telemark skiingbackcountry skiingPacific NorthwestWashington and Oregonweather linksThe Yuki AwardsMt. Rainier and Mt. Adams
Turns All Year
www.turns-all-year.com
  Help | Search | Login | Register
Turns All Year Trip Reports
Backcountry Skiing and Snowboarding

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
06/17/19, 09:40 PM

Become a TAY Sponsor!
 
Trip Reports Sponsor
Second Ascent
Second Ascent
Turns All Year Trip Reports
(1) Viewing these pages constitutes your acceptance of the Terms of Use.
(2) Disclaimer: the accuracy of information here is unknown, use at your own risk.
(3) Trip Report monthly boards: only actual trip report starts a new thread.
(4) Keep it civil and constructive - that is the norm here.
 
FOAC Snow
Info Exchange


NWAC Avalanche
Forecast
+  Turns All Year Trip Reports
|-+  2005 Backcountry Trip Reports
| |-+  December 2005 Backcountry Trip Reports
| | |-+  December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
:
« previous next »
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All | Go Down Print
Author Topic: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')  (Read 40357 times)
cw
5Member
Offline

Posts: 87


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #25 on: 12/16/05, 10:21 AM »

Teleross, from all accounts you are a much better skier than I and certainly I have enjoyed many a post reading your comments but I confess a bit of a "ouch" factor in reading some words in your post. These words Perchance obscure some of your seemingly pertinent thoughts and ideas.

Methinks we all take our own track, and it's even better when we get to share them. Your hill is my Mtn. I of course know little and say it poorly.
« Last Edit: 12/16/05, 10:22 AM by cw » Logged
TeleRoss
5Member
Offline

Posts: 72


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #26 on: 12/16/05, 11:46 AM »

I think I'm just irritable cause I carried my skis for 30 some odd miles and didn't make a single turn.....hahahahaha.
BUT
We need to keep a perspective on things here.  Regardless of your skiing abilities Snoqualmie Mtn is not a big peak nor does it take big cajones to follow someone's skin track to the top of it, especially in beautiful weather and with very low avie risk.
BWTFDIK?
Logged
powscraper
Member
Offline

Posts: 403


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #27 on: 12/16/05, 12:08 PM »

No way, I hear the hardcore skiers go to Snoqualmie.  

Also, hyakbc says that Snoqualmie is no place for beginners (pg 3 or 4?).

http://talk.splitboard.com/talk/viewtopic.php?t=1770&start=0
« Last Edit: 12/18/05, 11:19 AM by username » Logged
Lowell_Skoog
Member
Offline

Posts: 2081


WWW
Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #28 on: 12/16/05, 12:44 PM »

Bill Degenhardt broke his hip in an avalanche on Mt Snoqualmie in 1954. He was one of the most experienced mountaineers of his day. The following page has a photo of the rescue:

http://www.mountaineers.org/nwmj/05/051_Bauer3.html

My brother Gordy and a friend did a dawn patrol on Mt Snoqualmie a few years ago. Conditions were icy and Gordy's friend fell during the descent and was injured. Gordy went for help and even though his friend was almost within shouting distance of the parking lot, it took many hours before a rescue team was able to bring him out. It was a beautiful day and his accident happened in the morning. Had it occurred later in the day he would have been benighted and faced hypothermia conditions.

It's easy to forget how unforgiving even modest mountains like Snoqualmie can be in winter. But I will admit that I have skied it solo a few times myself. I think it's good to discuss potential risk.
Logged
Charles
Member
Offline

Posts: 1090


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #29 on: 12/16/05, 05:11 PM »

To me, the issue of interest here is not whether or not Snoqualmie Mountain is a "big" mountain, but how each bc skier applies their individual level of cautiousness to their decision making in the mountains. MW88888888 outlined the factors that went into making his decision, and this decision meshed with his level of cautiousness. To me it is useful to learn how other people think about these issues - I believe that this makes me a more independent thinker, not less. Although I will never be comfortable doing the cutting-edge types of trips sometimes reported here, when a TR from such a trip gives details about decision making I find it to be more useful (as well as more interesting to read) than when not.

