# Four "Rescued" from Grouse Backcountry



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

North Shore Rescue: Four Rescued on Grouse Mountain

Reading what actually happened, looks like Grouse used NSR to enforce their resort boundary. Very dangerous precedent indeed.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Yeah, that has been the big deal about this even more than anything. Again, these guys were being blatant idiots but that is a new tactic.


----------



## baldylox (Dec 27, 2007)

I'm confused....why did they go after them? It doesn't say anything about an avalanche.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

They ducked ropes in front of ski patrol and the avalanche conditions were pretty sketchy. No avalanche, but just imagine how much this pisses off ski patrol. I am sure if they had of gone through an actual access point (not sure if they exist on grouse) you wouldn't have the fuss. Which goes back to another post of mine. If you are going to duck ropes, don't get caught. Rule #1 of poaching. These guys are just ruining it for everyone else.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Also if you want to see why officials in Canada are so gun shy. Avalanche.org has a list of all fatalities from avalanche incidents in North America. Generally the US has almost double the incidents than Canada. Not this year.


----------



## arsenic0 (Nov 11, 2008)

Snowolf said:


> I don`t know, reading more into this from the various blogs, I see their point. If someone takes on the risk, and the SAR entity decides to "rescue" someone who does not want or need rescued, then the cost should be carried by the SAr not the individual. I think this sets a bad precedence for someone who may not be a good judge of conditions to decide to rescue and charge someone when they are not in need of it. If the resort has a no going out of bounds policy, then fine, pull their pass, but I think chraging the men for this "rescue" is a bit fascist.


Reading through the blog it looks like they arent being charged and that the heli was sent because it was already in the air to make sure they did not accidentally go east instead of south and possibly get stuck in sheer cliffs as others had before.
Also going up 4 people with 1 snow shovel is just irresponsible no matter how pro you are. Even more so considering they split into two groups of two as they went down..


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

Eh, I have mixed feelings. They weren't geniuses, but it is a Provincial Park (at least, I think it is; I know Seymour and Cypress are; I also do not know how much of that land is owned by Grouse themselves).

Right now, it seems more like the hill is using their "reject-because-we-feel-like-it" clause.

Say your local hill closes the lifts at 3:30pm. This essentially puts CLOSED signs everywhere. Are you still on a run? They could, citing their terms, revoke your pass. Likely won't happen, but they have the power to do so.

A very odd situation.

Right now, I'm disagreeing with Grouse Mgmt, although there appears to be some BSing from both sides.


----------



## arsenic0 (Nov 11, 2008)

Really? Did your read the blog post by the Grouse Mgmt guy that initiated all of this? What he did not only sounds reasonable it sounds like he did the correct thing saftey wise.

Heres what he said



> Response from Tim Jones Operational SAR Manager
> 
> I appreciate everyone's comments. I will provide a brief summary of what NSR did.
> 
> ...


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

Like I said, BSing from both sides.

Quirky media out here.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Only bringing 1 shovel and saying they knew what they were doing? Uh huh. Pretty obvious they are rubes in the backcountry. Ducking a rope and not using an access gate leaves most resorts with some level of responsibility. Not to mention they ignored ski patrol. Maybe a bit of a over reaction but there dudes were jerks. Reap what you sow and all.


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

Question is, do you call in a rescue for people that don't need rescuing, but have broken a resort rule. If you are going to enforce your boundary, do it at your own expense, not at the NSR expense. They should be used for real rescue only. I think Grouse did overreact.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Yeah I am not sure how I think about that one. Not sure if they should or should not have contacted S&R. I know that here in the states, if someone ducks a rope to go out of bounds and ski patrol sees it. They are pretty much forced to go after them from a liability standpoint. So if ski patrol saw these guys leave the area by ducking a rope and the avy conditions were what they considered sketch... Is calling for eyes in the sky unreasonable or not, plus mobilizing a S&R group? Lot's of grey lines here. It does seem that they made it bigger than it needed to be, but then again it is putting other peoples lives at risk.


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

Wow, this is a lot more interesting than I thought it would be when I came in here. It sounds like they are implementing their new preventative rescue attempts. :laugh:

I don't like the idea of sending in the cavalry for people who may not need rescued, but if the ski patrol didn't know who they were, how could they just sit back and say, "Yeah, they probably know what they're doing."

In light of all the recent avalanche-related deaths, I don't know that I disagree with what they did. It's so hard to get all the facts of the story right. The guys say they were experienced in backcountry, but they weren't properly equipped. All the knowledge in the world won't save you in an avalanche if you aren't equipped.

