Trajically struck down so early.

I wonder if there was avalanch warning signs posted or alert aired on the radio?

Sad day for all involved.

Whats your point regarding signs and warnings He speaks? You bonehead!
You haven't a clue what you are talking about so maybe you shouldn't comment on what you know nothing about!

I don't know if warnings would have stopped them. It happens every year - people ignore the warnings and think they are prepared with avalanch survival gear and still there are losses every year. This one is extemely tragic to loose 8 lives. It's so heartbreaking for the families.

Same with skiers - that don't heed the boundaries.......I don't know what else can be done to prevent such accidents.
Perhaps education but there will always be afew.

"There was a warning of "CONSIDERABLE AVALANCHE DANGER" in the area where two avalanches buried eight snowmobilers in southeastern B.C. on Sunday."

http://www.google.com/hostednews/canadianpress/article/ALeqM5jNMHzJ5zKsEIKQzalfJUl475dWpQ

The Canadian Avalange Centre in Revelostoke is THE authority on avalanches in Canada and is recognized for its expertise throughout the world where such knowledge is important.
http://www.avalanche.ca/HomeCAC

They provide a warning system as well as education for those working and playing in the mountains in winter conditions.

Anyone in that part of the country who travels in those wilderness conditions is remiss in not taking courses, not being aware of the help available to determine conditions to be found, not accessing that help when they are aware, and not heeding warnings if they are aware of warning.

They carried relatively appropriate gear, so it sounds like they did not check the conditions or felt they were somehow above the laws of nature and probability.

BTW, he speaks asked a reasonable question when he speaks about warnings.

Sorry Gus but warnings are not going to stop the diehards from heading out there.
All the warnings do is give us backcountry nuts a little extra incentive to be careful while out there. Most experienced people don't need warnings or signs as we are always on the lookout for problems.
If you require warnings and signs to determine if you should go out then you are the type of person that shouldn't head out there period.

So in short hespeaks comment is worthless.

The dangers go with the territory. They all knew the risks. No different for any back country skiers, sledders or climbers. Part of the thrill and danger of the sport. May they rest in peace and their families be comforted during this time of loss.

To suggest that people are capable, on their own of assessing avalanche hazards, etc. is a bit much. Something one says until one suffers such a tragedy oneself. This is an accident or, if you prefer an act of God. We dont need blame here, from any quarter. My deepest sympathies to the families. Myabe we cynics on 250 should leave it at that.

In the world of safety professionals, there are no accidents. There are incidents. Accidents are not preventable, they are chance happenings. This was not a chance event. It was predictable.

Did a boater who goes out into a hurricane drown by chance? Or was it predictable that he had a very high chance of drowning? What about the guy who went over Niagara Falls in a barrel? Accident (a one in a million chance happening or preventable incident?)

Different people assess risk differently. That group should have had, and maybe had, a leader that everyone listened to. That person should be the most experienced and most safety conscious person; the person whose risk tolerance is the lowest. In other words, the lives of the others in his party are more important than his thrill of the ride in the wilderness. Him coming home to his family is more important than his thrill of living on the threshhold.

Having that many people crossing a probably avalanche path at one time is not risky in my mind, it is utter disregard for the lives of others in the party who followed so close behind.

It will be interesting to see what the forensics on this incident will say and what new lessons the Canadian Avalanche Association may have to pass along as a result.

Well we should leave it but I would like the to acknowledge the 32 year veteran RCMP officer who was reporting to the press when he said, as he glanced to the mountains, highways department have avalanche warnings and there are still avalanches and went on to say "while people enjoy the back country there will always be accidents." To me, it meant that he suffered the losses and he accepted that there will be more as long as there are people and mountains. Remember that Pierre Trudeau lost his son Michelle in an avalance and that was the beginning of the end for him. We cannot take away the spirit of the young and we cannot control nature.
So Lost faith, you must go on your own journey but there is no need to insult those who grieve for the lost.

Gus, you are right. It is tough to blame the victims as their families probably wish the same thing. It will just make their hurt more painful.
What do they call sports that are dangerous? I think there is a special channel for them. Oh, it is called extreme sports.
We have men in Afghanistan who are risking and giving their lives to help others. They are not doing it for the thrill of it. But then, all lives and journeys are different. So the young men and the Dad that have lost their lives were simply on a different journey doing what they knew best. Who among us can judge?

Lamb and others. I do not mean to lay blame on anyone. Our society is not a perfect one. It is also a changing one.

I also understand the grief the families would be going through. But that too could change given the passage of time.

I guess I find it strange that we have systems set up with controlled highways, with workplace situations, even with controlled sports situations, where "accidents" or "incidents" are disected after the fact and, if appropriate, people are held responsible for actions generally called something like "reckless diregard.". It is one thing if it is one person and one person only. It is another if it is 11 in a party and several expected that they would be led through the wilderness in relative safety.

I expect we will not find out how this particular incident will play out.

However, it is quite plausible that there is quite a bit of "accidental death insurance" to be paid out. If there are several companies involved, they might want to explore whether blame can be apportioned more to one than to any other individual. It could be worth their while in order to reduce their liability if blame can be clearly laid. I suspect it would be difficult, but it is plausible.

My God, Gus. Maybe you'd like to attend the funeral so you could beat the dead bodies ? Leave it alone and let people grieve a terrible loss.

Or I'm going to show up at your funeral and spend hours picking apart what you could have done differently in your life to avoid dying. It was your own damn fault.

The biggest and sckest fad of the last few years has been the need on the part of some people to lay blame. I dont know why Gus and others have to blame people for every damn thing. I think they watch too much TV and thusthing that because accidents are preventable (or whatever the insurance company/safety professional arguement was) that people will not make mistakes leading to trajedy. EVERYTHING that happens is preventable if the people involved had just done, or not done something. Afterwards, the armchair CSI experts are there to say who did what wrong, and how dumb they are.
Maybe we do it make ourselves feel more safe. You know, like when a woman is killed or raped we say 'well she shouldnt have been out in that area at 2 in the morning' or like when the cops say the homicide victim was 'known to police'. By blaming the victims we make ourselves feel like it isnt something that could happen to us. After all, we are all too wise and careful and, well righteous arent we? Right up until its our turn I guess.