Loveland Pass avalanche 4.20.13

Heartfelt condolences to all friends and loved ones. Hard to loose someone so young.

Read the whole thread as I just learned of this today-been avoiding news outlets. Some weird stuff posted in here. I understand the rest of TGR, but why the fuck in a thread about loss of people who love what we love.

Foggy goggles makes some good points.

This is the dragon I am most scared of-when it rips deep down and I am crossing underneath it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by georgio

It's a combination. I've spoken about this before but the area CAIC forecasts for in the "Front Range" zone (which is where this area falls) is fucking massive and has hugely variable snowpack. What the conditions up in RMNP were last weekend and what the conditions at Loveland Pass were (and to that point what the conditions in Pikes Peak were because that's in the zone as well) were hugely different. What has happened in those areas snowpack wise all year is hugely different. So to place the blame on CAIC is probably misguided, they would need more funds to be able to split up the regions into smaller zones.

That said they were in a terrain trap below a considerable slope that closely resembled slopes that had slid naturally nearby. But if you look at the pictures and know that area ... It's not an intimidating area (at least before this it wasn't to me). I would have been right out there with them without much of a second thought. Of course after this I'd really fucking think twice. On top of that remotely triggering something from below (at least to me) is one of the harder things to account for. Especially on a slope that large. To think you could trigger something that massive remotely to me indicates that it is much more unstable than a considerable rating would indicate. Well see if the ratings change next year (to be more like the UAC) helps that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Bean

I bet the official report will answer this question.


You keep repeating this as if it were relevant to this incident.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Loveland Pass is part of the Vail/Summit Forecast Zone

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Hacksaw

Actually, Loveland Pass is in both Vail/Summit and Front Range zones.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

Yea... this one falls in the Front Range

Truly one should always read both zones... or all zones.

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by georgio

On this day it really didn't matter which zone it was in, the forecasts for the two zones were very similar. Just trying to illustrate a point. But yeah, north/east of the divide is in clear creek and the "front range" and south/west of the divide is "summit/vail" and this incident was north/east of the divide.

---

From the posts above, there is confusion about the CAIC website's classification of regions, I also think pow fever is contained there too. On the right side of the main page are snowfall totals. Why can't that data point be more pinpoint area summations of dangers and unusual situations? We had some crazy weather last week, Tuesday was nuts, and things were actually melting out at the base of Loveland. Variable and unpredictable to say the least.

Year after year that I have been on TGR in Slide Zone, watched how events unfold, I have seen a lot of bad luck and most times the conversation ends with that, but more often not, very little critique of the warning systems or information gathered. Scott writes awesome, and his words are easy for me to understand, but many folks have a hard time with reading so much, in such a large paragraph form.

I'm sorry I contributed to the thread drift here.

I have nothing but respect for the victims and for their families and the rescuers. I hope that the survivors will be able to process this incident and deal with it a healthy way.

I keep wanting to say they did everything right, but since this happened, something went wrong. That not suposed to be judgmental or mean, but the facts indicate something went wrong. I look forward to seeing the CAIC report, and maybe hearing from Jerome, if he ever decides to share his story.

All that said, for me, life with a guard rail around at all times sounds awful. But neither do I go out looking for trouble. You might not understand where I'm coming from, but the gist of it is that I don't care to live life in a bubble. I don't think many people do. That is all I'm going to say about it here.

It's good to hear lots of veterans chiming in to give their perspecitves on risk in backcountry skiing. Being The Slide Zone, I thought this was the place to discuss these types of things. The 'vibes' threads are for Ski/Snowboard, no? When something this big happens, it is good time to step back and look at the bigger picture. That process is good for all of us, and will help to keep us centered in our outlook going forward.

Giving CAIC a hard time here is BS. What do you expect them to do? Get real, they do a great job. The variability that exists in the real world shouldnt come as a surprise. When CAIC gets to choose from 5 danger ratings, how precise can it possibly be? All this just points more to the fact that the backcountry is complex, infinitely complex, and ultimately we have to make decisions based on the information we decide to be relevent. Get used to it.

I think everyone here agrees that risk is part of the game. Most seem to agree that more reward with less risk makes for better fun and better outcomes. No need to oversimplify there. The more we can understand about reward-based recreation, the more we can be stoked on what we all do. When it all goes down, and the risk is about to kill or maim us, I think we all have second thoughts about whether it was worth it. No shame in being honest about that.

