possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Items that do not fit the categories above.
Forum rules
Please do not use this forum to advertise, sell photos or other products or promote a commercial website. For more details, please see the Terms of Use you agreed to when joining the forum.
peter303
Posts: 3327
Joined: 6/17/2009
14ers: 34
13ers: 12
Trip Reports (3)

possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by peter303 »

For guys allegedly trigger an avalanche near the Eisenhower Tunnel on March 25 2020. That destroyed the fine amount of avalanche equipment.

https://coloradosun.com/2021/02/19/snow ... it-county/

There is a sideshow as to the admissibility of CAIC reports as evidence, including a GoPro video.
User avatar
CaptCO
Posts: 1769
Joined: 7/14/2019
14ers: 58 14
13ers: 45 1
Trip Reports (5)
Contact:

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by CaptCO »

This is old news.. they’ve been counter suing
"It's a thing if you want it to be a thing. What others think of something is irrelevant." -OldSchool

Proof is in the progress, patience is essence; I’m crazy as a fox

"The future no longer belongs to my generation"

DM @Capt_Alec for nudes
User avatar
lodgling
Posts: 498
Joined: 6/21/2005
14ers: 58 57 2
13ers: 18 1
Trip Reports (11)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by lodgling »

No, this is new news about the judge allowing their video of the avi as evidence, since they volunteered it to the CAIC. Thanks for sharing.
User avatar
CaptCO
Posts: 1769
Joined: 7/14/2019
14ers: 58 14
13ers: 45 1
Trip Reports (5)
Contact:

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by CaptCO »

lodgling wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:16 pm No, this is new news about the judge allowing their video of the avi as evidence, since they volunteered it to the CAIC. Thanks for sharing.
Cliche 14er member picking an argument for no reason. I’ll f**k off but what you just said was on channel 9 news over a month ago. Weirdo
"It's a thing if you want it to be a thing. What others think of something is irrelevant." -OldSchool

Proof is in the progress, patience is essence; I’m crazy as a fox

"The future no longer belongs to my generation"

DM @Capt_Alec for nudes
User avatar
ncxhjhgvbi
Posts: 56
Joined: 6/16/2017
14ers: 48
13ers: 17 2

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by ncxhjhgvbi »

Regardless of whether these guys deserve prosecution or not, this seems unfortunate. If they knew they were going to be prosecuted they likely would not have given the video (I am under the assumption they gave the video before charges were pressed?). If I were in the same situation I would have disclosed it thinking I would be helping too. For those that BC ski, I'm interested in your perspectives.
User avatar
ncxhjhgvbi
Posts: 56
Joined: 6/16/2017
14ers: 48
13ers: 17 2

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by ncxhjhgvbi »

CaptCO wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:20 pm
lodgling wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:16 pm No, this is new news about the judge allowing their video of the avi as evidence, since they volunteered it to the CAIC. Thanks for sharing.
Cliche 14er member picking an argument for no reason. I’ll f**k off but what you just said was on channel 9 news over a month ago. Weirdo
I see nothing before 2/18 saying the judge officially dismissed the motion. In December the story was that they were filing the motion. Did the judge dismiss the motion a month ago?

Your post regarding it being old news can come off as crass and patronizing, which is why lodgling responded in turn.
User avatar
cottonmountaineering
Posts: 699
Joined: 5/11/2018
14ers: 58 7 18
13ers: 169 33 28

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by cottonmountaineering »

"Summit County Court Judge Ed Casias found there was no violation of the men’s constitutional protections from unlawful search and seizure because there was no search and nothing was seized."

Shitty situation for the BC skiers, I guess if there's a lesson to be learned here aside from don't cause avalanches, is recording it + giving away the footage is a bad idea
User avatar
speth
Posts: 568
Joined: 4/16/2010
14ers: 58 5
13ers: 34
Trip Reports (1)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by speth »

cottonmountaineering wrote: Sat Feb 20, 2021 12:35 pm "Summit County Court Judge Ed Casias found there was no violation of the men’s constitutional protections from unlawful search and seizure because there was no search and nothing was seized."

