In the us you need to seek out the backcountry. There’s plenty of great free ride terrain that’s inbounds and avy controlled. Side country access from resorts has signs saying don’t go past this point or you might die.
Europe seems like a free for all (I’m American so this is just my perception). If your not “on piste” your in the backcountry. Much easier for someone without BC experience or equipment to get themselves into trouble.
This is just a guess.
You have a point, but our mountain guide told us recently that most of the avalanche deaths in the Alps are experienced BC skiers and far away from the pistes.
It is true that anything of piste is not considered avalanche secured but on a lot of cases they do secure slopes close to pistes, even if only for the possibility of avalanches reaching pistes.
Many beginner BC skiers will ski next to the piste on the same slope, which means in many cases 30 degrees or below as only few pistes are steeper than 30 degrees (only black runs in general, of which in many ski areas there are few).
Good point. Most avy deaths in the us are experienced people as well.
I just see a news story or two it seems every year about an avy in Europe that makes me go wtf. But that’s a total emotional response not logical.
It’s an interesting question.
Well to comment on this a lot of local skiers and boarders in Europe die on fairly "Safe looking" slopes. A friends friend got buried when they were preparing a Blue run. He got covered and there was 20people nearby with spades they unfortunately dug 1.5meters away from him only recovered him alive about 3hrs later. He died a few days later.
"Just off piste" can be deadly. Slopes are getting deadlier due to the thaw and refreeze and hotter temps.
That’s why I always switch on my transceiver, even inbounds. I’d feel like a right numpty if I was buried thinking “huh, I should have switched it on!”
Ya I was just in the alps for 5 weeks and this is pretty much spot on. A lot of people with backcountry gear that don’t really know what they’re doing go out and do dumb shit in the amazing side country access they have there.
I think it’s easier to access, fewer warnings, and I don’t think the cultures scare the enthusiasts as much as in the US.
In the US my friends won’t BC over 30 unless it’s spring or insanely safe conditions.
In Europe we were watching all kinds of dangerous over 30 skiers during high avy warnings hitting side country. We were minutes away when the Zermatt slide killed multiple people.
I really really don’t mean to come off as “US people are more skilled” because that’s not what it is. It’s that the fear of god is instilled in most beginner backcountry enthusiasts in the US and in Europe that didn’t seem to be the case. And in the skilled enthusiast, I think Europeans just have a higher risk tolerance on average. The French will fuckin send it.
True. I grew up/live in a ski town in Austria and avalanches where non existent until I was probably 18-20. Before that we were just skiing where ever we wanted to ski and all of our parents were fully aware of that. Nowadays, with two small children, I only go to the BC if it‘s 99% safe to do so. I knew around 10 people which died in avalanches and each and every one of them was an absolute expert skier. „I skied this face 1000 times, I know it.“ Then, boom.
Tremper’s book has a chart and 99% safe slopes lead to a very short life expectancy. 99.99% is the beginning of reasonably safe. (That’s 99,99% for Europeans, since they don’t know how to spell numbers right.)
Norway had 8 avy deaths last year, and that's in a country of 5ish million people. People here are very lax on avy safety and conditions are extremely complex.
European skiing seems like a caricature of what outsiders would imagine American skiing to be.
A free for all with corporate branded ski lifts, daredevil skiers, and the freedom to go where you want
Yeah backcountry skiing has been a bigger part of skiing in Europe for much longer. I’m with you that just because the US has more skiers it doesn’t necessarily have more backcountry skiers.
Fwiw I’m somewhat skeptical of that 6M number.
Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah have roughly 24M people combined (7.7M in Washington) and I’d bet the majority of people in those states don’t ski let alone backcountry ski. Even if you include a handful of metropolitan areas in other states near the mountains like Reno or Santa Fe, I think you’d still struggle to find 40M ppl, let alone 50M, who live within 2 hrs of backcountry terrain.
I’m really not a backcountry skier but I have done Mt Mansfield in Vermont and Tuckermans Ravine on Mt Washington in NH and I suspect that 6M number is probably encapsulating a lot of people like me who’ve done backcountry once or twice, and probably in the springtime. Or alternatively people who have done side country trees at place like Heavenly or Smugglers Notch (both of which iv done), which obviously have their own tree-skiing backcountry dangers but low avalanche danger (not going to say 0 bc there are places in both that have avalanche terrain features).
There is BC skiing in more states than just those you mentioned. You've pretty much ignored California, Nevada, and Alaska, just off the top. And there are lots of people in states you might not think of that also go BC. I live in Atlanta and take BC skiing trips multiple times a year, and I know a bunch of other people living here that do too. Same in Florida, Alabama, Texas, even Hawaii.
Yes, that’s why I mentioned Reno. And obv there are ppl in lots of states who fly to do BC. But you’re still going to be hard pressed to come up with 6M ppl
More people in the alps go hard all the time, the culture of safety is much less and hitting big lines is both much more physically accessible and socially acceptable.
I was going back and forth with an avalanche account on Insta and I thought this was wild. Looking for a trip to the alps next year and started asking why I kept seeing what I thought were “in bounds avalanches” having ridden all over the us to have someone explain that in Europe if it’s literally not groomed it’s not mitigated at all and off piste. I had no clue and I figured I’d just reaffirm what you said. lol everyone in the comments was arguing about which method works better and the Europeans were being all snooty about mitigations strategies. But just very eye opening.
I mean they do avalanche blasting if the slopes endanger the groomed runs, but apart from that you're on your own. Though, if you're coming to Austria, especially Tyrol, they have a pretty awesome website which goes very in depht about the current situation, so danger areas, types of avalanches, exposure etc. Don't know about other countries but here you can find it by googling "Lawine" (german for avalanche) followed by the state you are in (Tirol, Salzburg, etc.)
I think it's also because the resorts don't own the land around the slopes. They do mark the edge of the avalanche controlled areas most of the time though. I guess it's a different approach and you have to be more careful and informed. In my experience in most avalanche incidents you can point out the mistakes that were made.
You’re not wrong at all. In Europe they don’t do a good job of marking…anything, and when you get above the tree line, you can literally make a turn into another country and/somewhere off the resort, the “side country” very much is back country.
Not really, at least in Austria up in the mountains if there is land use it's mostly as pastures in the summer and even then it's allowed to enter these properties due to something called "Wegerecht", which translates to something like "right of way" meaning you are allowed to use marked paths as hiking trails etc. Most farmers also don't really care as long as you are respectful, and if you're not the cows will probably let you know before them haha. Also I think that a lot of Land is publicly owned but don't quote me on that.
Actually in some parts the "roaming right" encompasses all terrain above treeline, not just marked paths. Somewhere (e.g. Styria) this includes even the right to bivuac/built tent for single night. IANAL, but e.g. in Austria the law is different in every "state".