For all the BS, there's been a lot of wisdom dropped in this thread. Wisdom about risk and decision making, not snowpits and avy reports. I hope we can all learn from it. Come home safe. Stay stoked. Learn from the elders. When you do high risk stuff, remember that old and bold dont go together. Stay humble.

I'm looking at risk a little differently.

Skiing/riding big lines is taking a risk. We each calculate the danger, but regardless, it's still a risk. So is scrambling, rock climbing, kayaking, mountain biking, etc. etc. If you want to excel and strive to improve at your craft, you'll naturally elevate your exposure to risk.

Looking at high alpine sports, things change. Of course, the activity still has its risk, but there's the new danger of the very ground you stand on changing. That gently sloping snowfield? Walk over it and you'll get swallowed into a crevice. Crossing a wide valley? All the experience and knowledge in the world won't save you if Mother Nature decides to break off a 700' avalanche above you.

Hiking big mountains? You'll see storm systems miles away. Inbounds slide danger is near zero with modern control work. The same section of river doesn't change from placid to Class IV in seconds. Trees don't reach out and knock you off your bike. Avalanches? They form in seconds and will kill your entire party with ease.

It reminds me of the NYT headline from the Tunnel Creek tragedy "A few friends went to ski near Stevens Pass, then the mountain moved". Very few sports, outside of mountaineering, will expose you to that level of terror.

Terror? It doesn't have to be that. When you're at altitude it ought to be humility and respect. You're in something bigger than yourself. Closer to heaven than hell.

The thing that's baffling me about this accident is why sheep creek? Even on a great year that line is scree-filled with variable snow and the total vert is small. It funnels to a difficult to navigate terrain trap. Very few safe zones. I wonder if those guys were familiar with it? We may never know.

Anyway, this is a sad loss. Pour one out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Skihuckster

Terror? It doesn't have to be that. When you're at altitude it ought to be humility and respect. You're in something bigger than yourself. Closer to heaven than hell.

---

Sure thing. I don't think any rational outdoor enthusiast would say otherwise.

Point is "humility" and "respect" don't mean a damn thing when mother nature turns the ground you stand on into a river of snow and ice instantly.

Some may have not read TARs latest issue focused on managing uncertainty. Cover article linky
http://www.americanavalancheassociat...31_4_Cover.pdf

I sort of like his idea about thinking out loud on tour. Might get a little tiresome for people seeking tranquility though.

The whole issue is well worth the read for anybody thinking about how they can make smarter decisions.

Thinking out loud is the way to go!

Communication time. Communication time.

We are all flying over the cuckoo's nest.

I remember going to a talk by the U of Calgary on relative risk in the backcountry and managed to find the article. The calcs are pretty rough but worth the read

http://www.ucalgary.ca/asarc/system/...9_Jamieson.pdf

The other tid-bit I recall was that having a female in a group reduced the relative risk by ~80% as females are much more willing to speak up if they feel uncomfortable with a decision/terrain choice than your typical male. Since then, I've always tried to to speak up when I don't like something (with varying degrees of success).

Not sure if this has been posted on here yet, but wanted to reshare it even if so

http://www.wildsnow.com/9938/mike-be...eek-avalanche/

Joe T was a friend and a very respected member of BC community of vail. Having gone on many a trip with him, he would always be one of my top 5 choices for guys to go into the back with. Very safe, very aware, very cautious.

Its all fucking voodoo. Ive been an asshole at times and not followed precautions when should have, yet here i am typing this. These are guys that i know from experience are willing to turn back when they dont feel comfortable. It is really fucking awful.

Ill be riding my bike for the rest of the season.

one thing we keep hearing is that they triggered the slide from below. is that something known or just something that's been reported over enough times it's been taken for granted. it seems to be at least equally as likely to have been a natural release.
i know the sierra are vastly different but wet snow is wet snow and to me it is more consistent with a natural release from above due to dramatic change in loads rather than fragile midwinter snowpack that releases from a hair trigger a distance away. of course, this arm chair quarterbacking is also based on the sheriffs assessment that there's a lot of wet snow back there which may not have been the case at all.
it changes nothing though, in regards to outcome or prior decision making.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Slurr P

Its all fucking voodoo.

