I disagree with the attitude that significant number of backcountry travelers don't know the forecast, because the data on when fatalities happens doesn't support it. More people die in avalanches when conditions are low vs. when they're extreme because usage rates are so different at those times. Even if the article cites some troubling case studies, the patterns in fatalities suggests the majority of backcountry travelers are using some level of informed decision making. Likewise, would your attitude about the article change if the data was collected on a green day vs. orange? Simply staying home until conditions are most favorable takes little training and no money, but makes the biggest impact on your risk exposure. The higher the risk for that day, the more troubling I find the article.
View attachment 87644
Looking at the chart above, there are 2 ways to approach avalanche education:
1. Get the low hanging fruit - Over the years following accidents in WA, there are some easy ones to prevent: understanding that closed inbounds terrain
is backcountry terrain. Educate kids early - even if they don't have a backcountry setup, if they're resort skiing without mom & dad, they need to know why ski boundaries exist and what the risks are crossing them.
@Tricia, to your point, I think lift-accessed backcountry doesn't necessarily skew educated users' judgment beyond the familiarity & social proof heuristics, but I know friends who can't believe how lucky they were with the ropes they ducked as kids, and there have been several Tunnel Creek incidents where riders had no gear, no training, and 2 didn't even realize they were out of the resort. We've also had a run of fatalities where the backcountry traveler was solo, which makes me wonder who's friends & family weren't totally flipping out about those decisions.
2. Get the meat - the majority of fatalities are happening in considerable conditions. Backcountry travel isn't outright discouraged on the avalanche danger scale, but the description for considerable also makes it unequivocally clear that there is little margin for error. It's tricky because sometimes risky terrain is limited to certain aspects, sometimes it's across all. Sometimes it's a visually detectable problem like wind slabs where some experienced skiers will be able to read the snowpack & spot what's scoured and what's deposited, sometimes its deeply buried problems. This is where users have to build their own set of rules & decision matrices that are personal and aren't taught in class and aren't as simple as the social red-light-green-light cues you get for more dangerous or safer terrain. Without them, it's the point where FACETS seems most likely to lead people astray. I personally think that we as a backcountry community should practice getting them in writing.
I'd also add a #3 for the PNW in particular around funding and timing. Our winter snowpacks are fairly straightforward and snow bonds quickly. It's generally either an inbounds powder day or a good day to go tour. We're way underrepresented in mid-winter fatalities compared to smaller population states (who likely have fewer skiers), but make up the majority of accidents for April through June. Both of my own close calls have been outside the core forecasting time frame when daily reporting ends and 4-day outlooks without any sort of rating on the risk scale. We're also one of the earliest avalanche centers to end daily reporting in the spring. A lot can change in a forecast over that time period, and it's generally hard to decipher the magnitude of the problems they cite. But additional daily forecasts definitely depend on community monetary support.