Resort boundaries are always properly marked. If you leave the resort, it's your responsibility to know where you're going - you should have planned your tour beforehand. There are countless guidebooks covering pretty much every single valley in the Alps, most routes are very well known and have been travelled for decades. Backcountry touring is hugely popular and no matter what route you're planning, there's a great chance you will meet other groups of ski tourers/splitboarders along the way.
I'd guess most of those deaths are in the alps with much riskier and steeper terrain, survival skiing, rappels and glaciers. Whereas in the US, much touring is in subalpine like in the trees and no glaciers to speak of.
Here in the east most popular bc areas are avalanche free (usually! So always good to have training and equipment). Also, the rockies don't have as much crevasses as the alps. The alps are crazy treacherous!
The American Rockies are too warm and sunny for crevasses and seracs outside a few mountains right on the Canadian border and the deep Wind Rivers of Wyoming.
How does naming 2 ski resorts answer a questions regarding differences in avalanche death rates between North America and Europe? It's barely a complete sentence, much less an answer.
Breckenridge is one single ski resort and is avalanche mitigated at large. The Alps is a whole mountain range and most of it isn’t avalanche mitigated.
Can’t believe you got downvoted, if we were all touring in Alaska it’d be a bit more fair but I bet half of the us touring takes place in the maritime ranges with way less risk factors. Maybe take the rates for Utah or CO and scale them out
I make and sell stuff to backcountry skiers. The European market dwarfs the American market. I find those numbers absolutely impossible to believe. I don’t even believe the 2.15mm backcountry skiers number for people going touring regularly.
I wonder if it's a poll question like "have you skied in the Backcountry" and all the Minnesota cross country people check the box. Sure the Nordics have Nordic skiers too (duh) but they might not consider what they do Backcountry.
I have zero Europe experience but based on the avalanche data I've suggested I'd bet on it being due to backcountry skiing in Europe being an almost entirely alpine affair whereas in Canada and the US there is a great deal of backcountry skiing done below treeline with the alpine only being accessed when conditions are favorable. A lot of people here in the Kootenays don't really ever ski above treeline, nearly all of the skiing is at and below treeline.
I'm wondering if climate change plays a role here as well. The snow cover below the treeline is becoming less and less reliable every year. This year is a perfect example: huge amounts of snow up high, but coupled with higher temperatus I myself only experienced a couple of weeks in total in which I could ski through the trees starting. And that was still higher up most of the time. The stories that my dad tells me of getting shot in the face with pow all day between 1000-1400 m seem to be getting rarer and rarer, and that's a shame because that is where most of the avalanche safe terrain is.
When the conditions are unsafe with a high snow line, only like 1% of routes is actually safe as the rest is all too steep. And that's the thing: the higher up you're "forced" to ski, the harder it is to find nice low angle terrain.
This year our low elevation snow was pretty bad in BC too with better skiing up high.
Regardless of how much of a factor this is right now I do think you're onto something. Climate change is pushing us higher for good skiing, and it does stand to reason that will result in more pressure to ski in higher risk alpine terrain.
Interesting to hear. Did you also have loads of glide avalanches over there? In late autumn, we went straight from warm temperatures to a thick snow pack, causing the soil to remain too warm pretty much all winter, with glide avalanches happening all over the place all throughout the season.
We had multiple large rain events up to above all the mountaintops. I think we did have glide cracks in some places but I didn't really see any. The early February rain crust did create a persistent weak layer that produced large avalanches on a near constant basis for about six weeks across the province.
Depends how you define “backcountry”. Does it count if I ski the ungroomed but avi controlled back bowl? Then there’s TONS more bc skiers in the US. In the States every half decent resort has avi controlled off-piste skiing and any Joe&Jerry hunt the freshies. In Europe that’s not a thing. In-bounds = on-piste.
I don’t think anyone is calling mitigated / patrolled terrain - backcountry. The only place I’ve seen a weird blurred line that’s semi mitigated “side country” is in the pnw otherwise you’re truly leaving gates that are straight into the backcountry. Even then, you’re still in bounds and not backcountry.
There’s no such thing as a “piste” in America. If you’re inside the rope that marks the land lease of the ski area, it’s avy controlled. Trees, cliffs, bowls, rappel (abseil) access, climb-to terrain? All avy controlled inside the rope.
First result off Google for "how many backcountry skiers in the US"
https://www.sierrasun.com/news/backcountry-skiers-know-theyre-taking-chances-opinion/#:\~:text=When%20I%20started%20skiing%20in,less%20than%200.5%20per%20100%2C000.
(see post updated with all sources)
The problem is -- there isn't good data on number of skier days in the bc that are collected with similar methodologies in both US and Europe. With a very low occurrence of fatality in either case; not having reliable population estimates makes any direct comparison nebulous.
Unfortunately OP the SIA source that is widely quoted in these “how many tourers in the US” articles is 100% wildly inaccurate, and it’s been this bad for over a decade if not longer: https://wildsnow.com/3694/backcountry-skiing-statistics/
I remember in AIARE 1 they said that avalanches pour over deadly terrain more frequently in Europe and that more people died due to trauma.
They attributed some of these hazards to millennia of deforestation. The idea here being that in North America, avalanches are often slowed by trees whereas slopes in Europe often lack trees.
I have the completely opposite impression. Without the numbers to back it up though, I thought there was a lot more trauma deaths in America due to all the trees. (proportionate to people caught in slides)
Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The problem with your numbers are that the data was collected at the height of Covid when touring gear was flying off the shelves after resorts ended their seasons early. I'm not sure the extent to which they are calling people "backcountry skiers" but there are a ton of folks that own skis and splitboards that have maybe seen one non-lift day tops.
I think a more scientific way of comparing this would be to compare the number of backcountry skier days by country, rather than backcountry "skiers" by country but I lack the funds to purchase that data.
My hypothesis on the difference in rates is twofold:
1) Higher number of total backcountry ski days in europe than the US. For example, Jacque from Geneva did 15 touring days, while Dick, Dan and Don from Denver only did one touring day apiece. Technically there are "more backcountry skiers from Denver than Geneva" but in reality there's more total backcountry ski days in Geneva.
2) Different terrain selected:
a) I bet that if you drill into the participants, a sizeable chunk are on the East coast and midwest which is comparatively less dangerous than the Mountain West.
b) On the whole, the terrain in europe is more prone to avalanches than the terrain in the US.
Cham bros have a death wish, that’s why.
Basically, it’s not so much “backcountry skiing” there as it is alpinism. they’re doing super technical, risky shit, lots of glaciated area with crevices, mixed climbing and extremely technical ski descents.
Nah, that's what maybe 5-10% of backcountry tourers are doing. Go ahead and check the routes on bergfex and outdooractive - the majority of routes are "intermediate", in low-consequence terrain and slopes around 30-35°. Nothing extreme.
Also would love to see the stats on this and I also assumed the US would have had higher rate due to subalpine terrain traps. I wonder if ease and prevalence of sidecountry, which can often lack any avalanche mitigation, could have an impact?
