ClimbingPanther Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Good post, sobo. I just finished ANAM 2006, and there are only two or three (reported) cases of "unfortunate position" or "falling rock" (not human-caused), where the people did everything right and still got caught. I'm right in the middle of the 2007 issue, about 2006 accidents. What's with Canada not getting their submission in on time?! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 It is a good post and I agree with the assessment of American irresponsibility. But it is interesting that the prescident setting case for the National Parks limits of liability was initiated by a French woman after her French husband was killed by a buffalo. He set up his tripod very close and then started to shoot. The buffalo turned his head away from the camera so the French guy walked over, grabbed the horns, and tried to yank the buffalo back into position. He few 30 feet and had a badly torn rectum resulting in a fatality. The wife sued for not being adequately warned about the dangers of wild animals. She lost. I still wonder how that case would fare today especially if the victim was an American. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cairns Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 It seems to me that (ignoring the snowmobile deaths) avalanches typically catch people who have been trained, know the dangers, yet make the decision to go forth regardless. I often wonder if wearing tranceivers actually cause more death then they prevent, by giving that extra courage to enter unstable areas. I would be curious to know the percentages of non-snowmobile folks caught in avalanches who had tranceivers verses those who did not; and percentage who had training verses those who did not. Start Reading It's a pretty mixed bag. I'd say the biggest common denomenator is people who either didn't have the education, or went out despite unfavorable avy forecasts. The key piece of knowledge is that avalanches can kill people. Anyone over the age of 7 out on winter slopes would probably know that. After that, even sensible people may act on impulse, like going out of bounds at a resort, and even people acting sensibly within the context of climbing or skiing can get the chop. It's just a question of how many people are out there and what the danger is. When you follow the local daily news in any big city you find that lots of people are getting killed. It could happen to you, but in fact the chances are low. You take some precautions but may still be tempted to leave your house. As ANAM said of Jim Erickson when he got badly hurt soloing: He knew the odds, he gambled, and he lost. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tvashtarkatena Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Responsibility for avalanche safety rests squarely on the shoulders of the backcountry traveller. Having said that, I think a voluntary avalanche awareness and education program on the part of retailers, ski areas, and others in the idustry, but most particularly, schools with snow sports programs (many of the deaths seem to be younger folks) would be a good thing with no downside that I can see. Avi awareness requires a fair bit of study and practice, and there apparently aren't enough people taking this on, nor are there enough avi course offerings. A voluntary awareness program doesn't equate to a "government ID card" (it's bizarre to me that some on this forum immediately react to increasing awareness in this fashion...the pro-ignorance lobby?). As for the Warren Miller films kill comment: Jebus, get real. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Avalanche science is not exact at all. It is incredibly difficult to predict slides. This can be seen in how many experienced and knowledgeable people have been lost in avalanches. The recreational avalanche course I took barely scratched the surface of what I feel one needs to know to be safe. To come away from that thinking you know everything is dangerous (I don't know if anyone actually feels that way). I think more than any other activity it is hard to replace the experience of a mentor like figure who knows the terrain and can pass along the experience of a lifetime or more if they had a mentor as well. What I have taken from my avalanche course, the mentoring of my good friend with a master's in avalanche science and from the unfortunate accidents I have read about is that you must err on the side of caution... WAY on the side of caution. I can see the argument that ski films can encourage a certain negligence because people don't think about all of the work that goes into evaluating the slopes and the long waits for good conditions. It is mentioned in all the films but how many take notice? Also, most of the deep powder shots are in trees or on mellow slopes. Again, how many take notice? I don't think that the blame is warranted though. I just watched the trailer for Steep (below) and one of the guys says something about losing track of how many big slides he's set off. Cr7_4LrF8As So there's a bunch of random thoughts in this post but I guess my point is that I think self education through books, videos, bulletins, courses etc. will fall far short of what can be gained from a mentor and time in the backcountry in unarguably safe terrain. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 Hmm. So I guess the gist is, ski faster than the avalanche. Cool footage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 So there's a bunch of random thoughts in this post but I guess my point is that I think self education through books, videos, bulletins, courses etc. will fall far short of what can be gained from a mentor and time in the backcountry in unarguably safe terrain. What the fuck are you going to learn in unarguably safe terrain? How to meadow skip? Some people learn better on their own. Somepeople like listening to lectures. Multiple styles of learning. Frankly in a "standard" PNW winter there isn't much to learn from the snowpack - there's hardly any weak layers. Go to CO, UT or somewhere with an "interesting" snowpack. