Warning Signs

[David_Parker]

In the avalanche thread, RandyGoat brought up a point I was going to make. At the Pinkham Notch center where you leave to head up into most gullies of interest on Mt. Washington, NH, they regularly post the days avalanche conditions. This post is more "in your face" notice that your are about to enter dangerous territory. I would say that there is a large percentage of the recreational community including snowshoers that don't think to call the avalanche center for conditions and merely listen to standard weather forecasts. This combined with the fact they leave their homes in completely different weather than the find after a few hours of driving means they may be reluctant to turn around and abandon their well intentioned plans to enjoy a nice walk in the mountains. There are a few trail heads, Alpenthal being the most obvious, where it seems a sign could be installed to warn people that they are entering dangerous terrain and then post the current forecast. (This could be a SERVICE from the National Forest SERVICE!) When it is snowing and visibility is limited, many snowshoers may not even realize they are in a terrain trap because they percieve being on a trail or relatively flat ground is "safe", not aware an avalanche can reach them. I'm not saying we need to post every trail head, but at least the really popular ones. Ironic that both deaths were essentially victims that parked their cars at ski resorts.

[HRoark]

There actually are signs at the beginning portion of the Source Lake Trail that mention the hazard and that avy work may be being performed. They aren't in an excellent "in your face" location, but you see them when you walk in.

[ken4ord]

The only problem with the Pinkham Notch Avalanche warning sign is that people still don't pay attention to it and the vagueness of it. Their warnings ranged from low, moderate, considerable, high, and extreme. Last year some people died in an avalanche when it was moderate, people were sort of up in arms about it because it was posted as moderate that day and most people seem to think that if it was moderate that it shouldn't happened. Then the accusations started flying about the person who had given the reccomendations for the day. It seemed that people felt that low and moderate meant you were in the clear of an avalanche being triggered, considerable was taken as low, and only when it was posted high and extreme should you worry.

[IceIceBaby]

The only problem with the Pinkham Notch Avalanche warning sign is that people still don't pay attention to it and the vagueness of it. Their warnings ranged from low, moderate, considerable, high, and extreme. Last year some people died in an avalanche when it was moderate, people were sort of up in arms about it because it was posted as moderate that day and most people seem to think that if it was moderate that it shouldn't happened. Then the accusations started flying about the person who had given the reccomendations for the day. It seemed that people felt that low and moderate meant you were in the clear of an avalanche being triggered, considerable was taken as low, and only when it was posted high and extreme should you worry.

 

Tell me about this...I was there that day and spoke to those has being when they roll to Tuckerman’s lean to...the reply I got to my concerns was...ehh; we know how to watch out for ourselves so thanx (pretty cocky they were)

My partner was not happy with my decision to turn back...but he thanked me later

[jj221]

I have to agree with Ken4ord here. Even though they post the avi conditions Washington still has plenty of people dying. Informing the user can only go so far. There is always going to be a segment of people who think they can make it. Some of these folks will go on to achievements of greatness others will go on to stats in Washington's death tally. People are going to do what they do. I think the informed will make their decission independent of the sign- the same can be said for the uninformed.

[plexus]

I know this is going to sound callous, but I'll say it anyways. Lots of recent snow + mountains = avalanches. If you're going to play in the mountains outside of a ski area's boundaries (or even in them), you take the risk. It is YOUR responsibility to assess the conditions and to be armed with the knowledge to do that.

 

I have been hit with a spring avalanche. I knew that day things were sliding off all over the place. I was able to roll out of the slide coming down the chute without any major damage. Was I going to blame the avy center because it said moderate danger that day. Hell no!!

 

Enough with holding people's hands out in the mountains. We have more tools and resources at our beconing nowdays than ever before. That doesn't mean you can skip a field test, scoping out your line before your climb/descent and seeing if you're going to get squished. I have turned back many a peaks (including a couple of times less than 10 minutes from the summit) because the snowpack was just waiting to trigger and we were that catalyst. Sometimes you play on the side of caution as I usually do and every once in a while you pull that hair out of your ass, push it and a ceremonial brew to the mountains gods for not swallowing you up that day.

 

Posting daily avy conditions is leading to a new level of liability for the FS as well as taking up manpower to do that, manpower I would like to see conserved to rebuild some of those roads that were washed out next spring.

[Mtguide]

Your point about people not taking the warning seriously unless the rating is high or extreme is a very widespread misunderstanding. In fact,even when the hazard is "low",that does NOT mean any absence of danger,just a lower possibility or likelihood.People have been killed on "low" hazard days.About the only rating you could give to denote no hazard would be "minimal" or "non-existent",and to be realistic,the only time that might be accurate would be in late,late spring thru summer,and on terrain either side of the critical hazard angles of between 25 and 50 degrees.

Liability is a difficult,fuzzy area.The FS could also be held liable for injury or death in instances where it failed to provide warning; if there's an incident,you can be sure that lawyers will find some way to claim liability,one way or another.