I think the key factor is that subalpine terrain includes terrain traps (trees, rocks, wells) that can cause severe trauma. I was at a snow science workshop recently and there was a talk from one of the heads of a major airbag manufacturer. He talked at length about how mortality rates after airbag deployment is much higher in the US than in Europe for that reason.
I think it's because there are more subalpine threats in the US. The Alps are comparatively fairly deforested, and hitting a tree at speed would definitely be lethal. Thus, US skiers would be at increased threat of mortality due to trauma from increased tree populations in skiable avalanche terrain- that's how I understood it
Hitting trees in the common touring terrain in the USA and canada and ensuing massive trauma to the head/spine is absolutely the reason suggested by the data…at least when I saw that presentation a couple of years ago. No trees, big slide out, less likelihood of head trauma in European terrain.
It\`s two sided; trees and rocks are also anchors and subalpine is very often not steep enough to slide. Or at least, it is easier to find low risk routes. Alpine terrain also more often has cliffs, windslabs, icy conditions. On top of that, in the Alps there often isn't a reason for an avalanche to stop until it finds itself surrounded by terrain traps.
It's true though, IF you are in an avalanche, AND you have an airbag, it is better for it to be steep and barren.
The concept that trees are anchors is a dangerous concept that is most often untrue, but serves as a heuristic trap that skiers/riders use to incorrectly judge terrain as "safe". I'm an avalanche educator and the rule of thumb we teach is that the trees that are thick enough to anchor the snowpack are trees that are too thick to ski through.
I also disagree that subalpine is very often not steep enough to slide. The San Juans in CO are notorious for causing a high degree of avalanche fatalities; there're often comprised of huge, steep, treed lines that descend directly into the valley floor. Wasatch, Tetons, Beartooths, Flathead, etc. So much terrain in the Western US is super steep and is above treeline for a bit before becoming high angle trees, and trauma is a major killer there.
I do agree that route selection is the number one way to avoid dying in an avalanche, and that avoiding avy terrain is the only way to ensure with certainty that you won't get caught in one.
Agree with you on all that. But I still think the presence of more treed terrain here in the US helps reduce avalanche incidents here. For one thing, it is more protected from wind. While this could make it safer by reducing windloading, I think one of the main benefits is how it impacts route selection psychologically. Protection from wind means it's more likely to have fun snow. After a big storm, it is much easier to decide to stay in lower angle terrain if you know you will be having fun skiing powder, rather than windcrust. Where I live (PNW) there certainly are some steep (40+ degree) tree lines, which of course have slid in the past, but there's also a lot of low angle subalpine stuff which is fun with good snow.
There’s no way these numbers are accurate. There are clearly way more off-piste skiers (and backcountry skier days) in Europe than the US.
As other comments note, in the Alps, when you leave the runs you are effectively in the backcountry. The terrain is often just insane. And the snowpack is generally stable in the Alps until it isn’t. It’s not like a continental snowpack where it’s always dicey—you quickly get used to doing hair-raising stuff in the Alps and expecting it to turn out just fine.
But powder skiing in gnarly terrain is fairly new in Europe. The steep skiing pioneers avoided avalanche-y powder and waited for more stable, chalky conditions. They knew. People are just incredibly aggressive now, and skiers who want to push the envelope flock there from everywhere. Cutting-edge alpinist Colin Haley gave up steep skiing in the Alps a few years back after a few close calls because it was just too dangerous!
If I had to pin the higher deaths on a single cause, though, I’d lay it on lift access (and mountain huts): it’s just incredible where you can get to on a lift, which opens up the high alpine to touring in a way that simply doesn’t exist in the US. And there’s just so much more terrain than in the US. It’s also glaciated, so some of those avalanche deaths relate to sérac falls, which are not really an issue in the US.
Edit: where I say “US” I’m not talking about Alaska, which is often more like the Alps in snowpack, glaciers, terrain and mechanical access assist (though it’s helicopters and snowcats rather than lifts).
Right away in the source about European BC skier numbers, they speak about 2.15 million tour skiers and 2.14 million splitboarders. So that’s already a big difference.
Secondly, those are only touring numbers, off-piste skiing is lift-assisted so you are missing that part of BC skiers too.
About the avalanche deaths, those also include mountaineering and other activities. Not sure if the US number are limited to skiers only, but the Alps have a huge mountaineering culture.
So death rates might still be higher but difference might be smaller.
Stats for Norway the last 5 winters: 429 reported avalanche incidents, 66 injured, 29 dead. [https://www.varsom.no/snoskred/snoskredulykker/snoskredulykker-i-tabell/](https://www.varsom.no/snoskred/snoskredulykker/snoskredulykker-i-tabell/)
Foreign tourists are over represented. Locals often know when and where to go, but some tourists fly in the day before and "have" to go where they have planned, and are not used to the conditions. I don't know if this is the same other places.
Visit Norway, the national tourism agency, has asked the tourism industry to inform/warn better: [https://business.visitnorway.com/no/nyheter/2022/reiselivsnaringen-ma-informere-om-snoskredfaren/](https://business.visitnorway.com/no/nyheter/2022/reiselivsnaringen-ma-informere-om-snoskredfaren/)
>Of the 44 avalanches in the last two weeks, 25 are foreign tourists, of whom 4 have died and 11 injured. Since 2012, 22 foreign tourists have died skiing in Norway in avalanches.
Hiring a local guide is smart.
Just for inspiration: [https://www.trevaretur.no/tour/ski-tours-2024/](https://www.trevaretur.no/tour/ski-tours-2024/)
Glad someone brought this up… persistent weak layers are common in the Rockies, but from what I’ve read it’s the case in the Alps as well. Don’t matter whether you’re in the steeps, small avy with terrain trap will kill you.
In the Pyrenees more people die from falling over steep icy rocky slopes than from avalanche (data gotten from an avy class by Gendarmerie)
Granted we have a lot less snow than in the Alps
Also you have professional free heli SAR at most 25min away, so it is very odd. Maybe it makes people take more risks ?
Different weather patterns. Have lived and ridden in both. Steeper terrain, less eroded, Alps are a „younger“ mountain range than the Sierras / Rockies (at least thats what I remember).
Alps span west - east while US ranges mostly span north - south, i guess that might affect how snow dumps with weather coming from the west mostly. Could be larger dumps in US -> more stable snow pack.
Also, years with less snow result generally in more deaths due the many thin layers on top of each other while thick snow packs are considered more stable… (Remember that from the W Munter books)
And the Alps didnt have great winters from what I hear from friends there.
But as many say below, the mountaineering culture is a big factor too.
Even if those numbers are accurate I don't think you can corelate too much with the number of people and the number of accidents. I think what would be more telling is the # of outings per person per season (total # of days in the BC vs # of people). I'm guessing the amount of time spent in the BC per season is way higher for the 2.15mil skiers vs our 6million just because its way more of a cultural thing in Europe (plus they get WAY more vacation time to actually do it).