Whether or not Snoqualmie Mountain is "big", there doesn't seem to be much doubt that the area is "dangerous", as in deaths and injuries related to snow. If this is due largely to the easy access afforded to large numbers of people, does that make it any less useful to discuss the issues which have come up in this thread? When I was getting in to bc skiing I would have benefited from being able to read this kind of discussion. I think it is important to keep in mind that although a large amount of posting to this forum is by people with considerable bc experience, it is likely that a large amount of the viewing of the posts is by people with less experience.
Logged
THE_MAN
1Member
Offline

Posts: 4


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #30 on: 12/17/05, 03:30 PM »

[quote author=MW88888888
Skiing a big peak solo?  Foolish?  For sure.  I really should stop doing that.  I really should.  But then again, I should stop driving my car.  Oh well, this, too, is a reality I am at peace with.


Yo MW-

I dont care how many "big peaks" you ski solo.  I come to TAY to get the beta on ski tours and snow conditions, not for your desperate and sarcastic little "look at me" pleas for attention.  Up to your last paragraph you were doing ok, a bit long winded and blow-hearted, but we've come to expect that from your posts.  
Logged
Gib
5Member
Offline

Posts: 66


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #31 on: 12/18/05, 06:20 AM »

Wanted to add an aside that the explosions noted on the 8th were actually the DOT targeting their 105rr from the top of the Summit West ski hill toward Denny Mt. and Granite Mt. There wasn't any hazard control work done that day by the Alpental patrol. Alp only tries to control hazard on Mt Snoqualmie when conditions indicate the possibility of large, long return-period slides, or else favorable conditions for dealing to a persistent weak layer. Hardly ever done more than once or twice a year, but always a great idea to check with the Alpental Pro's if there is any question. Going the other way, they also appreciate any eyewitness observations of snowpack weakness or instability from around the valley. I know a number of them watch this forum as well.
Logged
powscraper
Member
Offline

Posts: 403


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #32 on: 12/18/05, 07:24 AM »

Whoa, what does the DOT shoot at?  Am I liable to take artillery fire next time I go looking for powder?
Logged
jimmyclimbs
5Member
Offline

Posts: 63


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #33 on: 12/18/05, 08:05 AM »

I?ve only posted once in the past, a few years ago.

I?m the guy out there that Charles and others have mentioned in this thread. John Q. Public, that?s me.

I read this site for information useful to getting outback. I've always thought this site was a form of intelegent community working together to maximize everyones adventures with things like snow condititions, avy danger, sucesfull and failed trips, what?s in what?s out, and all that jazz.

I get out a bit and use all the info I can, whenever I can.

Jumping all over MW8888888888 dosent really contribut to the greater good. Infact, short of individual egos, nothing is really gained.

What is and is not a ?big mountian? is rediculous, the dude was pumped about having a good time and shared a few mistakes in letting everyone know about his day.

Big ol' "ski bullies" punking out the little guy.

Perhaps the tenser amonong  the community should spend less time criticing others and get out for some snow time themselves.



"If it were any easier, I'd be doing that too."
Logged
RonL
Member
Offline

Posts: 536


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #34 on: 12/18/05, 10:48 AM »

I can't believe I came back from two days of skiing to find that this post is still being discussed.
I happen to know that MW8888888 posts on this site to share conditions with others and his experiences with myself and his other friends across the states. Any other motives you might attribute to them are more reflective of your own state of mind than his.
Thanks for all the good discussion on this. And thanks to Charles for being the voice of reason and keeping this site a comfortable place to belong.
Logged
philfort
Member
Offline

Posts: 628


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #35 on: 12/18/05, 11:15 AM »

Quote
 I come to TAY to get the beta on ski tours and snow conditions


You come to TAY to get beta on ski tours and snow conditions, and then criticize people who provide just that?  Angry

Why don't you post something useful.  Such as, beta and snow conditions.
Logged
powscraper
Member
Offline

Posts: 403


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #36 on: 12/18/05, 11:22 AM »

Yeah but why are they trying to kill me?!!  Huh
Logged
philfort
Member
Offline

Posts: 628


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #37 on: 12/18/05, 11:41 AM »

Quote
Yeah but why are they trying to kill me?!!  Huh


It has been determined that you are "wasting powder" on that splitboard contraption, especially when it is used in ski mode for descents in bottomless fluff.  That is the reason you have been targeted for elimination.
Logged
powscraper
Member
Offline

Posts: 403


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #38 on: 12/18/05, 11:53 AM »

Quote


especially when it is used in ski mode for descents


You mean they are not susceptible to my camouflage?
Logged
Charles
Member
Offline

Posts: 1090


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #39 on: 12/18/05, 12:22 PM »

THE_MAN: Aren't we all here to "get the beta on ski tours and snow conditions"? A well written trip report will always contain these elements, but beyond that it's a matter of personal style. I enjoy the many unique styles of the different contributors to this forum, and like I said above, I find it useful when a trip reporter let's the reader into their mind regarding decisions they made in the mountains.

