Am Mittwoch, den 01.03.2006, 10:55 -0700 schrieb Eugene Miya:

The US is a little different. If you ski here, you are going to have to
be aware of those differences.

That's even the case if, let's say, a lift company closes the runs for
avalange danger etc. People can pass there anyway - but as you say
correctly - on their own risk.

European lifts tend not to own the land and be subject to liability.

In the US some are private land, and some are leased from public agencies.

Exactly, that's what i wanted to say. At least in Switzerland, it's
unthinkable that a lift company owns, let's say a mountain, and
therefore can do with it, what they want.

For historical reasons, that's different for example for Austria, where
the land was owned until the democratic revolution and even further by
the aristocracy.

Generally, i do not think there is so much difference between
backcountry in USA and Canada and the Alps on the other hand (we call it
ski randonnee or, in Sweden or Norway fjelltelemarking). But, i think,
the Alps have a closer infrastructure of huts, cabane ecc. And an
excellent and close emergency support.

You have mentioned the big difference: you have a big infrastructure.
Delicious. The US as a whole has a lower population density in ski
areas. We have nothing like any area with 450+ ski lifts much less
X-C and other associated winter activities. Europe has a lower tree
line. Most of your recreational skis areas have most of their
infrastructure above tree line. The US has to mostly cut a lot of
timber to make areas (people complain of altitude).

I did not mean the infrastructure as a lift (and lift-served) system,
but the system of high alpine huts, igloos ecc. And the organisation of
the emergency (in case of avalanches).

Yes, for the lower tree line, but sincerely, most of the alpine ski
areas are within anyway. At least, where i'm living (Bas Valais - near
Martigny), save Verbier, all the resorts are mostly within the treeline
or only the top of the lifts is out of, but not the base and the lower
parts.

You guys have heavily cut down your forests. You have to come to the US
to see many trees with diameters much greater than a meter.

But, on the other hand, many forests in the alps, you can see nowadays,
are not "natural" but artificially created by men (as avalanche
protection - as one of a lot of examples:
http://www.myswitzerland.com/en/navp...ays&id=344 48 )

The smaller trees ecc. are also the consequence of a rougher climate.


As for the mortal accidents in avalanches, i don't think there's so much
difference between the Alps and Northamerica - at least not if you put
the accidents in comparison to the people doing ski randonnee ...

Well, you would have to bring this up with the SLF in Davos.
The physics are mostly the same, save younger trees in the Alps.

I also think the conformation of the terrain is slightly different. Save
some areas in Alaska and British Columbia, the Alps seems to be steeper
and with more glaciers and the intrinsecal problems (crevasses, seracs).
Moreover, the snow is different: We do not have the champaign powder,
but very often light, but at the same time umid snow, which is "ideal"
for snow slides (i don't know the correct english term for that kind of
avalanaches).

You have more people doing Nordic and randonnee.
I saw many more avalanche classes (free, too, bring gear) in the Alps
and you have to pay to field work here.

That might be a significant difference. If you're a member of one of the
national alpine clubs (CAS, CAI, CAF, OeAV, DAV ecc.) you can get a
complete randonnee formation at nearly nothing (ok, you'll have to pay
for sleeping and eating, but that's it).

Best wishes,

Ulrich