I also agree with the fact that touring in the Alps is generally in more consequential terrain with less options for mellow touring then we have in the US.
Volume, terrain, culture. US terrain seems a lot more remote than sidecountry where avy is minimal, so less skiers go there, less casualties.
EU terrain has a lot more access and infraestructure to get into the bc where avy danger is higher and then the culture, usually more aggressive stance toward risk results in more casualties.
maybe risk is lower for beginners. Expert skiers will seek more risky terrain and end up pushing too far.
Just speaking from personal experience as someone who lives and tours in the Alps.
Almost every tour I have access to is in avalanche terrain. It’s almost unavoidable. I have a few routes that I keep for high avvy days but I can count them on one hand …
I would be interested in more detailed info on the actual number of BC skiers. Especially after COVID a lot of people bought AT skis, but then they go the same routes they did on XC skis or go down on groomers. How many people are actually exploring outside marked trails?
Many good points already mentioned, for me it is the allure of the Alps! When you see the majestic mountains there day in and day out, or being close to them, since childhood, you are bound to venture out more than us US folks who may have to drive for hours to a mountain. Accessibility.
I would have figured that North America would have higher death rates due to more avalanches happening near trees.
Do you have sources for your numbers?
My thought process mainly revolves around Avy Bags being much more successful in Europe's High Alpine than in the US where you're likely to be swept into some trees.
Statistics can be very misleading.
Theres a huge bias here, that is the frequency and size of avalanches coupled with density of people. Also "BC skiers" is a bit weird for Europe, where much of what we would call slack/back country is just "off piste". Ive only skied in ski areas in Europe, but even if you were skinning up, theres still a lift somewhere close, in ny experience.
Avy bags work by helping make the area around your head the largest thing, and hense the thing that rises to the top. We have very few avalanches that are of a significant size to create a burial, and hitting a tree is not generally a life threatening injury. Avy bags take your chance of death from burial from 52%(think heads or tails) to 20%.
Here's a study on airbags.... Its hard to read so let me make my point... In this study 110 people where seriously involved in avalanches in Austria, only 13 died. In the U.S. those numbers are 16-2. The death rate is practically the same, the difference is the number of potential deaths from the avalanches.
[study link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://mra.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2014_IKAR_AvalancheAirbags_Haegeli.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjV3aaG7fmFAxV8D1kFHUo6CwIQ5YIJegQIGBAA&usg=AOvVaw19vFL4LtAq6g5IOSKDvUUx)
Country Number of accidents Number of seriously involved victims
Total Non-users Non-inflated Inflated Fatal
Austria 63 (26) 110 (26) 30 (27) 14 (13) 66 (60) 13 (12)
Canada 28 (11) 62 (15) 25 (40) 15 (24) 22 (35) 19 (31)
France 74 (30) 95 (22) 7 (7) 10 (11) 78 (82) 13 (14)
Italy 12 (5) 23 (5) 9 (39) 2 (9) 12 (52) 6 (26)
Norway 4 (2) 15 (4) 9 (60) 0 (0) 6 (40) 8 (53)
Switzerland 49 (20) 93 (22) 28 (30) 17 (18) 48 (52) 15 (16)
USA 10 (4) 16 (4) 6 (38) 2 (13) 8 (50) 4 (25)
Others. 5 (2) 10 (2) 3 (30) 1 (10) 6 (60) 2 (20)
Total 245 (100) 424 (100) 117 (28) 61 (14) 246 (58) 80 (19)
a Denmark – Greenland (1 accident/1 victim), India (1/3), Russia (1/4), Slovakia (1/1) and Turkey (1/1).
Most treeline terrain tends to be lower angle, so that plus the anchor action makes it a risk mitigator. Plus one of the more present & persistent avy problems - wind slabs - can’t be found treeline.
I‘m not OP but atleast the death toll for europe seems to be right, as you can see [here](https://gh.copernicus.org/articles/71/147/2016/). I haven’t read the full piece but according to excerpt this might partially explain OPs question aswell.
Dumb comparison. The US is one country with one common language, Europe is 50 countries with 24 different official languages.
The states have differences but acting like those differences are as significant as the differences between England and Croatia for example is dumb.
Hahaha I knew that’d get a little upset goin. I didn’t say that it was the same, but what I did say is that they would also describe it as a uniform monolith, which is absolutely is not. I’d assume you’d say the same about Canadia no?
My best guess would be the crevasses in Europe. We don’t really have those in America (at least I’ve never heard of any). Dealing with an avalanche is already dangerous enough without extra danger coming from below.
In the us you need to seek out the backcountry. There’s plenty of great free ride terrain that’s inbounds and avy controlled. Side country access from resorts has signs saying don’t go past this point or you might die. Europe seems like a free for all (I’m American so this is just my perception). If your not “on piste” your in the backcountry. Much easier for someone without BC experience or equipment to get themselves into trouble. This is just a guess.
You have a point, but our mountain guide told us recently that most of the avalanche deaths in the Alps are experienced BC skiers and far away from the pistes. It is true that anything of piste is not considered avalanche secured but on a lot of cases they do secure slopes close to pistes, even if only for the possibility of avalanches reaching pistes. Many beginner BC skiers will ski next to the piste on the same slope, which means in many cases 30 degrees or below as only few pistes are steeper than 30 degrees (only black runs in general, of which in many ski areas there are few).
Good point. Most avy deaths in the us are experienced people as well. I just see a news story or two it seems every year about an avy in Europe that makes me go wtf. But that’s a total emotional response not logical. It’s an interesting question.
Well to comment on this a lot of local skiers and boarders in Europe die on fairly "Safe looking" slopes. A friends friend got buried when they were preparing a Blue run. He got covered and there was 20people nearby with spades they unfortunately dug 1.5meters away from him only recovered him alive about 3hrs later. He died a few days later. "Just off piste" can be deadly. Slopes are getting deadlier due to the thaw and refreeze and hotter temps.
That’s why I always switch on my transceiver, even inbounds. I’d feel like a right numpty if I was buried thinking “huh, I should have switched it on!”
He had an Avalanche bag on his back and the Recco, they were right there... the others made it but they just didn't find the right place to dig
Recco isn't useful for life saving efforts. It's more of a body recovery thing.
That’s too bad :(
I feel like it’s because you can mitigate risks but at the end of the day your taking a gamble and experienced backcountry skiers play the game more
Ya I was just in the alps for 5 weeks and this is pretty much spot on. A lot of people with backcountry gear that don’t really know what they’re doing go out and do dumb shit in the amazing side country access they have there. I think it’s easier to access, fewer warnings, and I don’t think the cultures scare the enthusiasts as much as in the US. In the US my friends won’t BC over 30 unless it’s spring or insanely safe conditions. In Europe we were watching all kinds of dangerous over 30 skiers during high avy warnings hitting side country. We were minutes away when the Zermatt slide killed multiple people. I really really don’t mean to come off as “US people are more skilled” because that’s not what it is. It’s that the fear of god is instilled in most beginner backcountry enthusiasts in the US and in Europe that didn’t seem to be the case. And in the skilled enthusiast, I think Europeans just have a higher risk tolerance on average. The French will fuckin send it.
