell your friends you went on a back country hunt, they certainly donkt imagine you being steps from the road or other acces)


2: by incorporating the word “lift” and it’s association with patrollers and avalanche control, don’t you have even more chance of people forming a false sense of security than with the term “side country”?
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,894
Location
Behavioral sink
Recently on a different thread there was some brief discussion of the term “side country”. I know about this controversy and have been wondering about it.

....

To be clear, I am talking specifically about the nomenclature. So not discussing the risks and decisions of heading out of bounds from a resort. Only discussing whether the word “side country” is a risk on it’s own.


It is on the sides of controlled areas. It is adjacent thereto. It is completely defined by being adjacent to controlled area. Phrased yet another way, it is next to controlled areas.

I think those three words 'next to controlled' are extremely dangerous together - because they imply a safety spillover from the controlled area.

Of course there is no such thing as safety spillover. But defining a backcountry area as distinct from other backcountry perpetuates the likelihood of that misconception.
 

pchewn

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Apr 24, 2017
Posts
2,607
Location
Beaverton OR USA
1: it is incorrect. By definition, if it is near a road, lift, train or other acces, it is not “back” country.

Lots of "backcountry" skiing is done by driving up the pass, skiing down to the bottom and doing a car shuttle. So I don't see the need to be far away from roads or other access to be termed "backcountry".
 
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
Lots of "backcountry" skiing is done by driving up the pass, skiing down to the bottom and doing a car shuttle. So I don't see the need to be far away from roads or other access to be termed "backcountry".
That’s side country, front country or slack country or what ever term you want to use. Of course, it is nebulous where the “border” is, in other words, how far away form the road does the backcountry start.
Martina and Tania Halik might have started from the road or a lift, but skiing 2300km, end to end along the Canadian Coast Range mountains, certainly qualifies as “backcountry” *

I agree that that many people use the word “backcountry” to mean skiing anything other than inbounds. It has come to be used as a description for the activity not necessarily as a description of the terrain.


* https://www.tetongravity.com/story/...te-one-of-the-hardest-ski-traverses-out-there
 

Cheizz

AKA Gigiski
Skier
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Posts
1,958
Location
The Netherlands
I would characterize 'side country' as terrain that is not controlled, but starts at the edge of controlled terrain or lift and that offers a route back to controlled terrain and lifts. If it doesn't lead back to a controlled area, it's 'back country' for me. That's also the case if the access isn't directly from controlled terrain.
 
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
It is on the sides of controlled areas. It is adjacent thereto. It is completely defined by being adjacent to controlled area. Phrased yet another way, it is next to controlled areas.

I think those three words 'next to controlled' are extremely dangerous together - because they imply a safety spillover from the controlled area.

Of course there is no such thing as safety spillover. But defining a backcountry area as distinct from other backcountry perpetuates the likelihood of that misconception.

I totally agree how the term “next to controlled” would lead to a higher feeling of safety, do you think the same is through for the term: “side country” though?
 
Thread Starter
TS
Slim

Slim

Making fresh tracks
Skier
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Oct 2, 2017
Posts
2,973
Location
Duluth, MN
Of course, all of this is a difficult discussion, since the only people discussing this, are people who DO know the difference between inbounds and not, and who DO know the dangers of any uncontrolled terrain. ;-)

I suppose what you’d really need to do is some kind of experiment, asking a bunch of random skiers to rate the danger of terrain using a picture and various terms, and see if it is rated safer when shown the same picture with the word ‘side country’ as when shown that same terrain with a different label.

This discussion is mostly just interest to me, I don’t write maps, signs, guidebooks magazine articles or such, so not many people will ever know what term I use. ;-)

Part of it is just my personal desire for accuracy, but there is a practical component as well:

If someone comes on the forum here, and asks for ski and binding advice for “side country” skiing, that would give a different answer than someone wanting to go “backcountry” skiing.
 
Last edited:

Cheizz

AKA Gigiski
Skier
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Posts
1,958
Location
The Netherlands
In Europe, the distinction is easier, I think. Marked and open runs are 'controlled terrain'; everything else isn't (whatever you would like to call that). Note 'marked' runs does not equal 'groomed' runs. In France, some black runs are not groomed (but marked and patrolled and with avalanche control - or just closed, which would make them off-piste and 'you're on your own'). Same goes for the 'ski routes' in Austria.
But in any case: 'marked' and 'open' equals 'controlled'. Anything else: side country, back country, off piste, wilderness - you pick.
 

cantunamunch

Meh
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
21,894
Location
Behavioral sink
I totally agree how the term “next to controlled” would lead to a higher feeling of safety, do you think the same is through for the term: “side country” though?

It isn't quite the same but let's say one specifically avoids the 'next to' interpretation of "side". Not easy, but let's say one does.

Even so, "side" makes a lot of things sound less significant than they actually might be. Side chick, side hustle, side affair, side concern - "side" diminishing significance is pervasive in the language. Might as well substitute 'on a lark' for "side".

So yes, using "side" is dangerous and can lead to diminished diligence. Even if we avoid the 'next to' interpretation.
 