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I knew that rebuttal would come because I overstated my case. How about those guys in Kananskis who died digging a pit to evaluate the slope? You can't learn if you're dead. A bunch of people who just took Avi 101 will learn exponentially faster after a couple of weekends with a dedicated mentor who explains the nuances of the decisions he makes in the backcountry than if they go it alone. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfinley Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 I feel for the people who been involved and are friends / family with the victim. That said... every time someone is caught in or dies in an avalanche there this call for "increased education" and the need to inform more people about ave potentials. When compared to climbers, skiers seem to think that the burden of responsibility falls upon the retailer, the pubic or even the government when it comes to avalanches - NOT upon the skier. According to the website referenced above there have been 500 avalanche deaths since 1985. A quick look through the latest Accident in NA Mountaineering (ANAM) list 578 deaths since 1985. Granted a portion of these deaths are due to aves (I can't separate them out since ANAM lumps all ave deaths from '59--06 in one table) but the majority of deaths are not due to avalanches but from other factors. The number of climbers deaths is almost equal to the number of skier ave deaths -- and I'm going to guess that there are far more skiers (especially since ave death statistics include ave deaths within resorts) -- yet you rarely, if ever, hear climbers saying we need more government funding for a program to educate climbers about potential risks. The reality is the average skier is more likely to die skiing without a helmet then in an avalanche - yet any ski helmet discussion usually brings about a 'personal responsibility' response - whereas an ave discussion talks about how we should fund centers. Why is it skiers continually preach education and ask for public funding? Is it a money thing (in that many of the skiers pushing this will actually benefit from it) - or is it that skiers tend to have less personal responsibility then climbers? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary_Yngve Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 you can rent snowshoes from REI and walk into avy terrain. you can't rent rope, harness, rack and start climbing a multipitch route. snowshoeing has a much lower barrier to entry than climbing (i'm not counting soloing) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 How about those guys in Kananskis who died digging a pit to evaluate the slope? You can't learn if you're dead. Avalanches are probablistics; ergo the only means to remain safe is to never be in the realm of probability. In short, to never enter avalanche terrain. I'd also go with the "snowshoe mindset" I've met a number of snowshoers who are young, fit and driven, but completely clueless about mountain terrain. Unlike skiing which requires time to learn snowshoes have a learning curve of about 5 minutes, give or take. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfinley Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 you can rent snowshoes from REI and walk into avy terrain. you can't rent rope, harness, rack and start climbing a multipitch route. You can rent boots, crampons and an ice axe from REI; what's the difference? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 you can rent snowshoes from REI and walk into avy terrain. you can't rent rope, harness, rack and start climbing a multipitch route. You can rent boots, crampons and an ice axe from REI; what's the difference? In the mind of the user boots & crampons & ice axe are "extreme" while snowshoes are benign. As sobo said, and I've tried to say, I'm not sure how to convince people that what they don't know they don't know can kill them. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
korup Posted January 7, 2008 Share Posted January 7, 2008 The more I delve into avalanche/snow science the more I am starting to think people are kidding themselves when they think they understand this snowpack. There are simply too many variables and too many microclimates to get solid info. That doesn't mean everyone should freak out and never hit the BC, but as De Niro says in Ronin, "Whenever there is any doubt, there is no doubt." Natural triggered slides at 2500 ft? 8 foot crowns? In-bound avis? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfinley Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 In the mind of the user boots & crampons & ice axe are "extreme" while snowshoes are benign. According to this site since '97 only 17 out of 286 deaths were snowshoers. That's 6% - certainly not a large percentage; I fail to see where it's the dumb snowshoer getting into trouble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 How about those guys in Kananskis who died digging a pit to evaluate the slope? You can't learn if you're dead. Avalanches are probablistics; ergo the only means to remain safe is to never be in the realm of probability. In short, to never enter avalanche terrain. I'm not sure if there's an argument in there other than to say that you think I'm overly cautious through some kind of straw man statement in response to one by me. I keep thinking about surfing and some of the dangers that are hidden to the inexperienced but obvious to the masters such as rip tides, shallow reefs etc. (I'm inexperienced there as well). It only takes a second for someone to say don't go there. A big surf is like a big snow fall; dangerous to the inexperienced but manageable for and craved by the master. Unstable slopes are similar in that the danger is hidden from the inexperienced. Someone who has seen that some slope has slid under similar conditions is way ahead of someone who has to dig a pit to evaluate a slope. I know analogies rarely make good arguments but I do think it's an interesting parallel. I will continue to be (hopefully) over cautious until I gain some more experience but feel free to ski within your comfort zone. I'm sure I'll be envious of your lines. