Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Winter Access Forum Avalanches in the Whitney area

I don't think the thread should be pulled in any case because it contains useful knowledge. Having a little intellectual conflict is one of the ways that knowledge evolves and helps alert the reader where there may be difficult issues in a topic which deserve extra attention.

The Avalanche information Bob R posted is useful and thorough and very clear to me.

Bob,

I think there are some good points in your article and some things that are worth discussing. Looking at past history of the area is great. Your vast experience is very relevant here. Finding clues like downed trees is also great. Awareness of your surroundings is very helpful. Some of the areas you identify in the Whitney area have been avalanche zones mentioned by many people.

If you keep the post up I'd like you to comment on the following:

(1) Your comment “I personally think that the avalanche danger in the Sierra Nevada—for the objectives and routes that attract mountaineers—is low, especially in springtime.” I looked at the archives of the Eastern Sierra avalanche bulletin from this year. There are 34 bulletins and only four of them have a danger rating of LOW. The rest are MODERATE or higher. The death last year happened in March. Many avalanches seem to occur in the spring time. I flew over the Sierra once in a small plane in May and saw evidence of them all up and down the range on all aspects.

(2) "My climbing companion and I rarely take avalanche transceivers and shovels into the Sierra in winter." Does this mean that you don't ever takes avalanche probes? I took an avalanche course with Sierra Mountaineering International and learned that during our rescue practice it was the probe that made the search MUCH faster. On a different message board Kurt wrote a note showing statistics on the difference between searches using various equipment http://www.mt-whitney.info/viewtopic.php?p=3517&highlight=#3517

I'm curious when you took your last course, and what your instructor's thoughts were on the topic of using probes.

(3) You quote an article by Ray Smutek in Summit magazine published in 1981. I haven't heard of him but I'm sure he was an authority on winter mountaineering. When I took my last avalanche course I learned that the knowledge has changed a lot in the 25 years since 1981. I don't have easy access to the article you quote but is that information just as accurate today as it was when it was written?

It seems obvious that in his paper "Avalanches and the Mount Whitney Basin" Bob R is refering to mountaineering activities. Indeed, he emphasizes "Backcountry skiers, though, are a different story, because their goals and the slopes they seek out are usually not the same as those of mountaineers."

If we look at the CSAC Avalanche Center archives, as Sierra Cement suggests, those pertaining to California go back to 2000. They contain 14 incidents, including 8 fatalities. The incidents involved snowmobiling, skiing, snowboarding, and ski area. Mt Whitney area was not specified in any incident location.

Climb safe, Jim F

PS- I've printed my copy of Bob's paper just in case!

The readers on this board should be able to realize that some information will pertain to them, and some will not. Everyone is entitled to his/her opinion, as both Bob and Steve are. This situation happens from time to time, not just with avalanche information, but with all aspects of information on this board.

Ultimately, the reader is responsible for taking the information as truth or falsity. Many people will feel one way about something, whereas others will disagree. Take the "We should put up a "Glissading Dangers" sign at the top of Trail Crest" issue for instance. Some people were all for it, and some people thought it was a joke.

When you walk into the wilderness, you assume ALL THE RISKS THAT YOU PUT YOURSELF INTO. Nobody is force feeding any information here. No one is saying, "THIS IS THE WAY IT IS! LIVE BY MY WORDS!"

If you like the essay... Great.

If you don't like the essay...Great.

Leave it to the reader to make the choice!

Gusto
p.s. Sorry if the ending came out harsh!

A few of my usual blunt comments:

1. Can you cite a single case of a death by avalanche in the Whiteny area? Most of the deaths that occur in the area are due to lack of common sense. Avalanches do occur in the Whitney area, most commonly during the warm-up after a big dump when the steep chutes will release, and during the Spring. In well over 100 trips in, I've only seen 2 cases where someone on-route would have been affected (at the 2nd Carillon Creek crossing in both instances). I've also seen the debris fields off of "south-west" side of Thor on a couple of occasions. Most of my trips have been up the North Fork, and I've never seen anything more than minor sloughs on this side.

2. There is no avalanche hazard forecast for the Whitney area. As was pointed out to me, Bishop is 60 miles north, and experiences different weather and snow.

<a href="http://www.mt-whitney.info/viewtopic.php?p=1744#1744
"Additional Reading 1</a>

<a href="http://www.whitneyportalstore.com/cgi-bin/ubb/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=1;t=002841"Additional Reading 2</a>

Interesting discussion.

One thing, right off the bat, is the astonishingly lack of competence displayed by the critics of the article.

Of great interest, but apparently unknown to the posters, is that the avalanche education programs have just been revised, to take into account exactly the concerns pointed out by Bob in his first page. They could be quoting him.

