Observation Rock avalanche

Stuff about the slide is about halfway down. Yikes!<br><br> tetongravity.com/forums/showthread.php?s...b6b15&threadid=16619

Thanks for the link. That's a scary story, and it is easy to imagine that I might make the same mistakes they did - it is, after all, only September, and only 6" of new. I'm glad they were OK enough to make it out on their own.

scary stuff...anyone know if it was the group that was discussing a spray park ski on saturday on this site was involved in the slide?  <br>

I can't connect to the Teton Gravity site, but one of the group from TAY which skied the Flett yesterday was also at Muir today (along with 90-95% of the membership), and he mentioned no avalanche.  

Heard that Obs rock on 9/16/04 AM was just getting some new snow, but not much. <br><br>My first hand trip there 9/6/04 saw a foot plus of hard snow from last winter covering the ice the whole length and width of the North wall.  In 2003 by late Sept the ice itself was melted down enough for frequent rock fall reports. <br><br>Wonder which is typical?  Muir on 9/19 was fun.

I'm not clear on the point you're trying to make by posting (twice, on two different threads) about this incident. You've added nothing to shared understandings of what happened; instead, you seem motivated by a desire to "out" the participants. I am curious why a first-time, anonymous poster would go to the trouble.<br><br>Notice that those posting on this site are generally quite civil, in deliberate contrast to TGR, CC, Ascensionist, and other sites. That's not an accident.

markharf,<br>  I think this guy is trying to personally attack pbelitz.

Just following Markharf and Jimjar. Yeah Ops what's the haps. Is there a point to your post? Are you just catching up on reading tr's and stumbled across this one? Or are you seeking more information about it. If so just pm me and I'll tell you all about it since I was an active participant.

Yes, Ops, it would be most helpful if you could elaborate on your two posts. I didn't gain anything from your posts that I didn't already know from Phil's TR page, but I'm sometimes pretty slow to catch on to things like this...

...nothing left to say, given the moderation.

I have removed both of my two posts. If you do not understand my motivation for my posts then you likely have not have read the sarcastic, juvenile attack pbelitz posted against Lowell Skoog in the Mt Blum thread. Pbelitz edited his post in the past several hours so you may not have read it in full. I found pbelitz's sarcastic post to Lowell extremely distasteful which motivated me to use the same theme of pbelitz's post and write a post about him. While I agree this was petty, juvenile and adding nothing of value to this site, I do not think this was any different then what pbelitz did to Lowell and it did have the intended affect of getting pbelitz to edit his post. <br><br>How many of those posting here actually read pbelitz's unedited post mocking Lowell? <br>In my mind Lowell is one the most respected and distinguished mountaineers in the PNW. Criticizing him in the petty and patronizing way pbelietz did I find similar to criticizing a religious figure that you may find sacred.<br><br>For what it's worth, last night was really the first time I had read the mtnphil page about the Observation rock avalanche. A friend sent me the link when I asked if he had any details of this incident. I'm disappointed you feel a link to mtnphil's page does not belong in this thread. I believe it's important to learn from these incidents and not "sweep them under the carpet" like Ava Blanche points out certain Canadian guiding companies like to do. <br><br>I am interested in more feedback on my actions especially taken in the context of pbelitz's initial post against Lowell. Was pbelitz's post to Lowell appropriate? Are you glad my post encouraged pbelitz to edit his post? What would have been a better way to go about what I was trying to do?<br><br>PS: My posts were not "moderated", pb. I deleted them at my own inititive. Sorry to disappoint you. Are you pleased there's not a link to the incident in this thread anymore?

Why would unsavory characters be following pbelitz back here to to exact this cruel and heartless revenge? Methinks our poor, innocent little brother hath run himself into the hands of vicious online highwaymen. I thought I told you not to talk to strangers.

One more thing, was there a link to the mtnphil report in another thread? I'm having a hard time understanding why people feel it doesn't belong in this thread. Maybe someone can eleborate? Did everyone in this thread read it prior to me posting it?

Ops, I'm uncertain as to the controversy. I read Phil's report last year and don't recall it being a secret--whether it's in this thread or otherwise. It's important-but-old news. Does that clear up the matter any?

So Ops do two wrongs make a right?<br><br>Can't we all just get along.<br><br>Don't bust on Paul too much. He might have to reprogram a robotic fish to swim thru your plumbing. ;D ;D ;D<br><br>Hey Paul wuz up.

