March 4th 2017, busy day

I really don't understand the splitting of hairs about the hazard rating. When the rating is "considerable" very careful route finding is important as well as choosing low angle terrain without objective hazard. Unless you are very familiar with the snowpack history in the area you are touring, a "considerable" rating is not something to take lightly. Maybe review the hazard ratings.
www.avalanche.org/danger_card.php

There is a lot of competition these days for deep powder and folks now have the gear that makes it easy to ski deep powder.

There's even very little need to educate yourself as to mountain hazards.

You don't even have to do the hard work to break trail or put yourself at risk by being the first to test the slopes.

All you have to do now is  sleep in, have an extra triple shot,  honey and chocolate latte, and wait until some group gets the trail broken in and poach it.

it's the in thing now. Oh and then you can put you post a trip report.   

It seems this might be best discussed in another conversation.

What bothers me is people talking about how the rating should have been "high" rather than "considerable". "Considerable" is dangerous unless you choose your route and objective carefully AND are familiar with the weather and snowpack history. There seems to be some kind of disconnect that people aren't really paying attention to the hazard until it hits "high".

Of course there are safe areas to tour on "considerable", or even "high" hazard days but some people don't seem to consider those areas.

Quite possibly the most bullshit avalanche forecast in years - with very real consequences for many across the state in serious ways. I don't think these guys realize the fallout of their mistakes - maybe now they do.

If there was ever a day for a High rating in most zones it was the 4th.

People in the know are starting to disregard the avy forecast, look at the raw weather data, get all the beta they can from others who have actually been in the field and make their own hazard assessment - and then adjust plans as field observations dictacte

Dberd - Questioning why people decided to go touring isn't really the issue especially when comparing what was being seen at Baker vs Central Cascades where most of the avalanche reported action took place.  

I agree that the ratings got downgraded a couple of years ago due to numerous "High" ratings going out and people getting complacent and "comfortable" with this rating.  Its also a human powered forecast and blame can't be put in the forecaster who has access to the same details as you or I have.  Its up to us to cross check the forecast with our own sanity check.  Its also March and it warms up in the PM so with new snow this stuff happens time and time again.

For me, I didn't like the winds on Thursday and Friday with gusts over 60mph creating windslab and then getting buried with a bit of new snow creating that hidden danger before the slabs had time to stabilize.  That's why I opted not to tour although I'm sure I could have found somewhere fun.  Also had chores to do which have been stacking up so maybe I just got lucky with the day I chose not to go.

Dr. Fall Line, you're putting blame on the NWAC forecaster for people making poor decisions? Read the hazard rating for "considerable" - Dangerous avalanche conditions,careful snowpack evaluation and conservative route finding and decision making essential/ natural avalanches possible, human triggered avalanches likely/small avalanches in many areas, large avalanches in specific areas, very large avalanches in isolated areas. Seems pretty clear to me that "considerable" is a dangerous time to travel in avalanche terrain.

The snowpack is dynamic and always changing, elevating to "high" on Saturday doesn't seem unusual at this time of year with new snow, wind and warming as we approach the equinox.

People should look at weather and snowpack history and talk to people who have been out and make a plan using terrain appropriate for the conditions, also they can look at the regional forecast and current hazard rating. Read the discussion and observations.

Blaming NWAC for people getting in trouble on a "considerable" day is pretty myopic.

i have never used nwac for an avy forecast and that dates back to 1981. I don't even know when that 'service' started in this state.

My attitude used to be that if you need an nwac forecast, maybe you shouldn't go into avalanche terrian.

I have softened that position somewhat over the years. The service does bring about avalanche awareness to people just beginning their education.

Most of the seasoned folks that i know, who use the forecast, view it as  just one starting data point that may or may not reflect what's happening out there.

To use the forecast as a subsitute for knowledge is heuristic trap, imo, and i don't think that is the intention of the forecast.

I mostly use the NWAC for the observations and weather data but I do look at the discussion because it sometimes has relevant data for the area I tour most, Wenatchee Mountains. I use personal observation of the local snowpack and weather mostly.

Your comment about TAY moderators was unnecessary, I was just pointing out that your post had more to do with heuristics and resource scarcity than with people putting blame on NWAC for the decision to tour on "considerable" hazard days and the seeming confusion about what "considerable" means. That seemed to be the direction the conversation was heading.