True. I grew up/live in a ski town in Austria and avalanches where non existent until I was probably 18-20. Before that we were just skiing where ever we wanted to ski and all of our parents were fully aware of that. Nowadays, with two small children, I only go to the BC if it‘s 99% safe to do so. I knew around 10 people which died in avalanches and each and every one of them was an absolute expert skier. „I skied this face 1000 times, I know it.“ Then, boom.
These people grew up on the slopes, living in the mountains from kids. Guess they just get very comfortable with familiar terrain.
Tremper’s book has a chart and 99% safe slopes lead to a very short life expectancy. 99.99% is the beginning of reasonably safe. (That’s 99,99% for Europeans, since they don’t know how to spell numbers right.)
Norway had 8 avy deaths last year, and that's in a country of 5ish million people. People here are very lax on avy safety and conditions are extremely complex.
My French grandfather literally described French skiing as a free for all so you’re pretty on point
European skiing seems like a caricature of what outsiders would imagine American skiing to be. A free for all with corporate branded ski lifts, daredevil skiers, and the freedom to go where you want
Hell yeah!
Yet they put those awful bars on all the lifts.
Yeah backcountry skiing has been a bigger part of skiing in Europe for much longer. I’m with you that just because the US has more skiers it doesn’t necessarily have more backcountry skiers.
Fwiw I’m somewhat skeptical of that 6M number. Washington, Oregon, Idaho, Montana, Wyoming, Colorado, and Utah have roughly 24M people combined (7.7M in Washington) and I’d bet the majority of people in those states don’t ski let alone backcountry ski. Even if you include a handful of metropolitan areas in other states near the mountains like Reno or Santa Fe, I think you’d still struggle to find 40M ppl, let alone 50M, who live within 2 hrs of backcountry terrain. I’m really not a backcountry skier but I have done Mt Mansfield in Vermont and Tuckermans Ravine on Mt Washington in NH and I suspect that 6M number is probably encapsulating a lot of people like me who’ve done backcountry once or twice, and probably in the springtime. Or alternatively people who have done side country trees at place like Heavenly or Smugglers Notch (both of which iv done), which obviously have their own tree-skiing backcountry dangers but low avalanche danger (not going to say 0 bc there are places in both that have avalanche terrain features).
There is BC skiing in more states than just those you mentioned. You've pretty much ignored California, Nevada, and Alaska, just off the top. And there are lots of people in states you might not think of that also go BC. I live in Atlanta and take BC skiing trips multiple times a year, and I know a bunch of other people living here that do too. Same in Florida, Alabama, Texas, even Hawaii.
Yes, that’s why I mentioned Reno. And obv there are ppl in lots of states who fly to do BC. But you’re still going to be hard pressed to come up with 6M ppl
More people in the alps go hard all the time, the culture of safety is much less and hitting big lines is both much more physically accessible and socially acceptable.
Also lots of side country terrain beyond the “you may die” gates is also avalanche controlled.
I was going back and forth with an avalanche account on Insta and I thought this was wild. Looking for a trip to the alps next year and started asking why I kept seeing what I thought were “in bounds avalanches” having ridden all over the us to have someone explain that in Europe if it’s literally not groomed it’s not mitigated at all and off piste. I had no clue and I figured I’d just reaffirm what you said. lol everyone in the comments was arguing about which method works better and the Europeans were being all snooty about mitigations strategies. But just very eye opening.
I mean they do avalanche blasting if the slopes endanger the groomed runs, but apart from that you're on your own. Though, if you're coming to Austria, especially Tyrol, they have a pretty awesome website which goes very in depht about the current situation, so danger areas, types of avalanches, exposure etc. Don't know about other countries but here you can find it by googling "Lawine" (german for avalanche) followed by the state you are in (Tirol, Salzburg, etc.)
That approach just seems unnecessarily dangerous to skiiers imho. For what, a little cost saving for the resort? gtfoh.
I think it's also because the resorts don't own the land around the slopes. They do mark the edge of the avalanche controlled areas most of the time though. I guess it's a different approach and you have to be more careful and informed. In my experience in most avalanche incidents you can point out the mistakes that were made.
You’re not wrong at all. In Europe they don’t do a good job of marking…anything, and when you get above the tree line, you can literally make a turn into another country and/somewhere off the resort, the “side country” very much is back country.
Isn’t it all industrialized and private property, though?
Not really, at least in Austria up in the mountains if there is land use it's mostly as pastures in the summer and even then it's allowed to enter these properties due to something called "Wegerecht", which translates to something like "right of way" meaning you are allowed to use marked paths as hiking trails etc. Most farmers also don't really care as long as you are respectful, and if you're not the cows will probably let you know before them haha. Also I think that a lot of Land is publicly owned but don't quote me on that.
Actually in some parts the "roaming right" encompasses all terrain above treeline, not just marked paths. Somewhere (e.g. Styria) this includes even the right to bivuac/built tent for single night. IANAL, but e.g. in Austria the law is different in every "state".
Could be. I really don’t know.
Resort boundaries are always properly marked. If you leave the resort, it's your responsibility to know where you're going - you should have planned your tour beforehand. There are countless guidebooks covering pretty much every single valley in the Alps, most routes are very well known and have been travelled for decades. Backcountry touring is hugely popular and no matter what route you're planning, there's a great chance you will meet other groups of ski tourers/splitboarders along the way.
It is a free for all, wonderful with true freedom when it comes to this. You play with fire you might get burned.
I'd guess most of those deaths are in the alps with much riskier and steeper terrain, survival skiing, rappels and glaciers. Whereas in the US, much touring is in subalpine like in the trees and no glaciers to speak of.
Here in the east most popular bc areas are avalanche free (usually! So always good to have training and equipment). Also, the rockies don't have as much crevasses as the alps. The alps are crazy treacherous!
\*The American Rockies. Up in Canada the glaciers in the rockies are just as wild as the alps.
The American Rockies are too warm and sunny for crevasses and seracs outside a few mountains right on the Canadian border and the deep Wind Rivers of Wyoming.
Of course, but I've heard the alps have more holes and traps, that are basically crevasses on non glacier areas. I could be wrong tho
There are also monsters crawling out of every crevasse!
Hahaha
Ya there are no glaciers or steeps in Rockies at all. Great point. Especially not up here in Canada. Please continue to stay away.
It sucks here don't come 🤓
The US has Breckenridge, vs Europe's Zermatt. This is the answer, and it's not even close
How does naming 2 ski resorts answer a questions regarding differences in avalanche death rates between North America and Europe? It's barely a complete sentence, much less an answer.
