Back Country Skiing?

In article ,
Martin Thornquist wrote:

X-mas card and extra European postcards in the mail Martin.

[ Eugene Miya ]
What are you looking for?

Why, nitpicking, of course!

Of course! I should have known.

Terje will be out here from Norway next month. We haev to start
organizing a dinner for him. We can use you for nitpicking in
alt.folklore.computers? Do you have time?


Isn't that what Usenet news is all about?

Truly.
The Devil is in the details.

Actually I was interested in Booker's definition of backcountry
skiing, but I see now that he makes a distinction I don't really get
between "backcountry skiing" and "skiing in the backcountry". Oh well,
I guess I'll just continue with a happy mixture of lift-served and
self-propelled skiing and not bother about definitions.

Remember: just words.

It was beginning to sound like Charter wars.

--

Around here we have vast networks of (different
states of) groomed tracks streching far into the woods and the
mountains.
with snowmobiles but without set tracks -- not snowmobile routes, we
Who pays for the gas?

In article ,
Martin Thornquist wrote:
In the mountains, Turistforeningen (the Walker's Association) or its
local chapters mostly. In the woods, different organisations, sports
clubs and local government (mostly Skiforeningen in Oslo).

We are largely too cheap to do that.
Here, you either have to pay for your track, or in the case of Natl.
Parks like Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon North, they do it to
prevent bigger problems with novices be inconsistent skiers.

route for skiers. Does it turn from deep backcountry in summer to not
backcountry in winter because a groomed track was laid down?

How far from a road (infrastructure)?

As far as one can get in Southern Norway -- several tens of
kilometers. We don't have any really vast areas with no roads at all,
most places fertile enough to feed a cow and a few sheep have been
populated the last 1000 years.

Well further north, your highway infrastructure is more spotty. You
have to rely on driving through neighboring states. Or use ferries.

You do have a couple of small ice sheets.

--

[ Eugene Miya ]

We are largely too cheap to do that.
Here, you either have to pay for your track, or in the case of Natl.
Parks like Yosemite, Yellowstone, Grand Canyon North, they do it to
prevent bigger problems with novices be inconsistent skiers.

As you know "allemannsretten" gives us the right to unmotorized travel
in the backcountry and on frozen/snow covered fields, so there is no
way you can force anyone to pay to use a track if it's not indoors or
in your private garden. Our national parks are not like yours, we
don't have park staff/administration, they're just areas with heavy
restrictions on development. Turistforeningen runs most of the
mountain huts and trail/track networks (both in and outside the
national parks) with permission from the government.

Well further north, your highway infrastructure is more spotty. You
have to rely on driving through neighboring states. Or use ferries.

North of Trondheim the population is less dense, but the country is
very small -- the large unpopulated areas are on the Swedish side of
the border. Finnmark is big with a small population, but lots of
herded reindeer.

You do have a couple of small ice sheets.

Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that
much. For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go
to Svalbard.


Martin
--
"An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader."
-Paul Graham, On Lisp

Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist:


Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that
much.

But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less
crevasses and seracs, if at all (?)

For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go
to Svalbard.

To be eaten by the bears? :-)

Greetings,

Ulrich

[ Ulrich Hausmann ]

Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist:

Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that
much.

But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less
crevasses and seracs, if at all (?)

Jostedalsbreen is the largest. The large glaciers are plateau
glaciers, i.e. large ice sheets that are mostly flat on top and with
few crevasses. The icefalls on the sides can be steep and broken,
though. And we have lots of smaller glaciers hugging mountainsides or
flowing down valleys, like you have in the Alps (I don't think you
have any plateau glaciers?).

For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go
to Svalbard.

To be eaten by the bears? :-)

That's only one of many exciting ways to go up there! :-)


Martin
--
"An ideal world is left as an exercise to the reader."
-Paul Graham, On Lisp

Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 13:16 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist:

Jostedalsbreen is the largest. The large glaciers are plateau
glaciers, i.e. large ice sheets that are mostly flat on top and with
few crevasses. The icefalls on the sides can be steep and broken,
though. And we have lots of smaller glaciers hugging mountainsides or
flowing down valleys, like you have in the Alps (I don't think you
have any plateau glaciers?).[ Ulrich Hausmann ]

Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist:

Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that
much.

But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less
crevasses and seracs, if at all (?)


No, we have, but not so much. One of the plateau glaciers is just in
front of me (15 km distant in direct line): Plateau du Trient (just as
an example: http://www.christianengl.de/Trient1.jpg )

Greetings,

Ulrich

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.

In article ,
Ulrich Hausmann wrote:
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.

Private property is a big deal in the US. It's the relation between
citizens and their govt. Various groups can incite flame wars
and you Swiss get dragged along as innocent bystanders because all you
are in the Swiss army with your Stm 90s at home.

Here it's shotguns with rock salt in some cases.

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.

You mean going back to the Hapsbergs?

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

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).

