An interesting debate

[Yossarian]

suggested in some ways by another thread (Berthoud Pass 02-21-05).

Isn't putting up information about a backcountry travel experience on a public forum such as this a potentially dangerous and in some ways quite irresponsible act?

Even if you disclaimer the thing left and right, discuss as many of the vagueries of avy assement that you can before running out of steam, etc, etc, by the very nature of the act you've effectively implied that things were "stable enough," thereby leading even the avy savvy reader in the direction of less danger?

Is the solution less discussion (don't post b/c reports because of the potential for this), more discussion (post, but do your damnedest to share your process, thoughts, etc and disclaim as much as possible), or other?

I see this as a non-obvious and non-trivial debate. Learning/teaching/discussing is one thing, but posting about specific areas and experiences through this medium is entirely another, and may have unintended consequences that outweigh your need to spray about it. After all, it's not like you have to talk about it here to have had the experience. That's still yours, in your head, to keep.


Discuss.

[iskibc]

Don't think it's irresponsible or dangerous. People that read and then decide to try it for themselves should be smart enough to know that a snowpack is constantly under change and that conditions reported in the thread will more than likely be different when they do their own analysis of the slope. I really hope this is common sense to most people that browse this forum. A slight change in wind direction/speed, temperature, or weather can change how a slope will respond to skier weight. By posting first hand evaluations of a particular area and slope, you are giving those that read a very basic picture of the conditions they MAY encounter if they decide to venture out in that area. By no means is it going to give someone an EXACT understanding of the pack/conditions. Yesterday afternoon I was standing at the top of a slope and decided to sit down for a couple minutes as a strong gust of wind blasted through. A couple of minutes later I looked over at my backpack and it was completely covered in wind swept snow along with my foot prints and skin tracks. This goes to show how quickly conditions can change in a particular area.

[marshalolson]

to me, the experianced backcountry user has 3 things... the knowledge of the potentential for danger, the knowledge to acess that danger, and the knowledge of saftey gear and first aid, should things go wrong.

obviously, the second two can really only be tought first hand, in the field, but i think that with so many BC newbies getting out there, the first step is for sure to let them know the potential for danger.

this board is a great resource for information, and BC reports really should not be any different. sharing info is in the spirit of the board, it is just that some may not know what to do with it.

yos raises a great point here, as does dirk in the other thread. there is a
dilemma for sure, and i really have no answer, i would really be interested in what others have to say......

[AltaPowderDaze]

i agree with iski. those that go into the bc should have some avy education and therefore will do there own assessments as they go. i shy away from posting any hints as to instability in the main forum because of all the flammers around here. i do my best to post some in the slide zone for education but most don't seem intersted enough to ask about the pics. my goal is to get people interested enough to take a full blown avy course that way we can have more safe travelers and plenty of discussions in this forum.

bottom line is that it is nice to have an idea what is going on out there so you can select tenative locations to ski but you have to do your own assessments and be prepared for suprises. someone made mention to skiing down your own skin track which is something i have done more than handfull of times. you shouldn't be afraid to turn around but you should be afraid to ski something you are unsure of.

[AltaPowderDaze]

this board is a great resource for information, and BC reports really should not be any different. sharing info is in the spirit of the board, it is just that some may not know what to do with it.

i would like there to be full disclosure around here but i don't see that happening at tgr because of the highly vocal few.

on a side note, i hate that i feel the need for an emoticon after nearly every sentance just so people can catch sarcasm or differentiate between spew and genuine concern for others safety.

[Mountain Junkie]

I don't think putting up a backcountry TR is an irresponsible act. I doubt that someone reading a TR on the forum is going to be the sole cause of a future accident. If this is truly an issue then avalanche forecasts would be accompained by a six page legal disclaimer.

As for the merit of including the decision process, it's up to the poster. I think it's interesting, but is it necessary to post your decision for every turn made in every picture? This isn't court and the maggots certainly are not the jury.

IMHO the bigger concern is the number of unaware, uneducated users of the backcountry. People are venturing into the backcountry without a clue of the dangers involved. A couple of weeks ago I was talking to some friends of a friend. These guys take hut trips all the time; neither of them had any avalanche education. Maybe it's my anal retentive nature, but I find it mindboggling that anyone would go into the bc without even a cursory knowledge of the dangers involved.

[FiveLarge]

Agree with what's been posted here already, in response to your specific questions in this thread...