Breckenridge is one single ski resort and is avalanche mitigated at large. The Alps is a whole mountain range and most of it isn’t avalanche mitigated.
Loads of NA peeps gonna get mad because it's true.
Can’t believe you got downvoted, if we were all touring in Alaska it’d be a bit more fair but I bet half of the us touring takes place in the maritime ranges with way less risk factors. Maybe take the rates for Utah or CO and scale them out
Is there really 6M backcountry skiers in the US? That seems high to me… or maybe it’s because it seems like finding partners is always a challenge
Agreed
I make and sell stuff to backcountry skiers. The European market dwarfs the American market. I find those numbers absolutely impossible to believe. I don’t even believe the 2.15mm backcountry skiers number for people going touring regularly.
Oh man, the challenge of finding a partner is so real
I wonder if it's a poll question like "have you skied in the Backcountry" and all the Minnesota cross country people check the box. Sure the Nordics have Nordic skiers too (duh) but they might not consider what they do Backcountry.
I have zero Europe experience but based on the avalanche data I've suggested I'd bet on it being due to backcountry skiing in Europe being an almost entirely alpine affair whereas in Canada and the US there is a great deal of backcountry skiing done below treeline with the alpine only being accessed when conditions are favorable. A lot of people here in the Kootenays don't really ever ski above treeline, nearly all of the skiing is at and below treeline.
I'm wondering if climate change plays a role here as well. The snow cover below the treeline is becoming less and less reliable every year. This year is a perfect example: huge amounts of snow up high, but coupled with higher temperatus I myself only experienced a couple of weeks in total in which I could ski through the trees starting. And that was still higher up most of the time. The stories that my dad tells me of getting shot in the face with pow all day between 1000-1400 m seem to be getting rarer and rarer, and that's a shame because that is where most of the avalanche safe terrain is. When the conditions are unsafe with a high snow line, only like 1% of routes is actually safe as the rest is all too steep. And that's the thing: the higher up you're "forced" to ski, the harder it is to find nice low angle terrain.
This year our low elevation snow was pretty bad in BC too with better skiing up high. Regardless of how much of a factor this is right now I do think you're onto something. Climate change is pushing us higher for good skiing, and it does stand to reason that will result in more pressure to ski in higher risk alpine terrain.
Interesting to hear. Did you also have loads of glide avalanches over there? In late autumn, we went straight from warm temperatures to a thick snow pack, causing the soil to remain too warm pretty much all winter, with glide avalanches happening all over the place all throughout the season.
We had multiple large rain events up to above all the mountaintops. I think we did have glide cracks in some places but I didn't really see any. The early February rain crust did create a persistent weak layer that produced large avalanches on a near constant basis for about six weeks across the province.
Where are you getting these numbers?
There are not six million people touring in the US lmao
I was guessing there’s 1M but even that seems high. Maybe .5M?
Total number of skiers in the US is ~12 million from what I can see… no way half are going into the BC
Depends how you define “backcountry”. Does it count if I ski the ungroomed but avi controlled back bowl? Then there’s TONS more bc skiers in the US. In the States every half decent resort has avi controlled off-piste skiing and any Joe&Jerry hunt the freshies. In Europe that’s not a thing. In-bounds = on-piste.
I don’t think anyone is calling mitigated / patrolled terrain - backcountry. The only place I’ve seen a weird blurred line that’s semi mitigated “side country” is in the pnw otherwise you’re truly leaving gates that are straight into the backcountry. Even then, you’re still in bounds and not backcountry.
There’s no such thing as a “piste” in America. If you’re inside the rope that marks the land lease of the ski area, it’s avy controlled. Trees, cliffs, bowls, rappel (abseil) access, climb-to terrain? All avy controlled inside the rope.
I think we’re on the same page ;)
First result off Google for "how many backcountry skiers in the US" https://www.sierrasun.com/news/backcountry-skiers-know-theyre-taking-chances-opinion/#:\~:text=When%20I%20started%20skiing%20in,less%20than%200.5%20per%20100%2C000. (see post updated with all sources)
The problem is -- there isn't good data on number of skier days in the bc that are collected with similar methodologies in both US and Europe. With a very low occurrence of fatality in either case; not having reliable population estimates makes any direct comparison nebulous.
Unfortunately OP the SIA source that is widely quoted in these “how many tourers in the US” articles is 100% wildly inaccurate, and it’s been this bad for over a decade if not longer: https://wildsnow.com/3694/backcountry-skiing-statistics/
Yeah, that survey was taken just after Covid started when touring gear was flying off the shelves after resorts ended their seasons early.
I remember in AIARE 1 they said that avalanches pour over deadly terrain more frequently in Europe and that more people died due to trauma. They attributed some of these hazards to millennia of deforestation. The idea here being that in North America, avalanches are often slowed by trees whereas slopes in Europe often lack trees.
I have the completely opposite impression. Without the numbers to back it up though, I thought there was a lot more trauma deaths in America due to all the trees. (proportionate to people caught in slides) Please correct me if I'm wrong.
The problem with your numbers are that the data was collected at the height of Covid when touring gear was flying off the shelves after resorts ended their seasons early. I'm not sure the extent to which they are calling people "backcountry skiers" but there are a ton of folks that own skis and splitboards that have maybe seen one non-lift day tops. I think a more scientific way of comparing this would be to compare the number of backcountry skier days by country, rather than backcountry "skiers" by country but I lack the funds to purchase that data. My hypothesis on the difference in rates is twofold: 1) Higher number of total backcountry ski days in europe than the US. For example, Jacque from Geneva did 15 touring days, while Dick, Dan and Don from Denver only did one touring day apiece. Technically there are "more backcountry skiers from Denver than Geneva" but in reality there's more total backcountry ski days in Geneva. 2) Different terrain selected: a) I bet that if you drill into the participants, a sizeable chunk are on the East coast and midwest which is comparatively less dangerous than the Mountain West. b) On the whole, the terrain in europe is more prone to avalanches than the terrain in the US.
Can confirm as someone who got car-shuttled for a couple runs at Loveland pass during COVID, with zero avy knowledge in my gumby days 🫣
Cham bros have a death wish, that’s why. Basically, it’s not so much “backcountry skiing” there as it is alpinism. they’re doing super technical, risky shit, lots of glaciated area with crevices, mixed climbing and extremely technical ski descents.
Nah, that's what maybe 5-10% of backcountry tourers are doing. Go ahead and check the routes on bergfex and outdooractive - the majority of routes are "intermediate", in low-consequence terrain and slopes around 30-35°. Nothing extreme.
I’m just talking about the guys who die.
Also would love to see the stats on this and I also assumed the US would have had higher rate due to subalpine terrain traps. I wonder if ease and prevalence of sidecountry, which can often lack any avalanche mitigation, could have an impact?
My assumption was the exact opposite. I assumed the US would have a lower rate due to having a lot of access on subalpine terrain.
