8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not a graph of avalanches it's a graph of fatalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Nope. I feel less sorry for adults doing stupid things than kids who were neglected.

[Anonymous]

Everyone is comfortable with different risks depending on their experience and skill level. A pool is a terrifying risk to a non swimmer, a dog is a terrifying risk to someone who has never been around dogs, skiing is a terrifying risk to someone who doesn't ski etc. But if you are comfortable and familiar and have skills then you don't feel that it is as risky.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you realize that repeating that nonsense is not going to make it become true, right?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not at all. I know nonsense when I read it. Heading to ski in the back country when extreme weather has been predicted for a week in an area known for heavy snow is foolhardy and stupid. They may have been brilliant Stanford grads, but they lacked good judgment.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not a graph of avalanches it's a graph of fatalities.

To be killed by an avalanche, you can infer the existence of avalanches.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is comfortable with different risks depending on their experience and skill level. A pool is a terrifying risk to a non swimmer, a dog is a terrifying risk to someone who has never been around dogs, skiing is a terrifying risk to someone who doesn't ski etc. But if you are comfortable and familiar and have skills then you don't feel that it is as risky.

Tell that fiction to their kids who will grow up without their moms.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not a graph of avalanches it's a graph of fatalities.

To be killed by an avalanche, you can infer the existence of avalanches.

That isn't the relevant question. The question is why are fatalities increasing? And the answer is people. People doing stupid things are causing avalanches. More people doing stupid things means more fatalities.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Do you realize that repeating that nonsense is not going to make it become true, right?

+1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not a graph of avalanches it's a graph of fatalities.

To be killed by an avalanche, you can infer the existence of avalanches.

They aren't like earthquakes where people are just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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?

Not at all. I know nonsense when I read it. Heading to ski in the back country when extreme weather has been predicted for a week in an area known for heavy snow is foolhardy and stupid. They may have been brilliant Stanford grads, but they lacked good judgment.

OK then I misunderstood what you were trying to say because I completely agree with you.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not a graph of avalanches it's a graph of fatalities.

To be killed by an avalanche, you can infer the existence of avalanches.

That isn't the relevant question. The question is why are fatalities increasing? And the answer is people. People doing stupid things are causing avalanches. More people doing stupid things means more fatalities.

The original statement was "Avalanches were basically unheard of until the early 2000’s." I think that is certainly untrue based on the avalanche fatalities prior to 2000.

Increasing deaths could be simply due to increased access or growing populations in resort areas. I wouldn't immediately scream global climate change though.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Everyone is comfortable with different risks depending on their experience and skill level. A pool is a terrifying risk to a non swimmer, a dog is a terrifying risk to someone who has never been around dogs, skiing is a terrifying risk to someone who doesn't ski etc. But if you are comfortable and familiar and have skills then you don't feel that it is as risky.

If you're single and childless and focused on your career, skill set, abd risky fun, sure. Not if you're a mom with young kids.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not a graph of avalanches it's a graph of fatalities.

To be killed by an avalanche, you can infer the existence of avalanches.

That isn't the relevant question. The question is why are fatalities increasing? And the answer is people. People doing stupid things are causing avalanches. More people doing stupid things means more fatalities.

The original statement was "Avalanches were basically unheard of until the early 2000’s." I think that is certainly untrue based on the avalanche fatalities prior to 2000.

Increasing deaths could be simply due to increased access or growing populations in resort areas. I wouldn't immediately scream global climate change though.

It's not climate change it's people skiing, hiking, snowmobiling etc. More people doing extreme sports. They are causing the avalanches that kill them.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

It's not a graph of avalanches it's a graph of fatalities.

To be killed by an avalanche, you can infer the existence of avalanches.

They aren't like earthquakes where people are just at the wrong place at the wrong time.

They can be. Avalanche prediction isn't an exact science. It's not like weather prediction which has been a solved problem for decades. /s