I don't know. I'm a little on the line with this one. I think it turned out poorly either way.


----------



## legallyillegal (Oct 6, 2008)

a) Grouse says they had 1 shovel. Group says they had 3. We'll say they had 2.
b) The group of 4 split into 2. We'll assume they had 1 shovel per mini-group.
c) The group says they are all experienced in the backcountry. They say there was no avalanche forecast for that specific area. They say they analyzed the conditions themselves, and deemed the risk to be at a moderate level.
d) The group ducks the boundary rope. Grouse says it was right under a CLOSED sign.
e) A ski patroller calls them back. Group says they didn't hear. Grouse says the group ignored the patroller.
f) Grouse calls in NSR and RCMP and whatnot.
g) The group make their split and complete their descent correctly and without incident.
h) Ski patrol apprehends them.
i) Grouse gets the media in on this apparently juicy story, possibly to make an example out of those evil rope-duckers (you may have your car in any color you wish, as long as it's black).


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Anything less than 1 shovel, 1 probe, 1 beacon, per person is unacceptable...


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

killclimbz said:


> Anything less than 1 shovel, 1 probe, 1 beacon, per person is unacceptable...


Couldn't agree with you more. I am a bit uncomfortable that many Cat/Heli operations only have 4 shovels/probes for 12 people, but I guess in those cases their customers are not trained properly, and the guides and there are patrollers available in the near vicinity.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

In a snowcat or heli operation the reality is going to be different. I assume everyone has a beacon on, but the people with full gear (beacon, shovel, probe) are going to be the the guides/patrollers. They are the ones who know how to properly use the gear anyway. If I was for some reason using those services, I would bring my own basic gear and would just plan to assist if there was a rescue situation.


----------



## mijinkal (Jan 9, 2009)

I think these guys were douchebags for ducking the ropes and getting caught doing it and still going. Grouse has been very strict on the rules for a while now. I got my pass taken away for riding under the chair on a run that was closed because there were no lights. I had a high powered headlamp on and didn't see a problem with it. I was given a stern lecture about there not being patrol on the run and what if something happened to me etc. I know it wouldn't have been a problem at Seymour.
These guys knew the risks and say that they were prepared. If they went out of bounds, Who cares? they knew the risks and the backcountry is for all of us to enjoy. There was no need to waste RCMP resources on calling in the chopper right away and also getting S&R involved. They could have just waited half an hour max and catch them when they were returning to the ski area. and if they didn't return after a while, call S&R or make them spend the night in the bush and let them think about their actions.
That's just my .02


----------



## Flick Montana (Jul 9, 2007)

If you look at it from the ski patrol perspective, if something HAD happened to those guys and the Grouse patrol hadn't done everything they could to stop them, someone probably would have sued. BS lawsuits make our country go round.


----------



## beggionahorseho (Oct 27, 2008)

*wierd*

i think that it had somedissagrees before and this was like an wendetta for the boys


----------



## mag⋅net⋅ism (Oct 26, 2008)

Media spin is total bananas! I heard about this incident from my roommate who pointed me to a few CTV news online stories. I felt like these guys took a totally boneheaded, unnecessary risk. BUT after reading threads on the TGR forum and the North Shore Rescue blog and seeing the back-and-forth that ensued I feel much differently. It seems much more like they were being made an example of, as if these four riders became scapegoats and attention-getters. I don't like the idea of people who ruin it for the rest of us, and that goes for Grouse Mgmt too -- what the hell would have happened if they had tied up NSR resources with this total farce of a "rescue" and other people didn't get help they legitimately needed in the meantime?? Have we not already learned our lesson from the boy who cried wolf? The whole thing seems ridiculous, though it's easy to be a critic with my butt on a couch and my fingers on keys...


----------



## arsenic0 (Nov 11, 2008)

Seriously? Its not like the goddamn helicopter flew in and landed on the side of the mountain to rescue them.

It flew over them and made sure they didnt go the wrong direction into very dangerous territory. Then they left...

You guys make it sound like they called in the damn national guard to fly from half way acros the country to rescue these guys with ropes off the side of a cliff.

What if those people HAD gone the wrong direction? No matter their experience, it sounds like it was pretty much sheer cliffs...sounds like a reasonable thing to do to check on them. I am sure if the people at grouse knew or were told who these people were and that they knew the way none of this would have happened, it sounds like the Senior management contact at Grouse that supposedly told these 4 it was ok is the one that failed here.


----------

