Should the NWAC be publicly funded?

An otherwise interesting topic will become useless fast if y'all are just going to sling crap back and forth. Debate the viewpoint, not the person, etc.

An otherwise interesting topic will become useless fast if y'all are just going to sling crap back and forth.  Debate the viewpoint, not the person, etc.

Check the record Administrator, I have been debating the topic and only retaliating when others have turned it to be about me. Direct your " wisdom " to them not me Administrator. Doesn't bother me so why does it bother you?. You are as usual , over-moderating.

Back to topic.

Good man Mr Andrew McDavid. Lets hope all those posting here have put there money where their mouth is and contributed as well. Let's check names against posters just for shits and giggles.

BTW I actually did type arithmetic but then changed it to math as the distinction doesn't seem to be so prevalent in the USA from my experience and I'm glad you proved me wrong .

You'll note that I didn't call you out as the instigator. Andyrew started it, you came back at him. He came back at you, and round and round we go.

As usual, there is a whole lot of posturing, hyperbole and dogma spouting with very little of substance.

Jdclimber, when you have time and if so inclined could you answer a few specific questions about NWAC and FOAC.

1) Do you have any statistics that show/prove that the NWAC has caused a reduction in avy deaths since its inception in it's current form. ( graph of avy deaths against NWAC budget for example or something like that?)
2) Why do the ski areas only pay so little if the information is so crucial to them?
3) The FOAC's net contributions to the NWAC is only about $30,000( based upon cash contributions $5K  and" in kind" website operating of $25k. I understand the reserve. I seems your main aim is to create a reserve for future shortfalls. Perhaps the money would be better spent on a professional lobbyist. Does FOAC or NWAC retain a lobbyist? I think most people who contribute to FOAC are under the belief that they are directly funding NWAC when really it seems to be mostly to fund FOAC itself and create a reserve. mmmmmmH?????
4) 49K net in 2010 = 189k total reserve in 11 years, so past 10years= 140k , looks like 2010 was a banner year for FOAC. Why has your yearly net increased so dramatically recently or am I reading it wrong?

We publicly fund aviation, nautical and other specialized weather forecasts because we decided that people shouldn't die just because there is market failure.

The hard-core BC skier is probably not the market that NWAC serves most, or at least not it's most important market.  Casual wintertime travelers, who aren't getting out several times a week and don't have the benefit of years of experience with a PNW snowpack are the ones for whom bright line rules, like what are available by using NWAC forecasts are useful.

Avation and nautical forecasts are required and should be publicly funded because they involve the business and commerce of the nation. Backcountry skiing/snowmobiling/snowshoeing, winter hiking are recreation and optional in the stark reality of economics.

I agree with you analysis as to NWAC's usefulness in relation to a BC skier's experience( although the telemetry is always useful). How sure are you that the casual winterime traveller is actually visiting the site in meaningful numbers and its not all us hardore BC skiers looking at the telemetry that comprise the vast majority of hits.

How many hits a year does NWAC get and how many are unique visitors if that's the correct language??

I support public funding of NWAC. I understand that full public funding may not be possible, but I think public funding of NWAC is entirely appropriate.

I can't prove that NWAC saves lives because I don't have the data or statistical skills to do that. But I have used NWAC forecasts for many years and they have influenced my decision making. I know many other skiers who use the forecasts and I know that they also modify their plans based on what they learn from NWAC. I agree with the previous poster who said that NWAC forecasts are probably most beneficial to occasional recreationists. Those are probably not the people who spend a lot of time reading TAY trip reports. Looking through the list of contributors to NWAC (which includes ski areas, ski patrols, outdoor clubs, and professional guide services) I think it's safe to conclude that the "pros" also believe that NWAC saves lives.

As to whether public money should used to improve the safety of recreation activities versus "economically productive" activities, I think that misses the point. The point is to save human lives. If we were talking about a forecasting service for a BASE jumpers (a tiny group), then I might agree that we don't need to spend public money for that. But winter recreation is an activity pursued by thousands of citizens every year. And they do it on public land.

To me using public funding to improve avalanche safety on public lands is just as appropriate as hiring lifeguards to patrol public beaches. As a previous poster said, it furthers a public good.