There is one point that is being glossed over by those commenting on Sonny Bono's ski accident where he was killed when ran into a tree -- "Why was he skiing in the trees in the first place?"
As an avid skier and powder junky of some twenty odd years, (about the same as Sonny), I remember the 70s when there were new slopes being opened up all over and there was little need for venturing off into the trees. There was plenty of good powder and crud snow to cut up with little need to dive into the trees except on crowded weekends, but then what true powder hound ever skied on weekends?
Enter the environmentalist wackos. In the last two decades, they have tied up virtually all the mountain land from development of any new ski resorts, made it a slow process to expand existing slopes and made it impossible to put up lodging at many ski areas. This is sometimes perhaps with good cause, and sometimes not. The reality is there are millions of acres of mountain land in the US and a small fraction is dedicated to ski resorts. Additionally, there is evidence that ski resorts can be quite compatible with the mountain environment. I have been at a ski resort in the summer and seen elk grazing, grizzly bear scat, etc, etc. This doesn't stop the wackos from attempting to save the wilderness from skiers. As a result more skiers have been crowded into the existing slopes than is frequently safe or desirable. This crowding causes skiers in search of powder to venture off into the trees where untracked powder can lies for days.
In fact, some resorts even offer lessons on how to ski the trees. Kid's lessons frequently dive into the trees because it is a playland maze of chutes, trails, bumps and jumps. As a matter of fact, I took a tree ski lesson last year. It didn't take me more than a run or two to conclude this is a stupid low darwinian factor activity and I returned to the main slopes after the lesson, looking for the next blizzard rather than trees to get in some miles of untracked powder.
The wackos have also made it impossible for many ski areas to add lodging at their base, which causes many people (and autos) to be injured or killed driving to and from a ski area after a hard day of skiing -- hardly the best time to be on a winding twisty iced up narrow road. This happened up on the road to Mt. Baker last week. Mt. Baker Ski Resort is about 30 miles from the nearest lodging. At the end of the day, it is full of tired and weary skiers wandering home. Do the evironmentalists apologize for their part in creating the unsafe conditions that are killing these poor souls? Hardly.
For comparison look at a typical British Columbian ski resort (BlackComb, SilverStar, Big White, Sun Peaks, etc). The Canadian Provincial governments have worked closely with the ski industry to create and enlarge these resorts and expanded liftside lodging over the last two decades and growth continues. Some of these slopes are right in the middle of or border national parks, some are in provincial parks (State Parks for those in Rio Linda). In some cases, the Provincial government helps foot the bill to develop the sites. In return, the province gets good control over various environmental concerns as well as help assume liabilities.
The end result is good for the local economy and envirorment with vacationers from all over the world coming to ski and stay. Are people still dying crashing into trees and driving home in Canada? Sure, but perhaps not as often as in the US. While one might still ski in the trees, more often than not, there are plenty of open slopes with fresh untracked snow for a rousing round of LDF snow football, just as soon as you get the rules from the Kennedys. And after banging yourself up on the slopes, you merely crawl from your skis into your lodging.