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.
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.
BACKCOUNTRY, SLACKCOUNTRY, SIDECOUNTRY, FRONTCOUNTRY! | Stories - CMH Heli-Skiing & Summer Adventures
We’re leaving the ski area. You can’t really blame us. The ungroomed, untouched and unbelievable terrain and snow outside the ski area boundary is the…
stories.cmhheli.com
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: