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.

^^^^