---

this^^^^^^^^^been saying it for years myself. and being humble/respectful means absolutely NOTHING when you fuck up. "oh but he/she was so humble" makes me laugh everytime. nice when they're around i guess, but when their dead it doesn't mean shit cept for warm fuzzy memories for loved ones.

rog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdork

one thing we keep hearing is that they triggered the slide from below. is that something known or just something that's been reported over enough times it's been taken for granted. it seems to be at least equally as likely to have been a natural release.
i know the sierra are vastly different but wet snow is wet snow and to me it is more consistent with a natural release from above due to dramatic change in loads rather than fragile midwinter snowpack that releases from a hair trigger a distance away. of course, this arm chair quarterbacking is also based on the sheriffs assessment that there's a lot of wet snow back there which may not have been the case at all.
it changes nothing though, in regards to outcome or prior decision making.

---

build a tower of blocks, then pull out the bottom block(s)

they were skinning up. coulda been a natural i guess. what timing if so.

rog

"...it seems to be at least equally as likely to have been a natural release...."

i know it's a lot easier for all the experts and bloggers who weren't there to interject themselves in this tragedy if they can blame it on someone but what if this was simply bad luck?

"If you're in the mountains in the mountains and you're in the backcountry, you're putting yourself at risk....and No one is above the law" - Jeremy Jones.

Condolences to anyone touched or involved with this disaster.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdork

it seems to be at least equally as likely to have been a natural release.

---

I take issue with the statement about equal likilihood. Greater than 90% of groups involved in avalanche accidents trigger the slides that affect them. The other fraction are slides triggered by other groups or naturals.

The reason these things *seem* like voodoo and risk *feels* random is that humans are absolutely awful at making risk analysis regarding high consequence, unquantified low likelihood events.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Pinner

I can easily understand how his group could have been working the edges of that feature to gain suitable position to further assess the snow.

[

---

Good point.
As they were found bunched with skins I wondered if they had someone go down, loose gear, etc. The facts will come out, and at this point beyond a learning mechanism they don't matter.

I'm sorry for your loss. I'm sorry for my public navel gazing. I'll STFU now.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdork

one thing we keep hearing is that they triggered the slide from below. is that something known or just something that's been reported over enough times it's been taken for granted. it seems to be at least equally as likely to have been a natural release.
i know the sierra are vastly different but wet snow is wet snow and to me it is more consistent with a natural release from above due to dramatic change in loads rather than fragile midwinter snowpack that releases from a hair trigger a distance away. of course, this arm chair quarterbacking is also based on the sheriffs assessment that there's a lot of wet snow back there which may not have been the case at all.
it changes nothing though, in regards to outcome or prior decision making.

---

It could have changed prior decision making completely, CAIC's website does not seem to have a history of reports, so I cant see that days prognosis. Again, not a critique of CAIC, jsut an observation.

Spring-like rapidly changing snow conditions at all elevations WITH Winter like snow within 8-14 days was the rule. Lower elevations that I was on, saw RAPID ( crazy) melting 4 days before, re-freeze and more snow 3, 2, 1 days before.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Summit

I take issue with the statement about equal likilihood. Greater than 90% of groups involved in avalanche accidents trigger the slides that affect them. The other fraction are slides triggered by other groups or naturals.

---

that 90% includes people skiing lines. if you were only to include groups that had large avalanches come down on top of them, the % would drop dramatically. and it is also possible there was someone on top of them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DasBlunt

It could have changed prior decision making completely, CAIC's website does not seem to have a history of reports, so I cant see that days prognosis. Again, not a critique of CAIC, jsut an observation.

---

my point was whether you're avoiding the slope because you're afraid of triggering it or afraid of it releasing naturally doesn't matter. you still avoid it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdork

one thing we keep hearing is that they triggered the slide from below. is that something known or just something that's been reported over enough times it's been taken for granted. it seems to be at least equally as likely to have been a natural release.

---

Someone on TTips who I trust, someone who is knowledgeable, knows the CAIC folk (may even do some work for them?), posted "Apparently they heard a very loud collapse while they were out on the slope that propagated up the slope. From what I understand all the investigators agree that they triggered it." FWIW.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DasBlunt

It could have changed prior decision making completely, CAIC's website does not seem to have a history of reports, so I cant see that days prognosis. Again, not a critique of CAIC, jsut an observation.

