The Backcountry Skiing Magazine, Community, and Interactive Ski Guide

SEARCH BY LOCATION:

2010, by powderjunky

Wow. Is all I could muster as I just watched a good friend escape the cold grip of the white monster as it thunders down the slope in a kung fu fury with a powder plume of the likes of an atom bomb. Pictures are worth a thousand words, and videos too, so I'll let them do the talking.

Being that the internet is sometimes an arena for third party judgment without having first hand facts just know the skier involved had partners ready to rescue him, knew the slope would probably slide and was aware of where the terrain traps to avoid were located and had an escape route preplanned . Everyone has their own level of acceptable risk and while some might think this was stupid to ski and others might think it's not that big of deal, the important thing is to learn from incidents like this so we can all be safer out there.

Video of local Bend Skier skiing out of an avalanche on a Northeast (more east than north) aspect in the Playground of the Tam Rim in Oregon.

What's Your Favorite Slackcoun...

New Avalung Increases Survival time...

That's Our Opinion. What's Yours?

jlag wrote on 03/29/10 at 09:30:44 am pst:

just curious as if the title date is just the date you wrote the article? We saw that slide early Sat. morning arriving at the lake. So that would of been 3/27, did the slide happen on Friday? Just curious as i kinda keep track. If that happened on the 28th, then the exact same slide/size happened on Friday as well, weird. I really like the paragraph under the video, talking about not judging via internet. You're absolutely correct, it comes down to choice and actually being there. Very cool. And killer vid.

powderjunky wrote on 03/29/10 at 09:47:23 am pst:

Hey Josh,
Yeah the title date is just when the article publishes. This was triggered on Friday afternoon.

Saw your tracks on Saturday over on the far side, looked good!

Trev wrote on 03/29/10 at 10:32:55 am pst:

Should call that slot "avy alley", thats the second close call ive seen on that exact run with very similar propagation characteristics. If willing, would be great to have skier really explain details, thought process. Many of us have had a similar experience and the willingness to share some information is an excellent tool for others, as well as the rider, to gather some important lessons learned as well as provide information in terms of risk assessment, acceptable risk, and what goes into the go/no go process.

keep turning....

powderjunky wrote on 03/29/10 at 2:28:11 pm pst:

Trev,
Basically we knew that there was a lot of wind loading the day before, and skiing some other shots released small isolated wind pockets of soft slab just on the upper 10 yards of the runs we were skiing, anywhere between 4 to 6 inches in depth and not very wide, like 10 ft at most. A member of our party wanted to ski the line in the photos and video. Just looking at it you could tell that it was holding more potential for a bigger slide event, it was steeper, more directly in line with the wind, and the texture of the snow screamed wind loaded. It also gets more sun making a better sliding surface under the new snow. Potential for a complete burial wasn't likely but still possible. The biggest factor was the chokes and rocky sections a potential slide off this run could take you into. Two of us decided not to ski it based on that. While the skier involved was willing to take the risk.

Pete Keane wrote on 03/29/10 at 8:12:52 pm pst:

Pretty exciting stuff! Looks like a D2 to me....

WarPigSinFin wrote on 03/30/10 at 1:29:45 pm pst:

The commentary in slo-mo is pretty classic. I'm glad you guys made it out unscathed.

The avy danger is currently going through the roof here in JXN... vid's a good reminder not to ski with crazies unless they're willing to POINT EM'.

Be safe out there...

ps What skis is he on? Just curious...

powderjunky wrote on 03/30/10 at 2:49:49 pm pst:

I think he was on k2 sidestashes, and wearing two beacons for extra safety :)

Freeheelgirl wrote on 04/01/10 at 09:58:25 am pst:

What was learned from this?

pwdrjnky wrote on 04/02/10 at 09:48:51 am pst:

Two beacons for extra safety? I actually thought you guys were on top of things until I read that! A second beacon would do nothing but complicate things. If you do not wish to be judged then make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth.

powderjunky wrote on 04/02/10 at 12:12:36 am pst:

What do you mean, I thought beacons emit an invincible force field? But seriously, if you put your address in the address bar, we will send you a sense of humor.

