E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSSThree skiers were killed in Washington after an avalanche swept them about 2,000 feet. Elyse Saugstad, a professional skier who survived the incident, says she's "absolutely devastated" over the loss of her friends. NBC's Kristen Dahlgren reports.
STEVENS PASS, Wash. -- Well-equipped and familiar with the terrain, about a dozen expert skiers were making their way through a foot-and-a half of fresh snow when an avalanche hit them in an out-of-bounds area near a popular Washington ski resort on Sunday.
Three men were killed when they were swept about a quarter-mile down a canyon, and a fourth skier caught up in the slide was saved by a safety device, authorities said.
The large group had split into three smaller groups before the avalanche, but all the back-country skiers were buried to some extent, authorities said. Those who were able to free themselves rushed to dig out the victims and unsuccessfully performed CPR on the three.
"Most of the people involved in this were well-known to the ski community up here, especially to the ski patrol," said Deputy Chris Bedker of the King County Sheriff's search-and-rescue unit. "It was their friends who they recovered."
Read King5.com's story on Avalanche survivor: 'It feels like you're in a washing machine'
The men who died on Stevens Pass tumbled approximately 1,500 feet down a chute in the Tunnel Creek Canyon area, King County Sheriff's Sgt. Katie Larson said.
They were identified as Chris Rudolph, Jim Jack and John Brenan. All of them were believed to be in their 30s and 40s.
The fourth skier who was swept down the mountain about 80 miles northeast of Seattle was a woman who appeared to avoid a similar fate because of the avalanche safety device she was wearing, Larson said.
Elyse Saugstad, a professional skier originally from Alaska, survived the fatal slide.
"We didn't anticipate it, but when we saw it happening we knew exactly what was happening and it's amazing how quickly an avalanche happens and it progresses," Saugstad told the TODAY show.
Saugstad said she immediately pulled the lever on her avalanche safety backpack. The backpack inflates an airbag around your upper body and lifts you above the avalanche, so you stay on top of the snow.
Saugstad suffered minor injuries in the avalanche. She credits the avalanche safety backpack for saving her life.
"Don't get me wrong. It's not like you're taking an inner tube ride down some snow fill. You're definitely in the avalanche and it feels like you're in a washing machine and being flipped and tumbled," Saugstad said. "It's white the entire way -- it's very scary."
The Stevens Pass fatalities were part of a deadly Sunday on Washington ski slopes. A male snowboarder was killed in a separate avalanche incident at the Alpental ski area east of Seattle, authorities said.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
More content from msnbc.com and NBC News
Leave a Comment:
Every winter in WA we lose people to avalanches and snow-wells. Every summer we lose them in the rivers.
If we have a problem its that we glamorize and popularize the extreme sports approach to using our natural resources. The amount of people unprepared for the environment, but "totally wanting to own it" grows as a result. And then, you know... Darwin.
Experienced back country skiers know exactly what they're getting themselves into, as much as any hunter or naturalist does. You cast your lot my man, I'm sure they enjoyed living while they did.
Survival of the smartest...though the article doesn't say whether the men were wearing a similar safetypack, it makes you wonder if it's 'less manly' to have one when the rest of the guys don't have one, unless you're a 'girl'.
"expert skiers' in a out-of-bounds area..all IDIOTS!
mike277, Don't get me wrong, I've never been skiing before in my life. But while I agree it was reckless of them to be in an out-of-bounds area, I don't really think avalanches give much credence to such things. Avalanches can strike areas that are "in-bounds," too, and kill just as many people. Once again, I've never been skiing, so maybe it's easier to rescue people in-bounds or maybe there are avalanche safety areas in-bounds, I have no idea. But an avalanche is deadly no matter where you are on the mountain.
No offense Mike but "out of bounds" doesn't mean they were doing something illegal, it simply means they were skiing in terrain that is not patrolled by the ski area. The article would have been more accurate to refer to them as back country skiers. To ski in side or back country places all burden of personal safety on ones self. If you shortcut the steps to mitigate the danger, then chances are good your family will bury you in the ground after the avalanche has buried you in the snow. You can only mitigate the risks, they can never be eliminated. Having skied hike-to terrain, I can fully appreciate the ever growing draw to ski these lines, the adrenalin rush is unreal and you want to do it more, the more you do it.
I Kinda thought that "Elyse Saugstad" was kinda Hott myself - she should be a model or something, anybody else think she was Hott ??? Swim Suit illustrated should put her on the cover !