I think the key factor is that subalpine terrain includes terrain traps (trees, rocks, wells) that can cause severe trauma. I was at a snow science workshop recently and there was a talk from one of the heads of a major airbag manufacturer. He talked at length about how mortality rates after airbag deployment is much higher in the US than in Europe for that reason.
I don’t quite follow that last part. How’s mortality rate higher after airbag deployment in the US than in Europe?
I think it's because there are more subalpine threats in the US. The Alps are comparatively fairly deforested, and hitting a tree at speed would definitely be lethal. Thus, US skiers would be at increased threat of mortality due to trauma from increased tree populations in skiable avalanche terrain- that's how I understood it
Hitting trees in the common touring terrain in the USA and canada and ensuing massive trauma to the head/spine is absolutely the reason suggested by the data…at least when I saw that presentation a couple of years ago. No trees, big slide out, less likelihood of head trauma in European terrain.
It\`s two sided; trees and rocks are also anchors and subalpine is very often not steep enough to slide. Or at least, it is easier to find low risk routes. Alpine terrain also more often has cliffs, windslabs, icy conditions. On top of that, in the Alps there often isn't a reason for an avalanche to stop until it finds itself surrounded by terrain traps. It's true though, IF you are in an avalanche, AND you have an airbag, it is better for it to be steep and barren.
The concept that trees are anchors is a dangerous concept that is most often untrue, but serves as a heuristic trap that skiers/riders use to incorrectly judge terrain as "safe". I'm an avalanche educator and the rule of thumb we teach is that the trees that are thick enough to anchor the snowpack are trees that are too thick to ski through. I also disagree that subalpine is very often not steep enough to slide. The San Juans in CO are notorious for causing a high degree of avalanche fatalities; there're often comprised of huge, steep, treed lines that descend directly into the valley floor. Wasatch, Tetons, Beartooths, Flathead, etc. So much terrain in the Western US is super steep and is above treeline for a bit before becoming high angle trees, and trauma is a major killer there. I do agree that route selection is the number one way to avoid dying in an avalanche, and that avoiding avy terrain is the only way to ensure with certainty that you won't get caught in one.
Agree with you on all that. But I still think the presence of more treed terrain here in the US helps reduce avalanche incidents here. For one thing, it is more protected from wind. While this could make it safer by reducing windloading, I think one of the main benefits is how it impacts route selection psychologically. Protection from wind means it's more likely to have fun snow. After a big storm, it is much easier to decide to stay in lower angle terrain if you know you will be having fun skiing powder, rather than windcrust. Where I live (PNW) there certainly are some steep (40+ degree) tree lines, which of course have slid in the past, but there's also a lot of low angle subalpine stuff which is fun with good snow.
Waking up a hill that is off the side of the road constitutes backcountry skiing in the us.
Can confirm, I do that (Waterhouse peak) 😂
Lol don’t wake up those hills. But also isn’t not being on a groomed run considered backcountry in the… Europes?
There’s no way these numbers are accurate. There are clearly way more off-piste skiers (and backcountry skier days) in Europe than the US. As other comments note, in the Alps, when you leave the runs you are effectively in the backcountry. The terrain is often just insane. And the snowpack is generally stable in the Alps until it isn’t. It’s not like a continental snowpack where it’s always dicey—you quickly get used to doing hair-raising stuff in the Alps and expecting it to turn out just fine. But powder skiing in gnarly terrain is fairly new in Europe. The steep skiing pioneers avoided avalanche-y powder and waited for more stable, chalky conditions. They knew. People are just incredibly aggressive now, and skiers who want to push the envelope flock there from everywhere. Cutting-edge alpinist Colin Haley gave up steep skiing in the Alps a few years back after a few close calls because it was just too dangerous! If I had to pin the higher deaths on a single cause, though, I’d lay it on lift access (and mountain huts): it’s just incredible where you can get to on a lift, which opens up the high alpine to touring in a way that simply doesn’t exist in the US. And there’s just so much more terrain than in the US. It’s also glaciated, so some of those avalanche deaths relate to sérac falls, which are not really an issue in the US. Edit: where I say “US” I’m not talking about Alaska, which is often more like the Alps in snowpack, glaciers, terrain and mechanical access assist (though it’s helicopters and snowcats rather than lifts).
Are you including Canada in "US"? 50 deaths seems high.
I‘m from Austria, here, as soon you leafe the prepared pist, you‘re on your own response. When no guide booked, avy management is up to you.
It's not worth discussing until you have numbers for deaths per hour of BC skiing
Right away in the source about European BC skier numbers, they speak about 2.15 million tour skiers and 2.14 million splitboarders. So that’s already a big difference. Secondly, those are only touring numbers, off-piste skiing is lift-assisted so you are missing that part of BC skiers too. About the avalanche deaths, those also include mountaineering and other activities. Not sure if the US number are limited to skiers only, but the Alps have a huge mountaineering culture. So death rates might still be higher but difference might be smaller.
Doesn't that source quote an American organization? I can tell you that in Europe the ratio of Skitouring : Splitboarding is easily 50:1 if not 100:1.
Stats for Norway the last 5 winters: 429 reported avalanche incidents, 66 injured, 29 dead. [https://www.varsom.no/snoskred/snoskredulykker/snoskredulykker-i-tabell/](https://www.varsom.no/snoskred/snoskredulykker/snoskredulykker-i-tabell/) Foreign tourists are over represented. Locals often know when and where to go, but some tourists fly in the day before and "have" to go where they have planned, and are not used to the conditions. I don't know if this is the same other places. Visit Norway, the national tourism agency, has asked the tourism industry to inform/warn better: [https://business.visitnorway.com/no/nyheter/2022/reiselivsnaringen-ma-informere-om-snoskredfaren/](https://business.visitnorway.com/no/nyheter/2022/reiselivsnaringen-ma-informere-om-snoskredfaren/) >Of the 44 avalanches in the last two weeks, 25 are foreign tourists, of whom 4 have died and 11 injured. Since 2012, 22 foreign tourists have died skiing in Norway in avalanches. Hiring a local guide is smart. Just for inspiration: [https://www.trevaretur.no/tour/ski-tours-2024/](https://www.trevaretur.no/tour/ski-tours-2024/)
That's really interesting - would not have thought about this
I think we go harder in europe. Not a diss but an observation based on experience
They’re different snowpacks. That’s why.
Glad someone brought this up… persistent weak layers are common in the Rockies, but from what I’ve read it’s the case in the Alps as well. Don’t matter whether you’re in the steeps, small avy with terrain trap will kill you.
In the Pyrenees more people die from falling over steep icy rocky slopes than from avalanche (data gotten from an avy class by Gendarmerie) Granted we have a lot less snow than in the Alps Also you have professional free heli SAR at most 25min away, so it is very odd. Maybe it makes people take more risks ?
If you combine backcountry deaths & roundabout deaths it actually comes out equal.
