8 Skiers dead after accidental Avalanche in California!

[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 should NOT rely on guides in a poorly regulated recreational or transportation field. That’s the point. Not saying anything about legal liability, but yes, you need to assess yourself whether it is a good idea to go on a backcountry skiing trip with an elevated avalanche warning, send your 7 year old out on a crowded tiny boat with a 19 year old as an “instructor” in the middle of a busy shipping channel, or pressure your poorly trained helicopter pilot to fly you in the fog.

[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.

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.

Sure, everyone in that group probably believed that they had the “requisite skill” to “judge the storm.” Meanwhile the ACTUAL experts in storms and risk assessment (the meteorologists issuing the warnings) said not to go.

I know people who love risky outdoors activities and I have made my peace with the fact that they may be lost someday. I think the subtext is that they love it so much that they do accept the risk, so I in turn accept that. But it’s arrogance and wishful thinking to believe that they have any special set of skills to prevent risks wholly.

[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: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.

Pretty sure 100% of companies that run these kinds of trips have waivers.

Does that actually, legally, mean anything? Possibly not, but guides are actually not responsible.

That’s literally their job.

You can Google this. Avalanches are in the waivers...they are not responsible for anything at all. They are also an act of God. I really, really doubt a judge is going to find fault given how much media and press was out there on this storm.

Waivers don’t waive criminal charges or gross negligence 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.

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

lol. This is *exactly* the kind of hubris that leads to disaster. “We have owned a cabin in the Rockies for 5 generations! We can ski in storms!” No. Your identity and belief doesn’t turn an amateur into an expert. The guides no doubt said and thought the same things about themselves.

[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 should NOT rely on guides in a poorly regulated recreational or transportation field. That’s the point. Not saying anything about legal liability, but yes, you need to assess yourself whether it is a good idea to go on a backcountry skiing trip with an elevated avalanche warning, send your 7 year old out on a crowded tiny boat with a 19 year old as an “instructor” in the middle of a busy shipping channel, or pressure your poorly trained helicopter pilot to fly you in the fog.

+1 Seriously!

[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:

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.

Sure, everyone in that group probably believed that they had the “requisite skill” to “judge the storm.” Meanwhile the ACTUAL experts in storms and risk assessment (the meteorologists issuing the warnings) said not to go.

I know people who love risky outdoors activities and I have made my peace with the fact that they may be lost someday. I think the subtext is that they love it so much that they do accept the risk, so I in turn accept that. But it’s arrogance and wishful thinking to believe that they have any special set of skills to prevent risks wholly.

That's an egocentric view of the world. Why would they care if you've made your peace with their hobbies? Bizarre.

[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:

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

Are you saying better skiers could have outskiied an avalanche?

Not at all. They should have stayed in the huts. The most skilled people in the world should have stayed in the huts. The decision by the guides to leave on that day in those conditions was lethal.

[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:

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

lol. This is *exactly* the kind of hubris that leads to disaster. “We have owned a cabin in the Rockies for 5 generations! We can ski in storms!” No. Your identity and belief doesn’t turn an amateur into an expert. The guides no doubt said and thought the same things about themselves.

We would never have gone out under the conditions that the guides chose to leave in. That doesn’t change the fact that some storms are safe. You realize that not every storm is a blizzard, right? Did your family live in a city in the same house for many generations? Do you know it intimately? The best places to go, to avoid, the secret shortcuts, etc.? It’s not different in the mountains. We know that place very, very well. Who would I trust more? Of course you pay attention to forecasts and reports but it’s odd to suggest that deep knowledge of a place is meaningless.

Your remark about identity and belief does remind me of another point about some back country skiers. I don’t subscribe to this but there are those who believe that high risk avalanche days are safe for them because on those days they can really “read” the snow. Maybe the guides had these thoughts.

[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:

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

Are you saying better skiers could have outskiied an avalanche?

Not at all. They should have stayed in the huts. The most skilled people in the world should have stayed in the huts. The decision by the guides to leave on that day in those conditions was lethal.

Oh. I think you probably would have decided that this storm was safe too because "some storms are safe". WTF does that mean? I guess you will find out too late which ones weren't safe. Please tell us the criteria for safe vs unsafe that is foolproof?

[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:

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

lol. This is *exactly* the kind of hubris that leads to disaster. “We have owned a cabin in the Rockies for 5 generations! We can ski in storms!” No. Your identity and belief doesn’t turn an amateur into an expert. The guides no doubt said and thought the same things about themselves.