According to my local news, they were warned about possible avalanches in that out of bounds area but they went anyways. Mike is right--"Idiots". You ignore a warning. . . . .
Mike
Expert Skiers almost always ski out of bounds. They are not much for freshly groomed slopes and newbies running into them all day. Often they even pay extra to be helicoptered in. Untouched white powder (not cola) is their drug. If they could speak now, they would probably say that they knew what they were risking and still chose to do it. And you can bet that the lucky woman who survived will be doing it again someday soon. It's a rush, just like surfing, skydiving or any other sport that can kill you whenever it's time.
What isn't discussed here is that those involved in this tragic event were, for the most part, all involved in the ski industry and aware of the dangers resulting from this sport.
For those of you who want more information than what's given before making a comment, ESPN has a more in-depth account of what happened as the editor for their Freeskiing website was amount the people in the group.
This, like the unfortunate passing of Freeskier Sarah Burke weeks ago, is a consequence of people doing what they love...experiencing the environment around them. They weren't "tempting fate," "pushing the limits," or whatever current buzzword people are using these days to describe sports and athletes that they fail to understand. They were simply pursuing a passion for a lifestyle. It's despicable that people are so callously faulting their decisions to go out and enjoy life as they saw fit when more people die each year from worse lifestyle choices each year than skiing.
4 people lost their lives and it's tragic and it happens but the comment's that degrade to "serves them right" are just cruel.
When you go skiing..the slopes have a skill level for every range of skill. When it states out-of-bounds,that means NO SKIING IN THAT AREA too dangerous.
With all due respect to you, Patrook, Darwin had nothing to do with it. You heard the survivor-they were all highly experienced skiers very adept at skiing in this type of context.
The reason I'm bringing this up is because people often associate Darwin's 'Survival of the Fittest' statement to mean that only the best and toughest organisms/animals/humans survive when that is not always the case-as in this story.
Their demise had nothing to do with them not being 'fit'-in fact, arguably they were quite fit-not just to ski but intellectually fit with the knowledge of this type of skiing--way fitter than your average Joe.
One could say that the woman who survived was smart to have the air pack that saved her life but that doesn't necessarily make her 'fit'-she just had the warewithall to have it, which makes her lucky to have put that on. So, yeah, sometimes it's about luck, and timing and maybe a bit of preparation but that doesn't necessarily point to 'fitness'.
This statement often gets misused and my 2 cents about it is merely an attempt at bringing a better understanding of it.
Dan had this to say:
Or, perhaps, they were adrenaline junkies? It amuses me that when upper class people who engage in risky behaviors experience a negative outcome, the rest of us wind up paying ridiculous amounts of money to rescue them or at least recover their bodies (guess who's paying for this rescue--not the families of the deceased). On the other hand, when working class and lower class people engage in risky behaviors (like, you know, eating more than a handful of rice every other day--given that they cannot afford argula and salmon) and experience a negative outcome, the upper class people scream about having to pay for other people's "poor lifestyle choices."
It can cost tens of thousands to millions of dollars--not to mention risking the life of professional rescuers--to go and fetch people enjoying "sports" out in the wilderness, on a mountain, in the desert, or at sea. The people who enjoy those sports do not pay for the helicopters, nor for the personnel who must be kept on call, nor for the ridiculous costs of their rescue. However, it is too much to pay, apparently, to fix the tooth of a child who later dies when the tooth infection goes to his brain.
When the people who "pursue a passion for a lifestyle" pay the full costs (the roads that lead to areas where people do not need to go, the rescue personnel, the rescue equipment) of that lifestyle, then we can talk. But, until then, you are taking chances that you do not need to take, costing the rest of us a tremendous amount of money, and risking the lives of people who really should be concentrating on helping those who need rescuing through no fault of their own and just through bad luck.
Let's put it this way--people who enjoy self-asphyxia or methamphetimine or alcohol binges are also "pursuing a passion for a lifestyle." They are also extremely foolish. I do not admire and do not sympathize with them when they wind up experiencing negative outcomes--just as I do not admire, have no plans to emulate, and do not sympathize with these skiers (especially when a simple bit of safety equipment apparently would have dramatically increased their chances of survival).
