Here's What I Fear

I agree that human nature does not change. But the factors that animate human nature do change.

Behavior in risky situations is the result of balancing two key factors, risk and reward.  Both risk assessment and reward are subjective.  The subjective assessment of these factors can and does change.  I believe that it has changed.

As Martin Volken explained at NSAS a while back, risk assessment involves a calculation of likelihood versus consequences.  If the likelihood of an avalanche is high, then the consequences better be low.  Conversely, if the consequences are high, then the likelihood better be low.  A key question becomes: How accurate is your calculation?  Do you have a high degree of confidence in your assessment of the risk, or are you highly uncertain?  My feeling is that the degree of confidence within the backcountry skiing community has grown over the past 50 years due to more information available and to more refined stability assessment tools. As I mentioned in my previous post, I'm not convinced that this level of confidence is completely justified.

The second key factor is reward.  Reward can be internal or external.  Internal rewards include the enjoyment of skiing deep snow on steeper slopes.  This reward has become vastly more accessible due to the improvements in backcountry ski gear in the past 20 years.  People have not suddenly become better skiers.  Instead, the sport has become easier due to better gear.  External rewards include the social factors that make backcountry skiing enjoyable, whether the intimate experiences of close friends or the less personal, but still powerful, interactions with the larger community.

In my view, both factors--risk assessment and rewards--have changed in ways that lead today's skiers to accept risks that previous skiers would have been less likely to accept.  This is exactly what Micah wrote:

Lowell, you're the guy who traversed the Pickets on skis?

Plus ça change, plus c'est la même chose.

Cool honeymoon!

Is it your supposition that the riskiness of the terrain choices of typical backcountry skiers in western North America has remained about the same over the last century? When I said I thought people were making more risky choices, I was thinking of the influence on the culture of backcountry skiing of resort skiers migrating further and more frequently out of bounds. I think many factors, including movies and the availability of better AT gear, have drawn a lot of talented hard chargers further out of bounds. I think these people bring their high aspirations (and associated necessary risk assumption) with them.

I think the story is completely different in mountaineering.

"Mountain porn" has been around for a long time. Gear for mountain sports has been improving for a long time. People made risky terrain choices when sisal rope and leather britches were the best stuff you could buy. They went to the Himalayas because the Alps had already been explored. Mountaineering is backcountry climbing, and yes, it's a different sport, but the objective hazards are the same, the terrain is often the same, and these days, the people are often the same.

As usual Lowell, I think your post has a lot of insight.

My feeling is that it is more accurate to  describe "today's generation"  as less willing to settle for safe skiing than more confident regarding stability assessment. I think that due to the natural progression of the sport (both in terms of average skier ability and equipment developments) there is a growing population that feels that skiing outside avalanche terrain is not fulfilling and  not what they are out there to do. The terrain must be steep to be interesting (or, as Scotsman mentioned above, the avalanche risk is part of the draw). It's a cultural change from risk aversion to risk affinity. Not to say that people didn't take a lot of risks back in the day, I just think they took longer to work up to them.

Just a small correction...I'm not saying the avalanche risk is"part of the draw"... it's what you have to accept if you want to ski those lines...Not the reason you are attracted to those lines... semantics maybe but I think a clarification was necessary.

Interesting question as to why skiing steep lines is lauded as daring, while missing a clue and triggering an avalanche is often considered stupid.

Although a fundamental part of the answer has to be that each person makes and lives with their own risk decisions, there may be real difference: A steep line is likely to inherently dangerous pretty much all the time, so if you ever want to play there you have to pay the risk piper.  By contrast, skiing a certain line under risky avalanche conditions is a decision to add risk compared to potential other opportunities to ski the same line.

There is an analogy with cave exploration.  People climb objectively difficult and dangerous lines and make great discoveries - these people are our heroes.  They make discoveries that would simply never get made otherwise.  The climb up the Aragonitemare to the Far East of Lechuguilla Cave is a great example: whatafinecave.com/Index/Home/Maps/Far%20East/Aragonitemare.html

It's risky, people get injured or killed doing it.  In such a case, you can't say much other than - they took it on and the worst happened. 

But conversely, sometimes people decide to go into a flood-prone cave when the forecast is for rain.  The rain comes and they get trapped or die.  These cases are widely regarded as stupid decisions.

It's a spectrum: People get hammered with unexpected weather; or people try climbs they had no business trying.  But I think there is some difference.

there is risk in everything, just being outdoors in the wilderness has risk. The trick is to identify what those risks are and mitigate your exposure. After that you have to accept the risk or not ski anything. Not even a professional will tell you a slope will not slide after all kinds of evaluation... (and its happened), no one is immune and you can't learn without being there. I always wonder why the outdoor community is so quick to judge when others fail? There is always an amount of risk you take if you want to ski that line and if we didn't we would never get the rewards.

Interesting question as to why skiing steep lines is lauded as daring, while missing a clue and triggering an avalanche is often considered stupid.

Although a fundamental part of the answer has to be that each person makes and lives with their own risk decisions, there may be real difference: A steep line is likely to inherently dangerous pretty much all the time, so if you ever want to play there you have to pay the risk piper.  By contrast, skiing a certain line under risky avalanche conditions is a decision to add risk compared to potential other opportunities to ski the same line.

There is an analogy with cave exploration.  People climb objectively difficult and dangerous lines and make great discoveries - these people are our heroes.  They make discoveries that would simply never get made otherwise.  The climb up the Aragonitemare to the Far East of Lechuguilla Cave is a great example: whatafinecave.com/Index/Home/Maps/Far%20East/Aragonitemare.html

It's risky, people get injured or killed doing it.  In such a case, you can't say much other than - they took it on and the worst happened. 

But conversely, sometimes people decide to go into a flood-prone cave when the forecast is for rain.  The rain comes and they get trapped or die.  These cases are widely regarded as stupid decisions.

It's a spectrum: People get hammered with unexpected weather; or people try climbs they had no business trying.  But I think there is some difference.

I think that's a very good answer to my question and I like your caving with rain forecast analogy.

I also think that's it's partially because it's become acceptable, if not rewarded on TAY to critique others regarding their avalanche savvy and protocol and do some armchair quarterbacking from the safety of your cubicle. The "safety police" mentality can take on a life of it's own and become like a mass hysteria....I've watched it happen a couple of times on TAY and usually the culprits justify their "holier than thou" mentality with the argument that they are trying to save lives. Sometimes that's true but some of the time they are just trying to score points and appear superior in public.

Its also become like a quasi religious thing.
Priests= Avy forecasters
The flock= backcountry skiers.
Laymen=backcountry skiers with Avy 2.
Church Elders= Those that have practiced the faith without transgression for x number of years due to strict adherence to the conservative creed.
Cardinal sin= being caught in an avalanche.
Penance = Admit your sin, write a detailed  public confession on the web explaining your transgression and what you learnt from it and beg forgiveness.


I think your "missing a clue and triggering an avalanche is often considered stupid" is probably the most telling part of your reply. That's where we differ and I'm not prepared to go the whole way and say that everybody caught in an avy is stupid or "missed a clue".

Blessed are the sinners I say.....the faithful have always made my skin curl.

^^^^ ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

I think your "missing a clue and triggering an avalanche is often considered stupid" is probably the most telling part of your reply. That's where we differ and I'm not prepared to go the whole way and say that everybody caught in an avy is stupid or "missed a clue".

I don't think we differ that much with respect to that line, because you know, there's a first time for everything.

What I wrote was a lazy and imprecise shorthand for cases, the subset of all avalanche incidents, which clearly were the result of missing a clue. I also didn't say "were stupid", I said "considered stupid" with I think aligns with what you have been saying.

After such an incident, there is a post-hoc tendency to self-analyze and say "holy cow I missed this and that clue", but certainly there is some set where the people involved really did blow it.

I’ve never been in an avalanche incident, so my best analogous experience is still with a cave. The description below may be relevant although there are no avalanches involved.

In the worst cave flood situation I was ever involved in, we had an okay forecast, and the existing conditions were okay. Not great but okay. We went in Saturday morning and traversed a passage that included a 100’ swim through about 8 inches of air space, pretty routine stuff if you’re not worried about rain. Sunday morning we noticed that some formerly drippy domes had either more drips or small running streams, but weren’t too worried. Sunday afternoon we found that the water level in the swim had risen so that there was only 4 inches of air space. When you are swimming in a cave there is a pretty big difference between 4 inches and 8 inches of air space, and it was pretty scary. We decided to continue out, had no further problems, we were fortunate that the swim was the worst spot.

Anyway the point of all that is that I remember the extensive analysis we all did after the fact due to the somewhat close call. I still don’t think we made any objectively bad decisions, but it upgraded, at least for me, the standard of what constitutes acceptable weather for that kind of trip. When it’s dodgy, there are always other places to go.

A few years later this manifested in turning a trip around when we came to, you guessed it, low air space and a slightly dodgy forecast. That time, the objective evidence says we got it wrong – the rain did not come, and a different crew the very next day got to explore a half mile of new excellent walking passage at exactly the place where we had planned to go. So I was bummed to miss that, but of course pleased to be here to write about missing it.

Great story James, I enjoyed reading that.
Risk tolerance and ambition are  personal and we all have different fears.

For instance, there is a video just posted on TGR of a couple of TAYers skiing the North Face of Shuksan a few days ago. The conditions in the POV look hard , icy and marginal. I watched the video and although I admired their balls...the video of their skis scratching down the hardpack above huge exposure(although they looked in control) made the judgmental part of me want to scream out." what the hell were they thinking"...one slip...they are toast. Avy conditions were low, but it seemed to me to be a pretty scary thing to do given the conditions but that's partly because I hate steep , icy, fall has consequences- skiing. I'm sure the TR will get it's fair share of accolades, deservedly so and in the end I decided that it was their choice, their lives and I'm sure it was an intense experience for them that they will not forget. More power to them and I wish I had the confidence in my skill level to do it.

If I had posted something negative about their judgement or choice of conditions/weather concerning when to ski that face I'm pretty sure my comments would have been considered overly judgmental, in poor taste and in the minority and rightly so.

Which brings me back to my point, some people have a higher risk tolerance for skiing steep soft snow when the avalanche conditions are more dodgy. Of course you can ski somewhere else that day, ( they could have skied somewhere safer that day as well) but some are willing to roll the dice just like they did. You can stay at home as well and be perfectly safe.

The Shuksaners could have missed a clue and hit a big swath of blue ice and fallen to their deaths...the avy skier missed a clue and got swept away.  The Shuksaners will be lauded for their risk tolerance and skill to have got down safely, the avy skier criticized for his stupidity even if a slide did not occur.

Risk tolerance and ambition are  personal and we all have different fears.

The Shuksaners could have missed a clue and hit a big swath of blue ice and fallen to their deaths...the avy skier missed a clue and got swept away.  The Shuksaners will be lauded for their risk tolerance and skill to have got down safely, the avy skier criticized for his stupidity even if a slide did not occur.

You have identified a case where the two types of risk converge, but may still be perceived very differently. Just like in a case of higher avy risk, skiing NF in those conditions elevates risk compared to other potential times to do it. It's an excellent point.

Just a small correction...I'm not saying the avalanche risk is"part of the draw"... it's what you have to accept if you want to ski those lines...Not the reason you are attracted to those lines... semantics maybe but I  think a clarification was necessary.

Fair enough. I was trying to be provocative and stretched what you actually said.

FWIW I agree with you that the risk of skiing steep, hard snow is treated differently here than the risk of skiing steep, soft snow. Personally, I prefer conservative choices regarding both kinds of risk (and I maintain that both types of risk can be reduced to my personal tolerance by making terrain choices that still yield skiing that is satisfying to me--YMMV). I would say that the risk of falling is more straightforward to deal with b/c it is more obvious. It's possible to get in dicey avalanche situations w/o realizing the danger, but standing on top of a steep, icy slope always puts your heart in your throat (at least for me).

.
Accept the fact that you will make poor decisions and mistakes every time you go out. You just don't make enough mistakes or large enough mistakes to have a serous incident (this gets back to Lowell's comment about series of mistakes (Many accidents are not the result of a single misfortune, but instead are the end result of a chain of mistakes.

C) Recognize the role of chance, luck, chaos, whatever you call it and that there is ALWAYS a level of UNCERTAINTY, no matter how good you think you are (or actually are).

There will never be a day in backcountry skiing where there is no risk involved. I mean the margin for error in the backcountry is so small. I mean one poor drop in and you don't quite make it, one overlooked piece of terrain and your buried in 10ft of snow, the one wrong decision to keep going up when you should go down, I mean these risks we take are all around us. As long as we are fine with the risks and are aware of them. The only thing that we can do is take all the necessary precautions and keep it in mind.