Anonymous wrote on 04/05/10 at 02:12:28 am pst:

Plenty of snow there for a complete burial. Tameness of said avalanche aside, hitting a tree at 35 mph just helps another orthopedic surgeon buy another boat. Just ask yourself, does your local orthopedic surgeon really need yet another boat? Good thing you guys were around.

powderjunky wrote on 04/05/10 at 6:38:47 pm pst:

For sure, hitting hard objects at high speeds = bad times and broken bones, throw sharp ass lava rock into the mix and you got a good recipe for a cocktail full of pain.

dcapasso wrote on 04/08/10 at 4:29:39 pm pst:

Haha,
Shit I give all sorts of establishments in town money all the time...I even give my money to a bunch of other jackasses in town as well. In fact, just gave some money to BMC...Im sure some surgeon or doctor will dump money back into the community in a more positive manner, than some jackass hospitality server or something like that!

zchronnh wrote on 04/09/10 at 1:53:51 pm pst:

Sounds like an orthopedic surgeon stole your girlfreind

tonybird wrote on 04/11/10 at 8:28:06 pm pst:

i'd like to ditto trev's call for more serious discussion here. it may be a little sensitive, but this incident is an excellent case in point and i think discussion would be great. it probably won't happen if snide comments continue, however.

powderjunky (the one who uses vowels) gives some pretty good reasons why he passed on this slope the day before, but if he could expand on "just looking at it you could tell", it might be helpful.

and if the fella who triggered it could explain why he decided to give it a go--and what he may have learned in 20-20 hindsight--i, for one, would be all ears.

i came close to being in a small avalanche once--it was actually triggered by more aggressive skiers who passed us that day. 8 inches of fresh late season snow on top of a hard pack--need i say more? it wasn't big enough to have buried anyone, but it slid about 200 yards down an even-sided couloir and gave everyone all the adrenalin they needed for the rest of the day. it sure made a big impression on me about heeding those snow snails.

tonybird wrote on 04/11/10 at 9:18:43 pm pst:

on second thought--and after carefully re-reading the opening remarks here--this seems like some intentional playing with fire--not a big fire, but a fire nonetheless. am i right?

Ken Davis wrote on 04/12/10 at 09:41:36 am pst:

With proper discussion this could be one of the more informative posts on this site. Without, it looks a lot like one of those highmarking snowmobile-avalanche videos from you-tube. The responders in a rescue tend to be more affected than the victim. I have friends that still shed tears every time a incident is spoken of. It's not just a matter of acceptable risk to the skier, but to his potential responders as well. If the skier was buried at the base of the cliff, who wants to ski under all that hang-fire to get to him? In my opinion this is the last thing a good friend asks of you. Refusing to film or take pics would probably be a good start to discouraging this sort of thing. The whole scenario is a recipe for a much more serious incident.

powderjunky wrote on 04/12/10 at 12:38:27 am pst:

tonybird, for sure definitely playing with fire, and if you do it enough, bad things can definitely happen.

Ken,
I agree that acceptable risk needs to include those that may be affected by your decisions who may not even be up in the hills with you.

I do feel though that the actual skier needs to be held accountable for their own actions. Yes kodak courage can only encourage people to take risks they otherwise won't. But maybe this video will help show people how quick snow can move on you?

Freeheelgirl
I think you can learn a lot from it, but for me it only confirmed what we already suspected, the slope was ready to move, and that is why two of us didn't ski it. SO maybe people can learn just because one person wants to ski something, not everyone in the group needs to?

powderjunky wrote on 04/12/10 at 12:44:22 am pst:

tonybird,
I didn't answer all your questions,
Just the texture of the snow screamed wind-loaded, and that area always has high winds, the more you get the know a place and the more time you spend skiing a certain area, some things just become real apparent without digging a pit, like knowing previous weather and conditions, etc. In this case though you could still see wind loading up the slope, a good indication for me anyway.

Avalanches scare the poop out of me, so if something looks or smells even just a little out of the normal, I usually pass and ski it another day.

dcapasso wrote on 04/12/10 at 5:03:18 pm pst:

Yep, At the age of 29 I feel like I have played with all sorts of fire. I don't need to talk about the last decade of skiing hard; front, side, and backcountry. Sure, everyone knows, the travelers with the most experience are usually the ones to die (ie: Trevor Peterson, Coombs, Graig Kelly) I was on scene the day of the class2 slide. It was the best snow I have skied at the area since my 1st time there in Dec. '07. My first day in '07, another class2 partial burial had me reaching for the red button as the snow blast hit me in the face and took 20 seconds to clear. This event happened 100+ yards, skiers right of this 2010 event. I was alone, available for rescue, but luckily it was only an actual partial burial. The skier involved and I have skied this exact aspect/line together before. Things happen, even after thay are discussed! Going out things happen. If we don't understand the possibilities and energy within the mountains, then we shouldn't go. Nobody wants to be involved in an incident, but I enjoy my sport, and touring/backcountry is to me the "purest form" of my sport.

