Canadian Rockies—looking down the Vulture Glacier. Photo: Alex Lee
THR looks at Avalanche Canada’s Mountain Information Network (MIN) and finds a valuable tool for backcountry tourists.
“Beta” can be a divisive subject in backcountry skiing, especially in the niche of steep ski mountaineering. I’m not here to lecture on right or wrong but rather highlight a system we can all learn from: Avalanche Canada’s Mountain Information Network (MIN).
A MIN is a submission to the Mountain Information Network; in the U.S., we call these “obs” or observations. So, what is unique about the MIN? Nothing, really, except how Canadians use and embrace it as a peer-to-peer information sharing system. Let’s dive in.
To better understand how AvCan operates and how locals view the MIN, I spoke with two seasoned locals, Eric Carter, a Squamish-based ski mountaineer, and Grant Statham, an avalanche forecaster for Parks Canada in Canmore.
Carter pointed out that unlike the system in the U.S., which divides avalanche forecast centers by state and then intra-state subregions, Avalanche Canada (AvCan) forecasts for a huge geographical area: Sea-to-Sky, Selkirks, Northwest BC, spanning east to Quebec. Open a map and overlay the size of Utah with Western Canada, and you start to get the picture.
British Columbia alone is an extensive forecast region.
Utah, UAC forecast region, sits center of the screengrab.
Grant explained that AvCan has a central hub of forecasters in Revelstoke that receive information from a wider team of professionals and forecasters working for other agencies. For most British Columbia forecast areas, the Revelstoke-based AvCan forecasters use field teams and telemetry to publish daily forecasts. However, for regions like Banff, Yoho, Kootenay, and Glacier (Rogers Pass), other agencies like Parks Canada will publish forecasts through AvCan’s web platform. In this way, AvCan acts as a country-wide distribution network for information.
If you have ever been on a guided trip in Canada, you probably have heard or seen your guide reference InfoEx. As Carter emphasized, InfoEx is a key resource that AvCan and partner forecasters leverage for daily forecasts. InfoEx is owned and maintained by the Canadian Avalanche Association and collects observations from industrial and commercial operators like guiding services and ski patrollers. It is a subscription-based service, not accessible to the public, and limited to commercial operators who meet CAA professional standards.
InfoEx is gold to Canadian avalanche forecasters; there are way more observations submitted daily through InfoEx than through public observation networks (like MIN), “on the order of 100-150/day,” Grant noted. Not only are the observations more plentiful, they are often of higher quality. This steady stream of professional field information keeps the heartbeat of Canadian avalanche forecasting beating.
While the MIN can be a supplementary source of information for avalanche forecasters, Grant emphasizes in its purest form, the MIN is a public information sharing system. He added, “While AvCan says the MIN is to help make better forecasts, and it does that, even more important is the ability for anyone to share and read conditions from a map.”
Two critical elements to a MIN submission are “real-time” and “location-specific” information.
Real-time observations in the field are precious for all backcountry travelers. Field observations can take many forms, from a picture of “that couloir on Wednesday” to a detailed snow profile or a pit result.
Location-specific information allows for honing in on microclimates, terrain features, and weather patterns that may influence if that steep couloir is “in” or, for example, that hanging snowfield is ready to slide. However, specific location information can be a touchy subject; look no further than people hiding their maps on Strava as an example of this. Scarcity drives a fear of blowing up an uncrowded area, and for good reason. But that’s a story for another day.
Here’s a great example of a MIN that is less about snowpack instability and more about real-time, location-specific information sharing. This group was up in the Yukon, checking out the terrain on a nice sunny day. They reported variable conditions, writing, “You’d have to look pretty hard to find any soft snow.” They recommended bringing along “ski crampons,” mentioned that “the S.W. chutes…skied well enough…” and that “Cleveland is a write-off…a good reset will go a long way.” They also share this PSA— “a glide crack is forming on the main ridge off Cleveland.” One of their group “broke through and went down about 8 feet.”
This MIN combines experience, snowpack observations, and a near-miss in a quick write-up.
The MIN is not unique. Look only at the observation databases of every avalanche center here in the States. There are good examples from NWAC and UAC, respectively, such as:
- “March sun was out to play this AM. Cliffs above Bryant approach and couloir were shedding by 8:30. East slopes were moistening and beginning to slab up. Beautiful morning though!”
- “Going up the Emmas in the morning was interesting; between the riblets and adjacent gullies we got near-ice, a foot+ of unconsolidated nice powder on top of the crust, and some well-defined slab that slid disturbingly easily on a layer above the crust.”
From an observation standpoint—stable wind-buffed powder and some interesting lighting.
However, I want to highlight that the MIN emphasizes submitting general trip reports and travel conditions in addition to snowpack observations. In their explanation page about the MIN, Avalanche Canada separates entries into a few categories:
- Quick reports share general snow, weather, and ice conditions.
- Avalanche reports share information on notable avalanches or overall avalanche conditions.
- Snowpack reports share observations on snowpack depth, layering, and bonding. Snowpack test results are also useful.
- Weather reports share data on temperature, precipitation, wind speed and direction, and cloud cover.
- Incident reports help us all learn by describing close calls and accidents.
There’s an important difference between NWAC/UAC/CAIC/etc., public observations, and the MIN: the latter emphasizes sharing real-time, location-specific experiences. Sure, avalanche and instability-specific reports are important, but there is value beyond solely submitting observations about instabilities. Observations are exactly that: observations. They don’t need to be limited to slides, whumpfs, or cornice falls. What was the snow like? Weather? Travel conditions? These are important elements, too. Why not submit information about good conditions or that no avalanches were observed?
When the snowpack is touchy, the MIN also helps promote peer-to-peer incident reports such as close calls or near misses. In late Feb/early March this year, Canada received 3-4 feet of new snow on top of a faceted crust layer formed by weeks of high pressure. The MIN served as a means for skiers to share their close calls with weak layers and a touchy snowpack. Backcountry users could quickly write preliminary incident reports and submit them for others to learn from.
Here’s a good snippet:
These skiers share how they entered the terrain and share thoughtful reflections on how the outcome was “very obvious,” that many indicators “were overshadowed by great skiing earlier in the day,” a classic heuristic trap.
Here’s another example:
This group walked away unharmed but explained how they experienced a remotely triggered release. Further, they clarified how they managed the danger and changed their plan for the rest of the day. This concise debrief could have been a conversation just among this group over beers, but instead, they shared for others to learn from. Backcountry touring is often a feedback-absent environment; you see the immediate consequences of your actions, or you don’t. This either-or duality makes learning from near misses especially difficult. Through the MIN, hundreds of other people can learn from this group’s near miss without being exposed to the same dangers.
I’ll re-state Grant’s statement because it’s spot on: “In its purest form, MIN is a public information sharing system.”
I experienced this first hand over the winter holidays this past year. I live in Seattle, which is only a 4-hour drive from Pemberton/Whistler. While that drive may not be a large barrier to entry, other intangibles make the quick trip up north seem more daunting: a border crossing, different speed limits measured in km, and, more importantly, an entirely different avalanche center and forecasting system.
My ski partner and I were not as familiar with the terrain, nor the snowpack, of the Coast Range or Selkirks, as we are in the Cascades. We felt off-balance entering an area and snowpack we hadn’t been tracking meticulously.
Enter the MIN. Before heading into the backcountry, we could read up on what folks had seen the past few days. Many observations weren’t specific to avalanches or snowpack instabilities; some were as simple as ‘We went here, skied this, and it was good/bad/ugly.”
Below are some basic examples:
For us, this sharing of knowledge was priceless. From the comfort and safety of our laptops, we could identify where we did and did not want to explore. This peer-to-peer information exchange happened between total strangers connected only by the MIN.
I’ll go out on a limb here and say we can all do better in sharing our experiences. The MIN is just one example of how, within a systematic structure, we can improve. To be clear, I’m not suggesting we all share our prized objectives, secret powder stashes, and favorite nooks and crannies in our local mountain ranges. Scarcity is a real issue, yet experience and decision-making are others. There is room to do better when sharing what we find on our dawn patrol or weekend powder journey.
This season I’ve tried to regularly practice taking field notes on my phone using voice dictation, then submitting them as an obs once I get home. It’s quick, easy, and doesn’t interrupt my movement along the skintrack. I don’t name-drop precisely where I toured to avoid blowing up local nooks and crannies, but I share what I saw during the day, how the travel was, and any instabilities I noticed. I have benefitted firsthand from others’ observations in the past and feel it’s an appropriate way to pay it forward, not to mention it gives local forecasters additional information.
Learn more about a local forecast/conditions initiative in the South Coast of British Columbia.
Maybe think for a second when you get home if there’s a benefit to submitting an observation to your local avalanche center. Maybe you don’t want to submit your exact location because of the scarcity element—that’s fine. But is there something you observed that could inform a forecaster, skier, or snowboarder about what they might find?
Thankfully, the MIN is not a social media platform where you can like, subscribe, follow, comment, etc. This keeps it rooted in its purest purpose: information transfer from one recreationalist-to-another. Think about it.
