8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2026/02/21/nx-s1-5722357/skiers-recovered-identified-california-avalanche-tahoe

So at least half the group had either relocated to live at the ski area or had a second home at the ski area. These were not novices to the area or to the risk of avalanches. This whole story is just so peculiar. I hope eventually we know how this unfolded.

Guarantee it was the clients anxious to get home. Kids, husbands, jobs, pets, etc. They thought they had a safe window to get out, no one wants to hunker down for 2 extra days.

I hope there is a better explanation because no one who knows the area/conditions seems to think that any reasonable person would have left when they did. They needed to leave the day before or wait two more days by all reasonable standards. This wasn’t bad luck - this actually appears quite predictable.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2026/02/21/nx-s1-5722357/skiers-recovered-identified-california-avalanche-tahoe

So at least half the group had either relocated to live at the ski area or had a second home at the ski area. These were not novices to the area or to the risk of avalanches. This whole story is just so peculiar. I hope eventually we know how this unfolded.

Guarantee it was the clients anxious to get home. Kids, husbands, jobs, pets, etc. They thought they had a safe window to get out, no one wants to hunker down for 2 extra days.

The real question is why they went in the first place, while ignoring extreme weather warnings.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2026/02/21/nx-s1-5722357/skiers-recovered-identified-california-avalanche-tahoe

So at least half the group had either relocated to live at the ski area or had a second home at the ski area. These were not novices to the area or to the risk of avalanches. This whole story is just so peculiar. I hope eventually we know how this unfolded.

Guarantee it was the clients anxious to get home. Kids, husbands, jobs, pets, etc. They thought they had a safe window to get out, no one wants to hunker down for 2 extra days.

The real question is why they went in the first place, while ignoring extreme weather warnings.

The spa resorts weren’t good enough.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2026/02/21/nx-s1-5722357/skiers-recovered-identified-california-avalanche-tahoe

So at least half the group had either relocated to live at the ski area or had a second home at the ski area. These were not novices to the area or to the risk of avalanches. This whole story is just so peculiar. I hope eventually we know how this unfolded.

Guarantee it was the clients anxious to get home. Kids, husbands, jobs, pets, etc. They thought they had a safe window to get out, no one wants to hunker down for 2 extra days.

The real question is why they went in the first place, while ignoring extreme weather warnings.

I believe they likely thought it was worth the risk and that the likelihood of something to them was happening was low…and that they thought they were experienced enough to navigate the area etc. The lesson here is, no trip is worth this. The company they hired should have had more stricter rules and boundaries in place as well.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2026/02/21/nx-s1-5722357/skiers-recovered-identified-california-avalanche-tahoe

So at least half the group had either relocated to live at the ski area or had a second home at the ski area. These were not novices to the area or to the risk of avalanches. This whole story is just so peculiar. I hope eventually we know how this unfolded.

Guarantee it was the clients anxious to get home. Kids, husbands, jobs, pets, etc. They thought they had a safe window to get out, no one wants to hunker down for 2 extra days.

The real question is why they went in the first place, while ignoring extreme weather warnings.

I believe they likely thought it was worth the risk and that the likelihood of something to them was happening was low…and that they thought they were experienced enough to navigate the area etc. The lesson here is, no trip is worth this. The company they hired should have had more stricter rules and boundaries in place as well.

This. The likelihood of death seemed very low to them. I obviously don’t know the women personally, but I do know many highly educated, wealthy women and life has worked out for them always. I’m not saying they had easy lives but they maybe didn’t give real pause to listening to the warnings because life has ways worked out pretty well regardless. They also probably have taken risks before, as they have privilege and financial security, and they have always panned out. I reluctantly canceled a trip to Punta mita for March break. In my head my thoughts are 95% things would be fine and the other 5% wouldn’t really happen to me.

[Anonymous]

It must be strange for the kids at the ski academy to know these parents died skiing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that they were in the backcountry. Think rugged. Not at a resort where they shut it down when there’s a blizzard and don’t reopen until they’ve done avalanche control.