As the clouds haze cleared that day, and the skier was en-route up. I noticed that "sunspot" or whatever, had triggered naturally. A class 1 natural. This aspect was receiving the same windloading, sun, and temperature change, as the incident area. Triangle assessment: weather- green, terrain- red, snowpack- yellow.

Point in fact- Nobody wants to be involved in an incident, we were not with some kind of ski "porn" production company, and although decisions put party members at risk. The skier/rider can only be held accountable for his/hers own decisions.

No need for comments or posting, its done! If you can't accept risk or burn then stay at home. Might as well not go out with your partners, and practice beacon involved incident techniques either.

COAA has posted an explanation from the skier, because they are a awesome resource for this area. The sport of sking has spanked me in many ways, but the memories in my head and heart have made me who I am. Coast to coast, I would not trade them for any cost.

Freeheelgirl wrote on 04/13/10 at 11:30:28 am pst:

Powderjunky, thanks for essentially saying that safety trumps being rad - I heartily agree with you.

Dcapasso - thanks for adding your two cents to the discussion. I'd still like to hear from the skier himself, but it's worth hearing everyone's side.

That being said - holy cow, what were you two THINKING? You've almost been buried there before, your assessment said it was likely to slide, and you let your buddy ski it anyway? Why??

I also love to ski, and have done my share of risky things - heck, I'm still doing my share of risky things. But experience has taught me that you can have MORE fun when you use your experience to find the groovy line that will give you a sweet powder shot WITHOUT the potential to kill or maim you. Why take the risk? And maybe the issue here is your understanding of what that risk entails....there ARE worse things than death. Digging your dead friend out of a bloody patch of snow, for instance, or spending the rest of your young, risk-tolerant life on a respirator in a nursing home, unable to turn yourself or talk, thanks your high c-spine injury. Do you really, actually think that "risk" or "burn" is worth one douchey ski line?

Yes, some experienced people die doing their sports - but lots of other experienced people stay out of trouble and keep on truckin'. Ask Lou Dawson...I think he has an excellent understanding of the possibilities and energies within the mountains, and safety is his number-one priority. Doesn't seem like he's any less rad or has any less fun than some 29-year-olds who don't seem to value their lives, or the lives of the people who might be excavating their cold dead asses someday.

Now, seriously, Dcapasso, I understand what you're trying to say in your last sentence - challenging yourself to get oout in the backcountry and ski your best is the best, most untouchable kind of experience. I get it.

But, I beg you - take that challenge one step further, and start using those skills like a trip leader. Use your assessments to call out the bad risks and avoid them, and then find the great lines to ski that day and keep yourself and everyone around you safe to ski another day. Any anger coming out of this discussion is undoubtedly from folks who see your energy being used to tarnish the pure fun and drive of being out there with some reckless and potentially fatal moves. Skiing that line was a bad call - I'm grateful it didn't become news footage of a fatality.

dcapasso wrote on 04/13/10 at 2:33:18 pm pst:

Yep, I have never almost been buried at this location. I was available for rescue, as a completely OTHER partner was partially buried. In Dec. '07, I dropped first on a less vulnerable line. This completely other partner is the one who was partially buried. He chose and made his decision based upon his own confidence. I was just saying, it was my 1st time there. I was alone for rescue efforts. It was not COOL or RAD, but it's part of my sport. I have returned many times to this area to find the "pureness".

The March 2010 incident.
My OTHER partner (completely different person), and I have both skied the aspect/line that slid on this day before. He is an adult, once again I let my friends make there own decisions based on there confidence level. I'm there to help any one I can, and to always find the "groove". Sorry, about the clearity...I tend to mumble, I'm not used to this blogging crap.

Freeheelgirl
I do value my life actually, thanks for telling me I don't. Skiing is a part of my life (wish it was even a bigger part), I would not trade my times in the mountains for anything, whatever season it is. You worry about your crew, and I'll worry about mine. You worry about your lines, and I'll worry about mine. Also, I'm currently injured with a torn muscle, I've got all the time in the world to talk about anything. Thanks for your care, being a fellow skier. My own ladyfriend doesn't even care that much. You seem very sweet.

