8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote: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.

What laws, exactly, do you think would have prevented this? They might try to prove criminal negligence by the guides, but that law already exists.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What laws, exactly, do you think would have prevented this? They might try to prove criminal negligence by the guides, but that law already exists.

+1. You can't keep people from venturing into the wilderness.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What laws, exactly, do you think would have prevented this? They might try to prove criminal negligence by the guides, but that law already exists.

+1. You can't keep people from venturing into the wilderness.

Actually, there is one law that many people think would help. Guide pay would be required to be not dependent on tips - the cost of the trip would have to cover full guide compensation as well as enough additional to effectively cover trip cancellation insurance. That way, should the guide company cancel the trip for a safety/weather related reason, the guide and the company are still paid and clients are mostly whole by the travel insurance.

The financial incentives are very misaligned at this point and clients are not paying the true cost to operate the business. There is huge pressure to continue with a trip in dangerous conditions, as we saw.

[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.

I think people just plain don’t understand the potential risks of all kinds of outdoor sports. They put their trust in “guides” who are poorly trained and often dumb, sometimes maybe stoned too.

[Anonymous]

Just read the article. Very interesting. I like to think that I would have been the dissenting voice that insisted on staying the the cabin but I’m not sure I would have been. I’ve hung 2 juries so maybe I would have!

[Anonymous]

Why a need for laws? How about just using your plain ole commonsense...if a person has any...when severe weather is predicted. These folks are no different than those in Florida who seek thrills by going surfing, water skiing, and boating as a hurricane is heading to the coast.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Just read the article. Very interesting. I like to think that I would have been the dissenting voice that insisted on staying the the cabin but I’m not sure I would have been. I’ve hung 2 juries so maybe I would have!

How about dissenting before embarking on such a trip?!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What laws, exactly, do you think would have prevented this? They might try to prove criminal negligence by the guides, but that law already exists.

There could be laws that require risk mitigation training of guides, as well as whistleblower protections for guides that go against a decision they believe is unsafe. Guide companies could be required to have something like a chief safety officer that had some independence to make decisions. There could be requires insurance for trip cancellation due to safety risks. lots of ways that risk is addressed in other industries. However this would be expensive and bureaucratic and probably not all that effective with small guide companies.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Just read the article. Very interesting. I like to think that I would have been the dissenting voice that insisted on staying the the cabin but I’m not sure I would have been. I’ve hung 2 juries so maybe I would have!

How about dissenting before embarking on such a trip?!

Yeah I like to think I would have skipped the trip due to the weather forecast! Of course people like me generally are not drawn to adventure sports my friend who is pretty much understands and accepts the risks she takes. The problem is people who are less experienced and don’t understand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Why a need for laws? How about just using your plain ole commonsense...if a person has any...when severe weather is predicted. These folks are no different than those in Florida who seek thrills by going surfing, water skiing, and boating as a hurricane is heading to the coast.

Well, because the guide companies are selling a dangerous product and possibly misrepresenting themselves. Which is maybe defensible if you are experienced and understand the risks but many do not - they think it is just a kind of tourism. The Florida example I think of is actually the parents that send their very young kids to sailing “school” in a busy harbor where the kids were run over by a barge due to the sailing instructors being poorly trained and not understanding the risks. It was as if they sent their 10 year olds to learn how to ride a bike coached by a teenager in the middle of an interstate … but because it was an outdoor sport the risks weren’t apparent.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote: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.

What laws, exactly, do you think would have prevented this? They might try to prove criminal negligence by the guides, but that law already exists.

+1. You can't keep people from venturing into the wilderness.

Actually, there is one law that many people think would help. Guide pay would be required to be not dependent on tips - the cost of the trip would have to cover full guide compensation as well as enough additional to effectively cover trip cancellation insurance. That way, should the guide company cancel the trip for a safety/weather related reason, the guide and the company are still paid and clients are mostly whole by the travel insurance.

