nzlegend 1 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 wow the situation in Hakuba is off the hook? I have a Japanese friend whose husband has had connections at 47 from its very conception or there abouts and was a ski school instructor. She was shocked and horrified to learn I ripped through 47's trees. she was like "oh you mustnt do that its very dangerous and ski patrol will get very angry the absolutely dont/wont tolerate it....etc etc etc. Well anyway what I saw at Niseko was very good in terms of the Patrol accommodating those of us who desire the "out of bounds" They have special roped entrance ways to out of bounds areas with warnings in eng and jap with maps saying how it is. They warn you that you are boldly going to a place where you responsible for yourself. If you get hurt its your problem, if they have to come to rescue you, you will pay (up to 1 million yen in one cited example) for S&R. you must go through the entranceways only, if you duck a rope they will ban you for the season,so they say, and all liftlines are out of bounds with the same consequences. These last two rules are there I think to stop punters seeing us in the trees and jumping straight in, ducking ropes, or following others who discreetly duck ropes etc. This way with everyone entering at the designated area you can see the disclaimer read it and make your own decisions. Children are banned and anyone less than advanced is strongly advised not to go. It warns and rightly so that beacons are not magic devices and many times they are used to locate dead bodies after avalanches. (Its quite blunt and informed this warning) And it has areas that are absolutely out of bounds for everyone forever even extreme skiers. which is fair enough. I think its a good idea, it stops the need to duck ropes and have young inexperienced people follow. It warns everyone of the hazards of where they are going. It allows us to think freely and enjoy ourselves while taking full responsibility for our actions. Link to post Share on other sites
SKI 15 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 A solution to what "problem" perhaps? Link to post Share on other sites
nzlegend 1 Posted January 29, 2003 Author Share Posted January 29, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by SKI: A solution to what "problem" perhaps? the problem the patrollers there have with people skiing in the trees and out of bounds. Ask Barok if its a problem. Link to post Share on other sites
SKI 15 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I want to do many things that I am not supposed to do. So I refrain from doing them. It is a problem for some people others on here, apparently, simply because they want to do it and feel that they have the right to do it. That is surely where the problem is being created. If you do not agree with a particular resorts policy on out-of-bounds, then it is simple to just not go there. Anyway, enough on this - I know I will get flamed quite seriously for this, not enough time to spend here - got a job to do! Cheers! Link to post Share on other sites
montoya 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Quote: Originally posted by SKI: [QB]If you do not agree with a particular resorts policy on out-of-bounds, then it is simple to just not go there. QB] Actually this is quite reasonable: "Voting with your yen", you can call it. But it can't hurt to also be vocal about it and let these resorts know if you have special needs (eg off-piste access, back-country guided tours). Probably very naive thinking, but instead of the patrollers becoming the enemy, they'd be everyone's friend if they did lead some good back-country/off-piste tours. And probably help their resorts increase revenue. Let me know if you of any places like that, because that's where I want to go! Link to post Share on other sites
mogski 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I don't have kids so I am no expert on this matter, but do you remember what it was like when your parents told you not to do something? WHat did you do? I think Niseko approach is extremely adult like and respectable. I think Hak approach brutal and a direct course for resort breakdown. Have fun and be careful out there Link to post Share on other sites
SKI 15 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Yes, but we are not children. We are adults. I also agree the Niseko approach sounds good. I disagree however that the Hak approach is a direct course for resort breakdown. Far from it. Why would that be the case? Because a minority of people (yes, a minority) stay away because of their out of bounds policy? I don't think so. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I'm sure it's no coincidence that Niseko has its own rational rules - the place is a mecca for foreigners who want to be able to experience freedom, challenge, and variety when they ride. The whole culture of boarding in Japan is moving in this direction - pick up any boarding mag in a bookshop and you'll find hints n' tips on BC riding, riding in powder and the like. Whether it's entirely foreign inspired, or simply the maturing of the sport in Japan I couldn't say. By physically jumping on people, 47 is on a collision course with this developing culture. When there are so few places that have sensible rules for riding safely in powder, it isn't 'simple to just not go there' if you don't like the rules but still want to enjoy yourself safely. If there was some scope for it, voting with your feet would be fine, but the scope is hardly there yet. As for the 'minority' issue, it's the 'minority' of good boarders and skiers that resorts frequently use in their advertising - the ones scoring enormous air or luffing down steep powder slopes. And those aspiring to join this minority need somewhere to ride. Let me ask you SKI, is your attitude to minorities in society as a whole as repressive as it is towards the 'minority' of advanced snow riders? Link to post Share on other sites
