Backcountry Communication Tool BCP

You argue that Backcountry skiing/riding is has too many subjective variables for a Communication Protocol to work.  By stating that, you are arguing for the specific need to institute a Communication Protocol to mitigate this inherent subjectivity.  Hazard is NOT subjective, nor is Consequence. Just because you cannot extrapolate an NWAC  Regional fx for a specific  terrain feature does not mean one cannot ascertain the general Hazard and avalanche problem(s) found in that  piece of terrain.
My point in introducing this protocol is to get people to communicate as individuals in a group environent.  You mention that people are already encouraged to communicate.  Encouragement is not enough.  There must be a mandate that EVERYONE is involved in all parts of every conversation.

If one does not agree to be an active participant in all decisions surrounding their own
safety in the backcountry, then there is a word for those individuals:  Clients.

In the area where I spend most of my time, east of Blewett, the regional forecast is almost meaningless and that area is included in the forecast. I'm perfectly capable of ascertaining what terrain is safe/safer and what the consequences are of skiing a given line. I'm also comfortable assessing the hazard without consulting NWAC because I spend over a 100 days a season in this terrain.

Using language like MANDATE and MUST will turn a lot of people away from what most people consider a fun pastime. If you feel so strongly about this mandate would you also require a special license for folks to travel in the backcountry during winter? Do we really need more rules/laws for a recreational activity?

I say people are encouraged, that is about the best you can do short of making it a law that you MUST follow a given bc protocol. You can talk about a MANDATE all you want but you won't be able to MAKE most bc users follow your protocol.

Even if you were able to MAKE people follow your MANDATE there would still be accidents because we are human and all of us are fallible. We need to acknowledge that accidents happen and will always happen because they are a normal part of any system. We can encourage people to get educated and make good decisions but we can't MANDATE that everyone follow your protocol without creating some useless and unnecessary law and a huge mess of bureaucracy for licensing and enforcment to go along with it.

I agree with your sentiment about communication, it's the MANDATE that everyone MUST follow that I think is like tilting at windmills.

Do we really need more rules/laws for a recreational activity?

Well, we might at some point as things get more crowded and parties begin to injure other parties due to poor communication and route decisions...

... what is happening in one area is not representational of all areas. Some locations are getting much busier than others rapidly.

In the area where I spend most of my time, east of Blewett, the regional forecast is almost meaningless and that area is included in the forecast. I'm perfectly capable of ascertaining what terrain is safe/safer and what the consequences are of skiing a given line. I'm also comfortable assessing the hazard without consulting NWAC because I spend over a 100 days a season in this terrain.

Using language like MANDATE and MUST will turn a lot of people away from what most people consider a fun pastime. If you feel so strongly about this mandate would you also require a special license for folks to travel in the backcountry during winter? Do we really need more rules/laws for a recreational activity?

I say people are encouraged, that is about the best you can do short of making it a law that you MUST follow a given bc protocol. You can talk about a MANDATE all you want but you won't be able to MAKE most bc users follow your protocol.

Even if you were able to MAKE people follow your MANDATE there would still be accidents because we are human and all of us are fallible. We need to acknowledge that accidents happen and will always happen because they are a normal part of any system. We can encourage people to get educated and make good decisions but we can't MANDATE that everyone follow your protocol without creating some useless and unnecessary law and a huge mess of bureaucracy for licensing and enforcment to go along with it.

I agree with your sentiment about communication, it's the MANDATE that everyone MUST follow that I think is like tilting at windmills.

I agree that the language (mandate, must) is a huge turn off.  It certainly had that effect on me, originally.  What I think he/she meant was that within a given group, all members agree to participate in using this system.

I know that I've been in groups where the communication/non-communication dynamics have been frightening.  It would've been good to have some agreement on how we were going to approach decision-making.

I agree that the language (mandate, must) is a huge turn off.  It certainly had that effect on me, originally.  What I think he/she meant was that within a given group, all members agree to participate in using this system.