Surfers who are searching for "look at me pleas for attention" would do better to go elsewhere because that's not what this forum is about, and I don't recall that idea ever crossing my mind when reading any of MW88888888's 190 posts here. A poster with a total of 3 posts, none of which contain any beta, is not likely to make much progress in convincing the general readership that another person's 190 posts are nothing but pleas for attention. It generally works best in this forum for a newcomer to establish a positive reputation for themselves by posting the type of information that we all come here looking for. In addition, it doesn't take a lot of skill to anonymously flame someone else on an internet forum. It is much harder work to disagree with someone else's point of view but still keep the discussion respectful, but that's what people here have come to expect.
Logged
Hyakbc
5Member
Offline

Posts: 68


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #40 on: 12/18/05, 02:26 PM »

Word.
Logged

Welcome to TAYLANDIA. Unicorn served daily.
watsonskipsmith
5Member
Offline

Posts: 86


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #41 on: 12/19/05, 08:01 AM »

thanks to (almost) all for an interesting discussion.

i have two (mabee) interesting factoids to add:

did you know that the human body metabolizes 2 quarts of water every 24 hours at rest when outdoors in the winter?

avalance danger for 12/8 was moderate down low but considerable up high per the NWWAC (in case you thought it was low that day)
Logged
Jim Oker
TAY Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1591


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #42 on: 12/19/05, 09:06 AM »

I guess that some people's "moderate to considerable" is other people's "low" or even "very low"
Huh
Thanks for diplomatically pointing out the orwellian word games that went on in at least two of the posts here, mr. smith.

I'll re-state a point worth re-stating. I respect that we all draw the lines differently. What I don't respect is people who make fun of those who draw the lines differently from themselves. This is a bad dynamic, especially if you carry it out into the field, which is no place to be shutting down group input with macho crap (which in this case included spouting incorrect "facts" about hazard level). Go back and re-read the group dynamics portions of your avy and general mountaineering books, guys.
Logged
powscraper
Member
Offline

Posts: 403


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #43 on: 12/19/05, 09:19 AM »

Honestly though, did anyone witness any slides?  Was there any slide layer to speak of?  Slab? (I mean, we stuck to mostly trees and lower-angle terrain...)
« Last Edit: 12/19/05, 09:21 AM by username » Logged
Jim Oker
TAY Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1591


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #44 on: 12/19/05, 10:00 AM »

I saw a pocket slab that broke loose from a SW aspect(presumably a natural release - no evidence of human travel near it) on a ridge top (at about 5600 near but not at Snoqualmie Peak) a couple days after this trip date. So snow had been blowing and settling into spots where there was a sliding surface, at least in places.

In any case, the NWAC had posted something above "low" or the new "very low" hazard level for the day, and I frankly trust their analysis more than the macho revisionism I've seen on this thread. Just because you didn't trigger an avalanche when you skied didn't mean that you weren't in moderate or considerable hazard conditions, eh?

In any case, as I noted far above, avy risk wasn't the main concern that would have led me to make different choices from MW8*. And my main point is not about the avy risk, but about the important of open discussion as opposed to peer pressure.
« Last Edit: 12/19/05, 10:14 AM by jim_oker » Logged
TeleRoss
5Member
Offline

Posts: 72


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #45 on: 12/19/05, 10:06 AM »

NWAC avalanche forecasts are a good resource definitely.  However as anyone knows who travels regularly in the mountains, avalanche conditions are very localized phenomena, and from being up on Mt Snoqualmie a day or two before I would say that the avalanche danger was very low on the westerly aspect up which the skin track ascends, while on northerly facing slopes there had been some wind deposited snow that had formed some small pocket slabs, although not enough to be much of a concern.
« Last Edit: 12/19/05, 10:08 AM by TeleRoss » Logged
powscraper
Member
Offline

Posts: 403


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #46 on: 12/19/05, 10:15 AM »

Quote
revisionism


Are you suggesting that I or others skied something that we thought had a high risk of avalanche?  I can't speak for others but I assure you that this is not the case!
« Last Edit: 12/19/05, 10:29 AM by username » Logged
Jim Oker
TAY Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1591


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #47 on: 12/19/05, 12:01 PM »

No, I have no idea what you skied around that time, username, nor how carefully you assessed what you did ski, nor how solid your assessment skills are.