danz 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 montoya... since when do ski patrollers offer bc tours/guides??? I do not know of any resort anywhere that has that service....usually it is a private guiding company that does that kind of stuff...and I'm sure you can find those for the hakuba bc as well...patrollers have other things to worry about, like their grappling and take-down skills... niseko has a good policy, but the gates at niseko would still be considered in-bounds at many resorts in the US/Canada...again, with proper avie control, etc...but it is nice that niseko trusts the riders to be responsible, and the patrol there are actually very friendly and helpfull... danz Link to post Share on other sites
SKI 15 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Quote: is your attitude to minorities in society as a whole as repressive Not at all. Very poor dig there, Ocean11, I'm sure you could have come up with something better than that with all the apparent anger you have. On to your points concerning magazines and advertising.... I have been known to read magazines such as GQ, FHM, Stuff in my time (in the barbers of course!). Such 'lad culture' magazines all have 50 page plus "Fashion" sections full of amazing clothes and shoes that hardly any real-world lad (or anyone in their right mind) would even begin to be able to afford. 300 UKP for a tie? 500 for some shoes? 1600 for a suit? No way. Almost none of the readers, in reality, will be popping down to the local overcharging fashion center to get some of them, or do you think they will? So perhaps we could wonder why they do that? I have a pretty good idea why.... do you? You seem to have a problem accepting business practices that you personally disagree with, which is a pity. Link to post Share on other sites
hem now 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 "oh you mustnt do that its very dangerous and ski patrol will get very angry the absolutely dont/wont tolerate it....etc etc etc." If patrol don`t want skiers/boarders in the trees, then it is THEIR responsibility to rope them off. If I get busted for this and I haven`t ducked a rope, i will defend my position until the cows come home! Also, I would ask them what is dangerous about the trees. Generally, the very presence of trees implies that avalanche risk is minimal. If they think you`re more likely to injure yourself hitting a tree, what about people hitting eachother on the crowded piste? I think what it comes down to is this - Japanese people "generally" don`t ski powder, therefore, they don`t ski the trees. This saves patrol alot of work in "sweeping" the hill at the end of the day. Now that snowboarding, modern/western ski/board videos, fat skis, and western influence have made powder more popular, the sport is changing, and Patrol needs to accomodate this in their hill management. Start sweeping the treed runs! hem now - who has none of these issues at Hakkoda! Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 SKI, trying to have a discussion with you is like trying to play tennis with a bloke who has no strings in his racquet... Go and get yourself some catgut, then we'll see if it's worth the bother. I tried to talk to you like a big person there, but you didn't notice. > You seem to have a problem accepting business practices that you personally disagree with I do, you're quite right there. I think you'll find most of the adult world does too. Link to post Share on other sites
hem now 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Hey danz, Hakkoda offers BC tours with guides, and whilst they aren`t patrol, I`m sure their qualifications are similar. They take huge groups to many areas beyond the fencelines. A mate of mine is also a guide at Hachimantai. Is this not the situation at many other resorts? Hakkoda being my only Japanese ski experience, I thought it was normal? cheers, hem now Link to post Share on other sites
SKI 15 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Well that last comment says it all doesn't it? And the first comment says a lot too. Your defence is always to attack, it seems. Are you not the once cutting off the discussion? But as you seem to believe you know all about marketing as well (as everything else), please do explain to us peasants the reasoning behind those fashion sections in the magazines for the benefit of us all.... just to see perhaps if you are the one with the srings in your racquet or not? Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 My, you are a persistent yogurt aren't you! > please do explain to us peasants the reasoning behind those fashion sections in the magazines for the benefit of us all No thanks, I can also spot a red herring as well as the next person. Good to see that you've added those to your rhetorical bag though - the "I know what you're going to say next" device was getting very tiresome. Ho hum. Link to post Share on other sites