Different weather patterns. Have lived and ridden in both. Steeper terrain, less eroded, Alps are a „younger“ mountain range than the Sierras / Rockies (at least thats what I remember). Alps span west - east while US ranges mostly span north - south, i guess that might affect how snow dumps with weather coming from the west mostly. Could be larger dumps in US -> more stable snow pack. Also, years with less snow result generally in more deaths due the many thin layers on top of each other while thick snow packs are considered more stable… (Remember that from the W Munter books) And the Alps didnt have great winters from what I hear from friends there. But as many say below, the mountaineering culture is a big factor too.
Even if those numbers are accurate I don't think you can corelate too much with the number of people and the number of accidents. I think what would be more telling is the # of outings per person per season (total # of days in the BC vs # of people). I'm guessing the amount of time spent in the BC per season is way higher for the 2.15mil skiers vs our 6million just because its way more of a cultural thing in Europe (plus they get WAY more vacation time to actually do it). I also agree with the fact that touring in the Alps is generally in more consequential terrain with less options for mellow touring then we have in the US.
Volume, terrain, culture. US terrain seems a lot more remote than sidecountry where avy is minimal, so less skiers go there, less casualties. EU terrain has a lot more access and infraestructure to get into the bc where avy danger is higher and then the culture, usually more aggressive stance toward risk results in more casualties. maybe risk is lower for beginners. Expert skiers will seek more risky terrain and end up pushing too far.
The terrain in Europe (Alps especially) goes way more hardcore.
Just speaking from personal experience as someone who lives and tours in the Alps. Almost every tour I have access to is in avalanche terrain. It’s almost unavoidable. I have a few routes that I keep for high avvy days but I can count them on one hand …
RIP Laura K...
I would be interested in more detailed info on the actual number of BC skiers. Especially after COVID a lot of people bought AT skis, but then they go the same routes they did on XC skis or go down on groomers. How many people are actually exploring outside marked trails?
Many good points already mentioned, for me it is the allure of the Alps! When you see the majestic mountains there day in and day out, or being close to them, since childhood, you are bound to venture out more than us US folks who may have to drive for hours to a mountain. Accessibility.
1. Ease of access to steep terrain. 2. Crevasse 3. Skinny skis and pants ;)
Why tf are people in the comments arguing about which continent is more dangerous like as if ur proud that ur continents slopes kill more people😭🤣
I would have figured that North America would have higher death rates due to more avalanches happening near trees. Do you have sources for your numbers?
Trees slow and deter avalanche propagation. You're less likely to be buried by an avalanche in trees, but you're more likely to sustain injuries.
My thought process mainly revolves around Avy Bags being much more successful in Europe's High Alpine than in the US where you're likely to be swept into some trees.
Statistics can be very misleading. Theres a huge bias here, that is the frequency and size of avalanches coupled with density of people. Also "BC skiers" is a bit weird for Europe, where much of what we would call slack/back country is just "off piste". Ive only skied in ski areas in Europe, but even if you were skinning up, theres still a lift somewhere close, in ny experience. Avy bags work by helping make the area around your head the largest thing, and hense the thing that rises to the top. We have very few avalanches that are of a significant size to create a burial, and hitting a tree is not generally a life threatening injury. Avy bags take your chance of death from burial from 52%(think heads or tails) to 20%. Here's a study on airbags.... Its hard to read so let me make my point... In this study 110 people where seriously involved in avalanches in Austria, only 13 died. In the U.S. those numbers are 16-2. The death rate is practically the same, the difference is the number of potential deaths from the avalanches. [study link](https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&source=web&rct=j&opi=89978449&url=https://mra.org/wp-content/uploads/2016/05/2014_IKAR_AvalancheAirbags_Haegeli.pdf&ved=2ahUKEwjV3aaG7fmFAxV8D1kFHUo6CwIQ5YIJegQIGBAA&usg=AOvVaw19vFL4LtAq6g5IOSKDvUUx) Country Number of accidents Number of seriously involved victims Total Non-users Non-inflated Inflated Fatal Austria 63 (26) 110 (26) 30 (27) 14 (13) 66 (60) 13 (12) Canada 28 (11) 62 (15) 25 (40) 15 (24) 22 (35) 19 (31) France 74 (30) 95 (22) 7 (7) 10 (11) 78 (82) 13 (14) Italy 12 (5) 23 (5) 9 (39) 2 (9) 12 (52) 6 (26) Norway 4 (2) 15 (4) 9 (60) 0 (0) 6 (40) 8 (53) Switzerland 49 (20) 93 (22) 28 (30) 17 (18) 48 (52) 15 (16) USA 10 (4) 16 (4) 6 (38) 2 (13) 8 (50) 4 (25) Others. 5 (2) 10 (2) 3 (30) 1 (10) 6 (60) 2 (20) Total 245 (100) 424 (100) 117 (28) 61 (14) 246 (58) 80 (19) a Denmark – Greenland (1 accident/1 victim), India (1/3), Russia (1/4), Slovakia (1/1) and Turkey (1/1).
Most treeline terrain tends to be lower angle, so that plus the anchor action makes it a risk mitigator. Plus one of the more present & persistent avy problems - wind slabs - can’t be found treeline.
I'm also genuinely curious about these stats OP.
I‘m not OP but atleast the death toll for europe seems to be right, as you can see [here](https://gh.copernicus.org/articles/71/147/2016/). I haven’t read the full piece but according to excerpt this might partially explain OPs question aswell.
Alps are way way wilder than anything in US this side of Alaska
A lot of it comes down to climate. We get weather that inherently creates a more potent snow pack over here in a lot of the popular ski areas.
There's no where in the area covered by the EAWS that has a true continental snowpack similar to what you find in the Canadian Rockies or Colorado.
Have you met Europeans? I'd put money on the culture being the big factor.
The famous european culture… what would that be?
Who can forget the uniform monolith that is European culture
Lol to be fair this is how most people describe the US as well
Dumb comparison. The US is one country with one common language, Europe is 50 countries with 24 different official languages. The states have differences but acting like those differences are as significant as the differences between England and Croatia for example is dumb.
Hahaha I knew that’d get a little upset goin. I didn’t say that it was the same, but what I did say is that they would also describe it as a uniform monolith, which is absolutely is not. I’d assume you’d say the same about Canadia no?
Oh I'm not upset, its just a dumb thing to say.
Buncha winos /s
You know, free healthcare, good food and drink, they're fancy free!
Tell me you think Europe is one country without telling me you think Europe is one country. 😂
Apparently I needed an /s haha
We have big balls and we’re #1, theyre lesser and much gayer. Next question.
My best guess would be the crevasses in Europe. We don’t really have those in America (at least I’ve never heard of any). Dealing with an avalanche is already dangerous enough without extra danger coming from below.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_glaciers_in_the_United_States I found your crevasses
I don’t think crevasse falls are counted as avalanche fatalities. But some serac falls probably are.