As to some of the other "questions" that were raised in the other TR thread...regardless of Dirk's intentions, I too think they are good questions to ask and have some discussion around. Not to chastise anyone...it's not about winning a debate, but I think we can all stand to learn something from such a discussion. I'm not even implying anyone did anything wrong at Berthoud today. I think you made a number of valid points already...with the CAIC report as it was, you went with a mindset of high caution, realizing you'd likely find instability and needed to make wise decisions about where/what to ski. We weren't there, we didn't see what you saw in your evaluation/tests of the snowpack... I still think Dirk's questions, regardless of intention, were good...it's good to be challenged in the "avy thinking" process... For me, it's an ongoing process of learning, taking bits and pieces here and there (both from TR's to build a "history" of an area, and from the standpoint of general avy thinking, independent of specific location...)

So, yeah...keep it coming! Thanks for engaging the discussion.

[Lurch]

I think it's a good thing to put your analysis in the trail report. It shows people what your thought process was going into the situation. It is a good way of getting across what we should be thinking about when in similar situations. Don't forget people used to think avy forecasts were a bad idea as well.

[Yossarian]

Fair enuff, but just to play devil's advocate, what if we were wrong? It certainly does happen; people make mistakes, and I, for instance, am in the statistically highest risk demographic for avy incidents. Not everything is subjective, after all, and bad decisions are made. Maybe this was once of them and we didn't know it, and by talking about it as if everything was peachy in the actual trip report (first two posts of mine), I'd given the exact wrong impression of the real hazards. You can't tell me that if you were headed to Bert tomorrow and we hadn't diverged into the Avy side of things, that you wouldn't be thinking of my report and wondering if you too could score the same stuff...So sure, you'd still make your own assesment, but I think it would push you just a little closer to GO, like any other piece of positive data that you collected from the many sources available.

This argument perhaps suggests that it's the extremes that are best here. That we should either not include exactly where we were (doesn't keep you from putting up a nice report), or we should include our observations/process if we do.

Thoughts?

[AltaPowderDaze]

we should either not include exactly where we were (doesn't keep you from putting up a nice report), or we should include our observations/process if we do.

Thoughts?

to be blatantly honest i don't want to have to defend my every turn during a tr. i try to post my avy observations seperate from tr's but if i do put it with. then i feel obligated to tell some of the why but i honestly can't post all that goes thru my head on a trip. that is how i make my assessments. it's not just that small piece of the pie that so many new avy grads focus on. it's the whole damn pie and then some.

as a for instance, yesterday gramps and i had a slide that propogated over toward the ridge we were on (could have been a remote trigger from us or a natural, as i saw loose snow drop from the buttress). the stress fractures came within 25' of our uptrack but was not a huge concern. i didn't want to mention it because i'd spend all night trying to describe how it was on a completely different aspect than the one we were skiing and the fact that we were on a ridge. the fact is that i chose to make tighter switchbacks because as i got closer to that ne aspect i felt the snow deepen and get slabby. it was pretty much scoured 10 yards to south (the left side of our uptrack). for several reasons i felt fine where i was. it took us 4.5 hours to do a trip that usually takes me 1.5-2 hrs. that is because we were taking our time and doing lots of stability assessments.

so how much stability info is needed in a tr? how detailed do you get?

it's fine to have people ask questions about stability in a tr but some of the time it is down right accusatory and out of line. i can see both points of view as a reader and a poster but i also remember that as a reader, i wasn't there and didn't have the intimate details of the conditions that the skier did. i may still ask some questions but will try and do it a little more respectful than the "in your face, i know more than you" attitue that pops up every now and then.

[gramps]

Good discussion, although I think it would be pretty silly to worry about someone trying to "repeat" something we did safely later in different conditions. Changing conditions are the rule out there. That's like saying no one should ski Superior because people will see the tracks and then go out there and try to do it themselves when they shouldn't.

I guess I haven't felt the burn from overzealous avy police as much as APD has, but I understand where he is coming from. I was a little surprised no one got on our cases about Little Superior, seeing as how the main road closed while we were on our way up. ( a fact I chose to omit from the TR, but I thought someone would mention).

BTW, this forum is working out way better than I thought it would, it's really becoming a great supplemental tool, and I'm glad it's here.

[H-wood]

what you do with it is up to you.

I looked at the original thread: nice work, both on snow and in turning something irritating into something useful. I would really be bummed if the chargers on this board didn't feel free to fully express themselves, or share their experiences in the BC.