Davo 1 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I fail to see the relevance of your analogy there SKI. You're a real stickler for the rules and fair enough I suppose. I agree that the resorts have a right to enforce their rules but that doesn't mean I agree with the rules.However, let me offer you my own bizzare analogy: If all rules were right and we all followed them then nothing in society would change. You and I would be working to our death for some fuedal despot or (if we were lucky) helping work people to death for him. See-analogies really can be stupid can't they? Maybe you are right though-perhaps very few skiers and boarders aspire to the images used in resort marketing. They're happy with narrow badly planned runs where the danger of busting your arse on a mogul is part of the price to pay for following the rules. Anyway getting back to my stupid analogy, if you look at many changes which have eventually overturned the status quo in society (which was wrong-yet adhered to by people like yourself) it is the radical rule breakers that begin the process of positive change. They start off as criminals and end up as folk heros, saints etc. Man, analogies really can get over the top can't they? Link to post Share on other sites
SKI 15 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 No red herring there, I'm afraid just a point you seem to not wish to address for whatever reason. Quote: My, you are a persistent yogurt aren't you! Look who's talking!! That makes me laugh. Quote: I fail to see the relevance of your analogy there SKI Why? Ocean11 brought the subject of magazines and marketing up in his argument, and so I belive it is relevant. Davo, yes, I pretty much live by rules. As unfashionable and uncool as that may be, but I'm at peace with that. I don't live my life stressed out with anger, unlike some people it seems. I am obviously not a hero or saint, alas. I am sure that the vast majority are the same. Quote: If all rules were right and we all followed them then nothing in society would change. I disagree with you there. If rules are generally seen as bad/incorrect then in many cases they will change or be forced to change. I still await with interest for someone to explain (from the Ocean11 viewpoint on marketing) those magazine fashion spreads. Hum-di-dum. Link to post Share on other sites
S(in)ister 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 I'm new here, mind if I join in? As a newie here, I'm not sure about all you characters, but from what I've read this morning.... I agree with parts of what both sides on this one are saying - I can see where boths sides are coming from and both have valid points. It's fun to read the back and forth going on here, so, please, continue... Paul Link to post Share on other sites
Davo 1 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Well SKI like I said "fair enough" if you follow the rules, that way you don't get into trouble even if you don't agree with them. I myself usually follow the rules yet I allow myself the luxery of disagreeing with some, not complying to varying degrees and therefore running the risk of getting caught. I act not on the basis of fashion but on what I feel to be right. Were I a real fashionable dude I might be tempted to buy one of those 300 quid ties you were talking about. Back to the changes thing-undoubtedly things eventually change because of the will of the majority (or significantly disenfranchised minority) but that will isn't necessarilly articulated from the beginning. Radical action may be the crucible for change-will the policy at all resorts toward off-piste riding be the same in 10 years? I doubt it. More and more people want to ride in those areas and I don't see how continuing with the same policy (getting all angry and stressed out tackling offenders and beating them up) is a solution. Anyway I'm certainly not going to get all stressed about it-I'm just looking forward to the day when resorts realise the benefits of catering to niche markets in a responsible workable way ie as in the previous policy at Cortina (please note this any resort owners reading). Some will capitalise on trends in a dynamic/innovative way to increase profitability while others will continue to fight the good fight against the groundswell of consumer demand and get all stressed abouut it. Link to post Share on other sites
Ocean11 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Nicely put Davo - you even gave a little nod to Yogurt's necktie irrelevancy. 'Fairy Nuff' is about all you can say to someone like that. The only point I disagree with is the 'radical action' bit. I don't reckon there will be much of that - just more and more people bending the rules a bit and having fun. And maybe getting seriously hassled for doing so. Actually some resorts seem to be doing their best to provide more satisfaction. Echo Valley, a place I used to hate on a par with 'Malnuma', is trying hard to improve if their website is anything to judge by. I'll be interested to see what sort of policy they have towards riding in deep snow. Link to post Share on other sites
