Licence Backcountry Access.
 

Think it's about time licence's are issued to skiers/ boarders to access
the backcountry/ off piste. Two many clueless fools are killing
themselves and others and putting the rescue teams at risk by their
ignorance. No transceiver probe etc and no formal training = no licence.
Just a thought!

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:38:18 +0000 (UTC), Jason Pereira
wrote:

Think it's about time licence's are issued to skiers/ boarders to access
the backcountry/ off piste. Two many clueless fools are killing
themselves and others and putting the rescue teams at risk by their
ignorance. No transceiver probe etc and no formal training = no licence.

More legislation, eh? If in doubt, write a law!

Just a thought!

Not a very good one.

--
Champ

On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:38:18 GMT, Jason Pereira
allegedly wrote:

Think it's about time licence's are issued to skiers/ boarders to
access the backcountry/ off piste.

What about snowshoers, snow mobilers (currently the highest fatality
group), climbers etc? Do they need your licence too?

Two many clueless fools are killing themselves and

It's called the Darwin principle.

others and putting the rescue teams at risk by their ignorance.

I'm sure that there are some resuers who put the lives of others above
themselves, but everything I've been taught says that the rescue teams
always consider their own safety first.

No transceiver probe etc and no formal training = no licence.

Equipment couldn't be a prerequisite for a licence. Presumably it would
be an annual licence, and you might sell stuff over the summer, and pick
something new in winter.

As for basing it on a course, anyone can go on a course and take nothing
in. So you'd need to have some form of test.

And guess what, the experts can get it wrong too. It's not just
brainless kids out there.

Plus, who would police it? Would each town or state police force need a
backcountry department? How about helicopters patrolling the mountains
to make sure no-ones doing something naughty?

Any money required to implement such a scheme would be better spent on
education and awareness. Much more effective.

- Dave.

--
The only powder to get high on, falls from the sky.
http://www.vpas.org/ - Snowboarding the worlds pow pow -
Securing your e-mail

The Snowboard FAQ lives here - http://rssFAQ.org/

Dear Jas.P: How right you are ! Read my other posts re the Canyons
saga.....especially re newly enacted, 1/20, Douglas County NV Law
imposing prison, $1,000 fine + rescue expenses, successful or not.
should the "out-of-bounds" adventurer be caught. LH 1/21/05

Switters wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:38:18 GMT, Jason Pereira
allegedly wrote:


Think it's about time licence's are issued to skiers/ boarders to
access the backcountry/ off piste.


What about snowshoers, snow mobilers (currently the highest fatality
group), climbers etc? Do they need your licence too?


Two many clueless fools are killing themselves and


It's called the Darwin principle.


others and putting the rescue teams at risk by their ignorance.


I'm sure that there are some resuers who put the lives of others above
themselves, but everything I've been taught says that the rescue teams
always consider their own safety first.


No transceiver probe etc and no formal training = no licence.


Equipment couldn't be a prerequisite for a licence. Presumably it would
be an annual licence, and you might sell stuff over the summer, and pick
something new in winter.

As for basing it on a course, anyone can go on a course and take nothing
in. So you'd need to have some form of test.

And guess what, the experts can get it wrong too. It's not just
brainless kids out there.

Plus, who would police it? Would each town or state police force need a
backcountry department? How about helicopters patrolling the mountains
to make sure no-ones doing something naughty?

Any money required to implement such a scheme would be better spent on
education and awareness. Much more effective.

- Dave.

Dave,
the whole point is more powder for me to enjoy and for longer!.

"I'm sure that there are some resuers who put the lives of others above
themselves, but everything I've been taught says that the rescue teams
always consider their own safety first. "

Yes they condider their own safety. Howver, we've all seen photos and
videos of rescuers that are still taking substantial risk to their
lives to bail out some idiot. Surely you've seen photos of helicopters
flying in mountains in marginal conditions to rescue someone. Or
photos of the Coast Guard sending a rescue craft out in extreme weather
to try to save people. The story shown in Perfect Storm is a classic
example. A Coast Guard helicopter was sent into a huricane to rescue 3
idiots on a sailboat that never should have been there. The chopper
had to ditch because of the storm, one crew member was seriously
injured, another died.


