Editor’s note: After a long-weekend in Bozeman with the older child, I planned to head to SLC to tour with Pete Vordenberg. And, well, as the news from the Tahoe region and more localized slides and accidents became apparent where Pete and I planned to tour in the Wasatch, I headed home to Bend. It’s not that I didn’t trust myself or Pete. It’s simply that I wanted to be less proximal to any potential woomphing, or to tax myself making “wise” choices that are really disguised luck. And, yes, we could have found safe low-angle terrain. That was Monday. Pete and I chatted on the phone that day. We discussed writing something related to all the bad news. (Below is what Pete sent along.)
Then, early Wednesday morning, my phone rang. Unable to locate it immediately, I let the call go. Seconds later, phone in hand, I could see a near-real-time transcription of the message. In short, it was the “call me,” type message. I could tell, without listening, that the tone was morose. Stratton Matteson, a beloved individual here in town, had lost his life in an avalanche on Tuesday. So I sat on Pete’s short essay for a few days. Please proceed with the reading. But, as always, please proceed with caution. But also take a moment to be joyous like Stratton, who was the most stoked out there.
***
There is deep, soft snow. And there are bold lines drawn upon it. And there have been several deaths and serious injuries in the last few days.
If we have been out backcountry skiing, then it is probably not true to say we have been smarter or better educated than anyone else. It is likely more accurate to say that some of us have been lucky. Some of us have not.
This season, I have been directly under four slides that passed just before and/or just after I was there. As in minutes and in one case maybe an hour.
For now, let’s put away arguments against free-will; we will return to that, but let’s just say that decisions matter. Decisions led me to be in these places, and luck let me walk away.
Some may say, “Hey, you balance risk vs. reward.”
Yes.
And I do not believe there is actually much of an equation there. Because, despite our experience and education, the feedback we get on our risky endeavors is completely skewed. Typically, we weigh an idea of risk or potential consequence against an actual experience of reward. The idea of risk actually weighs nothing. Even with a risk rating, the actual risk is conceptual.
If there is an equation, it might be something like this:
The avalanche danger is this, as rated by yourself and/or others: dangerous or safe.
The choices you have are these: ride it or don’t.
The potential outcomes change greatly, incrementally, or not at all, based on those choices.
Among us backcountry skiers, there are people for whom a pretty high risk is going to be a given. These tourers knowingly choose big risks and are presumably comfortable with that. There are people who take very, very low risks. They do not put themselves in harm’s way, though it still carries some risk. Most of us probably bounce around between these extremes. We are choosing to ride the most fun thing we can, thinking we are wisely mitigating the known risks. We are using our education to some degree, but we are also using our experience. This is the big point: the feedback from our experience has very likely not been accurate. We are alive and unharmed, and so we think we’re making good or at least good enough choices. Our experience is actually working against us, but this does not become apparent until it does.
I am certainly in this middle group. My risk tolerance bounces around based on a shifting conglomeration of factors. I am probably making good choices sometimes within the context of skiing fun terrain. And I know I am also one lucky bastard.
Is there anything to do here? What do I need to hear or read? Are we simply playing a game where some of us are going to get hurt and die? Should we just do our best and know it may not work out? Or is there something we as a community are missing?
Lack of free will might actually be the argument we should better investigate. Our actions may, in fact, stem from circumstances and conditions set in motion long before they take place. Our decisions may, in fact, only serve to justify what we do. If this is the case, as a community, could we and should we create the conditions that lead to safer actions? Certainly, in a way, this is happening. Because so many people are out skiing and riding, and the number of deaths has not risen correspondingly, things like avalanche forecasts, classes, articles, and so on influence our behavior.
But what about me? My actions are not always in line with coming home. And I am far from alone in that. We have made a circle. Are my actions the result of freely made decisions or pre-determined based on conditioning? Maybe it doesn’t matter. If I want to be sure to come home, I must create the psychological conditions and protocols ahead of time that make the safe choice easier to make. When I am tempted away from the safe terrain I’ve decided on for the day into the steeper terrain I originally crossed off the list, how will I develop a system that overrides a lack of discipline to avoid that temptation? With all that is written, and that I have read, the accidents, the warnings, the ratings, what is it I still need hear?
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.