The financial incentives are very misaligned at this point and clients are not paying the true cost to operate the business. There is huge pressure to continue with a trip in dangerous conditions, as we saw.

+1 especially trip insurance.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why a need for laws? How about just using your plain ole commonsense...if a person has any...when severe weather is predicted. These folks are no different than those in Florida who seek thrills by going surfing, water skiing, and boating as a hurricane is heading to the coast.

Well, because the guide companies are selling a dangerous product and possibly misrepresenting themselves. Which is maybe defensible if you are experienced and understand the risks but many do not - they think it is just a kind of tourism. The Florida example I think of is actually the parents that send their very young kids to sailing “school” in a busy harbor where the kids were run over by a barge due to the sailing instructors being poorly trained and not understanding the risks. It was as if they sent their 10 year olds to learn how to ride a bike coached by a teenager in the middle of an interstate … but because it was an outdoor sport the risks weren’t apparent.

PP here. +1 Good point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why a need for laws? How about just using your plain ole commonsense...if a person has any...when severe weather is predicted. These folks are no different than those in Florida who seek thrills by going surfing, water skiing, and boating as a hurricane is heading to the coast.

Well, because the guide companies are selling a dangerous product and possibly misrepresenting themselves. Which is maybe defensible if you are experienced and understand the risks but many do not - they think it is just a kind of tourism. The Florida example I think of is actually the parents that send their very young kids to sailing “school” in a busy harbor where the kids were run over by a barge due to the sailing instructors being poorly trained and not understanding the risks. It was as if they sent their 10 year olds to learn how to ride a bike coached by a teenager in the middle of an interstate … but because it was an outdoor sport the risks weren’t apparent.

PP here. +1 Good point.

PP sounds like we should get together and start an adventure travel industry consulting business 😂

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Why a need for laws? How about just using your plain ole commonsense...if a person has any...when severe weather is predicted. These folks are no different than those in Florida who seek thrills by going surfing, water skiing, and boating as a hurricane is heading to the coast.

Well, because the guide companies are selling a dangerous product and possibly misrepresenting themselves. Which is maybe defensible if you are experienced and understand the risks but many do not - they think it is just a kind of tourism. The Florida example I think of is actually the parents that send their very young kids to sailing “school” in a busy harbor where the kids were run over by a barge due to the sailing instructors being poorly trained and not understanding the risks. It was as if they sent their 10 year olds to learn how to ride a bike coached by a teenager in the middle of an interstate … but because it was an outdoor sport the risks weren’t apparent.

PP here. +1 Good point.

PP sounds like we should get together and start an adventure travel industry consulting business 😂

+1 Definitely! My dad was the very adventuresome type , and my sisters and I grew up enjoying a lot of outdoor activities. He also took many safety precautions and taught us to do the same.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Was there no warning?

Why don't they have some kind of helmet that creates a large balloon of oxygen around them and a beacon that starts emitting signal? Like an airtag or something?

Yes there was warning not to travel in the area from the Sierra Avalanche Center

WHAT
HIGH avalanche danger exists in the backcountry. Large avalanches are expected across backcountry terrain. HIGH avalanche danger might continue through the day on Thursday.

WHEN
In effect from Tue, Feb 17, 2026 - 5:00AM to Thu, Feb 19, 2026 - 5:00AM

WHERE
Central Sierra Nevada Mountains between Yuba Pass (Hwy 49) on the north and Ebbetts Pass (Hwy 4) on the south, including the greater Lake Tahoe area. This does not include ski areas or highways where avalanche mitigation programs exist.

IMPACTS
Rapidly accumulating snowfall, weak layers in the existing snowpack, and gale-force winds that blow and drift snow have created dangerous avalanche conditions in the mountains. Natural avalanches are likely, and human-triggered avalanches large enough to bury or injure people are very likely.

PRECAUTIONARY/PREPAREDNESS ACTIONS
Traveling in, near, or below backcountry avalanche terrain is not recommended during HIGH avalanche danger.

Message unclear.