As a regular reader of Lou Dawson I can say that he is a very reputable backcountry skiing and gear expert, in fact I would classify him in the category of obsessive compulsive skier.  If you haven't read his weblog, I would recommend checking his website occasionally for some great tidbits and his nearly year round ski stories that will always get you in the mood for winter.

However, on this particular subject I have to take issue with the author's perspective, although, our views differ in terms of semantics more than anything else.  The article suggests that backcountry ski bindings are unsafe and generally not fit for resort skiing.  Dawson only focuses on classic Alpine Touring bindings and does not include the more progressive Randonnee bindings used today.  The examples he sites are the classic Ramer binding and the Dynafits.  Both were early innovators of the step-in backcountry ski binding and "the" bindings of their time.  When I say their time, lets keep in mind that the Ramers first hit the shelf in the 70s long before fat skis and shaped skis came to fruition.  Of course, they progressed over the years, and these bindings amassed and still have large followings.  Their designs were unique to their time and truly opened the door to the sport of backcountry skiing.  Although these bindings were designed for backcountry skiing, these days they are better suited as touring first bindings and skiing second bindings.  I completely agree with the author and I wouldn't take a pair of Ramers within a mile of a resort today, it simply isn’t safe. 

So, much has changed these days.  Skis are sooooooo much bigger and beefier,
not too mention the type of skiing that use to be considered "expert" and reserved exclusively to ski heroes has now become the norm.  Two decades ago when someone mounted a Ramer binding to do some backcountry skiing the binding was already being pushed to it's limits of safety.  But today, the mismatch between a Ramer binding and the modern backcountry skis has been substantially increased compared to the ski it was originally designed for. 

A whole new class of backcountry skiing bindings came to be, with the Swiss made Fritschi binding leading the way.  The new style binding is more commonly referred to as a Randonnee binding.  The semantics of “Alpine Touring” vs. “Randonnee” is probably where Dawson and I don't see eye to eye.  Dawson of course was around when they started making the Ramer and has seen the whole progression, so more than likely his point of view is accurate.  Dawson seems to view the two as separate sub-classifications of backcountry ski bindings.  But as a modern backcountry skier I like to think backcountry ski bindings are backcountry ski bindings.  All these bindings were designed to allow you to do the same things: tour with skins and to lock in and ski downhill.  The two terms are constantly used interchangeably.  These days it is almost illegal in the US to associate with anything French and so, I like think “Alpine Touring” is just the American version of “Randonnee”.  Some say the Ramers and Dynafits are AT bindings not Randonnee bindings because their lighter weight makes them more suited for touring.  I think this is just a coincidence, they were designed in a different era of skiing and they are what they.  I do believe they are better suited for touring, but for different reasons.  First of all, you can’t use your regular downhill boots with these “Alpine Touring” bindings and are rather required to use special boots that just happened to be called “Randonnee” boots(explain that one please?).  Second of all, the lighter weight Ramer or Dynafit binding is more suited to touring because if you take them down a 45 degree pitch going mock ten I wouldn't bet against the possibility that the bindings could spontaneously explode on any given turn.  Now there are alot of strong opinions on this issue.  But personally, I think the only advantage to using the Ramers or Dynafits is the weight.  I think the Fritschi style binding is easier to operate, easier to climb in, obviously more solid to ski on, but also more dependable in difficult weather conditions.