I know that I've been in groups where the communication/non-communication dynamics have been frightening.  It would've been good to have some agreement on how we were going to approach decision-making.

Yup,

My concern is that all individuals agree when they are in a group to communicate openly and honestly about hazards, terrain, and consequences.

A protocol, by definition, is rigid in it's implementation in order to minimize subjective influence. Once you start sanding down the edges of any formal protocol (pre-flight checklists, surgical pre-op checklists, etc.)  You run the very real risk of diluting the effectiveness of the system.   

I realize the MUST and ALL can be intrusive and threatening... Hell, I am a commercial fisherman and the last thing I want is for someone to tell me where to fish and how to catch them, but I do perform safety drills for my crew, I do take safety training on a regular basis, and I do keep my Captain's license current. 
Do I have to?  No... but it is best practice of my industry and it does increase the chances that I can go out, catch fish, and come back again... safely.

Looking back on 35 years of climbing and BC skiing, I have seen use grow exponentially.   Bacause of this there is a very real need to educate a new and inexperienced skiers and riders in how to effectively communicate in a group and to make certain that all members are aware of the risks, accept  the risks inherent in the terrain, and have considered the consequences of their decisions.

Yup,

My concern is that all individuals agree when they are in a group to communicate openly and honestly about hazards, terrain, and consequences.

A protocol, by definition, is rigid in it's implementation in order to minimize subjective influence. Once you start sanding down the edges of any formal protocol (pre-flight checklists, surgical pre-op checklists, etc.)  You run the very real risk of diluting the effectiveness of the system.   

I realize the MUST and ALL can be intrusive and threatening... Hell, I am a commercial fisherman and the last thing I want is for someone to tell me where to fish and how to catch them, but I do perform safety drills for my crew, I do take safety training on a regular basis, and I do keep my Captain's license current. 
Do I have to?  No... but it is best practice of my industry and it does increase the chances that I can go out, catch fish, and come back again... safely.

Looking back on 35 years of climbing and BC skiing, I have seen use grow exponentially.   Bacause of this there is a very real need to educate a new and inexperienced skiers and riders in how to effectively communicate in a group and to make certain that all members are aware of the risks, accept  the risks inherent in the terrain, and have considered the consequences of their decisions.

A protocol like you propose is not like a preflight or pre op checklist. I've been involved with both in my life and you are dealing with equipment and fact, not opinion or guesses like a forecast or hazard on any given slope or aspect. If you were to equate pre flight or pre op checklists with bc travel it would be beacon, shovel and probe, skins, possibly airbag and avalung. The discussion can begin before, during and after but it's not like a checklist it's a conversation.

The last paragraph in this quoted post sounds like what I think, I wish people would be more aware and really take the time to discuss this and learn. I think the best thing right now it the phrase "terrain appropriate for the conditions" and start gathering information for your day. Some folks will take bigger risks and some will meadow skip happily and be totally safe from avalanches, others will be somewhere in between.

A protocol like you propose is not like a preflight or pre op checklist. I've been involved with both in my life and you are dealing with equipment and fact, not opinion or guesses like a forecast or hazard on any given slope or aspect. If you were to equate pre flight or pre op checklists with bc travel it would be beacon, shovel and probe, skins, possibly airbag and avalung. The discussion can begin before, during and after but it's not like a checklist it's a conversation.

The last paragraph in this quoted post sounds like what I think, I wish people would be more aware and really take the time to discuss this and learn. I think the best thing right now it the phrase "terrain appropriate for the conditions" and start gathering information for your day. Some folks will take bigger risks and some will meadow skip happily and be totally safe from avalanches, others will be somewhere in between.

Thank-you for taking the time to post your thoughts and words regarding the BCP. I appreciate your honesty and your openness to discussing this topic in a way that is respectful to any and all viewpoints. I hope that others are spurred on by your efforts and take the time to voice their own opinions and thoughts on the subject. The more people that comment, the more chance there is of something useful coming out of the discussion.

Cheers,
MJ