One of the coolest thing about this forum is that I can learn from others, and when they post images, I can analyze (to some degree) the situation for myself. We can discuss incidents in a way that can help people, and we can warn others when stuff is truly dangerous. To me, the slide zone and TR's from people who are killing the bc are the most useful things about this forum.
The recent TR that broke down a slide and near-dog-burial in the Indian Peaks is a perfect example. Its a visual record of the chain of events, weather, snow texture, wind-loading, etc.
http://tetongravity.com/forums/showt...t=indian+peaks
And Bullet's great thread where he (gasp) actually decribed a questionable situation and asked for input (now deleted?).
And of course all the incredibly informative Utah TR's have been awesome- thanks you guys.

If you post a TR, screw what the critics think- you're getting it done and sharing the stoke. We shouldn't have to justify our choices to anyone but ourselves, or debate blanket avy forecasts.
I do think its a good idea to not post detailed directions and hand-holding info in TR's- especially at a place like Berthoud Pass that's easy access and frequently sketch. The berthoud post was handled with discretion.
But ultimately, just by laying a set of tracks, you've created an invitation for people to follow. What are we going to do, stop skiing?

edited to take out the dumb stuff

[Dirk Diggler]

Yoss,
Didn't mean to hijack your TR. Having not been to Berthoud recently, I was greatly surprised to hear that the stabilty around there was so much better than the rest of the Northern Mtns. I think the "peachy tone" you mention, without any mention of how dangerous things are right now, is probably what concerned me the most. Especially in an easy access area like Berthoud that has more clueless people than any bc spot I've ever seen. Had you posted the same report a week or so ago, I wouldn't have said a word, but under this type of hazard rating, I think the jongs that will follow after seeing your photos should understand the risks.

APD,
The average skier at BP is not even close to somebody you may run into on Superior or most anywhere in the Wasatch. Its not even close to comparable. Not saying everyone at BP is a gomer by any means, but there are a ton of them. No touring gear req'd. Just show up with resort gear and follow the bootbacks.

Also just curious how my question was any different than you expressing dismay about "thebird" his crew of "stability testers filming on the maybird/hogum east aspect doing their best to find instabilities on the steeps. it was interesting to see their confidence in the conditions since the film crew was set up in the runout of every shot they skied." ?

Biggest difference I see is you guys were at moderate hazard in UT at the time and we're dealing with cons w/pocs of high. My question about skiing large avy paths seems valid under those conditions.

http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/vi...=asc&start=480

[Yossarian]

Dirk, no problem at all, far from it. I'll admit to being somewhat annoyed by the hijack at first, but once I took the time to think more about it, I understood your response, and tried to reply as appropriate in my mind, and I appreciate being forced to think hard about the day, the decisions, the process, etc. There's nothing wrong about that.

Your sentiments about the people that ski BP are exactly the reason I ask this question about b/c reports here. It's so immediately and easily accessible to anyone with basic resort gear, that this is a very valid issue. The stuff across the street from Alta is at least one step more removed, in that you at least have to have some touring gear to skin up with. Plus, it "looks" scarier. There's a lot of stuff at Bert that is plenty slide prone, but doesn't look as exposed because the terrain is more broken up, and is in and around trees and treeline.

Furthermore, we simply can't assume, or presume, that the people reading this forum really do have the basic avy savvy required to understand that things change, depend on spatial variability, etc, etc. We're so used to thinking that way that we forget what it's like to be totally unaware of the mechanics of even the basics. Look at the "current readers" indicator sometime. You will usually find that there are as many unregistered readers as there are members logged in, if not more. I have overheard random people talking about us and our conversations in lift lines before, how's that for weird? A LOT of people read here, and we don't have any idea who they are or where they come from. Maybe today Johnny Extreme logs on for the first time and sees my report and decides to go rip it at Bert tomorrow.

I maintain that at least here in CO, particularly for Bert and other places like Loveland Pass, that this is a non-trivial debate. In the end, I believe in full personal responsibility for our actions in life, so I don't have any deep moral dilemma here - if someone goes out and gets themselves killed, that's not on me (unless it's me that got himself killed). Nevertheless, perhaps we can tilt the odds a little by what we say or don't say in places such as this.

EDIT: Of course, the other problem is that those same people that are "at risk" for this effect almost certainly don't even know that Avy danger ratings exist and are issued. Given the fairly rapid acceptance of the Threat Level warning system (however usefull it may or may not be), I wonder if perhaps mountain states should be broadcasting more loudly the Avy Hazard level through the media on a daily basis, like UV danger ratings, or Air Quality Warnings. "Today is an Orange day for winter activities..." I imagine the weather people adding this right after the Air Quality index. And everybody watches the weather, right? Even Johnny Extreme, who wants to know if it's going to be sunny enough to film that huge air he wants to throw, and Joe Smith, who wants to take his kids to play in the snow somewhere nearby in the mountains.