Dave "Capt. Safety" Capasso

powderjunky wrote on 04/13/10 at 3:30:29 pm pst:

Freeheelgirl is definitely one of the most caring people out there. She has to deal first hand with us mongoloids in the hospital, and Capasso, I challenge you to a mumbling contest, I've been told, on the phone anyway, I'm tough to beat!

Ken wrote on 04/13/10 at 6:40:57 pm pst:

For our crew there is no division between the skier on the slope and his or her rescuers. In order for a line to get the green light, everyone has to be comfortable being on it. If not to ski, then to help the skier should there be a problem.

If two of you thought it was unsafe to ski, doesn't that mean that you thought it was unsafe to rescue on also? I think that in small groups everyone should agree on what slopes to ski.

For some reason we all tend to worry about all the crews. Probably because these things can happen to any of us.

All that aside, as a Native Idahoan I sure would like to get in on that mumbling contest.

tonybird wrote on 04/13/10 at 8:08:13 pm pst:

for what it's worth, here's a link to the skier's statement on COAA:

http://phpbb.coavalanche.org/viewtopic.php?f=3&t=86

funny you should mention lou dawson, whom i knew some years ago when i worked on couloir magazine. one of the most gripping articles i edited then was his account of surviving a terrible avalanche which he triggered on highlands bowl in aspen, and his thoughts about his motivation and, in hindsight, foolishness. lou survived to ski again, much wiser and downright eloquent. not everyone does, but his closing remarks are worth repeating: "the sequence of events took shape long before i awoke that morning ... they were decided in the development of a sport that, out of a timeless human need, had determined that risk taking is worthwhile."

freeheelgirl wrote on 04/14/10 at 01:07:59 am pst:

Hey, Tonybird, thanks for the quote! Risk-taking is absolutely worthwhile - in the right circumstances. We can't grow or improve without taking some chances, but the challenge is always in choosing the right risk to take. Making those calls has to be part of our evolution from "skilled" to "expert" skiers....just because you can ski a line doesn't mean you always should. We all know how conditions change in the backcountry - sometimes you need to wait for your turns until the conditions are safe(r), or at least survivable.

@Dave "Cap'n Safety" Capasso - thanks for the reply! I'm not trying to harsh on ya, I promise....but I do think that attitudes are contagious, and we need to set examples for each other in being safe and taking the high road. I was thinking about this tonight - if your friend was stumbling drunkenly out of a bar, wouldn't you take his keys for the night? If he was suicidal, wouldn't you tell him that you were going to keep his guns at your house and then direct him towards a hotline to get help? I respect that you were willing to be the safety guy on the avalanche run, but why not encourage him to run that line on a different day, when conditions would allow it? Setting off that avalanche put you both at risk...granted, I can't see the whole bowl in that video, but there looks like there's hangfire all around that cliff. With a bigger group to keep eyes on a rescuer who might set off a second avalanche and be ready for a quick rescue, I could (maybe) see it, but by yourself -? Eee, you were lucky you didn't have to test it out.

What, your girl doesn't care about your safety? I hope she's helping you recover from your torn muscle, at least! :-) Sorry you're having to sit it out for a while....Freeheelgirl

tonybird wrote on 04/14/10 at 07:52:56 am pst:

to play the devil's advocate for a moment, this appears to be a well-known venue for the locals and this particular slope a frequent performer. this slide has some comforting limitations. its relatively limited starting zone does not entail a huge volume of snow, and the runout appears to be long and gentle.

if you google avalanche-youtube, you'll see stuff that's a lot hairier, most with endings tastefully edited out. this footage at least doesn't entail the increasingly popular hospital room interview.

lou dawson, by the way, had a nice hospital stint with a broken femur. it seems it was just the wind of the avalanche that did it, whipping him around like a rag doll. he was fortunate that the incident was being watched by a fellow with a telescope across the valley who immediately called a rescue. still, lou's body tempertature was down to 94 by the time they got him to the emergency room. he also noted that 50 percent of broken femur cases result in death from internal bleeding.

