RISKY SKIING NOT WORTH ULTIMATE COST!

Atleast according to the editors of the Bellingham Herald. Here is todays (11/30/05) opinion from the paper. I'm still processing but it certainly lacks an understanding of what "backcountry" is or even how the Mt Baker Ski Area is laid out. I believe a few letters to the editor might be appropriate. <br><br> www.bellinghamherald.com/apps/pbcs.dll/a...1300326/1009/OPINION

"Every year we write an editorial pleading with skiers and snowboarders to be safe at the Mt. Baker Ski Area.
Yet every year there is another ski tragedy to write about.
Sunday, a 21-year-old Vancouver, B.C., resident died after he and some friends ducked under ropes, ignored warning signs and skied by dangerous cliffs at the ski area. He fell over a cliff and died of the injuries from that fall.
We want to express deep sympathy to the skier's family and we certainly don't wish to demonize him or any skier or boarder who dies around the ski area - but what a tragic and unnecessary loss of life. And it happens every year. Two people died near the ski area during the last ski season. In 1999, five people died.
We understand the allure of the out-of-bounds "backcountry." After heavy snows, the backcountry is usually covered with beautiful, untouched snow.
Officials say the skier, his brother and two friends left the safe areas near the Chute, an advanced ski run off of Chair 1 that is bordered by 300-to-400-foot-tall cliffs. They apparently were looking for fresh powder to ski.
This is another tragic example of what happens when people think skiing outside the maintained slopes and trails of the ski area is OK.
Nothing could be further from the truth. While the ski area's professional staff makes skiing and boarding in-bounds as safe an experience as can be for an inherently dangerous sport, no one is out getting rid of avalanche dangers or grooming outside the ski area. When ski area officials rope off areas and post signs, those are real danger warnings that should never be ignored.
We live in a time when "extreme" is considered a good, fun word. Television is always showing the craziest feats done in the name of getting a temporary thrill. But skiers and boarders need to be smarter than that. Life isn't a television program. Sometimes there aren't second chances.
We hope that the rest of the ski season in our area is extremely fun for skiers and boarders. We also hope that anyone considering going outside of the ropes and ignoring signs will remember the tragedy of this past weekend and choose to be safe instead."

I get really angry at things like this. For example, my roommate teles but is very hesitant to have anything to do with skiing in the backcountry because he thinks it's too dangerous.<br><br>The backcountry is as safe as you make it. If you don't know what you are doing, you may die. However, as all the readers of this board now, the backcountry can be very safe if you understand the dangers and limitations. Articles like this make generalizations that scare people into thinking if you aren't riding chairlifts, you are taking unnecessary risks, which is very far from the truth.<br><br>I would also like to point out that ducking the Snaggle-puss rope does not qualify as "the backcountry" at all.<br><br>Sorry for the rant, but about the thing editorials like this cause is me getting phone calls from worried parents. The least the Herald could of done is mention the NWAC, ASAP or AAI and explain how backcountry can be safe with the proper knowledge and equipment. <br><br><br>EDIT: i think i am going to tweek this a little and send it the the Herald.

Here was my less than 200 word response.  Letters to the Editor really force you to carefully choose your words!<br><br><br>"As an avid backcountry skier I was disappointed by misconceptions about the "backcountry" voiced in your editorial on safe skiing.  <br><br>Many people enjoy skiing in the 99.99% of the Cascades that exist outside ski area boundaries, otherwise known as the "backcountry".  They find that skiing outside the maintained slopes and trails of the ski area is not only OK but a wonderful and rewarding experience.  You are correct that no one is performing avalanche control or grooming slopes out there.  Yet many of us manage to travel safely by exercising good judgment in regards to weather, avalanche conditions, what slopes we ski, and by always carrying and knowing how to use the appropriate rescue equipment.  In other words we exercise "personal responsibility".   <br><br>By allowing backcountry access and generally not closing inbound areas The Mount Baker Ski Area does a commendable job of emphasizing personal responsibility as well.  While we should always pay attention to warning signs, the idea that ones safety can be guaranteed by such ropes and signs is foolhardy.  All skiers, regardless of where they choose to ski, would be better advised that their personal safety is ultimately their own responsibility."<br>

While I realize that fear mongering is not a good thing...maybe articles like this are a good thing to those looking to maintain the solitude...

the editorial is mixing apples and oranges and thats whats so frustrating...skiing through two sets of ropes that have 'cliff' warning signs (particularly at Baker where you should pay attention to those signs) is NOT backcountry skiing.  Thats just skiing into a zone where no one should be, backcountry gear or not...when resort skiers have a lapse in judgement and blow past 'cliff' signs, journalists should not start talking about the allure of the backcountry. They should talk about how resort skiers need to be personally responsible for obeying the rules the resort has set up for their own safety. Don't even mention backcountry skiing in an article about this accident, cause this tragedy didn't occur in the backcountry.<br><br>MJB- theres more than enough solitude to go around in the cascades if you are willing to work for it.  The more well-educated, avy savy folks in the backcountry the better, imho<br><br>

i think there is just some semantic confusion going on here. "ducking ropes" and "backcountry skiing" are two totally different different things, and the editorial is talking about ducking ropes. i actually agree with what they are saying about ducking, for one thing accidents like these endanger our ability to use lift accessed backcountry. yeah, it would be nice if the reserved the term "backcountry" for what we think it means, but hey, we don't own the english language. <br><br>ultimately the discussion is irrelevant to backcountry because there are no ropes in the backcountry to tell you where the clifts are.