8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

Growing up without your mom because she wasn't risk adverse and loved nature? I doubt most kids think that's worth the cost.

Its a fluke accident. That is why it made the news. Women and yes mothers (and fathers) go into the backcountry and the ocean and other places that have risk - all the time and 99.999% of the time, it all goes well. Driving a car is still more dangerous.

DP here. Driving a car is a necessity and virtually unavoidable. Taking dumb risks like this is completely preventable and stupid. They not only signed up for something extremely dangerous, but they also didn't heed the warnings. Completely irresponsible.

People also own dogs and guns - both of which kill children but they take that risk even though it isn't a necessity. Annually an average of 22 people in the USA die in avalanches but more than 40 a year are killed by dogs.

Then head out to ski when the next avalanche and heavy snow are predicted. I'll be taking a walk with my sweet lab and kids..

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

Growing up without your mom because she wasn't risk adverse and loved nature? I doubt most kids think that's worth the cost.

Its a fluke accident. That is why it made the news. Women and yes mothers (and fathers) go into the backcountry and the ocean and other places that have risk - all the time and 99.999% of the time, it all goes well. Driving a car is still more dangerous.

Not a fluke accident at all.

Will wait to hear from the survivors about their decision making. I don't believe that the guides, the tour company, and the women were completely indifferent to all the warnings, intentionally ignored all protocols, and deliberately put themselves directly into harms way.

They set out on a ski trip on Sunday with warnings of extreme weather approaching. That was a stupid decision.

New poster here. I can imagine they felt pressure to participate. Group think is the most dangerous dynamic when assessing risk. They booked this 9 months ago apparently. I imagine they were excited, spent much energy and time planning it out, and I assume a few of them were pushing harder for it, and the others fell in line and agreed. This happens in all groups.

The biggest lesson is if you feel there’s a risk, bow out - even if it means disappointing your group or losing big money.

I wonder what the reasoning was for the person who stayed behind was? Initial reports said that 16 people were on the trip, but the number was revised down to 15 after it was determined one person didn't go. It's possible they were sick, or had another reason, but now I'm curious.

I know them. They had the flu.

The rest of the speculation here is absolutely ignorant and stupid. The best article I have seen is here:

https://abcnews.com/US/avalanche-expert-survivors-hold-answers-wrong-fatal-california/story?id=130306992

For context, Tremper is one of the experts in avalanche training and forecasting, and literally wrote the book on avalanche education.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

Growing up without your mom because she wasn't risk adverse and loved nature? I doubt most kids think that's worth the cost.

Its a fluke accident. That is why it made the news. Women and yes mothers (and fathers) go into the backcountry and the ocean and other places that have risk - all the time and 99.999% of the time, it all goes well. Driving a car is still more dangerous.

DP here. Driving a car is a necessity and virtually unavoidable. Taking dumb risks like this is completely preventable and stupid. They not only signed up for something extremely dangerous, but they also didn't heed the warnings. Completely irresponsible.

People also own dogs and guns - both of which kill children but they take that risk even though it isn't a necessity. Annually an average of 22 people in the USA die in avalanches but more than 40 a year are killed by dogs.

Then head out to ski when the next avalanche and heavy snow are predicted. I'll be taking a walk with my sweet lab and kids..

Until a pitbull rips your sweet lab and your kid's throat!

[Anonymous]

Anyone who has a pool or a dog or a gun or a car is more of a risk taker than these women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But people keep insisting climate change isn’t real. Despite the avalanche of evidence. Pun intended.

All I know is we never had avalanches like this 20 years ago.

Absolutely not true. You're obviously not someone that skis out west much less does helicopter back country skiing.

Grew up skiing out west. Know people killed in their car from an avalanche 20+ years ago. Daily avalanche control is a thing that's been done for decades. Choosing not to ski during HIGH avalanche warnings is also a thing.

Avalanches were basically unheard of until the early 2000’s. And when I say unheard of, I literally mean “no one had ever seen one, ever”. Now they’re commonplace.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

Growing up without your mom because she wasn't risk adverse and loved nature? I doubt most kids think that's worth the cost.

Its a fluke accident. That is why it made the news. Women and yes mothers (and fathers) go into the backcountry and the ocean and other places that have risk - all the time and 99.999% of the time, it all goes well. Driving a car is still more dangerous.

DP here. Driving a car is a necessity and virtually unavoidable. Taking dumb risks like this is completely preventable and stupid. They not only signed up for something extremely dangerous, but they also didn't heed the warnings. Completely irresponsible.

People also own dogs and guns - both of which kill children but they take that risk even though it isn't a necessity. Annually an average of 22 people in the USA die in avalanches but more than 40 a year are killed by dogs.

I'm the one you're responding to and I agree that people take all kinds of unnecessary risks. Irresponsible people own guns and dogs. Irresponsible people speed and do drugs and take unnecessarily dangerous trips knowing that they have young children at home who depend on them. None of it should be happening.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has a pool or a dog or a gun or a car is more of a risk taker than these women.

Total BS. I've already said cars are a necessity in this country. Stupid ski trips are not. Owning aggressive dogs or putting pools in your house is also not a necessity. Such a stupid argument.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But people keep insisting climate change isn’t real. Despite the avalanche of evidence. Pun intended.

All I know is we never had avalanches like this 20 years ago.

Absolutely not true. You're obviously not someone that skis out west much less does helicopter back country skiing.

Grew up skiing out west. Know people killed in their car from an avalanche 20+ years ago. Daily avalanche control is a thing that's been done for decades. Choosing not to ski during HIGH avalanche warnings is also a thing.