I sympathize with the families for their losses--but I do not sympathize with well-to-do people who have too much money and too much time on their hands and choose to use it engaging in pointless activities which principally get them "high" on adrenaline. They were pointless back in the 1920s when these activities were yachting and their polo (both of which, by the way, have a high degree of danger)--and they are pointless now.
When you assert that others are too foolish to understand your "sport," you might want to stop and consider that it isn't others who are foolish--adrenaline junkies are adrenaline junkies, whether they are playing with self-asphyxia or skiing. It's the same rush, and it is all foolish.
nicetolceaouce, you need to get off this page. Why doesn't someone take this one off?
Beanathome, I'm in complete agreement with you. Over here in Holland, everyone's concerned about the Dutch prince Johan Friso, who was buried under an avalanche in Austria. He was also skiing out of bounds and also not wearing a safety device. Another person was wearing such a device and is OK. Who paid for the rescue and who's paying his hospital costs? I suspect it's not the Dutch royal family.
I have met Jim Jack at a freeski contest and he was a humble upbeat and friendly guy. The others that died were all known to our ski community and loved. Please keep your crass comments to yourself until the families have had time to grieve their loss. It's pretty easy to sit behind your keyboard and mock and belittle the actions of people who are dead and can't defend themselves. What a poor miserable existence you must live. Maybe you should get outside, breath some fresh air, maybe climb a mountain and then ski back down it. Then you may have an idea about what it means to live....
I have spent many years skiing in the backcountry. I have a couple of points I'd like to make.
1-It is no more illegal to ski out of bounds or in the "backcountry" than it is to hike in those same woods when there is no snow. The only time it is illegal is if you access those slopes from a ski resort that has a closed boundary. There is no indication that was done in this case.
2-Walking out your front door is risky. So is pumping gas in your car. So is skiing inbounds. If you were to pass out behind the wheel due to a diabetic coma because of all the Twinkies you've eaten (lifestyle choice) and crash your car is it fair to say that the fire department shouldn't rescue you or you have to pay for them to rescue you? No. Search and Rescue teams are nearly all 100% volunteer, pay for their own gear and most usually they are BC skiers and enthusiasts who do it to help the community they care about.
3-The best way to increase your odds in BC skiing (and any endeavor) is to educate yourself about the risks and the best ways to mitigate those risks. Even that is no guarantee. All members of this group were highly educated and experienced BC skiers. Only thing assured in life is death and taxes. I am very sad death came too early for this group.
Please be careful out there my fellow BC travelers! And because I choose not to hate on you for your lifestyle choice please be careful out there Twinky eaters....
Scary stuff. Time to buy stock in whatever company makes that airbag thingy. Pretty convincing test drive.
The North Face I think makes the backpack.
I mean really? kids do these type things ignore "OUT OF BOUNDS" signs which is to bad for all around. God bless all and all who decide to ignore this warning next time to ;/
The airbag backpacks are made by BCA (Backcountry Access), a privately held company in Boulder, Colorado.
thewary.com northface there will be many
Expert or not... They were still "Out-of-Bounds." These "experts" push the limits and think they can get a rush... only to get dead!
Out of bounds is a descriptive term not a legal term
I'm an "adrenaline junkie", always have been and always will be. I've come close to getting myself killed several times. If you too are a thrill seeker you'll understand these skiers. If not, don't bother trying.
I crashed a motorcycle: double compound fracture of my right femur; broken right tibia and fibula; three broken right metatarsals; crushed left heel; nearly severed my left arm just above the elbow; right knee broken into three pieces; three inguinal hernias and a blood-red left eye. I ordered a new bike while still in the hospital.
Stupid? Maybe. Selfish? Totally. Would I do it again? Probably.
We do things most people say are stupid, but we don't care. It's similar to an addiction. The fact that we might die is part of the thrill. You may not understand it, but it's fun. :-)
How did this turn into all about you?
RIP to all the skiers lost that day. So glad to hear Elyse's device worked.
Narcisist much?
LOL. I live for the thrill. My only fault is I'm too courageous; you all would never understand. I once performed open-heart surgery on myself; not because I needed it... just cause I wanted to see how it felt. I beat the crap out of both Chuck Norris and the most interesting man in the world.
Hmmm... I guess my post does look a bit (lot) narcissistic. Crap! Not my intent. I was trying to counter the negative posts by trying to explain why folks like the skiers were doing what they were doing.
Seems I had an epic fail.
JQ- Since I am the most interesting man in the world and no one has ever beat the crap out of me, your story is a big fat lie. ;-)
I'm thinking lnh022459 just isn't a very good motorcycle rider.
darwin lives.
@ ian-3032102 and the rest of you making "darwin" comments...you're p.o.s. cowards who probably spend your lives sitting your fat a$$ on the couch...show some respect. These were very respected individuals in the community, with family and friends...obviously things you have none of!!
There is an out-of-bounds for a reason. So, they go ahead and selfishly kill themselves, not thinking about their families, etc. Or the cost for search and rescue , etc. that the public pays through our taxes for a selfish event.
"Out of Bounds" do you people know what that means? All it means is they are out of the ski area boundary. These people knew it well and were prepared, sometimes you cannot predict the future. RIP.
Almost all cross country ski trips are "out of bounds"
Back country allot of them don't understand the whole out of bounds thing . They are to fast to make a ignorant comment right off the bat. We skiers are like aliens to them. This was just a sad sad story. My condolences to the victims families.
really worldtravel.......and you have NEVER EVER done something in your life that would be labeled 'SELFISH???? they did what they love.......and they died because of that love.....have some sympathy for the families they left behind....and please dont ever go to a funeral and tell everyone there 'They died because they were SELFISH'!!! Just pure stupidiness on your part!! I dont ski, never have.....but that doesnt make them selfish, it only makes them HUMAN......which you seem to forget because you are so quick to judge......sad for them and sad for you....indeed!!!
i would like to say this..we in washington state lost 3 great skiers and almost a 4th to one mountain and we do loose a 4th to another mountain. please understand the washington law on out of bounds. it means ski at own risk. out of bounds closed. means no skiing. this is not bout all of you. this is bout 4 men who lost there lives. alvanchles have no mercy on where and when they hit. it is like screaming at an ocean to stop a wave. not gonna happen. they weren't stupid. they were great skiers and loved by many. get off your arses and get on the slopes and see what we see from there. maybe u might come to love the same sport and not just talk bout it. i was once told if u hang with bowlers u will b a bowler. if you hang with fisherman you will b a fisherman. and once again most likely not have tossed a bowling ball or casted a line. but all can learn the talk.
Wandi - Maybe they should have thought about the "families they left behind" before they took the risk. If they are now compromising the qualities of those lives, if others truly depended on them, then shame on those selfish fools for taking those unnecessary risks.
Survival of the smartest...though the article doesn't say whether the men were wearing a similar safetypack, it makes you wonder if it's 'less manly' to have one when the rest of the guys don't have one, unless you're a 'girl'.
Most ski areas have "out of bounds" areas that aren't served by the ski area (no lifts or ski patrol), but are acceptable to ski...this is one of those areas. Some ski areas even have buses that pick up the "out of bounds" skiers and takes them back to the lift lines.
Brentand, my sister used to be a mountain climber, and she stopped the minute her son was born. If you have a family, you have no right to risk your life just so you can get your jollies. That's monumentally selfish, don't you think?
I respect your opinion and comments, but this is another discussion entirely...one I'm not willing to have here. All I was saying is show some respect.
Does your sister drive to the store? Probably more likely to die driving to the supermarket than climbing any mountain. What does mountain climber mean anyway? Climbed Mt. Si, Mt. Rainier or K2? It's all about calculated risk. These people are less extreme than your statement as the run they were on has been skied/boarded thousands of times. They were properly equipped and knowledgeable - they really cannot be faulted. These airbag backpacks will and should be considered mandatory equipment as this is not the first person potentially saved by one during an avalanche. Even with an airbag one could experience severe trauma and die just like in a car. Too many armchair athletes making comments.
Okay, fair enough. I'm not part of the Darwin/serves-them-right crowd either, I just get ticked off when people are willing to risk ruining lives just so they can have a little fun. And these weren't dumb 20-year-olds who thought they were invincible, they were people who knew the risks they were taking. I'm not mocking them, but it's difficult for me to work up much respect for them either.
I have been driving for 40 years without a problem. When I ski the backcountry, I have a healthy respect for avalanche risk, and have been certified to level I, which of course makes me more dangerous. These people unfortunately ignored red flags. if you read the woman's blog who survived, she had very little backcountry experience. Narcissistic, yes, experienced, no. There was some kind of disconnect that day, apparently.
Face it Americans--hell, humans--are into stupidity! Whether it's "sitting your fat a$$ on the couch", or screwing your way through life w/o protection, or getting your high from chemicals, or skiing in avalanche chutes; you are making "stupid" decisions that someone else will ultimately pay for. You know, Darwinian selection. Or you could live your life perfectly, every health risk mitigated, and you get run over by a bus. Darwin.
I don't object to how someone else travels though life-though sometimes I'm envious (I'm looking at YOU wildlife cameramen!), but I do object to unnecessarily paying for it. In this case, if you are in an identified out-of bounds area, you either pay for the insurance, post a bond, or take you chances. If you ain't covered ahead of time, your remains will be recovered in the spring.
That may seem callous. Sorry. If you knowingly put yourself in harms way for the "rush", then put SAR folks in danger to rescue/recover you, that ain't living life "on the edge", its reckless.
If you get hit by a bus, Darwin has nothing to do with it. That would be called chance. Every aspect of life has an element of fateful chance, including avalanches. Many more people survive rather than die during backcountry ski trips each year.
But seriously, the 'Darwin' phrase is being thrown around much too loosely here by people who clearly don't understand it's meaning.
Sorry charlie...er, bobody, Darwinism includes "chance" or as science might call it, chaos theory.
Chaos theory and Darwinism might not be mutually exclusive, but they are not part of the same theory. They are distinct. When referring to Darwinism, you reference the fitness of individuals based on the traits they possess and their ability to reproduce and pass those traits on to their offspring. Survival of the fittest. Getting randomly hit by a bus does or an avalanche not play into this theory, and likely reflects very little about your collection of traits.
Sorry to rant off topic, but jargon like this is making science to public interactions hard enough as it is.
I live in the mountains of SW Montana and spend most of my days skiing/touring in the backcountry and/or out-of-bounds(OB). I am in avalanche terrain almost everyday. This was tragic, no doubt...but from what I have read and applied to my own extensive backcountry/OB experience, there were obvious poor decision-making skills at play in this event.
Timing: 2-feet of snow in 48hr period is the first glaring RED FLAG! Exiting snowpacks need time to adjust to a new load of snow. A rapid loading event like 2'/48hr will stress almost any snowpack to the breaking point, much less an already suspect one(I believe Stevens Pass has been rated "MODERATE/CONSIDERABLE" avalanche danger leading up to this point). This was the first poor decision that put the rest in motion.
Terrain: They were skiing in a complete and obvious avalanche runout zone. A snow loaded ridge over defined chute/gully lined by trees, but lacking grown trees is a clear visual sign of historic and continued avalanche activity. This is the second glaring RED FLAG compounding the first.
Lack of One-by-One protocol: One skier in the chute/gully at a time, period. The other ten should have been off to the side, in the trees observing the ONE skier in the danger zone. Should anything happen, you now have ten fully capable(hopefully) party member with eyes and functioning extremities to conduct a search for the ONE skier caught in the slide. There is no excuse for all members to be in the slide path at the same time.
In closing, there is no substitute for common sense and a qualified backcountry education. There is an extremely dangerous trend happening in the big mountains around the world(besides the loss of our winters) and it has everything to do with undereducated, overly confident people venturing into terrain they have no business being in. You can be the most experienced skier with a spanking new pack, shovel, probe and transceiver, but if you don't KNOW HOW TO USE these "worst case scenario" pieces of equipment which take extensive practice just to be competent, you are useless to your party. I'm sure these people were very experienced, but they did make some very critical mistakes that they could have avoided and therefore saved lives. This saddens me as a human being and I wish the families and friends and quick healing process, but the mountains give and take and if you don't respect, people die. The mountains aren't for everyone...
Exactly Yeti-22. For reasons known only to them, they ignored very obvious danger signs that should have screamed "stay off". For those of you unfamiliar with the term "out of bounds", it is really irrelevant to the story, more accurately, these were back country skiers who didn't follow the proper protocol when engaging in such activity. Even then there is the chance a slope will release even after successful runs by previous skiers, but as Yeti-22 pointed out, you go 1-at-a-time to minimize the risk and maximize the odds of a successful recovery if the worst happens.
I would have waited until my friends were buried before making public comments on their deaths on national television. I find it in poor taste.
Yeti, thank you for bringing some very well-reasoned and knowledgeable points to the discussion. Obviously they ignored several red-flags and they paid for it. Bet they would rather be living to ski another day! You also make it so obvious that most commenters really have no idea what they are talking about. Thank you.
