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:

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.

It will be of little comfort to the motherless children.

[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.

DP here. I'm definitely an outdoors person. You don't have to be a foolhardy risktaker to enjoy life outdoors; however, if you are, then don't blame others for the consequences of your dangerous activities.

[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:

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.

It will be of little comfort to the motherless children.

+1

[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:

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.

It will be of little comfort to the motherless children.

+1

That's what women are always told to keep them from being astronauts, fighter pilots, firefighters, cops, etc. Just stay home and let the men do the risky stuff.

[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:

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.

DP here. I'm definitely an outdoors person. You don't have to be a foolhardy risktaker to enjoy life outdoors; however, if you are, then don't blame others for the consequences of your dangerous activities.

The courts will decide who should be blamed. Why do you have a problem with that?

[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:

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.

It will be of little comfort to the motherless children.

+1

That's what women are always told to keep them from being astronauts, fighter pilots, firefighters, cops, etc. Just stay home and let the men do the risky stuff.

I'm sorry, what? A skiiing vacation is like being an astronaut? Try again. The men can go jump off cliffs and ski in storms setting off avalanches and the women following them along are just as foolish.

[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:

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.

DP here. I'm definitely an outdoors person. You don't have to be a foolhardy risktaker to enjoy life outdoors; however, if you are, then don't blame others for the consequences of your dangerous activities.

The courts will decide who should be blamed. Why do you have a problem with that?

How do you blame dead people for their own death?

[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.

+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.

Now you're smearing the guides as "randos." You're a piece of work. Who hurt you, pp?

[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:

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.

It will be of little comfort to the motherless children.

+1

That's what women are always told to keep them from being astronauts, fighter pilots, firefighters, cops, etc. Just stay home and let the men do the risky stuff.

I'm sorry, what? A skiiing vacation is like being an astronaut? Try again. The men can go jump off cliffs and ski in storms setting off avalanches and the women following them along are just as foolish.

That bothers you a lot, women acting like men, lol.

[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:

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.

It will be of little comfort to the motherless children.

+1

That's what women are always told to keep them from being astronauts, fighter pilots, firefighters, cops, etc. Just stay home and let the men do the risky stuff.

I'm sorry, what? A skiiing vacation is like being an astronaut? Try again. The men can go jump off cliffs and ski in storms setting off avalanches and the women following them along are just as foolish.

That bothers you a lot, women acting like men, lol.

No, it bothers you that we're telling it like it is. Lol, kids lost their parents, lol! You're sick.

[Anonymous]

[list]

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:

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.

DP here. I'm definitely an outdoors person. You don't have to be a foolhardy risktaker to enjoy life outdoors; however, if you are, then don't blame others for the consequences of your dangerous activities.

The courts will decide who should be blamed. Why do you have a problem with that?

How do you blame dead people for their own death?

Good question for the blamers here.

[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:

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.

Now you're smearing the guides as "randos." You're a piece of work. Who hurt you, pp?

I’m a DP. Do you really think the guide company is sitting on a pile of money or a fat insurance policy. Kind of doubt it but maybe. Suing won’t bring the victims back.

[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:

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.

It will be of little comfort to the motherless children.

+1

That's what women are always told to keep them from being astronauts, fighter pilots, firefighters, cops, etc. Just stay home and let the men do the risky stuff.

I'm sorry, what? A skiiing vacation is like being an astronaut? Try again. The men can go jump off cliffs and ski in storms setting off avalanches and the women following them along are just as foolish.

That bothers you a lot, women acting like men, lol.

No, it bothers you that we're telling it like it is. Lol, kids lost their parents, lol! You're sick.

Kids lost their fathers 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:

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.

Now you're smearing the guides as "randos." You're a piece of work. Who hurt you, pp?

I’m a DP. Do you really think the guide company is sitting on a pile of money or a fat insurance policy. Kind of doubt it but maybe. Suing won’t bring the victims back.

It's about accountability, pp.

[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:

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.

It will be of little comfort to the motherless children.

+1

That's what women are always told to keep them from being astronauts, fighter pilots, firefighters, cops, etc. Just stay home and let the men do the risky stuff.

I'm sorry, what? A skiiing vacation is like being an astronaut? Try again. The men can go jump off cliffs and ski in storms setting off avalanches and the women following them along are just as foolish.

That bothers you a lot, women acting like men, lol.

No, it bothers you that we're telling it like it is. Lol, kids lost their parents, lol! You're sick.

Kids lost their fathers too.

Do you know what "parent" means?