8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[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.

I believe the legal doctrine you are referring to is assumption of risk, where you generally cannot prevail on a claim for injuries sustained in an inherently risky activity. This might apply if you are back country skiing on a guided trip and an avalanche occurred randomly or very unpredictably.

Here, I believe the avalanche danger warnings actually cut the other way, if indeed the guides were charged with decision making. Although some may speculate that these skiers should not have gone on the trip to start with, the fact that there were other safer paths they could have taken from the huts on their return trip supports that there was a safe way for them to leave. (Or the guides could have chosen to stay in the huts). A lawsuit might allege that the guides, through their actions, actually increased the risk inherent in the activity by choosing a more dangerous path. And even if the participants signed a waiver saying they can't sue, ever, no matter what, typically the courts will not let you contract away gross negligence.

The lawsuit will likely depend on whether the guides, given the information and options available, acted with reckless disregard for the safety of the group. This will be based on facts we do not fully know yet, and may include testimony of experts in the back country ski and avalanche prediction space.

My deepest condolences to the families of all those who lost their lives on the mountain that day.

Sadly I agree. Especially since the survivors were rescued eventually via the road leading to the huts - later that night via snow mobiles.

Clearly the correct game time decision was “stay put, eat food, wait until it’s safe to leave” even though that would have taken a few days.

It was just crazy to me that going back the way they came was “too dangerous” but they essentially crossed a clearing on the opposite side of the same ridge they were avoiding on this longer path. Skiiing below the same giant pile of snow they would have skied below on the “too dangerous” path.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

Even if they didn’t cause it, they weren’t supposed to be so close together in avalanche conditions. The theory is that if only a few people are caught in the avalanche there are more people to dig them out. The deceased were all found right on top of one another - not protocol at all.

It's clear from the article that the underestimated the avalanche risk of the route and especially at that particular location. The article said that they spread out during some of the other crossings earlier on the trip back. Those were steeper and more exposed slopes.

The area where the avalanche occurred was a lower slope area below a steeper sloped area. They got caught in the runout of an avalanche from the steeper slope above. They clearly didn't think that this was likely, or they would have taken more precautions when crossing. This might be a defensible position from an avalanche safety perspective, if it had been a clear day 1-2 days after the storm had passed. But during an active storm, with the snow conditions being what they were, it was pretty questionable.

[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.

They were trying to beat it - get to the cars early enough they could get out. They probably realized later that it wasn’t going to happen, but had already crossed the more dangerous terrain.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

They were trying to beat it - get to the cars early enough they could get out. They probably realized later that it wasn’t going to happen, but had already crossed the more dangerous terrain.

Maybe the one surviving guide can shed light on the process, with guaranteed immunity, of course.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

Even if they didn’t cause it, they weren’t supposed to be so close together in avalanche conditions. The theory is that if only a few people are caught in the avalanche there are more people to dig them out. The deceased were all found right on top of one another - not protocol at all.

It's clear from the article that the underestimated the avalanche risk of the route and especially at that particular location. The article said that they spread out during some of the other crossings earlier on the trip back. Those were steeper and more exposed slopes.

The area where the avalanche occurred was a lower slope area below a steeper sloped area. They got caught in the runout of an avalanche from the steeper slope above. They clearly didn't think that this was likely, or they would have taken more precautions when crossing. This might be a defensible position from an avalanche safety perspective, if it had been a clear day 1-2 days after the storm had passed. But during an active storm, with the snow conditions being what they were, it was pretty questionable.

The entire trip was questionable. Those weather conditions were not a surprise for those who checked weather forecasts.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

The male guides outnumbered the female four to one.

We were discussing guests. Keep up.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

The male guides outnumbered the female four to one.

We were discussing guests. Keep up.

Pp was blaming the women. Keep up, dude.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

The male guides outnumbered the female four to one.

We were discussing guests. Keep up.

Pp was blaming the women. Keep up, dude.

Yes, the female guests.

[Anonymous]

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.

The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

And this is another demonstration that the guides were making poor decisions. These skiers did not belong on this trip. In a weird trick of fate their incompetence saved them from the guides and because of that they were able to save a few people. Blaming any of the skiers is just ridiculous, you hire guides for their expertise and experience. That they retreated to a closed door meeting and issued a decision clearly shows that the guides were in charge. And reading the article we can see multiple failure points by the guides. It’s very apparent that most of the posters in this thread have no back country or similar experiences. Just like you rely on your pilot to fly, or your captain to safely pilot the boat, you rely on your guides.