Ops, Phil posted the TR so people could learn from out mistakes. I posted on TGR for the same reason, since in early season excitement to ski often overrules logical though. I know it did for me. <br><br>I don't see anything being 'swept under the carpet'. We made mistakes, we paid for them, we learned. Whether any of us decide to make it public is up to us, not you. Phil's site is well known, the link is obvious. If someone is curious about what happened, the information is easy to find. If you really have that big a problem with it, feel free to contact me. <br><br>As for the Blum thread, I would first like to say that I admire and respect Lowell Skoog greatly. However, having seen the video of the huck in question, and having talked to the Hummels and Sky, I do not believe that their decision to jump rather than downclimb was unduly reckless. No more reckless than the decision to throw a helicopter off a windlip on the Ptarmigan Traverse, as Lowell showed in his photo (which I saw posted on cascadeclimbers.com). No offense was meant, which is why I edited my original, somewhat overly harsh, post.<br><br>

In my mind Lowell is one the most respected and distinguished mountaineers in the PNW. Criticizing him in the petty and patronizing way pbelietz did I find similar to criticizing a religious figure that you may find sacred.

<br>Why you deify Lowell Skoog is your own business; however, it does not give you the right to attack, insult, or otherwise slander me. <br><br>In the future I will do my best not to disagree with anyone that you find 'sacred', to spare myself the mighty wrath of 'Ops'. <br><br>Now how about identifying yourself? Or perhaps you are 'ashamed' to?

That's a very genuine, fair and level-headed response, pb. I really appreciate that post. <br><br>I do wonder, if I had not posted would you have edited your post anyway?<br><br>Actually who cares. How about we kiss and make up now?<br><br>Love,<br><br>Ops

Sigh. Ops, whoever you are and whatever your motivation, I did read Paul's orginal post targeting Lowell. I took it as an elaborate, well-intentioned joke, though not in the best of taste and obviously susceptible to misinterpretation. I was also aware of the incident last fall, including the identities of those present at the time.<br><br>In my relatively brief internet-literate time, I've noticed that when I respond to posts which I think inappropriate with sarcasm or attacks, conversations rapidly deteriorate. What's more, in such cases I am not seen as the defender of truth and justice which I believe myself to be, but rather as just another sarcastic, attacking poster (of whom there is apparently a limitless supply). I learned these things from Lowell, among others. <br><br>In general, when I feel an overwhelming need to ventilate sarcastically, I try to do it by backchannel. This has been working pretty well for me, and might be worth a try.<br><br>Hope that helps,<br><br>Mark

I took it as an elaborate, well-intentioned joke, though not in the best of taste

<br><br>What I found most distastful about Pb's initial post was that Lowell actually died. Death is not a subject I find humorous.

In the interest of putting a more positive spin on these developments, I was inspired to write a haiku. <br><br>Dangerous windslab,<br>Little snow becomes a lot.<br>Watch terrain features!<br><br>Marharf,<br>I think your sentiments have great merit. I would also encourage you to consider yourself, in addition to the aptly-coined 'internet-literate', a 'sprayer-errant'. <br><br><br><br><br><br>

Ok, Paul, you've had your fun, now where is the latest snow porn. You must attone for your cyber-sins by providing powder appeasement.

Marharf, I would also encourage you to consider yourself a 'sprayer-errant'.  

<br><br>And that would be errant in the sense of: <br><br>"1: traveling or given to traveling &lt;an errant knight&gt;...?" <br><br>Or perhaps:<br><br> "2 a : straying outside the proper path or bounds &lt;an errant calf&gt; b : moving about aimlessly or irregularly &lt;an errant breeze&gt; c : deviating from a standard (as of truth or propriety) &lt;an errant child&gt; d : FALLIBLE...?" <br><br>Yes, I recognize myself in this description: a fallible, deviant, aimless outsider somewhat prone to traveling. Thanks for providing the mirror, Sky. <br>

Wow. I missed pbelitz's original reply in the Mt Blum thread. It must have been a doozy.<br><br>It's entirely fair to compare my concerns about the decisions on Mt Blum with my own decision to throw a helicopter on the Ptarmigan traverse many years ago. As I said in my posting on CascadeClimbers.com, I have been "guilty myself" of throwing ski tricks in the backcountry. I posted the picture as an example.<br><br>I offered my comments in the Mt Blum thread out of concern for the safety of, and the example set by, the skiers on that trip, all of whom I've skied with. I have not seen the video of their jumps, and could only go by the descriptions I read, which said it was a thirty foot drop. If you look over at that CC.com post, you'll see me four whole feet off the ground:<br><br>www.cascadeclimbers.com/threadz/showflat...in/426587#Post426587

It's also a beautiful spring day, I'm in no hurry, and I've got an overnight pack full of useful gear. It's a little different situation than what I was commenting on. But maybe not that different. I'd be willing to entertain the argument that I was being reckless. I was only 25 at the time. About the age of the Mt Blum crew. I'm 48 now. I still like to throw helicopters.