[Yossarian]

I've got another thought. In the case of Bert Pass and Loveland Pass, where there seems to be a relatively unique situation of immediate road access allowing backcountry access via car and bootpack, do you think it make a difference to have a large sign for the daily avy hazard rating? I mean, maybe the "broadcast on TV" thing is a little unrealistic and possibly could have effects opposite the intended, but why couldn't we get a big ass sign up at these places, with the daily rating posted at the access point in plain sight. I'm not advocating this approach anywhere else for many reasons, only in these particular places where anyone can drive right up and decide on the spot to take a little hike. Wouldn't this help mitigate the unprepared use? Big sign says AVY DANGER CONSIDERABLE...you think people still go charging off?

I dunno, just thinking out loud...

[PlayHarder]

Parks Canada implemented a new avy warning system this season, too early to see any impact but seems smart enough. There are now signs like the forest fire hazard signs at the park entrances that state "You Are Now Entering Avalanche Terrain" followed by the days rating.
While I see the point of not knowing whose reading the board, I'm not sure posting TR's here is any more likely to lead people into danger than the generally obvious parking lot - boot pack leading up signs that anyone can see as they drive into the mountains.
Unfortunately, I think that the type of person who's going to venture unprepared into the b/c isn't likely to be affected one way or another by what they read on here. Especially considering most b/c tr's on TGR are made up of the write-up and then numerous posts questioning the decision making.
Also consider that a lot of lift accessed bc terrain is just as dangerous and yet you constantly see people ducking through gates and blindly following the boot pack w/ no gear or clue.
Personally, I like reading the tr's and responses to safety/route finding/decision making questions. There's actually a surprising amount of good information in a lot of those posts.
Just my thoughts.

[chaka]

As a TGR forum newbie, I am stoked by the level of detail some of you choose to put in your TRs. Post what you feel comfortable posting, and assume the viewer knows "mileage may vary". Anybody that is dense enough to read a TR for a specific area, at a specific time, and go out a different time expecting similiar conditions, is on their way to a Darwin award anyway. The responsibility lies with us to get as educated as possible... one venue for me is to read up on TRs and other postings, and hopefully those postings contain as much genuine info/observations as possible, but of coruse recognizing these are poeple's thoughts jotted down, not a frigging SAR writeup. Then again, I'm the type of guy who buys "Accidents in N. American Mountaineering" every year just so I can try to learn from other's mishaps. And yes, I also have a few buds who Still haven't taken a L1 class. Unbelievable to me.
Thanks for the posts... keep 'em coming!

[Seldom Seen]

(hope i am not hijacking this very interesting thread)
I was wondering what y'all think about skier compaction as an issue related to this TR and BP. I havent been to BP in years so i dont know if the described slopes get skied very often, but from what i hear about the masses of people at BP, it seems like it might be a possibility.
If this slope has gotten skied alot throughout the winter, what is everybody's opinion of the effect that skier compaction over the course of the winter has on the given slope?

I spend a lot of time on Coal Bank Pass between durango and silverton and while there are lots of JONGS bootpacking across known avy paths (whole different subject! grrrr), i tend to think that the slopes that actually get skied (treed slopes, with a fair amout of open rollovers) gain some extra stability from skier traffic throughout the winter.
Is this an issue on the slopes decribed in the TR that started this debate? and if so, to what degree do y'all think skier compaction plays a role in stability of a certain slope?
Cheers, SS

EDIT: my bad, i did not see this thread about skier compaction lower down in the slide zone. I'll leave my post up for now as it is somewhat relevant in regards to the debate about the slope skied on BP, and might put a face on the broader debate of skier compaction in general....

[Foggy_Goggles]

Good questions. I'm not sure if the consequences are truly equivalent to leading the lemmings to the cliff. Many tracks are visible from highway and ski areas etc. Not to mention movies and magazines. I see that as a bigger incentive for the fools. That being said, I try to keep any backcountry TRs very general and don't mention aspects or locations. The problem with the internet is you can't control your audience. Sure a few of my friends get to see some pretty pictures but at what cost? If a TR is potentially increasing usage of an already busy area or may promote unsafe actions by others, think twice before posting. I'm not saying I'm right, but I've thought about this before, I this is the decision I've made. TRs should not read like a guidebook.

[AltaPowderDaze]

APD,
Also just curious how my question was any different than you expressing dismay about "thebird" his crew of "stability testers filming on the maybird/hogum east aspect doing their best to find instabilities on the steeps. it was interesting to see their confidence in the conditions since the film crew was set up in the runout of every shot they skied." ?

