# 2 skiers in Permanently Closed area at Kicking Horse



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

*2 skiers die in Permanently Closed area at Kicking Horse*

Unfortunate

Kicking Horse avalanche kills two

Anyone that knows Fuez, the whole north of the bowl is a permanently closed area, sometimes referred to as "Darwin's Chutes". It slides all the time. Some of the media is not specifying that these skiers were in a closed or permanently closed area, rather that it was in bounds.


----------



## Vlaze (Nov 12, 2008)

Sigh, seems more and more unfortunate occurances like this happen every year. Not sure whether to credit it to the increasing population of people wanting to go outside the slopes not prepared or just the unfortunate combination of weather, luck and condition. Either way, just plain sad.


----------



## rjattack19 (Nov 7, 2008)

it is sad but why would anyone go into an area notorious for slides? best wishes to their families though,


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

They went in there because it was untracked and they had absolutely no idea how dangerous it was. All thoughts of fun and very little of consequence. Sad. Permanent closures within resorts and ones in the backcountry are not to be trifled with. There is a reason that they make them permanent. Not many areas have this, but ones that do, give that closed area a wide berth. 

There are several areas that are not a permanent closure but have very high danger. Ten Little Indians on Berthoud Pass is a prime example. It looks great, but the near permanent cornice and frequent slides back there make it probably the most dangerous spot on the pass. In the 8 or so years I have been riding there, I have never put a track in that spot. The conditions have always been too sketch when I've been in that area. 

Anyone with basic avalanche knowledge would probably (and I stress probably)have not been in that area. I read one person had a beacon, but anyone with or without knowledge can own one of those. I see plenty of examples of this every season.

Enough of my high horse. These people paid the ultimate price. My condolences to their friends and family. 

RIP


----------



## SB4L (Jan 12, 2009)

Sad story, though completely avoidable with a little knowledge and training. I bet the 14 and 36 year olds who decided to back off the slope will never forget this, and hopefully it will inspire them to get some avalanche training and know how to use the equipment. Or it could scare them off slack/backcountry forevor.

As much as it sucks to have to say, they were tempting fate in the mountains during a period of increased avalanche risk. When you don't respect the mountains, they can turn on you in a big hurry.

Link to CAC report

"Character: SE; 43 degrees; Cross-loaded Slope; Convex Roll(s).
ESE aspect. Windward/cross-loaded slope. Steep, unsupported (convex roll to cliff
band) slope. Many areas of weakness (rocks, trees)."

If you look at the stats this slope seems an almost guaranteed avalanche risk. On top of this there was new storm snow and wind loading. Lesson learned people, there is a very fine line between terrain that the ski patrol regularly maintains, and the other side of the rope that is permanently closed is for a damn good reason. RIP.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

If people didn't go out on days with conditions reported like that, there wouldn't be much backcountry riding going on. Even on high days you can get out and enjoy some bc riding. You just have to choose your terrain wisely. This being a permanent closure is almost never a wise choice. Not too mention the danger you expose rescuers to by going in there. Here is a pic of the area. The horizontal area is the boundary closure. The down arrows are the likely slide paths. You can see the cornice at the top of this bowl. Very exposed, very high risk line. 








The biggest problem I see with this area is that it's available for all to see. Lot's of temptation there. I am actually kind of surprised that KH doesn't mitigate this area. Maybe it's too high risk, from the picture it doesn't look that way. Things have a way of getting their point across differently when you are there in person though.


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

It's quite the hike to get up there. In addition, you need to cross under the rope and multiple closed and boundary signs.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

I definitely not saying it's a big hike out there. My main point is that it's nice and out in the open for all to see. Ropes or not, some will see that area and think that it offers easy untracked pow with easy access back to the resort. I can see that the hike up the ridge line to throw charges and do other avalanche mitigation techniques might be beyond the resources KH wants to use for that. Though an avalauncher or howitzer can take away some of that pain...


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

You are right, it is very tempting. I do think they do some control in there, but probably not as much as they could.


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

On a side note. With this latest accident it brings the total number of avalanche fatalities in North America to 41 deaths.  

That is 41 too many.


----------



## SB4L (Jan 12, 2009)

Thanks for the pic, was not sure exactly where this occurred and that puts it into perspective.

Was that pic recent, like from the actual indident or not? I remember seeing this area when I was there from the top of the ridge, it's definitely a tempting looking hike but KH is a very raw place, this isn't like hiking wawa ridge at Sunshine.

I agree that even in 'considerable' risk days like this one you can find deep turns in the BC, for sure. You've just got to find some lower-angle stuff at or below treeline, usually - this slope was neither, unfortunately. 

41 deaths?? Good god, that's pretty high, I believe more than a dozen have been in British Columbia alone.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2009)

killclimbz said:


> With this latest accident it brings the total number of avalanche fatalities in North America to 41 deaths.


Stupid question... 41 this season, or 41 ever?


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

It is 41 avalanche related deaths this season. I'll have to look up the average but I believe on an annual basis it's in the mid to high 20's, maybe low 30's. So we are getting close to doubling the average, with a lot of season left. We are just getting into the wet slide time of year. 23 fatalities in the US and 18 in Canada. Definitely a high number. I agree that people will always find ways to die. Avalanches being one of them, each loss is still tragic, and this many for the season is abnormally high. The scary thing is the large groups that have been caught. This year has seen a spike of under educated (avy wise) people getting caught and killed. Every time I read an incident where more than one person was buried and killed just makes me cringe. These numbers would be a lot lower if these groups only followed the most basic of rules when traveling in avalanche terrain. Expose one person at a time to danger.


----------



## Guest (Mar 10, 2009)

Damn, this sucks. It's always sad to hear about a fellow skier/rider going above the peak way before their time. I just hope that people will exercise more caution in the future


----------



## killclimbz (Aug 10, 2007)

Looking through the years the average seems to be in the mid to high 30's. This is without crunching numbers. Last year there were 52 deaths. We're on track. The year previous 26. The data I could find goes back to the 98-99 season. 

Fact of the matter is people are going to die in wilderness. I know this. I also know we can do a better job getting the word out there. In the early to late 90's, snowboarders were the group that was accounting far a disproportionate amount of fatalities. Before that of course were the skiers. That has changed. The past three years has seen snowmobilers becoming the main group that is getting wiped out. 26 of the fatalities this season have been snowmobilers. They just don't get it. Out of those incidents, four of them involved multiple burials. That is really not getting it...


----------



## SB4L (Jan 12, 2009)

Seedy J said:


> Stupid question... 41 this season, or 41 ever?


Dude, 41 ever??? Stevens Pass 1910  , 96 dead in ONE AVALANCHE. Obviously we know a LOT more now than they did back then. It is a slightly stupid question but you can't really be blamed, unless you live in avalanche risk areas, you typically don't hear as much about it. This is why every year huge advances in research are made because so little is still known. I think I heard someone say that we know more about the surface of the moon than we do the phyiscs of an avalanche, don't quote me on that but it seems believable. 

Here's a chart I just found, updated March 1st with total north american deaths by avalanche 1998-present. They also have another one that breaks this season's deaths down by category (snowmobiler, skier, snowboarder, etc.)


----------



## SB4L (Jan 12, 2009)

As for snowmobilers, don't even get me started... Some of the videos posted on youtube of avalanches triggered by snowmobilers who narrowly escape, only to celebrate with their buddies, show how ignorant they are towards the risk. And half the comments on the videos just support the that theory.


----------



## Zee (Feb 21, 2008)

I think losing 8 snowmobilers in one shot in the Harvey pass avalanche doesn't help the stats.


----------