We would never have gone out under the conditions that the guides chose to leave in. That doesn’t change the fact that some storms are safe. You realize that not every storm is a blizzard, right? Did your family live in a city in the same house for many generations? Do you know it intimately? The best places to go, to avoid, the secret shortcuts, etc.? It’s not different in the mountains. We know that place very, very well. Who would I trust more? Of course you pay attention to forecasts and reports but it’s odd to suggest that deep knowledge of a place is meaningless.

Your remark about identity and belief does remind me of another point about some back country skiers. I don’t subscribe to this but there are those who believe that high risk avalanche days are safe for them because on those days they can really “read” the snow. Maybe the guides had these thoughts.

Supposedly, the group of friends who decided to make this trip despite very severe weather warnings were experienced back country skiers. Perhaps they thought this way, too.

[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:

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

Are you saying better skiers could have outskiied an avalanche?

Not at all. They should have stayed in the huts. The most skilled people in the world should have stayed in the huts. The decision by the guides to leave on that day in those conditions was lethal.

+1. And this is why the guide company will lose in court.

[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:

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

lol. This is *exactly* the kind of hubris that leads to disaster. “We have owned a cabin in the Rockies for 5 generations! We can ski in storms!” No. Your identity and belief doesn’t turn an amateur into an expert. The guides no doubt said and thought the same things about themselves.

We would never have gone out under the conditions that the guides chose to leave in. That doesn’t change the fact that some storms are safe. You realize that not every storm is a blizzard, right? Did your family live in a city in the same house for many generations? Do you know it intimately? The best places to go, to avoid, the secret shortcuts, etc.? It’s not different in the mountains. We know that place very, very well. Who would I trust more? Of course you pay attention to forecasts and reports but it’s odd to suggest that deep knowledge of a place is meaningless.

Your remark about identity and belief does remind me of another point about some back country skiers. I don’t subscribe to this but there are those who believe that high risk avalanche days are safe for them because on those days they can really “read” the snow. Maybe the guides had these thoughts.

Supposedly, the group of friends who decided to make this trip despite very severe weather warnings were experienced back country skiers. Perhaps they thought this way, too.

Two survived so we don't have to rely on the one guide to give us that information.

[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:

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

Are you saying better skiers could have outskiied an avalanche?

Not at all. They should have stayed in the huts. The most skilled people in the world should have stayed in the huts. The decision by the guides to leave on that day in those conditions was lethal.

Oh. I think you probably would have decided that this storm was safe too because "some storms are safe". WTF does that mean? I guess you will find out too late which ones weren't safe. Please tell us the criteria for safe vs unsafe that is foolproof?

DP. You clearly are not an outdoors person.

[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:

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

Are you saying better skiers could have outskiied an avalanche?

Not at all. They should have stayed in the huts. The most skilled people in the world should have stayed in the huts. The decision by the guides to leave on that day in those conditions was lethal.

Oh. I think you probably would have decided that this storm was safe too because "some storms are safe". WTF does that mean? I guess you will find out too late which ones weren't safe. Please tell us the criteria for safe vs unsafe that is foolproof?

DP. You clearly are not an outdoors person.

Well, the lady skiers were too but see how that turned out.

[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:

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.

I'm an experienced backcountry skier and ski mountaineer. We have a house in the area where the avalanche occurred (can access that trail network on foot from our house), and we were up there when the accident occurred. No, backcountry skiers don't deliberately ski in white outs, especially not in large groups with mixed experience and expertise.

There is a lot of underinformed opinion on this thread, but taking that group of people out in the storm conditions that were underway was arguably an even worse decision than the route they chose.

I agree with you. There has been some sentiment in this thread that you never ski in a storm, and that has been one of the many accusations used to blame the dead women. I was not asserting that this group should have skied in this storm, just pointing out that some storms are safe for experienced skiers. We have both grown near and in the high mountains, and my family has had a cabin in the Rockies for five generations. The guides were responsible for this tragedy.

Are you saying better skiers could have outskiied an avalanche?

Not at all. They should have stayed in the huts. The most skilled people in the world should have stayed in the huts. The decision by the guides to leave on that day in those conditions was lethal.

+1. And this is why the guide company will lose in court.

So what? It’s probably a bunch of randos operating out of a strip mall store front. Can’t squeeze blood from a turnip. They’ll just fold.