---

An incorrect observation. Go here: https://avalanche.state.co.us/pub_bc_avo.php?zone_id=1 and scroll to the bottom. You can get any forecast you'd like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdork

my point was whether you're avoiding the slope because you're afraid of triggering it or afraid of it releasing naturally doesn't matter. you still avoid it.

---

This is the only thing I've been thinking since I first heard about this accident, especially the last part.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by powdork

my point was whether you're avoiding the slope because you're afraid of triggering it or afraid of it releasing naturally doesn't matter. you still avoid it.

---

QFT

.....this is what I'm still struggling with. How did they miss the obvious terrain trap and slide path? Maybe its obvious to me because its my backyard and its dangers have been discussed many a time by myself and the people at Loveland I know and ride with, I dunno.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Turnipking

I remember going to a talk by the U of Calgary on relative risk in the backcountry and managed to find the article. The calcs are pretty rough but worth the read

http://www.ucalgary.ca/asarc/system/...9_Jamieson.pdf

The other tid-bit I recall was that having a female in a group reduced the relative risk by ~80% as females are much more willing to speak up if they feel uncomfortable with a decision/terrain choice than your typical male. Since then, I've always tried to to speak up when I don't like something (with varying degrees of success).

---

Reading--or rather trying to read--that study got me thinking about the risk of climbing. While the risk of mountaineering varies enormously with the range and the seriousness of the climb it seems that the routine risk of climbing is similar to skiing under avalanche conditions most folks would consider unacceptable. For some reason climbing deaths don't seem to generate the soul searching that skiing deaths do, and don't often merit any media attention at all, except sometimes in the local paper or if an incident is spectacular. Maybe the risk of climbing is just better understood by participants and the public.

From what I've seen, climbing deaths are covered by the media with the same amount that avalanche deaths are (only by local media in most situations).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbourdon

.....this is what I'm still struggling with. How did they miss the obvious terrain trap and slide path? Maybe its obvious to me because its my backyard and its dangers have been discussed many a time by myself and the people at Loveland I know and ride with, I dunno.

---

It may be a local's knowledge thing, I don't know. Here was a post on TTips (by another local): "I have been up there a few times. The thing that makes me squirm is how quickly you can get in trouble. You park your car and start out in the bottom of a somewhat steep drainage. There is a more mellow slope on your left and the trees block your view to the right and in front of you a bit. With in minutes you pop above the trees and under a huge open wind loaded slope.

I have no idea what happened but I could see how some might not even have done a beacon check or turned on their avy senses and boom."

That could explain how they "missed" the terrain trap and slide path. Maybe it was triggered just as they hit the treeline?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

Reading--or rather trying to read--that study got me thinking about the risk of climbing. While the risk of mountaineering varies enormously with the range and the seriousness of the climb it seems that the routine risk of climbing is similar to skiing under avalanche conditions most folks would consider unacceptable. For some reason climbing deaths don't seem to generate the soul searching that skiing deaths do, and don't often merit any media attention at all, except sometimes in the local paper or if an incident is spectacular. Maybe the risk of climbing is just better understood by participants and the public.

---

Non-climbers view all climbers as effing crazy. So climbing deaths don't strike a chord. Whereas there are many many skiers, and many skiers who xc ski, so people dying in BC skiing accidents strikes a chord with far more people. You have to climb to really "get" climbing. You don't have to BC ski in avalanche terrain to really "get" BC skiing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by old goat

...For some reason climbing deaths don't seem to generate the soul searching that skiing deaths do, and don't often merit any media attention at all, except sometimes in the local paper or if an incident is spectacular. Maybe the risk of climbing is just better understood by participants and the public.

---

More people ski than climb? And prolly climbing is looked at by the general public as much more fringe than skiing. Skiing is sold as safe, even for the ladies and kids.

Edit: like Danno sed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by pbourdon

.....this is what I'm still struggling with. How did they miss the obvious terrain trap and slide path? Maybe its obvious to me because its my backyard and its dangers have been discussed many a time by myself and the people at Loveland I know and ride with, I dunno.