"Equipment couldn't be a prerequisite for a licence. Presumably it
would
be an annual licence, and you might sell stuff over the summer, and
pick
something new in winter. "

I don't see how when you buy/sell eqpt has any bearing on requiring you
have a certain set of eqpt on each backcountry trip. The Coast Guard
has reqts for min reqd eqpt for boaters for example.


"As for basing it on a course, anyone can go on a course and take
nothing
in. So you'd need to have some form of test.

Yes, that sounds like a good idea.


"And guess what, the experts can get it wrong too. It's not just
brainless kids out there. "

So, this means what? That because requiring some level of training
and proper eqpt isn't worth it because it will only reduce
fatalities/injuries, not entirely eliminate them? That argument was
used about seat belts too, are they a bad idea?

"Plus, who would police it? Would each town or state police force need
a
backcountry department? How about helicopters patrolling the mountains
to make sure no-ones doing something naughty? Any money required to
implement such a scheme would be better spent on
education and awareness. "

The fines levied would likely pay for the amount of enforcement needed.

Switters wrote:
On Fri, 21 Jan 2005 11:38:18 GMT, Jason Pereira
allegedly wrote:


Think it's about time licence's are issued to skiers/ boarders to
access the backcountry/ off piste.


What about snowshoers, snow mobilers (currently the highest fatality
group), climbers etc? Do they need your licence too?


Two many clueless fools are killing themselves and


It's called the Darwin principle.

Especially in the case of snowmobilers.

This sort of law would be nearly impossible to enforce. If you took all
the resources that would be required for enforcing such a law and
instead put them into prevention, such as government-sponsored free avvy
courses at which you could purchase discounted transceivers, probes and
shovels, you would get way bigger bang for your buck.

The idiots will still die, and some of the smart ones, too - backcountry
riding is all about risk management, but there's no way to eliminate risk.

Neil

On 21 Jan 2005 06:19:31 -0800, wrote:

Rescue Crews

Yes they condider their own safety. Howver, we've all seen photos and
videos of rescuers that are still taking substantial risk to their
lives to bail out some idiot. Surely you've seen photos of helicopters
flying in mountains in marginal conditions to rescue someone. Or
photos of the Coast Guard sending a rescue craft out in extreme weather
to try to save people. The story shown in Perfect Storm is a classic
example. A Coast Guard helicopter was sent into a huricane to rescue 3
idiots on a sailboat that never should have been there. The chopper
had to ditch because of the storm, one crew member was seriously
injured, another died.

Rescue teams mostly do it because they love the activity themselves
(be it sailing, skiing, climbing, caving - whatever) and want to
provide a support service to the whole activity.

Every year a couple of stupid tourists get airlifted off the mountains
in Scotland [1] wearing flipflops and Hawaiian shirts, having got
caught in a storm when the weather turned. The rescue crews are
constantly asked "Should these people be fined/licensed/banned". The
answer is always the same - the mountains are there for everyone to
enjoy, and rescuing a few idiots is a small price to pay for providing
open access.

[1] They're not particularly big mountains, but they can be quite
treachourous.
--
Champ

Jason Pereira wrote:
Think it's about time licence's are issued to skiers/ boarders to
access
the backcountry/ off piste. Two many clueless fools are killing
themselves and others and putting the rescue teams at risk by their
ignorance. No transceiver probe etc and no formal training = no
licence.
Just a thought!

Rather than try to legislate something that has dubious criteria, a
simpler and more effective means would be to require rescue insurance.

Jason Pereira wrote:
Think it's about time licence's are issued to skiers/
boarders to access the backcountry/ off piste. Two many
clueless fools are killing themselves and others and
putting the rescue teams at risk by their
ignorance. No transceiver probe etc and no formal
training = no licence. Just a thought!

I don't think it's a very good thought. There are enough people around,
perhaps like you, who think that a little badge and a bit of "training"
will impress the mountain.

If you're really worried about people killing themlselves, then how
about chasing tobacco companies, or religious organizations or
something.

We don't need this.