Skiers - Would it be ok to allow them to ski "out of bounds" if they pre-paid a refundable rescue fee?

Question

Every winter there are stories about skiers who deliberately go out of bounds - probably for the thrill of it. Sometimes these folks get themselves injured or killed, though, because they ski in areas without trails.

Should this kind of "extreme skiing" be permitted, if the skier posts a bond/deposit in advance to help defray the cost of any rescue they needed?

The ski slope operator and local rescue squad would not be held liable for any "out of bounds" ski mishaps.

Answer 1

In Colorado, a portion ($0.25) of a hunting or fishing license or snowmobile, boat, or off-road vehicle registration goes into a search and rescue fund.  As long as one has one of these license or registrations, it will not cost you anything if rescue is required (for any activity).

This is an AWESOME thing that Colorado has done.  Other states should do the same.

Edit;  Avi has some great info.  I didn't know that, but I don't live in Colo anymore.  Also, the American Alpine Club has rescue insurance for climbers as part of their annual  membership fee ($75)

Answer 2

No.  That would make "out of bounds" areas into premium areas and what's the point of them being marked off limits?  If you want to ski back country then do it like the rest of the BC purists, don't put the burden on the ski hill and their staff.  Plus they'd then have to - presumably - hire more patrols to patrol those areas and if the fee was refundable where do their wages come from?

Answer 3

Amen Willie....

Answer 4

Willie and Wayner both have good points. There are many back-country skiers out there who don't want to pay any more than necessary for an outing away from resort mayhem. The areas roped off at a ski area are done so for a reason. Why would you offer people the option to pay to ski in hazardous areas?  More often than not, those individuals injured/killed skiing out of bounds areas at resorts are not experienced enough to b-c ski anywhere, they either over-estimate their abilities or try to show-off to others.

Now to Wayners point. Colorado does just what he said, but you don't need to buy a hunting or fishing license or register a boat, snowmobile or ATV to accomplish this. You can just buy a card (Colorado Outdoor Recreation Search and Rescue (CORSAR) Card). It's $3 for one year or $12 for five years. Your money goes to the Search and Rescue Fund and reimburses the costs incurred in your search and rescue. It doesn't cover medical though so if a helicopter is searching for you it's free, but if the helicopter becomes a medevac because of injuries you would pay only that portion.

Answer 5

I am opposed to the refundable rescue fee idea.

First it can not be estimated how much the rescue would cost.

Second it would commit scarce resources to the rescue that should not be needed.

The ski patrol is usually a volunteer group with a few poorly paid professionals for leadership. They are dedicated personnel who work hard for their mission. A search and rescue operation for someone who goes out of bounds and gets lost is usually conducted by the county search and rescue team in my area, which is part of the Sheriff's Department.

  I've spent much time in the outdoors and a lot of it alone.  I'm not the best woodman alive but I'm smart enough to know where I am and where I'm going and how to do it. Going out of bounds for a thrill can result in your own death or the deaths of the rescue party.  IMHO if you go out of bounds and get injured, your buddies should bring you out, since you never ski alone. If you get lost fine, the cougars and bears need to eat also.  This may sound tough, but the outdoors is just that.  If you think along those terms, you will be much more cautious and look before you leap.  If you want to go out of bounds, do not start from a ski area, go to a winter park and ride, there are many mountains that are accessible, you can climb them on your own and ski all uncut slopes.  It just means you must make the effort to climb in and then ski out.

Answer 6

The ski area is not liable for out of bounds accidents anyway.  Thats why they have gates and ropes along the ski area boundry.  Mountain rescue will go in there and get you, but you will be looking at about 15000 worth of fines and costs after the fact.  

Yes, this kind of extreme skiing should be permitted.  There is no need for deposits/bonds, etc.  Drive over Loveland or Berthoud Pass in Colorado sometime in the winter.

Answer 7

I don't believe it should be mandatory that a bond or deposit be placed on out-of-bounders. I several reasons for my thinking.

#1: It goes against the philosophy most backcountry skiers have. Purists, like me, believe in free-access to the BC. I've booted it into the woods many days, skinned up my fair share of mountains, and used access points to out-of-bounds areas by truck or snowmobile. Paying for the privilege of skiing on God-Made snow far from the trappings of a ski resort is almost sacrilege.

#2: Cost them becomes an issue. Many dirt-bag skiers (like myself) are already bitching about the rising cost of equipment. The price for a pair of Telemark boots is now equal to a set of Alpine boots. ($450 for a new pair...and that's with a pro-deal.) Likewise...skis, bindings, and the required equipment to safely ski out-of-bounds has jumped well over 200% in the last 5-years. The rising cost of oil is only making the boots more expensive and transportation costs for the equipment go higher. Slapping a deposit for SAR on top of that would be a great way to make sure only the fat-cats who can already afford the $800 heli-ski tour would be the only ones who could pony up the cash for the BC-acess deposit.

#3: People like me are going to ignore the mandate. I have the gear and training to venture into most BC areas and I already understand the risks involved with going out-of-bounds. Likewise, when I am going to an area or travelling in conditions I am not 100% sure I can handle with my own skills, I am smart enough to tag-a-long with locals who know the terrain.

#4: How would it be enforced? The USFS, BLM, and state agencies really do not have the manpower. The only way someone is going to get caught is after the accident has occurred...and then what? SAR & EMS units exist because these sort of accidents already occur. When they haul your busted and broken butt out of the backcountry they slap you with a bill. Then you pay the bill. This is how a lot of trauma helicopter services already do business. Case-in-point: my father-in-law was involved in a car accident 6 miles from a hospital. They called in the helicopter anyway because "they" needed to acrue "x" amount of hours in-air or face a budget cut. He still ended up going to the hospital in an ALS-rig...and they still tried to sap him the $6000 for the unused helicopter. So I ask....what is the difference if they have to pull your butt out of the woods? They can just bill you (or your HMO) and everyone can go on thier merry way.

What I would support is a nationally recognized training program that includes safe-skiing, backcountry travel, basic outdoor emergency care, LNT, and fundamental SAR skills. Make it a 3-day course, charge about $250 for the class, make it good for 5 years, offer refresher classes for $100, and put the money back into better outdoor education and backcountry emergency programs. Anyone holding a certificate saying they completed the course would be exempt from SAR costs provided they did all they could to avoid the situtation in the first place.

No, its not perfect, but its a better idea than just letting some dumb-*** who can afford the deposit go out into the BC with no education whatsoever. Will it eliminate the problem? No...some people are gonna opt to not take the training. Can it be enforced?...Only if they get caught or need the SAR.

It's easier to legislate than to educate and the chances of the organizations needed to provide the standards for my proposed certification all coming together are about as likely as Ron Paul winning the 2008 election.

Answer 8

Not really....its bad enough that they endangered themselves but they could endanger others....BTW, I live in that town where the avalanche occurred.  It devastated not only the our community but their friends and families.