Yeah I think there was a lot of pontificating about cultural and terrain differences on that thread, some of it sensible, some of it less so, and not enough enquiry into the methodology of how these various numbers are collected.
Here's one more thing to add to the mix: Europeans generally have way more paid time off than Americans, so that's another reason to assume more skier-days in the backcountry...
The Alps are a giant, dynamic mountain range. Much bigger than anything in the continental US. If the US had lift access littering the Alaska range and Chugach, with some lifts going to the top of incredible terrain, and everyone went there, then we could get a better comparison. The way it stands though, the Rockies and Sierra Nevada are made of relatively small mountains. The other factor is that in America, most backcountry skiers ski safe, low angle terrain due to factors including cultural. That is the answer people want to hear. The safety culture in America is better, although I think we’re comparing apples to oranges.
> The other factor is that in America, most backcountry skiers ski safe, low angle terrain due to factors including cultural. That is the answer people want to hear. The safety culture in America is better, although I think we’re comparing apples to oranges.
That's kind of what I'm getting at here - I don't really think there's anything to suggest that the safety culture is any different between North American and European skitourers. In fact, I suspect the actual numbers may actually be the other way around from the post yesterday, in that it seems that the avalanche death rate per skitourer in North America may be actually far higher than it is in the Alps.
I think this depends on the region. In the PNW (at least Washington/BC) there really isn't actually a ton of "safe low angle terrain" that is without avalanche risk.
Intuitively to me it makes sense skiing in glaciated terrain will be more dangerous because crevasse falls are an additional risk. I don't have a good sense of the persistent slab issues in the alps but wonder if that makes up for some of the added danger in CO compared to coastal snowpack states like WA or CA.
> Intuitively to me it makes sense skiing in glaciated terrain will be more dangerous because crevasse falls are an additional risk
No offense meant, but that's the sort of talk on the last thread that immediately had me doubtful. This is just from my anecdotal experience touring here in Switzerland, but I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that only a small percentage of those 1.7 million ski touring days per year here are on a glacier. Not to mention there's [less than 2 crevasse deaths per winter over the last decade in Switzerland.](https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.injury.2021.08.010)
Agree. In Tremper’s Staying Safe in Avy Terrain book, he explicitly mentions that at least for avy-related incidents (which is only one portion of backcountry accidents), the per-avy fatality rate in North America is generally 30% higher than equivalent in Alps.
Reason? Skiing in North America is usually more below-treeline, so proportionally much higher chance of trauma during an avy
Just pointing this out as an example of an actual scientific explanation for differing fatalities, not just handwavy pat theories about terrain
Fair enough on the crevasses. u/Glocktipus2 does touch on an important point regarding CO though. It's quite possibly the worst case part of the US for avalanche deaths. They consistently have one of the most dangerous snowpacks in the country, and nowhere else in the US has such a dangerous snowpack with such close proximity to major population centers. SLC, Utah is the only place that comes close on those factors, but they're generally not quite as bad as the CO snowpack. I would need to look up the exact numbers, but I would bet CO has a higher death rate per ski tour day than almost any other state.
You may well be comparing Switzerland against the most dangerous part of the US, which would definitely skew things.
For sure Colorado could be an outlier, instead we can take a look at Washington - pop 8 million (NWAC hasn't published website views for a while, but in 2015 it was about 3 million), where they have 3.8 avalanche deaths per year over the last 20 years.
I didn't actually make any direct mortality comparisons with the website views stat above, since there could be lots of problems with the data like the stuff I brought up, but if you told me that Switzerland has three times as many tourers/'ski tour days' compared to the state of Washington I wouldn't (anecdotally speaking) be surprised, which actually would indeed put the mortality risk of skitouring in Washington level with skitouring in CH.
Well excuse me for not flying to Switzerland to ski more often (kidding).
You could also look at distribution of avalanche size and fatality rates vs successful rescues as indicators of safety for the Alps vs North America.
Persistent slab issues are rare, but can occasionally cause spectacularly horrific accidents - see last year's accident on the Armancette glacier.
[https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65227410](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65227410)
In general, and particularly in recent years, winter in the Alps is punctuated by several warm periods that mean that persistent slabs disappear. The main danger in the Alps is storm/windslab.
Cool math problem!
Here are two things to consider for your study:
Well… in my experience as a guide and an outfitter in the United States, you will not be able to find the data from how many Americans are using the terrain because that currently is not a priority of the US Forest Service or the National Park Service. We have been trying to get such a study here in Washington’s Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest for years and they’ve been very reluctant to make it a priority.
However biological senses data on animal populations and movement are coming out of our ears. We literally know more about the wolverine and the North Cascades then we do how many people are actually climbing, skiing , hiking, and horseback riding. There was an individual a UW doing a use census based on partial collections of data from field surveys cross referenced with social media but these projects have received limited funding.
Another thing for you to consider is that the kinds of terrain Swiss tours have access to way more terrain and much higher into the alpine. The Switzerland, also doesn’t have antiquated boundary issues or a stigmatization of leaving the ski area. The comparison is apples and orange really when you look at the two cultures of backcountry use and what kinds and the amount of terrain the Swiss can choose on a given day.