A second issue is the quoting of Avalanche Bulletins, in an inappropriate fashion. These Bulletins are NOT produced daily. Often, weekly; sometimes, not for weeks. Note that they expire in 24 hours. Why? Because there are a lot of periods of stability, changed temporarily by weather shifts, producing instability, and the need for a bulletin. But, the conditions change fast, so the bulletin expires. So, to cite bulletins that are often only produced in a time of danger, but ignoring those times of less danger when no bulletin is current, and to say that the bulletins represent the danger at all times, is simply ignorant of the use of the system, and GROSSLY misrepresents the situation.

Third, one of the most important factors to be looked at in making a decision, is the historical information for an area, according to the current teaching. Bob's information presents information that is not available anywhere else, and is exactly what the books say you want to get.

To suggest having Avalanche probes by themselves, is nothing short of weird.

Finally, to quote from the instruction text:

"....assessing current danger ratings and how much or how fast the danger will change requires a higher level of training than can be provided on this course. Over and above training, analysis and assessment of avalanche danger requires BROAD AND DEEP EXPERIENCE which is something that no course can provide."

"Those with lesser training and experience should always err on the side of caution....as part of the decision making process" "This is especially so when conditions are ambiguous, when you feel uncertainty, and/or when conditions are beyond the scope of your training or EXPERIENCE"

It is just hard to imagine anyone able to bring more experience to the table than Bob, in this particular geographic area. Especially when combined with Bob's profound training and experience as a scientific observer and reporter, we all benefit profoundly, from his willingness to share his accumulated experience. Besides his summits of Whitney and surrounding mountains numbering in the hundreds, his decades of experience as a senior SAR rescuer in these mountains make me listen to what he say very carefully, and treat his assertions with great respect. I may not agree with everything that he says, but if I don't, I will examine my point of view very carefully, before I set aside his.

Oh, and my most recent American Institute for Avalanche Research and Education avalanche course recertification was two weeks ago, if that makes any difference.

This is a great discussion. I agree with Ken. I feel compelled to add in a few words to try and put some perspective on things.

First of all I agree with the points most people have made.

First hand experience in an area over a period of years is some of the best information you can have on an area. I don't think anybody here will take issue with the areas that Bob identifies as having potential for avalanches. They are all worthy of inclusion in such a discussion. I would also add a couple other areas that I and my guides have seen avalanche. There are also a couple other areas that I am afraid can and will avalanche at some point. One year we even had a climb stop and camp at Whitney Portal after starting from the Road Closed sign and taking most of the day to get to the end of the road. The guides discussed why it wasn't a good idea to go farther and they turned the 4-day trip into a big training session. On a day hike going a short distance above the Portal the group stopped to do some teaching and one guide asked everybody if they thought the slope directly ahead of them could slide. As group members finished one by one answering the question the slope cut loose with a large naturally triggered avalanche. People with local knowledge and past experience are some of your best resources for information.

Avalanche bulletins are excellent resources as well. Yes, as Ken points out, the advisories expire in 24 hours. The new forecasting center is called the Eastern Sierra Avalanche Center. If you look at the Advsories on that site at www.esavalanche.org you will see this entire season's reports archived. There is rarely more than a couple day long gap without a new report. The goal is to write new ones even if there is no new snow. ESAC is new this year and the advisories are of a much higher quality than what has been there in the past.

Bob's comment that in general the avalanche danger in the Sierra during the springtime is usually low is not something I would agree with. That is simply his opinion though and should be taken as such. I can give my reasons why I would not rate the hazard low and he can give his reasons why he thinks it is low. What is more important than the actual rating though is HOW you arrive at it. The thought process behind the decision is important. For those of you reading this who are unfamiliar with the danger rating scale it goes LOW, MODERATE, CONSIDERABLE, HIGH, EXTREME. This is an international standard and there are colors that correspond to the rating (green, yellow, orange, red, and red/***** respectively).

When I teach avalanche courses one of the first things I tell people is that our Level 1 course is not so much about providing answers as it is identifying the right questions. Ken is correct that the current teachings and thought processes have been changing a lot lately. That is why it is worth taking a course every few years. The knowledge of the avalanche phenomena is constantly becoming more extensive.

When I wrote the referenced note about avalanche rescue tools http://www.mt-whitney.info/viewtopic.php?p=3517&highlight=#3517 my point was that you drastically decrease your search time by using ALL THREE tools: transceivers, shovels, AND probes. Integrating probes into the mix is crucial. There is no substituting of equipment. You should bring all of those pieces of equipment with you.

I was introduced to the world of the winter backcountry in the early 70s at a very young age. We never carried the above mentioned gear and looking back on it now ignorance was bliss. I do advocate carrying all this gear now and also highly suggest getting the knowledge on how to use it.

In summary, the information in Bob's essay is very useful. Use it and add it to your decision making framework. Just remember that there are many more pieces to making a "go/no-go" decision than that. Integrate your observations about weather, snowpack, and avalanche activity. Also take into account your planning and preparation (route options, time plans, rescue plans, and emergency gear). Include the human factors as well (what each team member's goals are for the trip, why they are there, what their experience level is, etc). All those factors added together will help you in selecting the terrain you plan to travel on. Once you have selected your terrain you can then decide what travel techniques make the most sense for your group.