Avalanches were basically unheard of until the early 2000’s. And when I say unheard of, I literally mean “no one had ever seen one, ever”. Now they’re commonplace.

Nope, you're wrong. I grew up in Washington State in the 90s. We talked about avalanche danger regularly (we skied, my dad climbed Rainier and other local to Washington mountains) and there were warnings then.

Not only do I remember talking about them, there was a Lake Tahoe Avalanche that killed 7 people in 1982. Which has been in the news this week because it was close to where this weeks Lake Tahoe avalanche was.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But people keep insisting climate change isn’t real. Despite the avalanche of evidence. Pun intended.

All I know is we never had avalanches like this 20 years ago.

Absolutely not true. You're obviously not someone that skis out west much less does helicopter back country skiing.

Grew up skiing out west. Know people killed in their car from an avalanche 20+ years ago. Daily avalanche control is a thing that's been done for decades. Choosing not to ski during HIGH avalanche warnings is also a thing.

Avalanches were basically unheard of until the early 2000’s. And when I say unheard of, I literally mean “no one had ever seen one, ever”. Now they’re commonplace.

This graph implies otherwise.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has a pool or a dog or a gun or a car is more of a risk taker than these women.

That might sound nice in your head but it's not remotely true. Are we supposed to feel sorry for these people? I guess I feel vaguely sorry for their kids, but these were stupid women doing a stupid thing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

Growing up without your mom because she wasn't risk adverse and loved nature? I doubt most kids think that's worth the cost.

Its a fluke accident. That is why it made the news. Women and yes mothers (and fathers) go into the backcountry and the ocean and other places that have risk - all the time and 99.999% of the time, it all goes well. Driving a car is still more dangerous.

DP here. Driving a car is a necessity and virtually unavoidable. Taking dumb risks like this is completely preventable and stupid. They not only signed up for something extremely dangerous, but they also didn't heed the warnings. Completely irresponsible.

People also own dogs and guns - both of which kill children but they take that risk even though it isn't a necessity. Annually an average of 22 people in the USA die in avalanches but more than 40 a year are killed by dogs.

Then head out to ski when the next avalanche and heavy snow are predicted. I'll be taking a walk with my sweet lab and kids..

Until a pitbull rips your sweet lab and your kid's throat!

Nope. We have leash laws, even along tthe river trails. Not saying it can't happen, but I'm a risk taker enjoying the outdoors.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

Growing up without your mom because she wasn't risk adverse and loved nature? I doubt most kids think that's worth the cost.

Its a fluke accident. That is why it made the news. Women and yes mothers (and fathers) go into the backcountry and the ocean and other places that have risk - all the time and 99.999% of the time, it all goes well. Driving a car is still more dangerous.

DP here. Driving a car is a necessity and virtually unavoidable. Taking dumb risks like this is completely preventable and stupid. They not only signed up for something extremely dangerous, but they also didn't heed the warnings. Completely irresponsible.

People also own dogs and guns - both of which kill children but they take that risk even though it isn't a necessity. Annually an average of 22 people in the USA die in avalanches but more than 40 a year are killed by dogs.

Then head out to ski when the next avalanche and heavy snow are predicted. I'll be taking a walk with my sweet lab and kids..

Until a pitbull rips your sweet lab and your kid's throat!

Nope. We have leash laws, even along tthe river trails. Not saying it can't happen, but I'm a risk taker enjoying the outdoors.

Are you intentionally trying not to understand what PP is saying?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But people keep insisting climate change isn’t real. Despite the avalanche of evidence. Pun intended.

All I know is we never had avalanches like this 20 years ago.

Absolutely not true. You're obviously not someone that skis out west much less does helicopter back country skiing.

Grew up skiing out west. Know people killed in their car from an avalanche 20+ years ago. Daily avalanche control is a thing that's been done for decades. Choosing not to ski during HIGH avalanche warnings is also a thing.

Avalanches were basically unheard of until the early 2000’s. And when I say unheard of, I literally mean “no one had ever seen one, ever”. Now they’re commonplace.

This graph implies otherwise.

The people killed are almost always hikers, skiers, snowmobilers, etc. It's not that avalanches are necessarily worse but more people are doing risky and dangerous things in the mountains.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:But people keep insisting climate change isn’t real. Despite the avalanche of evidence. Pun intended.

All I know is we never had avalanches like this 20 years ago.

Absolutely not true. You're obviously not someone that skis out west much less does helicopter back country skiing.

Grew up skiing out west. Know people killed in their car from an avalanche 20+ years ago. Daily avalanche control is a thing that's been done for decades. Choosing not to ski during HIGH avalanche warnings is also a thing.

Avalanches were basically unheard of until the early 2000’s. And when I say unheard of, I literally mean “no one had ever seen one, ever”. Now they’re commonplace.

This graph implies otherwise.

The people killed are almost always hikers, skiers, snowmobilers, etc. It's not that avalanches are necessarily worse but more people are doing risky and dangerous things in the mountains.

This graph isn't adjusted for population, i.e., rate. However, it does show that avalanches aren't practically unknown pre 2000.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Anyone who has a pool or a dog or a gun or a car is more of a risk taker than these women.

That might sound nice in your head but it's not remotely true. Are we supposed to feel sorry for these people? I guess I feel vaguely sorry for their kids, but these were stupid women doing a stupid thing.

The same amount of sorry I would feel for someone whose kid drowns in a pool or who gets eaten by a dog.

I feel sorry for all of them. Life has risks and is meant to be enjoyed despite those risks. Very few people die in backcountry avalanches - it isn't very risky at all compared to many other things people do.