Shitty situation for the BC skiers, I guess if there's a lesson to be learned here aside from don't cause avalanches, is recording it + giving away the footage is a bad idea
Definitely a shame that they tried to do the right thing after the fact and will probably suffer for it.
I'll be damned if I feel like I will ever know anything, but if we don't keep moving on that last hill, we'll never know what's on the other side.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
All I want is to just have fun, live my life like a son of a gun
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
[-X What are you insinuating? Do you think I'm Ranger? =; Because if you do than you are dead wrong.
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
Sarcasm or not, it's not even funny to post something like this. Not at this time. Reported.
User avatar
bergsteigen
Posts: 2364
Joined: 6/14/2008
14ers: 58 52 18
13ers: 522 107 18
Trip Reports (233)
Contact:

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by bergsteigen »

As BC skier with ~400 days out:

1. Skiing directly above the tunnel where they did is... odd. Why? There’s better terrain to ride. I count it as resort riders laziness.

2. CDOT has learned a lesson that maybe there should be signs prohibiting/warning against skiing above sensitive and critical areas of the tunnel. Maybe this is a new zone they didn’t know about yet. It’s west facing, and usually wind scoured.

3. WY Teton pass has very strict rules about triggering an avalanche onto the highway. Same with the 7 sisters above Loveland Pass. There are certain known spots that should not be skied during avy season because of highway use. Period.

4. Submitting video/photo evidence is at your own risk. Helped CAIC and future prevention. But screws the boarders. I wouldn’t have supplied any documentation (within the statute of limitations time period).

5. BC skiers have to take into account consequences, not only for their own life, but those of others. Accidents do happen, and hopefully the judge/jury will take this into account.

6. In general it’s my main goal to never be in an avalanche, and choose my terrain and conditions appropriately. But again, accidents happen.
"Auto racing, bull fighting, and mountain climbing are the only real sports ... all others are games." - Ernest Hemingway (or was it Barnaby Conrad?)
Your knees only get so many bumps in life, don't waste them on moguls!
“No athlete is truly tested until they’ve stared an injury in the face and come out on the other side stronger than ever” -anonymous

http://otinasadventures.com @otina
pvnisher
Posts: 1490
Joined: 9/29/2006
14ers: List not added
Trip Reports (8)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by pvnisher »

This will certainly hinder caic efforts to collect first hand reports of avalanches in the future.

The parallel is like when illegal immigrants (undocumented migrants?) are afraid to report crimes for fear of being deported.

I can see people not wanting to tell their story, admit being present, or provide evidence if they're afraid it'll be used against them.
User avatar
XterraRob
Posts: 865
Joined: 7/20/2015
14ers: 41 7
13ers: 12 1
Trip Reports (4)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by XterraRob »

They deserve Whistle-blower Protection.
RIP - M56
Image
User avatar
jmanner
Posts: 1390
Joined: 5/26/2009
14ers: 58 26 10
13ers: 44 10 3
Trip Reports (15)

Re: possible $168,000 avalanche fine?

Post by jmanner »

I remember when this happened... the guys definitely made a pretty poor choice of aspect, choice of line and day to ski. I can see why CDOT would want their equipment repaired. Also, as I recall we all got banned from skiing Coon Hill area after that, which pissed me off.


In other thoughts, attacking Lodgling is poor form. He’s pretty reasonable on here.
A man has got to know his limitations.-Dr. Jonathan Hemlock or Harry Callahan or something F' it: http://youtu.be/lpzqQst-Sg8

'Life is too short to ski groomers'

"That man's only desire was to stand, once only, on the summit of that glorious wedge of rock...I think anyone who loves the mountains as much as that can claim to be a mountaineer, too."-Hermann Buhl, Nanga Parbat Pilgrimage
Post Reply