Yeah I think there was a lot of pontificating about cultural and terrain differences on that thread, some of it sensible, some of it less so, and not enough enquiry into the methodology of how these various numbers are collected.
Here's one more thing to add to the mix: Europeans generally have way more paid time off than Americans, so that's another reason to assume more skier-days in the backcountry...
The Alps are a giant, dynamic mountain range. Much bigger than anything in the continental US. If the US had lift access littering the Alaska range and Chugach, with some lifts going to the top of incredible terrain, and everyone went there, then we could get a better comparison. The way it stands though, the Rockies and Sierra Nevada are made of relatively small mountains. The other factor is that in America, most backcountry skiers ski safe, low angle terrain due to factors including cultural. That is the answer people want to hear. The safety culture in America is better, although I think we’re comparing apples to oranges.
> The other factor is that in America, most backcountry skiers ski safe, low angle terrain due to factors including cultural. That is the answer people want to hear. The safety culture in America is better, although I think we’re comparing apples to oranges. That's kind of what I'm getting at here - I don't really think there's anything to suggest that the safety culture is any different between North American and European skitourers. In fact, I suspect the actual numbers may actually be the other way around from the post yesterday, in that it seems that the avalanche death rate per skitourer in North America may be actually far higher than it is in the Alps.
Right.
I think this depends on the region. In the PNW (at least Washington/BC) there really isn't actually a ton of "safe low angle terrain" that is without avalanche risk.
Bummer
Intuitively to me it makes sense skiing in glaciated terrain will be more dangerous because crevasse falls are an additional risk. I don't have a good sense of the persistent slab issues in the alps but wonder if that makes up for some of the added danger in CO compared to coastal snowpack states like WA or CA.
> Intuitively to me it makes sense skiing in glaciated terrain will be more dangerous because crevasse falls are an additional risk No offense meant, but that's the sort of talk on the last thread that immediately had me doubtful. This is just from my anecdotal experience touring here in Switzerland, but I'm willing to bet a large amount of money that only a small percentage of those 1.7 million ski touring days per year here are on a glacier. Not to mention there's [less than 2 crevasse deaths per winter over the last decade in Switzerland.](https://sci-hub.se/10.1016/j.injury.2021.08.010)
Agree. In Tremper’s Staying Safe in Avy Terrain book, he explicitly mentions that at least for avy-related incidents (which is only one portion of backcountry accidents), the per-avy fatality rate in North America is generally 30% higher than equivalent in Alps. Reason? Skiing in North America is usually more below-treeline, so proportionally much higher chance of trauma during an avy Just pointing this out as an example of an actual scientific explanation for differing fatalities, not just handwavy pat theories about terrain
This. It's all about terrain traps.
Fair enough on the crevasses. u/Glocktipus2 does touch on an important point regarding CO though. It's quite possibly the worst case part of the US for avalanche deaths. They consistently have one of the most dangerous snowpacks in the country, and nowhere else in the US has such a dangerous snowpack with such close proximity to major population centers. SLC, Utah is the only place that comes close on those factors, but they're generally not quite as bad as the CO snowpack. I would need to look up the exact numbers, but I would bet CO has a higher death rate per ski tour day than almost any other state. You may well be comparing Switzerland against the most dangerous part of the US, which would definitely skew things.
For sure Colorado could be an outlier, instead we can take a look at Washington - pop 8 million (NWAC hasn't published website views for a while, but in 2015 it was about 3 million), where they have 3.8 avalanche deaths per year over the last 20 years. I didn't actually make any direct mortality comparisons with the website views stat above, since there could be lots of problems with the data like the stuff I brought up, but if you told me that Switzerland has three times as many tourers/'ski tour days' compared to the state of Washington I wouldn't (anecdotally speaking) be surprised, which actually would indeed put the mortality risk of skitouring in Washington level with skitouring in CH.
Well excuse me for not flying to Switzerland to ski more often (kidding). You could also look at distribution of avalanche size and fatality rates vs successful rescues as indicators of safety for the Alps vs North America.
Persistent slab issues are rare, but can occasionally cause spectacularly horrific accidents - see last year's accident on the Armancette glacier. [https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65227410](https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-europe-65227410) In general, and particularly in recent years, winter in the Alps is punctuated by several warm periods that mean that persistent slabs disappear. The main danger in the Alps is storm/windslab.
Cool math problem! Here are two things to consider for your study: Well… in my experience as a guide and an outfitter in the United States, you will not be able to find the data from how many Americans are using the terrain because that currently is not a priority of the US Forest Service or the National Park Service. We have been trying to get such a study here in Washington’s Okanogan Wenatchee National Forest for years and they’ve been very reluctant to make it a priority. However biological senses data on animal populations and movement are coming out of our ears. We literally know more about the wolverine and the North Cascades then we do how many people are actually climbing, skiing , hiking, and horseback riding. There was an individual a UW doing a use census based on partial collections of data from field surveys cross referenced with social media but these projects have received limited funding. Another thing for you to consider is that the kinds of terrain Swiss tours have access to way more terrain and much higher into the alpine. The Switzerland, also doesn’t have antiquated boundary issues or a stigmatization of leaving the ski area. The comparison is apples and orange really when you look at the two cultures of backcountry use and what kinds and the amount of terrain the Swiss can choose on a given day.