Here's What I Fear

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

My impression is that today's generation of skiers has a pretty high assessment of their ability to distinguish between safe and unsafe conditions. Detailed avalanche forecasts, instant condition reports, and a battery of new stability analysis tools lead us to believe that we can diagnose the "gray area" with ever greater precision.

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.

There are risk takers in all age groups. New technology helps people push the limits in many areas of life. Is sisal rope a good choice for glacier travel? Of course not, but that was what people used. The blade of technology cuts both ways.

In my conversations with Joe and others of his generation, I think it's accurate to say that they felt that avalanche danger was very hard to predict, and that one's ability to accurately assess the danger was very limited. So, they adopted practices that kept their exposure to this (largely unknown) danger low.

If you haven't already, you should read about the history of avalanche forecasting. ParksCanada has some fascinating materials. Here is a wonderful paper from ISSW 2002:

arc.lib.montana.edu/snow-science/objects/issw-2002-208-220.pdf

Did Joe Firey have any formal training? Without at least some training, it certainly is difficult to assess avalanche danger.

My generation, which started backcountry skiing in the 1970s and 1980s, had more information and new tools like avalanche beacons. I think we were more willing to venture into potentially risky conditions, but were still (for me at least) pretty conservative.

The history of mountaineering, a subject with which you almost certainly have more familiarity than me, is literally stuffed to the gills with stories of adventurous folks, many who died ( and many who didn't ) during serious expeditions to incredibly dangerous terrain. The early Himalaya expeditions come to mind. Is this what you mean by "more conservative", because I think it's really an individual thing rather than generational.

For example: Chris Bonington, who made the first ascent of the south face of Annapurna, isn't exactly a young man. He wrote two incredible books about his expeditions to Everest and Annapurna.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Chris_Bonington

What about Reinhold Messner:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reinhold_Messner

***

I'm not sure that the facts necessarily align with all the opinions. Again, risk acceptance IS NOT generational.

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.

In the sixties, my parents read all the "mountain porn" of the day and they went straight to Chamonix, where they climbed Mont Blanc on their honeymoon. ( Chamonix is called the "death sport" capitol of the world. ) In Chamonix they were surrounded by similar folks, all risk takers, quite a few of whom died. I won't reveal my parents ages, but my father is probably old enough to be Lowell's father.

Again, I don't think the facts match the opinions.

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.

Again, risk acceptance IS NOT generational.

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:

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.