3 Caught, 1 Still Missing, Marble, CO

[dmcd]

Yep, and that entire track is gone in the slide photos.

[Danno]

Ah, missed the caption for the photo in the report.

If that doesn't put the whole heuristic trap of "just gonna poke around, take a look, scout" into focus... Wow.

[goldenboy]

That second pic, does it show their skin track on the left edge zig-zagging up the slope?

Yes. That thing kept luring them on, 10' at a time...

[Yukonrider]

Attachment 453416
Attachment 453417

Beautiful but terrifying knowing the forecast and what the next few minutes would bring. To think back to what they'd started the day having planned and where they ended up.

Wow, these had to have been taken minutes before their lives changed forever.

[MakersTeleMark]

Vallecito is where I would die. I've worked on lines for 5-8 years and backed off after severe commitment each time. I have no problem with that when my nose doesn't smell like perfect fucking peaches, but Vallecito would get me every time. Hell, I did that on a sidecountry line this past week. Just turned the fuck around.

[John_B]

In looking for lessons from this one thing I'm thinking about is hypothermia/frostbite. Does anyone have an idea of what low temperatures were for the night that the survivors were making their way out?

Reading that report makes me want to give everyone involved a hug. What a terrible series of events and a true miracle that two of them survived.


Edit: After thinking about this a bit more I'm certain my touring group doesn't bring enough warm stuff in case of accident so that's one of my takeaways.

[concierge]

I’m just a newbie jong looking to learn - how much would the 48 reported avalanches (up to size 3) in the week prior factor into decision making about even getting onto any steep alpine slopes - regardless of how disciplined you are about wide spacing and regardless of how safe it will be once you summit the ridge top

(maybe that’s too complicated to answer in a general sense and is more dependent on what you are seeing in the immediate zone surrounding you?)

Not trying to Monday morning QB, but in the effort helping you gather some takeaways here are my thoughts. I was skiing in the area the day before this happened. It has been relatively stable in Marble all season, but the day before this there were several large avalanches in the area. It was known that E aspects were reactive from the recent storm. That would give me enough pause to at least put more margin in elsewhere. That margin would come from either not skiing avy terrain, or if I were to ski avy terrain I would expose 1 person at a time, ski a planar slope with no exposure or terrain traps, not bring my dog, and ski it earlier in the day.

[summit]

They didn't plan to go there that day so why not bring the dog along? And there's no problem with the dog walking up the skin track with them (their plan wasn't to ski that terrain). The ridge heading south to their objective could be different if it's knifelike or if the cornices are a problem. There are reasons not to bring a doggoe, and many of those reasons depend on the dog. The dog wasn't the problem in this case. The problem was their frothing and their inexplicable decision of riders 2 and 3 to start up before 1 made it to the ridge.

But they did bring the dog, then went places inappropriate for a dog.

Dogs don't derive enjoyment from terrain because they are happy basically anywhere. All they care about is being out with their human. Gnar, summits, and objectives are 100% about human desires, not that of the pet.

Dogs don't understand start/safe zones nor 1 by 1 travel. Neither do some humans.

Pets don't belong in avalanche terrain. Neither do some humans... even those that do are capable of human error.

[dmcd]

Taking a dog is a great reason to back out of proposed consequential stuff or is a good excuse to turn back and could limit the ratcheting up of objectives.

[Danno]

Taking a dog is a great reason to back out of proposed consequential stuff or is a good excuse to turn back and could limit the ratcheting up of objectives.

exactly. the idea that it was fine because they didn't originally intend to go there, and it was fine to continue up that ridge because they didn't intend to ski that line, seems ludicrous to me. I will say that looking at those pics says to me that bringing the dog was definitely not their biggest mistake, but it definitely was a mistake.

[bennymac]

Not trying to Monday morning QB, but in the effort helping you gather some takeaways here are my thoughts. I was skiing in the area the day before this happened. It has been relatively stable in Marble all season, but the day before this there were several large avalanches in the area. It was known that E aspects were reactive from the recent storm. That would give me enough pause to at least put more margin in elsewhere. That margin would come from either not skiing avy terrain, or if I were to ski avy terrain I would expose 1 person at a time, ski a planar slope with no exposure or terrain traps, not bring my dog, and ski it earlier in the day.

Gotcha - thanks

[powdork]

But they did bring the dog, then went places inappropriate for a dog.

Dogs don't derive enjoyment from terrain because they are happy basically anywhere. All they care about is being out with their human. Gnar, summits, and objectives are 100% about human desires, not that of the pet.

Dogs don't understand start/safe zones nor 1 by 1 travel. Neither do some humans.

Pets don't belong in avalanche terrain. Neither do some humans... even those that do are capable of human error.

Really sweeping statements there. I'm sure you meant some qualifications to 'pets don't belong in avalanche terrain'. A dog doesn't need to understand any of those things if he just understands 'here'. My point is, they brought the dog, then they went places inappropriate for people. And they did it poorly. If a dog is well behaved (mine aren't) they don't present additional avalanche risk. Yes the dog shouldn't have been there, but only because the entire party shouldn't have been there. There are definitely places, conditions where a dog shouldn't be but skiers can safely navigate. That wasn't one of them.
Don't get me wrong. I wish I could drive there and look for Ullr with my dogs who are like souls. It has me very sad. But that doesn't mean they shouldn't have been together that day. Everything still lies on their decision to push forward, and then their putting themselves all in harm's way at once.