François Pugh

Skiing the powder
Skier
Joined
Nov 17, 2015
Posts
7,617
Location
Great White North (Eastern side currently)
I would characterize 'side country' as terrain that is not controlled, but starts at the edge of controlled terrain or lift and that offers a route back to controlled terrain and lifts. If it doesn't lead back to a controlled area, it's 'back country' for me. That's also the case if the access isn't directly from controlled terrain.
@Cheizz
I'm just curious.
Have a look at this map.

and these maps

One day back in the early 1980s, before they had the "Outback" or the "Boomerang Chair Lift", I went up the Eagle Express Chair lift, skied the cliff area shown next to it on the last "Outback" map, through "North Bowl" and down to MacKay Lake.

There was no lift or controlled terrain there at the time. It did not lead me to a lift or road. In fact the lift was on the opposite side of the mountain. I would have to climb back or go around the mountain to get back to the lift.

At the time the term "sidecountry" was unknown to me. The term "backcountry" made sense to me because it was on the "back" side of the mountain.

Was it backcountry or sidecountry?
 

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,216
Location
Boston Suburbs
I think making the term go away would not reduce the number of unprepared skiers who go there without understanding the risks involved.
It's better to admit the term exists and try to educate for safety (as hopeless as that probably is).

edit to add -- the more I think about this, the more strongly I feel that trying to quash the term side-country is misguided. Think of a bunch of newbies standing at the entrance to an out-of-area gulley they know leads back to the base.

"We shouldn't go there, it's back-country and we don't have the equipment." "No dude, it goes right back to the base!"

Contrast that with "We shouldn't go there, we don't have the equipment for side-country."
It will still be ignored way too often, but it doesn't directly conflict with appearances.
 
Last edited:

mdf

entering the Big Couloir
Skier
Team Gathermeister
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 12, 2015
Posts
7,216
Location
Boston Suburbs
@Cheizz
I'm just curious.
Was it backcountry or sidecountry?
If that north side had no lift or marked, controlled terrain, I would call it 'back country'. For me, 'side country' starts and ends in controlled area, where the side country terrain itself is not controlled.

To me at least, "sidecountry" implies an easy exit from and re-entry into the ski area with little or no hiking. Backcountry access through a gate does not automatically make it sidecountry. Maybe an easy exit to a road instead might qualify too.
 

Pequenita

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Aug 5, 2017
Posts
1,613
I think there may be a conflation of “backcountry” and “wilderness.” Usually I associate “wilderness” with being a particular distance from medical assistance. Backcountry to me means uncontrolled and not within resort boundaries. Jurisdiction of a backcountry ski patrol, if one exists. Side country is lift accessed, may be controlled, out a gate, but you return to a lift at the bottom (rather than having to skin up back to the lift and into the resort), and resort patrol may do sweeps. But yeah, it’s nebulous.
 

Cheizz

AKA Gigiski
Skier
Joined
Aug 15, 2016
Posts
1,958
Location
The Netherlands
I think making the term go away would not reduce the number of unprepared skiers who go there without understanding the risks involved.
It's better to admit the term exists and try to educate for safety (as hopeless as that probably is).

edit to add -- the more I think about this, the more strongly I feel that trying to quash the term side-country is misguided. Think of a bunch of newbies standing at the entrance to an out-of-area gulley they know leads back to the base.

"We shouldn't go there, it's back-country and we don't have the equipment." "No dude, it goes right back to the base!"

Contrast that with "We shouldn't go there, we don't have the equipment for side-country."
It will still be ignored way too often, but it doesn't directly conflict with appearances.

Even then - how often I read about avalanche deaths or even successful rescues from people who were educated. Stories such as: "The woman was an experienced alpine tourer. She was skinning on her own [as the report shows, on a leeward 40 degree slope on a 'Stufe 4' day after big snowfall and wind]." To me, as a defensive and cautious skier, there are quite a few alarm bells in that simple report + situation sketch (mostly, a map and avalanche bulletin is referenced to).

It seems to me that no matter how experienced and educated some skiers are - they will always keep pushing their boundaries. And their luck. No semantics there.
 

BS Slarver

Making fresh tracks
Skier
Joined
Nov 20, 2015
Posts
1,527
Location
Biggest skiing in America
Call it whatever you want, I agree with the MT article that side county is back country in these parts.
Going beyond that point and others leaving Bridger bowl is the real F- ing deal and you and your party better have your shit together. Some of those hike to lines are a sphincter check for sure.

Skiing out of your truck off the beartooth highway backcountry ? You bet your ass it is, no ones coming out to get you there.
 

SBrown

So much better than a pro
Skier
Contributor
SkiTalk Supporter
Joined
Nov 8, 2015
Posts
7,846
Location
Colorado
Lift accessed out of area boundary un-controlled terrain. No ski patrol rescue. Simple.

I agree, and personally I like the term, but from what I hear, and the reason for the "controversy" is that it is confusing for less-experienced or -educated (or -Western-oriented) skiers. Even with the skull-and-crossbones at exit gates. Don't know the answer.
 

Sponsor

Top