- Joined
- Feb 14, 2007
- Messages
- 1,531
Folks, this above coverage is nothing more than a press release from the management company of a ski resort. As I wrote earlier, I think these guys "will walk" meaning, no criminal charges, no fees, and no bill payment.
There is another side of the story, probably why "names" have not been released. These guys decided they had the right to go and do what they did and essentially told the resort to "go pound sand." I personally hope that's not the case but.....
Also, this is not the only forum where the incident and cost recovery is being discussed. I found this post, it may have some basis of truth.
According to "KenN" "El Diablo Loco"
FACTS about the Grouse Mountain incident:
1. The four skiers were went out of bounds (that is, NOT in a closed, in bounds area) on Friday, January 2. The North Shore avalanche forecast for that day can be found here.
2. They stayed below the treeline, note that the avy report shows the risk as "moderate" at that level. They checked the avy report before going out of bounds, they were carrying the correct equipment and they were familiar with the area. One of these guys posted a comment on the CBC article (time stamp 10:11 pm ET Jan 2) and listed these facts. CBC article
3. THEY WERE NOT RESCUED. Grouse mtn called the police and SAR. The four finished their run then hiked back to the ski area. They were never lost, never called for help, knew where they were headed. I expect their risk level was low to none. The helicopter was not necessary, nobody was lost or hurt.
4. Going out of bounds is not illegal and not even necessarily dangerous. The news reporting is highly biased, muddles the facts, and plays to the safety-obsessed armchair critics of the world.
5. If Grouse Mtn actually tries to follow through with charging for the "rescue", I don't see how it would be enforceable. Rescue was neither requested nor needed. Grouse staff overreacted big time so maybe they can pay for the RCMP copter and SAR time and resources.
6. Comments by the Grouse staff that the skiers were behaving "absurdly" and "arrogantly" are ridiculous. Just because the skiers used a Grouse lift to get up the mountain doesn't somehow make it a skier's responsibility to stay on Grouse property. Perhaps the only thing that the skiers might have done differently is to stop when asked initially and explained to the patroller that they knew the area and were prepared. I don't see how Grouse or the patrol could even have the right to stop someone from leaving Grouse property.
I think the four skiers should sue Grouse for the bad publicity they've received, all because of a stupid, unsupportable decision by Grouse staff. They certainly don't deserve to be public pariahs for this.
http://bb.nsmb.com/showthread.php?t=118666&page=4
On a separate and unrelated note...........
Since North Shore Rescue in British Columbia has been referenced several times in this thread, here is their official position on rescue charges.
Why Not Charge For Rescues?
This is a topic that heats up periodically. Although there is clearly a need for proper funding of volunteer search & rescue teams across the province, charging for rescues is not the way to accomplish this.
Our Official Position Is:
North Shore Rescue is comprised of expert volunteer members who work under local police authority. The Rescue Team has performed search and rescue operations since 1965 without charge to the subject(s).
NSR firmly believes that training and education are the keystones in the solution to this issue. We believe that the individual must accept responsibility for his or her actions and that training in proper outdoors skills and for self-rescue might be the quickest and most effective method of resolving most rescue situations.
However, no one should ever be made to feel they must delay in notifying the proper authorities of a search or rescue incident out of fear of possible charges.
NSR is proud to be able to provide search and rescue at NO cost and have NO plans to charge in the future.
There are two basic reasons for our position:
The faster the callout the better the outcome .It is essential that the team be called out as quickly as possible. For every hour that passes an injured subject's condition deteriorates; a hypothermic subject can slip into unconciousness; a lost subject can stumble further away or slip over a cliff. An hour can make a dramatic difference in a rescue situation, increasing the possible search area each minute. We don't want anybody delaying calling 911, hoping that little Johnny will finally make his way out the mountains on his own, simply from the fear of possibly being charged for the rescue. For the missing person's sake we need to be called as soon as possible.
Hiding from rescuers is a bad idea .We need to avoid the situation where the subject hides from the searchers thinking, "If I get to the carpark before they find me then I won't be charged." There have been instances in the past where the subject has deliberately tried to avoid the searchers. This makes our job substantially more difficult and goes against the entire search and rescue effort.
There will always be cases where the subject does something completely and obviously irresponsible, necessitating a rescue. Then the discussion starts anew about charging for rescues. Keep in mind that such cases are relatively rare.
http://www.northshorerescue.com/chargingforrescues.html
Last edited:
