Here's What I Fear

One of the things I enjoy about backcountry skiing is the inherent risk involved .

So is the same line more satisfying to ski when you believe it might slide?

Sometimes 'goals' and 'plans' are listed as aspects of skiing that need to be considered in relation to avalanche risk. I would like to suggest that more general motivations and skiing philosophy and values should be considered. If one can enjoy, value, and be satisfied by 'safe' skiing, the obvious avalanche risk management strategy is to simply stay away from avalanche terrain when there is significant chance of skier triggered avalanches and only ski steep (steep enough to slide) terrain in times of good stability.

I think that if recreational skiers took a little time to ponder why they are skiing (where and when they are) it would help put snow stability assessments in a more clear light.

And what we can do to reduce the chance of it happen to us?

My answer: figure out if you are a meadow skipper or TGR shredder. If the former, find suitable partners and terrain for low-adrenaline fun in iffy conditions; save the tempting slopes for the frequent periods of good stability a coastal snowpack offers. If the latter, get enough knowledge so that your risk decisions are well informed (and, as Charlie pointed out above, accept the inevitable accidents associated with the assumed risk).

I think this is a great discussion for this community.

So is the same line more satisfying to ski when you believe it might slide?

It's certainly more satisfying  (for me) to use my knowledge and experience (moderate as it is) to push as close as you believe you can ( stability wise)to the limits and ski a nice line and get away with it.

What's wrong with enjoying the inherent risk and the  process of trying to manage it as best I can.
I may have developed a slightly higher risk tolerance for avy risk over the years and an acceptance of the possible consequences whereas steep skiing on hard snow still scares me shitless and I avoid it at all costs.

That's what I don't really understand.....people( and I'm generalizing) on sites like this tend to be very critical of individuals that have a higher avy risk tolerance. How many posts have there been condemning and castigating people for going out on high or considerable days, and stuff like that etc.........LOTS, whereas skiing steep, icy, fall you die terrain is usually revered and oohed and aahed( as it should). Seems like a double standard in some respects......why is that????

1. Insufficient discipline.
2. Surplus ego.

Scotsman raises an interesting point.

It's perfectly acceptable to preserve risk in order to engage in skiing that is more exciting than what you might find at the ski area.

The question becomes... what is an unacceptable risk?

One definition: risk is unacceptable if there is a significant chance of triggering an avalanche >= Size 2.

Personally I've been in 3 avalanches that could have killed, one that should have. Two of the three avalanches were in ski areas and I was not avalanche savvy enough at the time. But the 3rd....was in 1998. I have to chalk that one up to cumulative risk. That year I was skiing a lot of big scale alpine terrain and although each decision I made at the time for the choice of ski terrain was probably pretty good; the one that got me was such a complex and highly variable situation that although I understand what happened, I still couldn't avoid it if I put myself in the same situation again. It wasn't super steep, the slope that slid was 30-35 degrees in angle, but distinctly alpine. The avalanche hazard on the day was low below 7000' (although our avalanche was at 7900') and I suspect it was the only large avalanche in the Cascades that day; it was a 4' slab, and carried me 1/2 mile and 1500 vft. I was under the snow for perhaps one to one and one-half minutes, deep enough that it was pretty dark. Cumulative risk....

I interviewed Joe Firey one time. You know he back country skied for 50 years or so without any significant incidents. He was a pioneer in skiing the BC Coast Mountains.

Joe said, "you know you can get a lot of really good skiing without skiing steep slopes.

50 years of cumulative risk pioneering routes in the Coast Range without an incident is quite a record.......he was obviously
1. Extremely good at avy risk assessment.
2. Very conservative.

Most of the really hard core "skiers" I know have been in a significant slide or even two or even three!
I use the term "skier" here as opposed to" tourer" to describe people who are not out in the BC to  just enjoy the views and tour ( which they do) but whose emphasis is also on getting some good downhill action. Their risk tolerance for avalanches is obviously higher and in all cases from my personal observations they are very knowledgeable about the snowpack. Whats gets them is probability. Probability says if you ski slopes > 35 deg regularly, even with good risk assessment and judgement, eventually you are going to mess up. They seem to accept that risk  and enjoy what they do.

I also know a lot of hard core"tourers" who have never had an incident because their emphasis is  on a having a nice day in the mountains and some exercise and will only ski slopes  < 25% when the avy hazard goes above moderate. They seem to accept the limitation to their skiing and enjoy what they do.

I admire both although to be honest I personally admire the " skier" more even if they have had some avy incidents but I'm probably in the minority and it's based upon my personal value system which may be different from yours.

A lot of the armchair avy experts on ski websites like this will consider the former to have insufficient discipline and surplus of ego and consider the latter paragons of virtue. Just my observation and I find it interesting and I'm trying to figure out why?

Edit to Add: Immediately after writing the above I read Lowell Skoog's avalanche hindsight post which related to the acceptance heuristic trap and I think I know why now. Most of the the people I describe in the first group don't post trip reports, don't give a flying fig what TAYers think about them and their actions and don't crave acceptance by others of their actions, ski wise. I think Lowell's post is dead on although the lesson for me is diametrically opposite of the one Lowell was presenting( naturally) namely I'm probably never going to make a decision primarily based upon what others will think if it turns out bad.

It also partly explains why people on websites like this are quick to point pass judgement so quickly on the perceived faults of others( avy wise) like the guy with 5 posts decrying Freebird for skiing a slope two at time recently and many more ad nauseum on TAY. They crave acceptance of others based upon the norm at TAY which is to revere the conservative tourer who has an abundance of caution avalanche wise.

What is interesting is the situation seems to be reversed in terms of very steep ballsy hard snow skiing and fall you die skiing TR's on TAY. You rarely( if ever) see anybody saying that these guys are off their heads, showing poor judgement or that it's just a matter of time before they make a mistake and fall to their deaths or critiquing their skills, ego or disciple. To be fair Lowell did once when he expressed and opinion that there was a morality issue associated with that type of skiing ( over which we argued as I objected to the term morality).