NoFakie 45 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Niseko-style rules or membership schemes like the DBD club make the most sense. For such rules to work, riders have to accept that certain places are no-go from the risk-averse resort's viewpoint. On the other hand, resorts have to be more accepting of what is common knowledge in the mountains. Any thick tree run that is below 30 degrees is not going to suffer from dry slides of any magnitude. To harp on about "nadare" like a broken record only makes the patrol look stupid. It's no wonder people don't respect them. While I don't like to criticize people who are prepared to work for really bad money, I don't think patrollers do a good job regardless of the OB issue. Many people on this forum claim to have never seen one. Next time you see someone careering down a slope out of control, a group of kids sitting across the slope smoking, a huge mass of boarders taking forever to strap in, a parent getting their kid to snowplough directly across a crowded steepish slope, some people sliding in front of or directly after a jump, ask yourself why isn't the patrol there to give them a smile and a friendly warning. Such behavior has far more bearing on whether your average customer has a safe and enjoyable time than whether some dudes are off in the trees. Link to post Share on other sites
SKI 15 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Davo, your response is also "fair enough". As the English textbooks here in Japan often say, "we are different". That's not a bad thing. I do disagree with many things and many rules laid out by whoever, but that does not mean that I should just ignore those rules and go about breaking them because of my disagreement. We would be in a whole right big mess if everyone did that. Where do you draw the line? --- where YOU think it should be drawn? I also look forward to the day, as you say, when resorts become more open and creative in their thinking. That is also not a bad thing. Ocean11, 'Fairy Nuff'? Yet another great one! Well done there! Link to post Share on other sites
enderzero 0 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 SKI - I don't know where you are from or how long you have been in Japan (or if you are from Japan) but it sounds like you have been here a long time. Have you skied other places in the world? Japan is way behind in its policies. These maternal rules about telling someone they can't go where they want in the ski area boundaries, just because the majority of the people that ride there aren't skilled enough to ride that terrain are ridiculous. Fine throw up some ropes and some big signs that say "enter at your own risk, etc." but don't take my pass away when I decide that I am willing to enter at my own risk. I am talking about policies that make sense. For instance, if it is true that there is a policy in parts of Japan that says that no activity can take place under a ski lift structure because the codes for building that structure stipulate a particularly low height, then that is fine. That makes sense to me. If the height of the structure is not safe, then by all mean make it a rule. Sure I would prefer they changed the codes to require a taller structure (I have noticed the chairs here are quite low), but that is hopeless. "Don't go under here because there is foreign object danger you may not be aware of." Fine. But to say that I can't go somewhere because it may be above my skill level is not a policy that makes sense. Hey, I've been through those trees at 47. Not that bad. I have been on much more dangerous terrain in plenty of places that was completely in bounds. It may have been marked as Experts Only, but that is why there is such a designation. Finally, if "that just isn't how it works for Japanese people," then fine. Keep the areas roped off, but don't enforce the policy with such vigor. Having the areas closed will accomplish the goal of keeping the people afraid of breaking the rules out, and let people that know they can handle the terrain have fun. I know this is not an ideal solution. It weakens the authority for areas that really are dangerous. But we know that some of these roped off areas simply are not dangerous. Link to post Share on other sites
Davo 1 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 Good points NoFakie- a more responsible approach all around is needed. If you treat the off piste customers like jerks that's probably how they'll act. One things for sure-they're not going to disappear. Ocean I don't expect or advocate radical action, I was just pointing out for the benefit of SKI that rules are not changed just because a majority suddenly becomes conscious of the need to change them. It's purely a fact that more and more people are riding where they shouldn't (according to the current doctrine). So what do you do about it-bury your head in the snow? Link to post Share on other sites
SKI 15 Posted January 29, 2003 Share Posted January 29, 2003 enderzero, I am not disagreeing with you at all. Good, constructive points. Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts