Originally Posted by
wra
My preference would be to end the emphasis on "hazard" rating. The terms are relative to the point of being almost meaningless at times.
If it snows six inches and the wind blows, the "hazard" will often jump to considerable even though the pre-existing snow was stable, without weak layering. Managing the subjective "hazard" can be accomplished, for the most part, by ski cuts.
If it snows the same six inches with wind on a snow cover already burdened with load or persistent weak layering, the same "considerable" hazard rating is given even though conditions are much different and difficult to manage. The "hazard" and consequences of that hazard are greater even though the labeling remains unchanged.
Same with the compilation of statistics.
Looking at ten year period examples:
The eighties, for example, had low fatality rates, but the avi centers were lobbying for more money to keep those figures low.
The nineties, fatalities rose, even with better funding, so damn, we need increased funds because people are dying.
Weather and snow are the decision makers and recreators should learn how to manage based on those changes, not whatever someone decides the hazard is.