It’s terribly sad. My heart goes out to their families and friends.

Correct, this was a 3 day trek across raw mountain slopes. I wonder if they even do avalanche control for non-resort areas? I mean they can't do every mountain.

Only because Big Ski doesn't want to spend their corporate profits making the mountains safe.

+1

I will not ski again due to Big Ski and how they treat people injured on their slopes.

Hint: You will held responsible for their mistakes.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My understanding is that they were in the backcountry. Think rugged. Not at a resort where they shut it down when there’s a blizzard and don’t reopen until they’ve done avalanche control.

It’s terribly sad. My heart goes out to their families and friends.

Correct, this was a 3 day trek across raw mountain slopes. I wonder if they even do avalanche control for non-resort areas? I mean they can't do every mountain.

Only because Big Ski doesn't want to spend their corporate profits making the mountains safe.

+1

I will not ski again due to Big Ski and how they treat people injured on their slopes.

Hint: You will held responsible for their mistakes.

This was not part of any resort. They are supposed to maintain a slope then don’t own or operate?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:https://www.npr.org/2026/02/21/nx-s1-5722357/skiers-recovered-identified-california-avalanche-tahoe

So at least half the group had either relocated to live at the ski area or had a second home at the ski area. These were not novices to the area or to the risk of avalanches. This whole story is just so peculiar. I hope eventually we know how this unfolded.

Guarantee it was the clients anxious to get home. Kids, husbands, jobs, pets, etc. They thought they had a safe window to get out, no one wants to hunker down for 2 extra days.

The real question is why they went in the first place, while ignoring extreme weather warnings.

I believe they likely thought it was worth the risk and that the likelihood of something to them was happening was low…and that they thought they were experienced enough to navigate the area etc. The lesson here is, no trip is worth this. The company they hired should have had more stricter rules and boundaries in place as well.

This. The likelihood of death seemed very low to them. I obviously don’t know the women personally, but I do know many highly educated, wealthy women and life has worked out for them always. I’m not saying they had easy lives but they maybe didn’t give real pause to listening to the warnings because life has ways worked out pretty well regardless. They also probably have taken risks before, as they have privilege and financial security, and they have always panned out. I reluctantly canceled a trip to Punta mita for March break. In my head my thoughts are 95% things would be fine and the other 5% wouldn’t really happen to me.

Oof. This resonates with me due to several people I know. That’s exactly how they act. 😳

[Anonymous]

I don't need stricter laws or skilled guides to warn me that if extreme weather and risk for avalanches has been predicted that I don't want to die encased in ice and smothering over a 30 minute time period. Not worth the risk for me or my loved ones.

[Anonymous]

Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

From a system failure standpoint, this is interesting. It's a feedback loop that encourages risky behavior.

Backcountry users are taught to recognize a group of human decision-making traps that can make getting caught in an avalanche more likely, said Sara Boilen, a psychologist in Montana, an avid backcountry skier and a snow safety researcher who regularly gives an avalanche safety talk.

People skiing familiar terrain — such as experienced guides on home turf — are more likely to assume a familiar route is safe. Skiers who see an opportunity as scarce or fleeting — such as a long-awaited trip or fresh powder — are more likely to downplay the danger. Individuals wanting to fit in with the group may be reluctant to speak out. Novices are prone to defer to someone they see as an expert, and not question their decisions.

In groups of six to 10, statistics show, the risk grows substantially, as numbers give the illusion of safety and unspoken competition pushes the tolerance for risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I don't need stricter laws or skilled guides to warn me that if extreme weather and risk for avalanches has been predicted that I don't want to die encased in ice and smothering over a 30 minute time period. Not worth the risk for me or my loved ones.

+1 !!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Blaming others when these folks are supposed to be highly intelligent, well-trained skiers with years of epertise and skiing opportunities. Didn't take the time to read weather reports? File lawsuits instead, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

Thank you to that PP for the gift link. It was a beautifully written article.