[Alpinord]

It’s not a gray decision. It’s red or green for me regarding bringing a dog, much less even considering going some days. In light of the incident a few days prior, the rating and the 2500 slide video just before, how can one rationalize and knowingly put their dog potentially in harm’s way?



You know some of decision making these days is affected by attention and “Likes” on social media.



Sent from my iPad using TGR Forums

[jackstraw]

RIP. Horrible

[Bunion 2020]

Dogs don't derive enjoyment from terrain because they are happy basically anywhere. All they care about is being out with their human. Gnar, summits, and objectives are 100% about human desires, not that of the pet.

Exactly. People take their fucking dogs way too many places the animal doesn't belong. Saw a dog fall 200' into Negro Bill canyon off the Slick Rock trail. The poor things feet were already leaving blood on the rock from running on the sandstone to keep up and the party was well back from the start/end.

[jackstraw]

Yeah, so many over the years have taken their dog up Tuckerman in NH. Makes zero sense. Then again, the owner in many cases doesn't belong up there either. That place is the ultimate shitshow of kooks because of the easy access.

[jackattack]

I have to disagree somewhat with the above that dogs don't appreciate terrain or activity. My dogs love nothing more than a rip around the local bike loop or a mellow road "tour". They display a different kind of energy surrounded by the smells and sounds in the woods. That said, I do agree that they're not driven by objectives (but neither am I, really.)

I learned my lesson in my 20s when I took my dog on an overnight yurt trip. Well, we started late, then it started snowing heavily and we lost our route. That was a long fucking night watching the dog suffer in the cold as we backtracked to another yurt we passed on the way in. As soon as the occupants opened the door the dog shot into the shelter and went deep under the bunks. I'll be forever grateful to those boy scouts and their leaders who allowed us to bivy on their floor. I'll never take a dog into the bc again during winter. There are simply too many variables to manage to keep them and the group safe.

[Jax]

I fear the dog survived the avalanche, only to get it's <possibly torn> pack caught on something, left to suffer and die. From the link below, a Marble resident said prints were found with what looked like to be dragging something along. Or perhaps it had a wounded leg that got worse as time went on.

I tour with my dog, but never on anything that can slide, never anything more than 5 miles, and never when the temps are expected to be below 20 degrees. Sure, bad shit can still happen, but I've mitigated much of the risk this way. Soul turns in safe terrain and we have a blast. Having previously had a dog named Ullr- he passed several years ago at the age of 14.5- this hits to my heart. I still hold out hope that the survivor gets his buddy back, but it's not looking good thus far. I hope I'm wrong.

RIP to the lost. I've thought about CAIC's report for days now. Always something to learn.

https://www.denver7.com/news/local-n...ng-since-slide

[powdork]

It’s not a gray decision. It’s red or green for me regarding bringing a dog, much less even considering going some days. In light of the incident a few days prior, the rating and the 2500 slide video just before, how can one rationalize and knowingly put their dog potentially in harm’s way?

Obviously they thought they had outsmarted harm. If they thought the dog was in danger on that slope, why would you put your partners there?

[powdork]

I'm confused as to why they wouldn't skin up the low angle slopes at the head of the canyon they had decided to descend. Was skinning up the slide path in the right of the photo part of their conservative plan before they changed? That looks sketchy enough in the conditions



edit-looking at caltopo slope angles, there don't really appear to be any real safe zones going south down the ridge, but damn they nailed the unsafe zone

[Rudimatt7]

[QUOTE=powdork;6834003]I'm confused as to why they wouldn't skin up the low angle slopes at the head of the canyon they had decided to descend. Was skinning up the slide path in the right of the photo part of their conservative plan before they changed? That looks sketchy enough in the conditions


Because they didn’t have enough knowledge, sorry but that skin track is crazy.

[muted reborn]

Seems irrelevant to comment on the skin track when it had nothing to do with the deadly slide. You guys want to comment on what skis they should have been on too?

From what I read where the slide happened - thin snowpack partially on a slid surface bed. Lower down - fatter snowpack and therefore safer - I don't see any sympathetic slides happening lower down. But without being a local who skis there a lot, who knows.

[powdork]

Seems irrelevant to comment on the skin track when it had nothing to do with the deadly slide. You guys want to comment on what skis they should have been on too?

From what I read where the slide happened - thin snowpack partially on a slid surface bed. Lower down - fatter snowpack and therefore safer - I don't see any sympathetic slides happening lower down. But without being a local who skis there a lot, who knows.

Because it shows their risk tolerance and decision making on what was supposed to be a scouting trip.

[North]

Because it shows their risk tolerance and decision making on what was supposed to be a scouting trip.

There's no way up that drainage without traveling through/underneath avalanche terrain. If your position is that their BTL/NTL skin track was an inappropriate route choice for the conditions, then I presume it is also your position that it was an inappropriate decision to be in that drainage at all, "scouting trip" or otherwise. There are more exposed slopes near the entrance to the drainage.

From Caltopo it looks to be the safest route up that slope - one that avoids more 35+ deg terrain than any other route. There is an argument that they could've reduced exposure by staying in the dense trees on either side of the path. Don't think that particular piece of their route is much of an indicator for high risk tolerance, lack of knowledge, or any other "gotchas" some are suggesting.

[simple]

My takeaway on this incident is that they never seemed to have a descent plan. Getting to the top was the loose objective but getting down doesn't seem to have a discussion. Each party member probably were not ok with that but the mountain drew them in. Seen this before with climbers/hikers on 14ers.com but not so much with Backcountry skiers.

Awful incident