---

Ever travel across an avy path and think (a) the slope above is pretty mellow, it can't slide, (b) if it slides, it won't be big, (c) if it slides, I can quickly get out of the way, (d) if it slides, I have my friends not in the avy path to help? I think we've all been there where our guards were briefly lowered.

I can understand if the group was in fact at the bottom of path (adjacent to the road) and trying to reach either the west or east ridge to gain elevation. It's terribly awful to think that at the time the snow released above them, they had no chance in hell to escape, and it's equally sad knowing at least 3 in the group were incredibly close to one another.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

It may be a local's knowledge thing, I don't know. Here was a post on TTips (by another local): "I have been up there a few times. The thing that makes me squirm is how quickly you can get in trouble. You park your car and start out in the bottom of a somewhat steep drainage. There is a more mellow slope on your left and the trees block your view to the right and in front of you a bit. With in minutes you pop above the trees and under a huge open wind loaded slope.

I have no idea what happened but I could see how some might not even have done a beacon check or turned on their avy senses and boom."

That could explain how they "missed" the terrain trap and slide path. Maybe it was triggered just as they hit the treeline?

---

All it takes is one look at the topo to see what they might have 'missed'. Heck, I could do that by phone from the bottom of the pass. The nature of the get-together could have made it easier to skip the extremely important planning phase.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

All it takes is one look at the topo to see what they 'missed'. Heck, I could do that by phone from the bottom of the pass. The nature of the get-together probably made it easier to skip the extremely important planning phase.

---

well, I guess you're smarter than the 5 dead guys then, since you couldn't possibly have missed it. I was just offering a possible explanation that wasn't "they were stupid and didn't pay attention to where they were going".

Sorry for the book - I didn't know Ian personally, but I knew of him in the way that many people in a small town know one another. My heart breaks for his little girl. I spent that day calling everyone I knew - "please, please, please call me..." It wasn't a good day.

My perspective on this is two fold. On one hand, my heart wants to excuse it, make it an accident, a horrible tragedy (which it is), an act of fate or of the mountain that he and his friends had no control over. The other part wants to analyze it, unravel it, understand it. I think these dueling perspectives are just human nature.

We make a lot of decisions in the BC. These decisions are either smart or not-so-smart. Being smart doesn't mean that those decisions are good, however.

My avalanche gear is a body recovery system. That's right. I said it. It's not a guarantee of safety, nor does it give me an excuse to push boundaries. Most people who die in avalanches die from trauma. You should have gear, but your gear shouldn't trick you into thinking that you are invincible. I'm sick of people who think that having gear suddenly elevates you to a higher level of understanding and immunity from scorn. He had gear right? Aghhh! How could this happen...it doesn't matter. Gear makes you smarter. It doesn't eliminate the risk. And it doesn't do anything if your back is broken in two.

Spring skiing (not based on a date, but on the snow) is the time to push it; winter is not the time to push it. Just a simple fact of nature. You might get lucky sometimes; you might not. You could determine that one aspect of a slope is stable and then, trigger a slide 15 feet to the right. It's that tricky. At least in CO and with the snow we've had this year.

I don't ski in big groups. Ever. I'd rather ski by myself. I make better decisions. Just a fact. Doesn't matter who you are, how much experience you have, etc.

It's also a matter of perspective. If you think at the trailhead that you are going out that day to "ski!" then guess what, your mind is going to make excuses so that you can achieve that goal. I go to the trail head to skin, to relax, to exercise, to get into the mountains that I love, to scout lines for spring. Skiing isn't the goal - it's a small switch in mentality, but it gives me the edge over my desires and a bit more objectivity when it comes to making that decision. I might be weak sauce when it comes to winter lines, but I'm not digging out my husband/partner - not going to happen. I've got nothing to prove to him, and everything to gain by being smart and safe. Rather 40 years of ski-love, than one 35 degree thrill.

It's a lot of small things, a few decisions that weren't bad, but that weren't the smartest. We need to change the way we think about our place in the mountains and the way we interact with them. We need to listen to them and respect the place that they have given us that day. To sloppily quote someone brilliant, "the mountains can take everything away, but they also give us everything we need to breathe." Don't live in fear, but be aware. The mountains can do one or the other. The only thing that we have control over are the decision we make. Make smart ones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

well, I guess you're smarter than the 5 dead guys then, since you couldn't possibly have missed it. I was just offering a possible explanation that wasn't "they were stupid and didn't pay attention to where they were going".

