Most important safety feature

Okay, now we're getting somewhere . .

Should there be nets on the side of trails?

LOL...if you know how to SKI, no. I've been in TERRAIN OVER MY ABILITY LEVEL in numerous occasions. If you CONTROL YOUR SPEED you'll BE SAFEanyway. . . For people who don't know how to SKI ON DIFFICULT TERRAIN a HELMET is a good idea(a better idea would be to learn to SKI) and parents should always watch their children.


Now, is that so hard?

tBatt wrote

PowderAssassin wrote

mattchuck2 wrote

How about floaties for all swimmers?

LOL...if you know how to swim, no.

But what happens when people who don't know how to swim hop in the ocean, even with a strong riptide and warning signs? People have drowned that way, yaknow.

That's why there's lifeguards, which save COUNTLESS LIVES every year. THink of nets on trails like a lifeguard.

mattchuck2 wrote

Okay, now we're getting somewhere . .

Should there be nets on the side of trails?

LOL...if you know how to SKI, no. I've been in TERRAIN OVER MY ABILITY LEVEL in numerous occasions. If you CONTROL YOUR SPEED you'll BE SAFEanyway. . . For people who don't know how to SKI ON DIFFICULT TERRAIN a HELMET is a good idea(a better idea would be to learn to SKI) and parents should always watch their children.

Now, is that so hard?

Yes it is because even if you know how to ski and are experience you can lose your balance and fall and run into trees. Pro skiers have died before. Most people that die know how to ski. Netting would save those people and has no effect on the skiing experience. I'm not talking net off glade areas.(I'm guessing that's your worry) I'm just talking normal trails. So it has no effect on anyone other than saving people from injury/death.

Let's try again:

PowderAssassin wrote

Yes it is because even if you know how to SWIM and are experience you can GET TRAPPEd BY A CURRENTand GET SUCKED OUT TO SEA. Pro SURFERS have died before. Most people that die know how to SWIM. FLOATIESwould save those people and has no effect on the SWIMMINGexperience. I'm not talking SWIMMIES FOR KIDDIE POOLS.(I'm guessing that's your worry) I'm just talking OCEANS, LAKES, AND RIVERS. So it has no effect on anyone other than saving people from injury/death.

See how this works? It's stupid. It's a dumb idea. Anyone can see that.

Aren't you tired of getting owned? Why don't you just run off with your tail between your legs, you little doggie.

PowderAssassin wrote

That's why there's lifeguards, which save COUNTLESS LIVES every year. THink of nets on trails like a lifeguard.

Or you could think of Ski Patrol as a lifeguard.

At the end of the day, it's a culture thing. Welcome to America. We sue each other, we shoot each other, and then we sue each other. Take responsibility for your own actions. Skiing is a choice. If you're concerned about it, chose not to ski something out of your ability level or chose not to take the risk associated with skiing.

What about the sharks?   Sharks in the water.   They eat people. PowderPuff how do u account for the sharks?  

ScottyJack wrote

What about the sharks?   Sharks in the water.   They eat people. PowderPuff how do u account for the sharks?  

Cull them and net the beaches in areas of high shark concentrations with significant human populations.(Australia/reunion island/parts of South africa) In GW shark habitat you have to remove the seals if there's a lot of them.(cape cod in the past few years has has seal explosion which resulted in white shark explosion) That's whats bringing in whitey. The start doing a coastal hunting pattern that's extremely dangerous to anyone in the water. Risk of shark attack in NY/NJ/RI and most of EC is almost non existent. When's the last attack in new jersey waters? 75 years ago? It's all about the specific area. All the crazy eco system save the sharks tree huggers will come out now. Australia has been netting for years which has reduced attacks and yet GW populations are on the rise. They recently did a cull, which was ineffective since they didn't catch any GW sharks. They need to do more. People have every right to use 1% of the ocean safely. I'm sick and tired of the ocean belongs to sharks nonsense. That's the same thing as saying your house belongs to the bears. Human hating nonsene with a lack of value in human life. SICK. Same type of people that value dogs above people. They'd save fido before their family in a fire.

PowderAssassin wrote

ScottyJack wrote

What about the sharks?   Sharks in the water.   They eat people. PowderPuff how do u account for the sharks?  

Cull them and net the beaches in areas of high shark concentrations with significant human populations.(Australia/reunion island/parts of South africa) In GW shark habitat you have to remove the seals if there's a lot of them.(cape cod in the past few years has has seal explosion which resulted in white shark explosion) That's whats bringing in whitey. The start doing a coastal hunting pattern that's extremely dangerous to anyone in the water. Risk of shark attack in NY/NJ/RI and most of EC is almost non existent. When's the last attack in new jersey waters? 75 years ago? It's all about the specific area. All the crazy eco system save the sharks tree huggers will come out now. Australia has been netting for years which has reduced attacks and yet GW populations are on the rise. They recently did a cull, which was ineffective since they didn't catch any GW sharks. They need to do more.

Utah gets more snow

PowderAssassin wrote

Risk of shark attack in NY/NJ/RI and most of EC is almost non existent. When's the last attack in new jersey waters? 75 years ago?

Hmmm . . . So you're saying that people shouldn't freak out and institute a bunch of dumb changes because of extremely rare events? Interesting . . .

WHY is netting a trail bad if it saves lives? Someone's child. Explain this to me. Please!

PowderAssassin wrote

WHY is netting a trail bad if it saves lives? Someone's child. Explain this to me. Please!

The way to save the most lives from skiing accidents would be to close down all ski areas. WHY is closing down ski areas bad if it saves lives? Someone's child. Explain this to me. Please!

mattchuck2 wrote

PowderAssassin wrote

Risk of shark attack in NY/NJ/RI and most of EC is almost non existent. When's the last attack in new jersey waters? 75 years ago?

Hmmm . . . So you're saying that people shouldn't freak out and institute a bunch of dumb changes because of extremely rare events? Interesting . . .

You're more likely to run into a tree skiing than getting attacked by a shark in NJ. Last fatal shark attack in NJ was in 1926. RI has never had a fatality or even an attack. Not really comparable to ski areas where people die every year and a simple net would save lives. If attacks started becoming more common in NJ like areas in central california than we'd need to start acting.

mattchuck2 wrote

PowderAssassin wrote

WHY is netting a trail bad if it saves lives? Someone's child. Explain this to me. Please!

The way to save the most lives from skiing accidents would be to close down all ski areas. WHY is closing down ski areas bad if it saves lives? Someone's child. Explain this to me. Please!

Because skiing is enjoyable. Putting up nets doesn't make it less enjoyable and saves lives.

PowderAssassin wrote

You're more likely to run into a tree skiing than getting attacked by a shark in NJ.

Not true

Everybody wants something,
Sno wants HSQs & snow making
Harv wants more ski bowl
Some want more glades
P Ass wants fences
and MC2 wants a waffle hut

Me - I just want to ski what's out there just the way it is.

skimore wrote

PowderAssassin wrote

You're more likely to run into a tree skiing than getting attacked by a shark in NJ.

Not true

Yep, I got this footage directly from the news. Surprised you missed this story:





"Putting up nets doesn't make it less enjoyable."


Yes it does.

I thought you said you maintained a glade

Thacheronix wrote

I thought you said you maintained a glade

And indeed I do, but the best skiing is where I can find a nice stand of open hardwoods with a clean bottom or a slide.
I trim a glade because it is near my cabin and easy to ski.