"timeless human need" says it for me. i'd vote for extreme skiing any day over the wars which seem to derive from the same urge.

zchronnh wrote on 04/14/10 at 6:07:48 pm pst:

Hello, I'm the skier in the video. You can read my post on Central Oregon Avalanche Associations website. As you will read there, and as tonybird wrote, the "line" had comforting limitations, one of my major decision making factors. To me it was a calculated risk. Thanks for all your input have a nice day

dcapasso wrote on 04/14/10 at 7:39:26 pm pst:

Good points! I dig the Lou Dawson quote and info. Definitely, the line has "comforting limitations", always risky and short. It's not like a Interior BC or Inter mtn. West location, but things happen...I found this info, reguarding Wilderness travel any season. Just, even the orgins of Wilderness designation. This location in OR is right on the edge of the boundary.

dcapasso wrote on 04/14/10 at 7:41:57 pm pst:

the Wilderness Act was signed into law by President Lyndon B. Johnson on September 3, 1964.
The Wilderness Act is well known for its succinct and poetic definition of wilderness:
"A wilderness, in contrast with those areas where man and his own works dominate the landscape, is hereby recognized as an area where the earth and community of life are untrammeled by man, where man himself is a visitor who does not remain."

tonybird wrote on 04/15/10 at 05:51:12 am pst:

i can't leave that one alone, d-cap, especially having lived through the phoneyness of the johnson era. that description of wilderness applies to north and south america prior to about 40,000 years ago, after which the presence of humans had rather powerful impact on the ecology. for the rest of the world, we're talking more than a million years, depending on your take on hominid evolution. and i doubt that you can find any place in the u.s.a. where nonnative plants haven't had overwhelming impact on every square mile of the environment.

that definition of wilderness makes it something pure and holy, to be visited by dirty citybillies under strictly controlled circumstances. it also gives government many excuses to keep people out. the reality of the matter is that we ourselves derive from nature and by--forgive an overused word--communing with it, we get in touch with our true selves. works better for me than church.

Freeheelgirl wrote on 04/15/10 at 11:10:00 pm pst:

Um, tonybird - just wondering: are you arguing for or against wilderness?

tonybird wrote on 04/16/10 at 8:23:36 pm pst:

the point i was trying to make is that wilderness is an artificial idea and as such should be considered useless, especially in public policy debate. they give us tree-huggers wilderness areas like they gave the indians reservations, and pretty much get us out of their hair. last i checked, the local bears roam rather freely across the wilderness boundary. the air pollution floats across pretty easily as well.

tonybird wrote on 04/17/10 at 06:23:29 am pst:

the corollary to this is the notion that humans, by their mere presence, are somehow destructive of nature. don't think that this hasn't become a sinister element in limiting access, which used to be free and easy. meanwhile there is widespread ignorance and lack of concern about things like genetic tampering and chemtrails.

powderjunky wrote on 04/17/10 at 6:31:39 pm pst:

I got to agree with tony, wildnerness is where ever my skintrack takes me, these days thanks to a veggie diet, has been mostly to the bathroom.

Freeheelgirl wrote on 04/19/10 at 09:13:09 am pst:

Hey, how'd we go from talking about skier responsibility to the evils of wilderness, anyway? :-)

I've done a fair amount of traipsing through wildernesses, and never found any problems with access. It IS nice to see a lack a human footprints in the form of roads, houses and engines....I'm not really sure what your beef about nature reserves is, though. I do see a lot wrong with fragmenting ecosystems and calling them "intact" wildernesses (say, anyone see any buffalo roaming around? No?), but something is always better than nothing. And we can keep working on making it better....
Like the avalanche skiing scenario, all it takes is one or more dedicated people saying "wait, stop!" to avert an ecological - or gravity-based - disaster. A little personal responsibility in the form of getting educated and taking action goes a long way...speak up, tonybird, sounds like you got some things you need to say!

tonybird wrote on 04/20/10 at 05:58:46 am pst:

i don't think you live close to los angeles, FHG. ever hear of something called the adventure pass?

Freeheelgirl wrote on 04/20/10 at 5:44:10 pm pst:

Nope, I definitely don't live near LA - the closest I've ever gotten was living in Redding. Adventure pass??

tonybird wrote on 04/20/10 at 9:24:07 pm pst:

never heard of the u.s. forest service adventure pass?

tonybird wrote on 04/22/10 at 05:56:51 am pst:

FHG has fallen silent. seems a bit out of character. :-)

Freeheelgirl wrote on 04/23/10 at 09:34:15 am pst:

Oh, sorry T-bird - I have to go to work sometimes. :-) Please, expound on the adventure pass - although I'm guessing it's a pay-to-play ripoff on public lands...?

tonybird wrote on 04/23/10 at 6:21:25 pm pst:

ach--you used the W-word.