I'm only pointing out that the NWAC stated hazard levels for the day were neither "low" nor the apparently new "very low" which others claimed of the day. Since pbelitz's and teleross' posts which stated the hazard levels in these terms were not specific in stating that they meant specific slopes that they had skied/tested, the implication to me was that they meant this was the overall hazard level of the day, which of course it wasn't, and when combined with the dismissive tone of their posts it smacked of revising history (aka revisionism) to make a point. And since Snoqualmie occupies a unique location next to the low pass where the west air travels east and the east air travels west and the two flip back and forth a lot around storm events, I'm sure cross-loading is not uncommon so hazard level up there likely varies quite a bit over a fairly small area. So I think the NWAC stated hazard level is still a meaningful reference point regardless of the undoubtedly unimpeachable assessments teleross made on his own travel path. However, as I've noted multiple times now in this thread, I don't think that avy risk (even NWAC said only moderate for most of this route, after all) was the primary issue that would have made me call "red" instead of "green" on this outing (lack of water and travelling this particular terrain alone were bigger issues for me in adding up to an overall "red"). I've also taken pains to point out that this is simply where I'd make my own call - people with better skiing skills, camel-like water retention, higher risk tolerance, and more refined avy assessment skills might very reasonably call it "green." And if we ever choose to ski together (any of you), I hope you'll listen to my assessments and opinions as carefully and respectfully as I'll listen to yours. Of course at this point the especially cool guys have possibly figured me for a geek they don't want to ski with, which is OK too.

More importantly, does anyone actually think "the_man" is a real poster instead of just a silly persona created by someone (fairly likely another poster on this thread, I'm guessing) who has a penchant for trolling?
« Last Edit: 12/19/05, 12:23 PM by jim_oker » Logged
powscraper
Member
Offline

Posts: 403


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #48 on: 12/19/05, 12:18 PM »

Anyway I think we can all agree that lots of snow means you assume high avalanche danger until you know otherwise, from firsthand experience or from a trusted source.  But there are specific signs and symptoms of avy potential, and it's more valuable to recognize these than to go around with a nonspecific sentiment of apprehension.  If you think everything is dangerous, then you don't actually know what is dangerous.  It is like the Tao of avalanche.

ps. I bought an avalung just in case it ever snows again.
Logged
Jim Oker
TAY Moderator
Offline

Posts: 1591


Re: December 8, 2005, Snoqualmie Mountain (6,278')
« Reply #49 on: 12/19/05, 12:29 PM »

I agree with that. Otherwise I wouldn't have much fun making untracked turns!

It's interesting to watch folks go through changes after taking an avy class - at first everything is scary, but then people often seem to cross into a zone where they are perhaps too confident of their assessment ability. Then if they're lucky, they have a near miss and rebalance a bit back toward caution, but with at least guarded optimism that lets them have lotsa calculated fun. I've both read this from the "experts" and seen it in others as well as myself.
Logged
Pages: 1 [2] 3  All | Go Up Print 
« previous next »
Jump to:  



Login with username, password and session length

Thank you to our sponsors!
click to visit our sponsor: Feathered Friends
Feathered Friends
click to visit our sponsor: Marmot Mountain Works
Marmot Mountain Works
click to visit our sponsor: Second Ascent
Second Ascent
click to visit our sponsor: American Alpine Institute
American Alpine Institute
click to visit our sponsor: Pro Guiding Service
Pro Guiding Service
Contact turns-all-year.com

Turns All Year Trip Reports ©2001-2010 Turns All Year LLC. All Rights Reserved

The opinions expressed in posts are those of the poster and do not necessarily
reflect the opinions of Trip Reports administrators or Turns All Year LLC


Turns All Year Trip Reports | Powered by SMF 1.0.6.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.