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 As sobo said, and I've tried to say, I'm not sure how to convince people that what they don't know they don't know can kill them. I agree. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marylou Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Natural triggered slides at 2500 ft? 8 foot crowns? In-bound avis? Yikes, that's chilling when you put all those "freak" slides in one sentence!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Conway Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 site since '97 only 17 out of 286 deaths were snowshoers. That's 6% - certainly not a large percentage; I fail to see where it's the dumb snowshoer getting into trouble. People are looking at this years WA state fatalities. 3 snowshoers, 1 hiker, 2 snowmobilers, 3 BC Snowboarders. Based on preliminary reports I wouldn't consider any of them "highly experienced at avalanche terrain travel" This particular distribution may be an anomaly, but looking at the user groups with increasing fatalities (snowmobilers, snowboarders) the base question of "how to reach the people who aren't BC skiers and climbers" is still valid - if your goal is to reduce avalanche deaths. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rad Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Maybe someone mentioned this already, but this morning around 7:20am NPR ran a 30 second note about how we may be headed for record snow levels this year. On the plus side, they noted, is more water for drinking and hydro power and salmon. The downside has been increased avalanche hazards. They suggested staying in bounds at ski resorts, getting some avalanche training before heading into the backcountry, and avoiding steep open slopes if you must go. I'm not remembering the details as my brain was only operating at 30% power, but it seemed short and sensible. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfinley Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 This particular distribution may be an anomaly, but looking at the user groups with increasing fatalities (snowmobilers, snowboarders) the base question of "how to reach the people who aren't BC skiers and climbers" is still valid - if your goal is to reduce avalanche deaths. It is an anomaly... for the most part it's BC skiers and snowmobiler dying. BC skiers are generally well educated - education for the snowmobiler group is getting better. Reducing deaths is a noble goal... but it shouldn't be on the shoulders of retailers or media outlets as some have suggested. I question whether it should really be a goal of the government. The average skier is more likely to die from a head injury; if we fund PSA campaigns for aves then why shouldn't we fund them for helmet use? To take it a step further why shouldn't we fund a public safety campaign for everyone headed out climbing at Rainier or Smith? The rash of deaths in the PNW is tragic... but maybe it will lead to people actually thinking instead of people relying on the government and media telling them what is safe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Every piece of climbing gear you buy has a giant label saying 'This activity is dangerous. Are you sure you know what you're doing?' Would a similar giant label warning about tree wells and avalanches placed on anything that can be used to access the backcountry save a life at little cost? They seem to think it's a good idea for climbing gear. I don't know. I guess, in the end, the current rash of fatalities will certainly reach most of the mainstream that are (were?) ignorant of the danger of avalanches. Helmets are an entirely different argument in that many feel that they cause more harm than good in general. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wfinley Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 Every piece of climbing gear you buy has a giant label saying 'This activity is dangerous. Are you sure you know what you're doing?' Would a similar giant label warning about tree wells and avalanches placed on anything that can be used to access the backcountry save a life at little cost? Are you an attorney? I thought only attorneys said things like that. PS.. people say the same thing about beacons causing more trouble b/c people ski risky slopes when wearing one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hafilax Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 See job thread, I'm a physicist (almost). Way to edit out the end of the quote where I say 'I don't know'. It was meant as a thought provoking question. I'm all for personal responsibility but I also hate the loss of life and if there's a cheap way to let people know what they don't know then I'm for the inconvenience of ripping off another tag. I'm a firm believer in risk homeostasis and think that the availability of beacons probably does endanger as many people as they save. I try to be conscientious of not increasing the risks I take due to the perceived safety of the technological devices I carry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bug Posted January 8, 2008 Share Posted January 8, 2008 I think we are in conditions that overall are "Considerable". In pockets they are extreme. The avy conditions since the storm about a month ago have been really high compared to most years. Usually, we get a big thaw or rain or something that clears out the bad layers within a couple weeks. This year, the metal roof is about 1 foot from the ground and buried under more and more otherwise stable layers. They are structurally stable but have no foundation. It holds for a long time but when it goes, it goes deep and big. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.