Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

Stanford doesn't have classes on interpreting weather reports.

What do you mean interpreting weather reports? You have to be able to read to get into Stanford let alone graduate. The weather reports clearly stated significant avalanche risk before they left for the trip and while there. No interpretation is needed unless you’re the PP who was trolling that avalanches are new.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

These people are wealthy, successful and used to the world bending to their wants and needs. They don’t realize that Mother Nature marches to her own drumbeat.

This thread contains so much speculation and judgment. I knew one of the victims. Not all of them were wealthy - they were a group of friends that met in college and shared a love of spending time in the outdoors, and kept in touch as a group though they were from various walks of life. My acquaintance (RIP and with love to her family, who is devastated) was highly experienced and risk-aware. Hopefully we'll learn more about the decision-making process (and until then, please stop speculating) but I doubt they didn't consider the avalanche risk. The slope that failed was not flagged by the Sierra Avalanche Center (no history of avalanches, lower slope angle - see the heatmaps on the incident website): https://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/observations/#/view/avalanches/83ba330a-5eb4-446e-95b0-495c26faf06b

Thank you for sharing this. I’m so sorry for the loss of your friend.

The condemnation in this thread is disturbing.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

These people are wealthy, successful and used to the world bending to their wants and needs. They don’t realize that Mother Nature marches to her own drumbeat.

This thread contains so much speculation and judgment. I knew one of the victims. Not all of them were wealthy - they were a group of friends that met in college and shared a love of spending time in the outdoors, and kept in touch as a group though they were from various walks of life. My acquaintance (RIP and with love to her family, who is devastated) was highly experienced and risk-aware. Hopefully we'll learn more about the decision-making process (and until then, please stop speculating) but I doubt they didn't consider the avalanche risk. The slope that failed was not flagged by the Sierra Avalanche Center (no history of avalanches, lower slope angle - see the heatmaps on the incident website): https://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/observations/#/view/avalanches/83ba330a-5eb4-446e-95b0-495c26faf06b

Any mountain can avalanche given the conditions at the time. It was not a smart move to go on the trip at the beginning much less the end. Maybe the less affluent members of the group were under pressure to not waste money / the trip. Maybe the tour guides were also tempted by "great ski conditions." Fine line between great snow and dangerous snow.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

These people are wealthy, successful and used to the world bending to their wants and needs. They don’t realize that Mother Nature marches to her own drumbeat.

This thread contains so much speculation and judgment. I knew one of the victims. Not all of them were wealthy - they were a group of friends that met in college and shared a love of spending time in the outdoors, and kept in touch as a group though they were from various walks of life. My acquaintance (RIP and with love to her family, who is devastated) was highly experienced and risk-aware. Hopefully we'll learn more about the decision-making process (and until then, please stop speculating) but I doubt they didn't consider the avalanche risk. The slope that failed was not flagged by the Sierra Avalanche Center (no history of avalanches, lower slope angle - see the heatmaps on the incident website): https://www.sierraavalanchecenter.org/observations/#/view/avalanches/83ba330a-5eb4-446e-95b0-495c26faf06b

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

These people are wealthy, successful and used to the world bending to their wants and needs. They don’t realize that Mother Nature marches to her own drumbeat.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

+1 Misplaced priorities. Why would a parent take such a risk just to meet up with old friends?

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Hubris, overly self-confident, thrill-seeking types

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Yeah, you’re right. I don’t know why I continue to believe the human race might become less self destructive.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

No, people won’t learn. That’s why we keep seeing these stories time and again.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

+1

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Nature is harsh. You can prepare and have all the experience and training and equipment in the world but when it becomes man against natural forces - be it fire, water, cold, snow - nature is stronger.

But there is also an incredible amount of reward for spending time in nature and reaping the benefits of the beauty and adventure. Is there a risk - of course. But life has risk and you only live one life. We can all die tomorrow. For those of us who aren't risk adverse, you accept the risk of nature and adventure just like you do every time you get in your car.

This last bit is utter hogwash a bunch of you are regurgitating in one form or another. This wasn't a time anyone was traipsing about enjoying nature.

They chose to go out in terrible conditions when they shouldn't. They may have been worried if they didn't have enough food. Either they were arrogant or they were desperate. The facts are what most of us want to know.

+ 1 million

In the end, their judgement and decision turned out to be horrible for them. I am not arguing that. But people do make similar bad judgement call and nothing terrible happens to them. They were not making a terrible moral decision that would kill other people - like waging war on others. They took a risk with their own life and maybe 9 out of 10 times nothing bad would have happened to them. Yes, bad lapse of judgement, bad luck, bad decision....

But, they did not deserve to die for this decision, their family did not deserve to lose them and we can still mourn for their senseless death. It is still extremely tragic and it is heartbreaking to hear. No one can argue with that.

No one said they deserved to die. This is disingenuous just intended to create arguments.

Exactly. Absolutely no one has said they deserved to die. Actually, I hope people learn from this because I’ve seen way too many preventable deaths that have destroyed families and didn’t have to happen.

Lmao

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:We don’t know the why they decided to hear out from the huts. The survivors will have to tell us.

What appears to be known is
- this was backcountry
- these were experienced skiers
- these were adventure seekers
- they had 4 guides

Sad all around. And no, nobody is excited, thid is not like Camp Mystic.

Is that a lot of guides for the number of clients? I get the message now that they were headed back because it was the end of the rental/lease whatever you call it and not because of worries about running out of provisions. Do the people who run those cabins give the option to stay if there is bad weather?

That is what I thought too. Four guides for 9 clients is a very high ratio. Since these were local skiers who did this on an annual basis, I wonder if some of the guides went as friends and not necessarily hired guides.

I posted earlier that I hope that if the expiration of the lodging period was a contributing factor, hopefully this will lead to a policy change for touring huts to let people stay in these situations.

I don’t tour, but I live in an area where people regularly do backcountry touring. There are a ton of people who do what’s called sidecountry or slack country touring where you access through a ski resort or an easily accessible trailhead. Just in the past few days, there have been three local deaths from avalanches. One snowmobiler, one backcountry skier, and most tragically, an 11 year old girl who ducked a rope with her family at Brighton.

I’ll bet that Brighton closes the gate to the area that the girl died. That is what park city did after a few sidecountry avalanche gates. The areas will still be accessible from the resorts, but it will require a hike that will dissuade most people. It seems to be the compromise between safety and not encroaching on people’s liberty to do risky things.

RIP to the deceased Tahoe skiers and to Madalyn Etias from Rochester, MA

https://www.fox13now.com/news/local-news/northern-utah/search-and-rescue-teams-respond-to-avalanche-near-brighton-ski-resort

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

Stanford doesn't have classes on interpreting weather reports.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I doubt the survivors will offer any details that provide closure. They knew the risk, they still headed out and they died. End of story.

But maybe the guides assured them it was safe and they relied on them.

I doubt the guides said that. Most likely it was - we have to get home so let's take path B because the risk is lower not that there was no risk. The survivors might feel pressure to also change the narrative so the families can sue. So I don't know that I'd trust what they say either.

Right so they relied on guides who should have known better or taken the risk more seriously.

A Stanford grad who skis often in the back country can't read and pay attention to weather reports and think hmmmn sounds dangerous?

+1