Yes we will be reading this account in "Mountaineering Accidents in North America, 2012', which is some of my favorite bedtime reading. About what NOT to do. As Yeti 22 points out there were red flags here, Just because the "girl" had an airbag doesn't make it right. She got lucky. Yes perhaps those airbags can save lives, but it does not give you the green light to ignore the RED FLAGS!! I just hope this doesn't give such good press that "I've got an airbag, I can go wherever I want" More like " I am an airhead". An airbag does not prevent all the collateral damage that happens in an avalanche. PS If all these people were so experienced, why were most of them not wearing beacons? Amazing lack of discipline.
In December 2007, Good Morning America wanted to interview my son who had survived the first avalanche in Utah of that ski season. He declined. A second skier was severely injured in another avalanche that erupted nearby, shortly after the first. My son stated, it felt as if he had been encased in cement upon planting.
Trees were situated everywhere in the course, and he did meet with one. He had been instructed to keep one arm stretched upward if caught in an avalanche rapids roll when it slowed to its end, which he did. He used his one extended hand to dig his face out of the stilled snow. By God's grace, he was not extensively hurt and was located shortly after.
My husband and I praise the LORD Jesus Christ for his survival. (1 John 5:10-13)
I'm glad that you son made it out alive. How terrifying it must have been for those guys. A person would have no idea what it would be like unless you have been through it.
Yeti22, if an expert can immediately see how dangerous the run is, shouldn't it have been listed as off limits instead of out of bounds?
SeattleJack - If it's not patrolled, it's not controlled...since they were in the backcountry/OB, no ski patrol is responsible for the terrain.
This is off limits and out of bounds. They are only call it "back country" so people won't think ill of the dead and call them stupid. It's the same thing. It was off limits. You're not supposed to be there for this very reason. It was dangerous. The avalanche danger was very high and there were warnings.
eat,drink,and be merry, for tomorrow u die-------word to the wise
Val Lee - Glad to hear your son survived and was spared more serious injury. Also condolences to those who died and to those who were injured in that avalanche and to their loved ones.
I have had an opportunity to enjoy much of the natural beauty of Washington States outdoors. The hiking, climbing, rivers and snowboarding is awesome there. I have at times puckered up a bit with some close calls but I also live in Dallas and fear for my safety as much or more on the highways here and by all the thugs with guns on the streets.
My thoughts go out to the fallen skiers, their families and friends...
From the article:"Elyse Saugstad, a professional skier who survived the incident, says she's "absolutely devastated" over the loss of her friends"....
They were ALL in an "out-of-bounds" area, now what does that tell you?
Experts?
I call it Dawinism.., let's see now how this Saugstag gal "evolves"....
Will she go out of bounds again?
Thrill junkies. If I got a rush out of crashing cars into telephone poles at 60 mph, what would you say? If I died, what would you say? I imagine you all would be sad at my death, right?!
SAD But when the laws of Physics are the JUDGE and
the verdict is Skier error there is no reprieve. RIP
if people want to push the limits let them to do it!! its their life and if they want to live it that way then let them! if it dosent affect your life. Its dumb in my opinion to go in out of bounds areas but thats just my opinion.
* happens when you ski out of bounds. There's a reason those areas are declared out of bounds; i.e., avalanche danger, cliffs, etc. Arrogant skiers ignore the warnings, then expect rescuers to put their lives at risk to save them. In Washington State, out-of-bound survivors foot the rescue bill and rightly so.
Surfing can be dangerous also. Choose your fun or sit at home in front of the tv. You may die early from the food and beer doing that !
Anyone who is of the "Darwin" attitude needs to spend some time up in the Cascade area of Washington/Oregon. That is a backyard for most of the people who grew up on the coast. People in Michigan flock to the lakes in the summer, we flock to the slopes in the winter. Out-of-bounds simply means unpatrolled, enter at your own risk - like swimming without the lifeguard. It does not mean that the avalanche was predicted or that conditions were particularly hazardous. I really get sick and tired of this blame the victim mentality. And I am very offended by those who complain about the cost of search and rescue missions. Should we stop funding 911 because people have heart attacks and people like to eat red meat? Grow up!
you forget the RECENT snowfall is a red flag for avalanches. Obviously these people ignored the signs. Go get a book or take a course. It is not that difficult to recognize on the west coast. Much more difficult in the drier climates Utah and Colorado..
Experienced skiers die in avalanche. Where have I hears this before?