---

Nice dig. Not smarter, but I definitely know what the topo looks like before I leave the car, and I'm sure at least one of them did too (though its painful to know not all of them did). I don't think they failed to notice a slide path and terrain trap - pretty hard to do, looking at the topo. I doubt they talked about it though, and I'm sure more than one of them was completely unaware of the terrain they were getting into. Likely some strong expert halo going on. I've failed to do the same in the past, and its been an important lesson learned. I just think the leader(s) underestimated the danger.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

The nature of the get-together could have made it easier to skip the extremely important planning phase.

---

THIS^^^^^^^.big groups=big problems. add a bunch of avy saavy and experience and complacency can run amuck. look at the tunnel creek incident. seems like everything was planned, invitations sent, and accounted for cept for the past and current snow and avy conditions. oops!

rog

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icelanticskier

THIS^^^^^^^.big groups=big problems. add a bunch of avy saavy and experience and complacency can run amuck. look at the tunnel creek incident. seems like everything was planned, invitations sent, and accounted for cept for the past and current snow and avy conditions. oops!

rog

---

Even moreso when not everyone knows each other. Some of the human factors here and at tunnel creek are starkly similar.

Lindahl has a good observations and supposition... we shall see later today (most likely) when the full report is released.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Danno

It may be a local's knowledge thing, I don't know. Here was a post on TTips (by another local): "I have been up there a few times. The thing that makes me squirm is how quickly you can get in trouble. You park your car and start out in the bottom of a somewhat steep drainage. There is a more mellow slope on your left and the trees block your view to the right and in front of you a bit. With in minutes you pop above the trees and under a huge open wind loaded slope.

---

This could be very true. The handful of times I've dropped into Sheep Creek we've always immediately dropped back toward the valley as the longtime local that showed me the line stressed that that bowl is a 'no-go' zone and can and will slide with ease. I've never liked the line (the gully proper) as it is very committing and offers almost no safe zones as someone previously mentioned. And even then, its a line we stay away from on any day with a rating higher than 'low'.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by PappaG

Ever travel across an avy path and think (a) the slope above is pretty mellow, it can't slide, (b) if it slides, it won't be big, (c) if it slides, I can quickly get out of the way, (d) if it slides, I have my friends not in the avy path to help? I think we've all been there where our guards were briefly lowered.

I can understand if the group was in fact at the bottom of path (adjacent to the road) and trying to reach either the west or east ridge to gain elevation. It's terribly awful to think that at the time the snow released above them, they had no chance in hell to escape, and it's equally sad knowing at least 3 in the group were incredibly close to one another.

---

I honestly haven't thought like that because I'm a pussy and my risk tolerance is such that I don't venture into that kind of terrain until well into the spring corn cycle and even then, crossing under big paths scares the shit out of me. Makes you feel like you're naked in your elementary school classroom you know? Honestly, my philosophy when it comes to the backcountry is to keep shit as mellow as possible while still having a good time. For me, if I'm on a slope that has a possibility of sliding, I can't enjoy my run. The thought is constantly in the back of my head, similar to the analogy of surfing in shark infested waters. Its just something that nags at you (or me at least) and takes away some of the enjoyment for me. That's why I bitch about our snowpack, its like surfing in a damn shark tank out here. Sure some days are better than others and you can get out and get on some steeper, bigger shit; but eventually, at least in CO that approach is gonna get you bit IMO.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lindahl

Even moreso when not everyone knows each other. Some of the human factors here and at tunnel creek are starkly similar.

---

That and backcountry "gatherings" make it really difficult to say "the backcountry is sketcky, let's not ski anything interesting today."

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by icelanticskier

look at the tunnel creek incident. seems like everything was planned, invitations sent, and accounted for cept for the past and current snow and avy conditions. oops!

rog

---

Exactly. The tunnel creek incident has come up in just about every discussion I've had regarding this incident. The similarities are pretty startling in my opinion. I think the important thing to take away from both incidents is as you mentioned: big groups=big problems. Moreover, big groups with lots of experience could arguably be even more problematic. Its just a shame all the way around. Joe was my board rep, and Jerome is my boot rep. I'm still trying to wrap my head around the whole thing....