...Now I used to throw 360's ;D. It was the one thing I nearly broke my neck doing. On large cliffs, I feel comfortable and have never hurt myself. My point is, everything is dangerous. On a rainy, wet drive at night I'm about as scared as I ever get. If anyone has driven with me, they've felt the same . I don't drive fast but my attention could use some attention. Anyhow, risk is associated with everything we do. It is hard to measure but we do it anyhow. Everyones ruler is a bit different. In hindsight decisions are always 20/20. I still like to jump cliffs and it really wasn't because of time, but because I felt it was the safer route...tounge in cheek... A little judgement hurts no one. Now if the resorts would open or some sun would shine, I could go ski a mountain rather than a world more characteristic of a blank Virtual Reality before loading.

I think everybody on the net deserves to be treated with respect even (or especially) if you don't know them. I don't deserve to be treated any better--or any worse--than anybody else. One thing I've seen over the years, especially in climbing bulletin boards, is a tendency to defer to hot-shot climbers. It's as though being a good athlete means your ideas are worth more than somebody else's. I don't buy that. Ideas on the net need to stand on their own merits, and not depend on who is promoting them. That's a big part of the fun of it, in my opinion.<br><br>"On the internet, nobody knows you're a dog" (from a cartoon in the New Yorker)

I find the TR mentioned above extremely helpful and they should be posted.  Here is a link since it was removed above www.mtnphil.com/ORock3/ORock3.html <br><br>I love the topic of risk, as people have such strong opinions......Soap box please...<br><br>How much is acceptable and by who's definition?  "You took too much risk doing that" is one of my favorites. <br><br>My view is different than most as the saying goes, "if it does not kill you, it makes you stronger" but then again I'm a dumb 29 year old male.  Statistics don't lie, you become safer as you get older, your "tolerance" or acceptance of risk decreases. <br><br>Why go (insert favorite sport here) that could be dangerous.  We have a fine example here of a group at the cutting edge of BC skiing, but the specific sport does not mater, it could be surfing, skiing mountain biking, motorcycles etc.  The choice of a 30 foot drop or a 360 all seem perfectly harmless at the time....  The groups in question determined the risk was acceptable, that's enough IMO.  <br><br>Call me an 'idiot', but don't keep or restrict me from being an 'idiot.'<br><br>EDIT to clarify my rambling, as it read wrong.

I missed the thread the first time around, so I'm glad it resurfaced, despite the etiquette controversy and crossover with the also-intriguing Mt Blum thread. <br><br>What I found most interesting were the insights from both Phil and Paul regarding their states of mind - the "it's still summer" mode they seemed to have been in despite the evidence that surrounded their legs. I have to guess that these guys are neither more nor less careless than me, so there's a good reminder for me about checking the assumptions that you carry to the trailhead against what you see on the hill (whether it's about time of year or the latest avy report).<br><br>Thanks for sharing, guys.

How much is acceptable and by who's definition?  "You took too much risk doing that" is one of my favorites....<br><br>Why go (insert favorite sport here) that could be dangerous...<br><br>The group in question determined the risk was acceptable, that's enough IMO.

<br><br>Safety analysis happens all the time in high risk sports. Most people think it's a good thing. Usually it happens post mortem (literally). That's unfortunate.<br><br>I added some more thoughts over in the Mt Blum thread that explain why I think it is worth discussing here.<br>

My thigh is still a little numb...

My comments are only directed at the hind sight comments that normally follow or "post mortem," as Lowell said, not in this thread(any more) or the Mt Blum thread, but in general. Several current threads in the avalanche section of www.telemarktalk.com make quick judgment of accidents and cast blame immediately Durand(sp?). This board does not do it much...thank you.

I totally agree, risk analysis is a good thing and always must be done. The part that I disagree with is the 20/20 hindsight, you should have done this or that comments. There is no question one must think of the location, time, what will happen if scenarios...etc. Every story has many possible endings, discussing the alternate endings to raise awareness is necessary, but must stop short of casting blame. Your comments, Lowell, are well written, don't blame and deserve to be heard, a fine example of what should be done.