8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.

The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.

When the families sue, they'd better settle because the jury will likely find the guides negligent.

Yes. Blame others and sue.

Ultimately it sounds like the guides made the decision to leave the hut and didn't open it for discussion or inform the party of the risks of leaving.

Suing is not just for money and to put a place out of business it is also to evoke change, set an example and force others in the industry to think differently.

Hopefully, the lawsuits will force risk-takers to change their tendency to not heed posted warnings before they travel to dangerous places to seek adventurous fun times.

Certainly will give pause to guide companies to make such risky decisions.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.

The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.

You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.

+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.

The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.

You could say that about a lot of things, including taking car trips.

Keep telling yourself that as you pursue "exciting" activities.

Bilbo Baggins: "It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to."

-Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Reports are that I-80 was closed that whole day so even if they made it to their cars they wouldn’t have been able to go home.

They should have stayed in the huts (or not gone altogether.) Very bad decision-making all around.

That's the part I don't get about the NYTimes article and the guides taking the route taking them to their cars rather than other totally safe routes because yes, they'd not have been able to drive anywhere once they got there, the cars would have been at least totally covered in snow even with roads open.

[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.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

Especially when women are involved.

Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports are that I-80 was closed that whole day so even if they made it to their cars they wouldn’t have been able to go home.

They should have stayed in the huts (or not gone altogether.) Very bad decision-making all around.

That's the part I don't get about the NYTimes article and the guides taking the route taking them to their cars rather than other totally safe routes because yes, they'd not have been able to drive anywhere once they got there, the cars would have been at least totally covered in snow even with roads open.

Exactly. If they weren’t going to cancel the trip, they should have either hunkered down at the huts or skied south towards I-80 (but away from the cars) rather than climbing up and over the peak to cross behind the huge pile of fresh snow sitting on the ridge. I mean, it’s mind-blowing.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.

The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.

You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.

+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.

The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.

You could say that about a lot of things, including taking car trips.

Keep telling yourself that as you pursue "exciting" activities.

Bilbo Baggins: "It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to."

-Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings

Seeking the thrill of oncoming hurricanes, earthquakes, avalanches, and racing cars is so amazing!!

[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.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

Especially when women are involved.

Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.

The group that planned a trip together was comprised of women. Consequently, the friends group is described as a group of women skiers. Get over it.

[Anonymous]

[mastodon]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Reports are that I-80 was closed that whole day so even if they made it to their cars they wouldn’t have been able to go home.

They should have stayed in the huts (or not gone altogether.) Very bad decision-making all around.

That's the part I don't get about the NYTimes article and the guides taking the route taking them to their cars rather than other totally safe routes because yes, they'd not have been able to drive anywhere once they got there, the cars would have been at least totally covered in snow even with roads open.

Perhaps the guides did not know the road was closed.

[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.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

Especially when women are involved.

Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.

You probably don't like the idea of women's, men's, and children's sports either. Did you even watch the Olympics?

[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.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

It reminds me of when Kobe died. The helicopter should not have been flying because of the fog. But…there was a game to get to…

The helicopter company was sued and they settled.

[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.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

Especially when women are involved.

Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.

The group that planned a trip together was comprised of women. Consequently, the friends group is described as a group of women skiers. Get over it.

There were 9 women (1 guide) and 6 men (2 guides). Definitely a coed group in aggregate.

[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.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

It reminds me of when Kobe died. The helicopter should not have been flying because of the fog. But…there was a game to get to…

The helicopter company was sued and they settled.

The pilot was clearly at fault, despite any appetite for risk-taking on the part of Kobe and his guests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

Especially when women are involved.

Yes. It is gross how many posts make a point of saying the women skiers. They could just type the skiers. But they go out of their way to emphasize the women did'nt watch the weather beforehand, the women didn't cancel, there must have been 1-2 alpha women. Their sex had nothing to do with it, except that it's used when assigning blame to part of the group. The full group was 4 guides, 3 independent people who signed up individually, and 8 people who were linked in a group. Emphasizing over and over the women is blantant misogyny.

Also - they had a gorgeous day skiing the day before. The tour company said the trip was still on.

There's a lot in the NYT article about group think and how these large high death events happen psychologically. Most of those elements were present in this situation, and none of those elements involve the sex of the victim.

If you cannot talk about this story without talking about "women skiers" as opposed to just "skiers," you are part of the problem.

The group that planned a trip together was comprised of women. Consequently, the friends group is described as a group of women skiers. Get over it.

There were 9 women (1 guide) and 6 men (2 guides). Definitely a coed group in aggregate.

4 guides for the entire group (3M/1F), 3 male clients who didn’t know one another, 8 female clients who did know one another. It’s all explained in the NYT piece.

[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.

Thanks for posting. This is a fascinating article. The comments at the end are worth a read.

There was no pressure from guests to stay or go. The decision to go and the path taken was made
in a back room meeting by guides on the phone with the home office.

There were two groups of guests. There were the 8 women who were highly proficient back country skiers. The women were friends.

The second group was 3 solo men who were all back country novice level and knew they needed guides.

Each group had two male guides. The womens group and their guides were typically in the front as the women were more proficient.
One of the males talks about being embarrassed that he kept falling down.

On the last day the two groups operated as one group but the solo men were at the rear with one male guide following.

I don't think the solo men would have spoken up about staying or going. The two men interviewed both said they were less skilled and knew they needed guides in the back country.

Still no explanation as to why the proficient, skilled women skiers ignored weather warnings and went on with their plans. Guides didn't force them to go on the trip.

They relied on the guides. It’s really gross that people feel such a need to villainize these dead women.

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

It reminds me of when Kobe died. The helicopter should not have been flying because of the fog. But…there was a game to get to…

The helicopter company was sued and they settled.

The pilot was clearly at fault, despite any appetite for risk-taking on the part of Kobe and his guests.

While I agree the pilot is ultimately in charge, there are well-documented issues with wealthy and celebrity clients pushing for outcomes that may not be prudent. We will never know if Kobe did or did not.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One of the survivors in the NYT article said that he didn’t think to question the guides because he felt they were the experts and everyone just went along with the plan. Stop trying to blame the victims.

The guides were not with them when they left their homes to go on their planned trip. Supposedly, they were experienced skiers who could read and understand weather forecasts of heavy snow and the potential for avalances. Stop trying to blame the guides for the consequences of the women's decision to embark on such a trip.

You're disgusting.

It's ultimately up to the guide to gauge the safety.

+1 The guides should have erred on the side of safety and delayed the return trip. They could have stayed in the huts another night.

The skiers should have erred on the side of safety and stayed home. Instead, risk takers find someone else to blame for their decisions; and there are always salivating attorneys looking to sue someone.

You could say that about a lot of things, including taking car trips.

Keep telling yourself that as you pursue "exciting" activities.

Bilbo Baggins: "It's a dangerous business, Frodo, going out your door. You step onto the road, and if you don't keep your feet, there's no knowing where you might be swept off to."

-Lord of the Rings: Fellowship of the Rings

Would Sauron really have been that bad? He had a strong jobs program with several large civil projects.