To the point of the storm, back country skiers ski in storms. A storm does not mean you need to stay inside.

I hope we will get a thorough review of everything that happened from Outside. NYT was a decent article but there will be much more to learn. My husband was a backcountry skier, ice climber, rock climber, scuba diver and more. He was also SAR. These stories hit him hard, bringing back the memories of missions that became recoveries. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the survivors and that includes the surviving guide. They will live the rest of their life knowing that they failed the people who trusted them.

[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.

The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.

+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.

They didn’t make the decision, twat.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

And this is another demonstration that the guides were making poor decisions. These skiers did not belong on this trip. In a weird trick of fate their incompetence saved them from the guides and because of that they were able to save a few people. Blaming any of the skiers is just ridiculous, you hire guides for their expertise and experience. That they retreated to a closed door meeting and issued a decision clearly shows that the guides were in charge. And reading the article we can see multiple failure points by the guides. It’s very apparent that most of the posters in this thread have no back country or similar experiences. Just like you rely on your pilot to fly, or your captain to safely pilot the boat, you rely on your guides.

To the point of the storm, back country skiers ski in storms. A storm does not mean you need to stay inside.

I hope we will get a thorough review of everything that happened from Outside. NYT was a decent article but there will be much more to learn. My husband was a backcountry skier, ice climber, rock climber, scuba diver and more. He was also SAR. These stories hit him hard, bringing back the memories of missions that became recoveries. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the survivors and that includes the surviving guide. They will live the rest of their life knowing that they failed the people who trusted them.

You're clearly a fan of risk-takers. That's fine if you and your husband or others enjoy skiing in the back country during a predicted severe storm. You are, in fact, not blameless if things turn out badly.

[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.

The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.

+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.

They didn’t make the decision, twat.

Really? Did someone force them to go on this trip?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Also, in the article recently posted the male survivors were at the back of the pack. So the women, out in front, with the guides likely caused the avalanche.

What difference does that make? The women outnumbered the men guests. It’s not rocket science. One man in the back had trouble with his skis, the other man couldn’t keep up, and a male guide stayed back with them.

And this is another demonstration that the guides were making poor decisions. These skiers did not belong on this trip. In a weird trick of fate their incompetence saved them from the guides and because of that they were able to save a few people. Blaming any of the skiers is just ridiculous, you hire guides for their expertise and experience. That they retreated to a closed door meeting and issued a decision clearly shows that the guides were in charge. And reading the article we can see multiple failure points by the guides. It’s very apparent that most of the posters in this thread have no back country or similar experiences. Just like you rely on your pilot to fly, or your captain to safely pilot the boat, you rely on your guides.

To the point of the storm, back country skiers ski in storms. A storm does not mean you need to stay inside.

I hope we will get a thorough review of everything that happened from Outside. NYT was a decent article but there will be much more to learn. My husband was a backcountry skier, ice climber, rock climber, scuba diver and more. He was also SAR. These stories hit him hard, bringing back the memories of missions that became recoveries. My heart goes out to the victims, their families, the survivors and that includes the surviving guide. They will live the rest of their life knowing that they failed the people who trusted them.

You're clearly a fan of risk-takers. That's fine if you and your husband or others enjoy skiing in the back country during a predicted severe storm. You are, in fact, not blameless if things turn out badly.

I think what you don’t understand is that you can ski safely in some storms if you have the requisite skill. Not just the skill to ski, but to judge the storm. As far as being a fan of risk takers, not so much. My husband was very skilled and very cautious. He always knew his limits and his group’s. He was always willing to call things off if necessary. Not everyone who does these things is seeking the kind of thrill you’re imagining. For my husband it was much more about getting away from the world and seeing and connecting with nature. Most people that do SAR are very levelheaded. I was a backcountry skier but that ended for me the second time I was hit by a drunk driver. I can still do cross country but no telemarking.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

The guides made the final decision to go.

It’s disgusting how much you want to blame these women.

+1 Women, being the weaker sex, should never be accountable for their decisions.

They didn’t make the decision, twat.

Really? Did someone force them to go on this trip?

Inconvenient truth for judgmental twats: Guides are responsible for the group’s safety.