I include all that stuff. We have far fewer huts because this is a younger
less developed nation with land in the West only recently settled just
over 100 years ago and an prior indigenous population.

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.

Martigny, been there several times. A French engineer let me drive the
Mt. Blanc Express on a prior visit coming back from Chamonix. That was
a mid-week treat. Been to St. Maurice. Have to ski to to St. Bernard
and maybe stay at the Abbey.
Verbier: my Swiss friends tell me I have to go there. They also say
avoid Crans-Montana (just golf courses), I am starting to guess Laax and
Flims is sort of that way.

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 )
Oh yes, I know the people who run the web site.
The smaller trees ecc. are also the consequence of a rougher climate.

I half expect all the tree to be bar coded. The forests in Japan are
laid out in Cartesian grids (I think they have stopped doing that).
Saw and have seen many Swiss logging operations from trains.

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
avalanches).

Yes, the Alps being at a higher latitude have more U-shaped valleys,
glaciers and associated geomorphology. Your snow is fairly consistently
that which is found on the western sides of continents set in a ways
away from the ocean.

You mean a loose snow avalanche.

Frankly, I don't what constitutes "champaign" powder.
And I have relatives in Xxxx, in XXX, where I can ski XXxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx.
But then I don't drink champaign. I do sample Kirsch.
Alpine snow isn't bad. Fine snow.

I have to convince some one in the Swiss govt. to put a supercomputer in
Davos one of these days at say the SLF (a friend worked there many years ago).

The best ad was:
Eigernordwand?
Snickers bar
alles peanuts.
I thought about asking to bring that advertising home with me.

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).

I just got my package with OeAV stuff.
While the Canadian ACC is like classic state alpine clubs, the US has no
such national equivalent. We are a little more, individualistic, a
little more wildernessy (why you will see fewer huts in the US likely ever),
etc. The AAC doesn't run significant number of populus trips. Regional
outdoor clubs tend to do social activities like that.

The US is trying to save the last of the old growth, trees with
diameters greater than 1 meter, predatory animals, etc. so Europeans can
visit them when you guys come to Yosemite, the Redwoods, Death Valley,
etc.

I have to say however, I was impressive with the boxes and boxes of
military skis, bindings and skins I saw in Army liquidation. And only
40 SF.


My best thought of backcountry last week was taking one tram up (to
Fieschalp), and looking round (what there was), quiting early (last runs
on the trip), and coming down the tram, and seeing this HUGE crown wall
where a slope used to be. And that's why big posted maps have the
flashing yellow light in avalanche conditions. That's backcountry.

[Side bit to my getting the the Conductor from Dissentis was going
along casually informing and reminding every one that this train was
going to Andermatt. So he asked me if I was going to Andermatt.
And I said Andermatt, Fiesch, all the same direction. And his head flew
back, his eyes opened: Fiesch? No one goes to Fiesch.]

--

Here, you either have to pay for your track, or in the case of Natl.

In article ,
Martin Thornquist wrote:
As you know "allemannsretten" gives us the right to unmotorized travel
in the backcountry and on frozen/snow covered fields, so there is no
way you can force anyone to pay to use a track if it's not indoors or
in your private garden. Our national parks are not like yours, we
don't have park staff/administration, they're just areas with heavy
restrictions on development. Turistforeningen runs most of the
mountain huts and trail/track networks (both in and outside the
national parks) with permission from the government.

Well, you can be like Italy and have National Parks and Natural Parks.
And you can't camp in them.


US ski areas have organized ski patrols because of Minnie Dole.
There is far less of that in Europe where the police go skiing.

Well further north, your highway infrastructure is more spotty. You
have to rely on driving through neighboring states. Or use ferries.

North of Trondheim the population is less dense, but the country is
very small -- the large unpopulated areas are on the Swedish side of
the border. Finnmark is big with a small population, but lots of
herded reindeer.

Sniff sniff... Not related to Florida reindeer?
Galen doesn't lurk or post here.

You do have a couple of small ice sheets.

Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that
much. For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go
to Svalbard.

Oh yes, friends have been drilling those ice sheets recently.

--

In article ,
Ulrich Hausmann wrote:
Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist:
Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that
much.

But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less
crevasses and seracs, if at all (?)

You guys have the Alestch.

For real do-something-stupid-and-you-die territory one has to go
to Svalbard.

To be eaten by the bears? :-)

Oh, have to get the 12 gauge out. Lock and load.
Have to stop the bear before getting recertified....

--

Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 17:18 -0700 schrieb Eugene Miya:
In article ,
Ulrich Hausmann wrote:
Am Freitag, den 03.03.2006, 09:01 +0100 schrieb Martin Thornquist:
Largest in continental Europe -- although that doesn't say all that
much.

But, as far is i know (Folgefonna, Svartisen) they are different: less
crevasses and seracs, if at all (?)

You guys have the Alestch.

But Martin is right, Aletschgletscher is way way smaller than
Jostedalsbreen ...

Greetings,

Ulrich