yea, basically a very selective ripoff. it has been in force, sort of, in southern california for more than 10 years, in all the national forests surrounding los angeles. it's a bad law in so many ways, and a constant irritation for those of us who go into the local mountains regularly.

elsewhere, you all get to go into your local national forests, as well as BLM land, for free, as it has always been in our country, where the concept of public land has had a long tradition. but i can't, unless i want to hassle the forest service, and it has become a very complex scenario. forest rangers used to range. now they put tickets on cars which say, "welcome to your national forest--this is not a ticket"--but you are instructed to pay $5 a day or $30 a season.

how come you folks out in boondockland don't have to do this? because city people won't be taking pot shots at rangers like they do in places like wyoming and alaska.

freeheelgirl wrote on 04/24/10 at 12:44:39 am pst:

Well, here in Idaho, they tried to institute a bunch of pay-to-play sites that were "improved" campgrounds or boat ramps (basically, if it has a toilet and a paved parking lot, it's "improved"). They did a multi-year trial, and it was so poorly received that they rescinded it everywhere but at the improved boat ramps. The major objection was that we're already subsidizing public lands with tax money - if you have to pay another fee for access, it's double-taxation. Hunting and fishing is a major source of revenue for Idaho Fish & Game, so the objections of all the sportsmen & women out here reverberated all the way to the governor's office, I think.
Hm, actually - I think it's WAY more dangerous to be a ranger in the urban-interface wildlands! Lots of criminal activity....here in Idaho, I never think of carrying guns for protection, but in California, I really limited my activities unless I had company. And I've actually had shots fired in my general direction when I was firefighter in northern Cali....ugh.

tonybird wrote on 04/24/10 at 05:59:20 am pst:

i guess i think that if you have to pay $5 to get into a national forest, it ought to be the same for everyone in every national forest. there used to be something called equal protection under the law.

i had one ticket writer--a captain in a local mountain fire department--tell me to tear the thing up. they have more money than they need, he said, and all the revenue raised by the adventure pass program goes into promoting the program. i believe him. they used to have a humble but interesting interpretive center in the local mountains, but when they instituted the adventure pass, they built a snazzy, modern, expensive interpretive center, apparently just to PR the public. people who are pinching pennies don't generally build new houses. i'm a carpenter, and i know that.

Mount A today. wrote on 04/24/10 at 10:24:00 pm pst:

Did anyone assess the snow pack before skiing that day? Shovel test, rutch block, look at the layers? Was it just that slope or were conditions ripe everywhere?

powderjunky wrote on 04/26/10 at 09:41:11 am pst:

MOunt,
We didn't dig a pit that day, but ski that area almost every day leading up to the storm, so knowing the weather and how it came in we already knew there was a high probability of it sliding.

Similar, smaller releases were going on "test slopes" nearby. Generally in this area anything with wind loading is ripe to go :)

heliskian wrote on 04/27/10 at 10:03:56 am pst:

From watching this video I cannot tell what all the discussion is about. This slide was very small class1 soft slab. The skier knew of the risks and chose a line with little consequence. Save the discussions of bravado and kodak courage to areas with consequence and exposure. There was little danger here. Snow slides in the mountains people.

freeheelgirl wrote on 04/28/10 at 05:13:40 am pst:

Even a small slide can kill you, Heliskian. Even if the skier didn't get buried, he could still have been killed or maimed if he got whipped over that cliff, or dragged through some of those exposed trees.
My question for this discussion? If everyone knew that line was going to slide, why did the skier choose to run it? Even if he was prepared for the consequences of getting buried (death, dismemberment, etc), he should have recognized that that kind of scenario puts other skiers at risk, too. Even if rescuers avoid a secondary slide, digging up and transporting a body is a pretty traumatic experience. (Even more traumatic - doing CPR on a dead body. I know from experience, and it ain't pretty.)
So - if you're totally alone, and you know you're going to set off a slide, and you don't have any problems with taking the consequences, and you're not going to risk or ruin anyone else's life in the process - heck, go for it.

But otherwise - I think setting off that slide was a foolish, selfish risk. Surely there were other places he could have safely skied that day.

Snowboard Vacation package wrote on 08/17/10 at 8:15:37 pm pst:

The pics are kinda scary but still exciting to look at. I guess you would really never know when these avalanches would struck.

Search Articles

view all

Name:
Email (will not be published):
Url:
The sum of six plus 7:	spam Check
Message