A recent article in The Bulletin titled “Too much danger” describes one business’ retreat from sponsorship of high-risk rock climbers. I applaud its decision and offer a brief related report on this year’s International Snow Science Workshop at Banff, Alberta.

A striking difference between this meeting and previous meetings of ISSW and the National Avalanche School was the increased interest in “human factors” in avalanche events and how we try to mitigate those factors through avalanche education. Analysis of avalanche events involving human injuries and fatalities have long demonstrated the importance of human factors, i.e., factors other than snowpack, terrain or weather in those events.

Stimulated by the continuing rise in backcountry/sidecountry avalanche-caused injuries and deaths, people are suggesting the need for new approaches to the treatment of human factors in avalanche education.

At an ISSW panel titled “Avalanche Research — What Has Science Done For Us,” people questioned why avalanche-related deaths and injuries continue to go up in spite of all the avalanche research, new technology, education and increased numbers of active avalanche forecasters. People spoke of current “cultural factors” that were suspected of driving the increases. Cultural factors included an ethos that encourages pushing the boundaries in all human endeavors as well as a loss of respect for place in the backcountry. Careful, thoughtful “pushing the envelope” was contrasted with “clueless” risk-takers, people who are neither exceptionally talented nor experienced in their sport, nor knowledgeable about the medium they are recreating on.

Notable are the changes in popular winter sports film over the years; film which started years ago with lots of great scenery and beautiful skiing and mountaineering technique that has morphed into films that mostly show young men jumping or riding off big cliffs into serious avalanche terrain. Some are perceiving this as an unwise glorification of risk.

In his paper, Karl R. Geisler, New Mexico State University, spoke of how “high-risk groups differently interpret avalanche hazards” and the fact that a “large number of avalanche fatalities occur among a small subset of well-defined user groups,” who have an “increased willingness to accept under-evaluated risk.”

He feels that questioning “what leads some individuals to accept higher levels of risk” is important to reducing avalanche deaths and that we need to learn how low-probability/high-consequence events are internalized by individuals in the high-risk groups. One of his suggestions is that avalanche educators reframe the avalanche hazard in terms of potential loss of life, friends or future recreational enjoyment rather than as a necessary risk taken to enjoy a recreational activity.

Drew Hardesty, Utah Avalanche Center, asked, “How the Freedom of the Hills has Become Anarchy in the Backcountry — Do We Need a Backcountry Responsibility Code?” The title refers to “Freedom of the Hills,” published by the Seattle Mountaineers, now in its eighth edition, to earn their freedom of the hills through education, practice, self-reliance, responsible behavior and thoughtful preparation. Hardesty asks how can we “foster a culture of social responsibility” for backcountry users?

Risk theory is interesting and important in many venues. It involves the probability of hazardous events, the probable consequences if those events occur and also the value placed by the risk taker on the success of his/her endeavor. As Geisler points out, considerations of these topics span disciplines from economics to recreation.

Based on my own years of enjoyment of skiing, climbing and use of the backcountry, I agree that our society and “culture” could benefit by thoughtful study of how we currently encourage pushing the boundaries.

— Drannan Hamby lives in Bend.