8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The article was well-done. I’m confused why they didn’t take one of the flat routes south from the huts and then message the backcountry headquarters that they needed a ride over to where the cars were parked.

Hindsight is 20/20.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can be an expert skier/hiker/scuba diver and not be familiar enough with the area to hire a guide who is and should be able to make safe decisions based on their knowledge of the terrain and weather conditions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The NYTimes article is interesting bc it’s based on the two men survivors who signed up for the group tour individually. It’s not like they had friends die or know family members seeking answers or prevention. The two women survivors are mum, as are the two guide survivors.

That said, according to the two men, nothing was up for discussion— not the Monday trail circle or the Tuesday early return or its route. The guides met with themselves over breakfast, decided, then told both groups.

Those two men were outsiders and had no idea who was actually pulling the strings. My guess is there was at least 1-3 alpha women in the group calling the shots. That's why everyone else is quiet.

The guides were calling the shot and only one of them was female.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

The slope they were on was safe, but higher above it was the slope that had the avalanche.

Nothing is simple.

It seems reasonable to assume an avalanche wasn't going to stop at the bottom of the first slope.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

The slope they were on was safe, but higher above it was the slope that had the avalanche.

Nothing is simple.

It seems reasonable to assume an avalanche wasn't going to stop at the bottom of the first slope.

Can you please read the article before you spout.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can be an expert skier/hiker/scuba diver and not be familiar enough with the area to hire a guide who is and should be able to make safe decisions based on their knowledge of the terrain and weather conditions.

Nope. They were supposedly highly skilled back country skiiers who were very smart women. Weather reports had been out for a week. They chose to take a foolish risk.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article was well-done. I’m confused why they didn’t take one of the flat routes south from the huts and then message the backcountry headquarters that they needed a ride over to where the cars were parked.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Forethought matters.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

The slope they were on was safe, but higher above it was the slope that had the avalanche.

Nothing is simple.

It seems reasonable to assume an avalanche wasn't going to stop at the bottom of the first slope.

Can you please read the article before you spout.

I did. To paraphrase, "It hadn't had any avalanches before and was 20 degrees, so it's safe."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can be an expert skier/hiker/scuba diver and not be familiar enough with the area to hire a guide who is and should be able to make safe decisions based on their knowledge of the terrain and weather conditions.

Nope. They were supposedly highly skilled back country skiiers who were very smart women. Weather reports had been out for a week. They chose to take a foolish risk.

Nope. They were on a guided adventure. Up to the company to cancel due to weather conditions. They will be sued into bankruptcy.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can be an expert skier/hiker/scuba diver and not be familiar enough with the area to hire a guide who is and should be able to make safe decisions based on their knowledge of the terrain and weather conditions.

Nope. They were supposedly highly skilled back country skiiers who were very smart women. Weather reports had been out for a week. They chose to take a foolish risk.

Nope. They were on a guided adventure. Up to the company to cancel due to weather conditions. They will be sued into bankruptcy.

So really not such intelligent, experienced skiers who were familiar with the area as many posters and news articles indicated. Rather, they had money but lacked the ability to read week long weather reports that predicted terrible weather, likely avalanches, and significant amounts of snowfall.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The article was well-done. I’m confused why they didn’t take one of the flat routes south from the huts and then message the backcountry headquarters that they needed a ride over to where the cars were parked.

Hindsight is 20/20.

Forethought matters.

+1 most definitely!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You can be an expert skier/hiker/scuba diver and not be familiar enough with the area to hire a guide who is and should be able to make safe decisions based on their knowledge of the terrain and weather conditions.

Nope. They were supposedly highly skilled back country skiiers who were very smart women. Weather reports had been out for a week. They chose to take a foolish risk.

Nope. They were on a guided adventure. Up to the company to cancel due to weather conditions. They will be sued into bankruptcy.

So really not such intelligent, experienced skiers who were familiar with the area as many posters and news articles indicated. Rather, they had money but lacked the ability to read week long weather reports that predicted terrible weather, likely avalanches, and significant amounts of snowfall.

Most lost their lives.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

The slope they were on was safe, but higher above it was the slope that had the avalanche.

Nothing is simple.

It seems reasonable to assume an avalanche wasn't going to stop at the bottom of the first slope.

Can you please read the article before you spout.

I did. To paraphrase, "It hadn't had any avalanches before and was 20 degrees, so it's safe."

I call bullsh&t. Low temperatures are a risk for avalanches. There is a very specific formula which makes risk easy to predict. That's why this was predicted.

[Anonymous]

My heart aches for all the lives lost and their families. I hope that strict safety laws are put in place to prevent such accidents.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

See the excerpt from above. The guided picked a path that was "known" to be safe because it hadn't had avalanches in the past and was only 20 degrees instead of 30 degrees or greater, which poses an avalanche risk.

https://avalanche.org/avalanche-encyclopedia/terrain/slope-characteristics/slope-angle/

Someone should probably measure the "safe" slope again.

The slope they were on was safe, but higher above it was the slope that had the avalanche.

Nothing is simple.

It seems reasonable to assume an avalanche wasn't going to stop at the bottom of the first slope.

Can you please read the article before you spout.

I did. To paraphrase, "It hadn't had any avalanches before and was 20 degrees, so it's safe."

I call bullsh&t. Low temperatures are a risk for avalanches. There is a very specific formula which makes risk easy to predict. That's why this was predicted.

20 degrees is a slope not a temperature.