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:Story in NYT relaying account from two of the survivors (gift link): https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2026/02/28/us/tahoe-avalanche-survivors.html?unlocked_article_code=1.PlA.m9Z3.x4oSjjKcyO5_&smid=url-share

Puts all the decision-making onus on the guides. More stories to come, I'm sure.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

+1

Standard DCUM victim blaming. So gross.

Especially when women are involved.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

"read" the snow in insane winds in whiteout conditions where human made avalanches are rated at the highest level possible? It's delusion.

[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.

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?

Hmmm...for thrilling excitement and the chance to truly be outdoors in salty wind off the coast of Florida, go out a few miles in a sailboat in the Atlantic Ocean with a group of friends as a hurricane approaches. You can really commune with nature that way. If you die, the reason is due to your choice.

[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.

Yet you keep singling out the women, that children lost their moms.

[Anonymous]

The NYT gifted article in this thread explains it so well from the perspective of two survivors. Reading about the weather conditions that day shows what a bad decision was made all around. Remaining in the Huts was an option and the road their cars were on was closed. No one was getting out or in by car that day. It’s mind boggling and tragic.

[Anonymous]

The comments in the NYT article are informative as well.

[Anonymous]

For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

[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.

Yet you keep singling out the women, that children lost their moms.

Calling people parents is not singling out women. Parent is as neutral as it gets.

[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.

You mean women being as foolhardy as men. Yeah. There’s a reason women live longer than men and part of that is having the good sense to avoid risky things just for fun.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

+1 "knows the risks" but doing "dangerous" sports anyway.

[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.

You mean women being as foolhardy as men. Yeah. There’s a reason women live longer than men and part of that is having the good sense to avoid risky things just for fun.

+1

[Anonymous]

From what I read everyone in that group (men, women) decided to use the guides precisely because they were avid outdoorspeople and competent (the women more so than the men) AND also recognized their limitations and were not reckless so they wanted an extra layer of expertise and safety.

The guides were the ones who ultimately decided behind close doors what the course of action should be but I don't think that at this time their specific reasoning is known or that it will necessary will be.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

+1 "knows the risks" but doing "dangerous" sports anyway.

In other words, reckless.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:For another perspective, read this article from Outside: https://www.outsideonline.com/outdoor-adventure/snow-sports/tahoe-avalanche-truckee-memorial-moms/

I don't know. I'm a mom who does things people on this forum would consider crazy, but that doesn't mean you don't assess risk at all.

Anyway, more details will come out, and we'll understand better how this happened.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:From what I read everyone in that group (men, women) decided to use the guides precisely because they were avid outdoorspeople and competent (the women more so than the men) AND also recognized their limitations and were not reckless so they wanted an extra layer of expertise and safety.

The guides were the ones who ultimately decided behind close doors what the course of action should be but I don't think that at this time their specific reasoning is known or that it will necessary will be.

They all deserve our sympathy: the dead skiers, survivors and their families.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:From what I read everyone in that group (men, women) decided to use the guides precisely because they were avid outdoorspeople and competent (the women more so than the men) AND also recognized their limitations and were not reckless so they wanted an extra layer of expertise and safety.

The guides were the ones who ultimately decided behind close doors what the course of action should be but I don't think that at this time their specific reasoning is known or that it will necessary will be.

They all deserve our sympathy: the dead skiers, survivors and their families.

Of course, so traumatic for all the survivors and awful for all the families.