Biggest difference I see is you guys were at moderate hazard in UT at the time and we're dealing with cons w/pocs of high. My question about skiing large avy paths seems valid under those conditions.

http://www.telemarktalk.com/phpBB/vi...=asc&start=480

my problem was with the camera man being in the runout of multiple avy paths that they were skiing. with our instabilities being reported as pockety there was no way to say with any true confidence that they couldn't trigger a small slab that may step down or just over run the camera crew by itself. i may be selfish but i never want to have to dig another person out again, especially if it is a foreseeable act that causes it. i wrote thebird a pm that explained why i responded that way.

[PJ2001]

Yossarian,

As a complete backcountry JONG who is looking to get into some BC skiing, I have lurked on this forum for about a year now and I really enjoy the trip reports I read here. Hell, they are half of my inspiration to get into the BC (the other half being long lift lines, insane traffic on I-70, and the unquenchable desire for pow). With that said, my lurker/newbie/BC JONG/front range status might make me the perfect guy to respond to the scenario you posed.

No, I don't think any sort of qualifications or disclaimers need to be posted regarding snowpack stability. If you want to include it to add to the knowledge pool that's great... but I don't see why it's a requirement. I believe in personal responsibility so if somebody is dumb enough to assume snowpack stability after seeing a TR... well, we probably won't have to worry about them for very long. I'm always surprised at the volume of people hitching rides up Loveland without so much as a shovel in the group. I don't know if there's really any helping those guys... most of them will give you a big "fuck you" if you even ask about their level of knowledge/readiness.

Besides, if anybody lurks on this site for more than a couple minutes they will realize that the proper steps (at a minimum) are to 1)Read as much as you can. 2)Take an avy class. 3)Practice! 4)Start out slow with some experienced BC guys.

Personally, I'm at the "Take an avy class" level (hopefully in a couple of weeks). As I get into the "Practice!" level I will probably ask a whole bunch of newbie questions of you guys.

But please (and I'm begging you!)... don't let anything stop the stoke!

[Yossarian]

HA! My evil plan has worked! THis was actually all a ploy to see if I could get some lurkers to out themselves! Mwuahaaaahaaaaa!!

Seriously though, thanks for the response. You've got the right attitude. Who knows, perhaps we'll cross paths sometime "out there." Or better yet, we won't cross tracks at all, if you know what I mean.

[Ireallyliketoski2]

If you go backcountry skiing and want to tell the world about it, the least you can do is include the general thought process that goes along with determining slope stability. This information doesn't have to be too detailed but it will at least show the JONGs the type of thought process and mind set is involved in skiing a slope in the backcountry. That is an aspect that is all too often absent in many of the ski movies and magazines that adverstise and idealize the untracked.

Of course if you are worried about people finding out about your secret stash or attracting an undesirable element to your 'local' arean, then don't post the TR. If someone posts a TR that reveals your secret line, it is your duty as a pursuer of the fresh to beat him down with an avalung.

[splat]

Couldn't you say the same about posting shots of big cliff hucks?
If someone says "Hey, it looks safe in that picture," then lands on the rocks, how can anyone else be responsible?
Didn't your mom ask/tell you " Well, if Tommy jumped off a cliff, I suppose you would, too?"
Some people have better reasoning powers than others. Disasters are inevitable, even though preventable to a good degree.
Luck is, well, luck.

[Cornholio]

Couldn't you say the same about posting shots of big cliff hucks?
If someone says "Hey, it looks safe in that picture," then lands on the rocks, how can anyone else be responsible?
Didn't your mom ask/tell you " Well, if Tommy jumped off a cliff, I suppose you would, too?"
Some people have better reasoning powers than others. Disasters are inevitable, even though preventable to a good degree.
Luck is, well, luck.

I agree with this, but only a bit. I think some of the Avy stuff is different, because it involves such a complex decision process. Where has the wind/weather/sun/snow/ been for the last month? What has the temperature fluctuation been for the past few weeks? What's the aspect? What's the angle? What's the terrain? What's the consequence? ETC.

The fact that some TR's or avy-report-ish reports mention a lot of these things but not ever ever ever all of them means that, IF someone were to read ONLY the TR, they'd be making decisions based on not enough information, which is dangerous. So, that's why it's different.

Anyway, I'm firmly in the libertarian camp here. Information is power. Power always gets abused in the wrong hands, but does wonders for those who can use it.

What I'm trying to say is that more information could be harmful to some, but I'm more in favor of ensuring the info is available, along with the continued effort/support on TGR for continued education.