I appreciate everybody's willingness to contribute and to keep this discussion objective and constructive. That is somethinig we can all benefit from and demonstrates why I believe we have such a great mountaineering community.

Thanks everyone.

Right off the bat, did anyone besides myself notice that there is no longer an amazing lack of competence displayed by those who have a little bit more concern about the avy possibilities in the Whitney area?

Classes stopped in their tracks as a result of observations, and the observations resulting in an actual avalanche, and the insistance on using avalanche probes, no matter how "weird" that might seem by some, is an excellent indication that there is more danger than the anecdotal reports of a few, and those observations and the conservative approach to not proceed probably saved some lives on that training trip, even though some might have been upset by their expectations and the money they paid to try and meet those expectations. Good call Kurt, and your guides.... Those decisions no boubt helped to keep down the "stastical" reported deaths on Whitney.

My last comment in this thread, I hope.

It seems that the disagreement is with my use of "generally," "low," and "pretty safe." Also, what does "dangerous" mean? But these are imprecise or relative words, subject to individual interpretation.

As an aside, I have traveled the freeway from Ridgecrest to Los Angeles perhaps 1000 times over the years, and only once in all those times with an accident. That was after midnight, when a slow-moving truck with lights off pulled unexpectedly in front of me. My car hit, rolled, and was totaled; and there were injuries—thankfully none serious. Now, one in 1000 seems low to me. The outcome of that one time can be very serious, but the likelihood of it occurring is not high, in my opinion. So I still consider freeway driving as relatively safe. Others may draw the line at 1 in 10,000 or greater; if so, they would disagree with me.

It is the same with avalanches. Winter is roughly four months long, or somewhat over 100 days. If a slope lets go once in ten years, that is about once in 1000 days. Using the same argument as above, I would call the danger on any one trip low.

An allied issue is how often you are exposed. If you don't travel the freeways or go into the Sierra in winter much, you probably won't die on that infrequent trip. If you do it a lot, however, the likelihood that you will eventually die doing it is much higher. You may then view the activity as dangerous, and that is one way of looking at it.

Finally, I tacitly and perhaps inappropriately assumed that the Sierra winter mountaineer who goes up there uses all the techniques of avalanche avoidance that he has at hand. Never go within a couple of days after a serious storm, avoid areas which have avalanched before or that you have assessed are likely to let loose, watch out on those warm spring days Doug mentions.

If you do these things, you unarguably lower your likelihood of being caught. Does that mean the avalanche danger is reduced to a level I wouldn't be much concerned about? That is what I meant. A mountaineer who does all the right things is relatively safe in the winter Sierra, and the statistics bear this out. But one who ignores or does not know the signs can put himself in extreme danger. For him, the avalanche danger is much higher.

I probably could have avoided much of the controversy by using words like "the chance of being caught is low," instead of "the danger is generally low." While it appears that most people know what I meant, I'll look over the article and consider a rewrite to make this change of emphasis.

Bob, I've been out with you enough to know that I'd trust your decision-making in any situation. I don't understand what all the fuss is about in regards to your write-up.

Kurt, can you provide specifics on what slope you were concerned about?

Steve, is there a report on the Baldy Bowl avalanche that you saw? I'd be interested in knowing whether this was an event that occurred after the sun started to warm the slope.

One comment: I think we need to think of the So Cal mountains as being in a state of constant springtime. We do experience wild temperature fluctuations that you usually don't see in the High Sierra until the real Spring arrives.

Interesting discussion. Having never taken an avalanche training class, my knowledge is limited to the avalanche book I read, various articles and shared experiences.

I think of avalanches as natural settling of snow, sloughing off a steep slope. Often the underlayer is iced over which gives a slipery slope to slide on. Many things can touch off the avalanche, from vibration to wind to gravity.

I interprete Bob R's information as super valuable, but no guarantee. Obviously, after a big storm you have to be more careful as things settle down. Although avalanches can happen less often here or there, it sure helps to know which hills are at the most risk.

You would always be at risk in the snow and would have to be careful, paying attention to your surroundings. The best plan is avoiding the avalanche to begin with. That may be the real reason I don't venture up to Whitney in the heart of the winter, or right after a big storm, when the risk is greatest.

I for one value greatly all the information. You can not evaluate the risk without it.

Hi We should address the risk factors of high winds, constant rock fall in certain areas and causual effects to health from 4 million tons of material lifted into the atmosphere from the lake bed below the Sierra ridge each year, and recall that Lone Pine was the center of one of the largest Earthquakes in America ,and the average speed on 395 Friday night ski season is over 80 MPH cars have been clocked at 100 mph in towns and last year as the CHP stopped a driver in town for going 86 mph another car went by 92- mph . Cows on the road, deer, and other small animals. 15/395 split to Kramer junction (58) average 10 fatal accidents a year.
As one enters the canyon drives passed the road closed sign around the rocks that are larger than the car. I would assume these are somewhat early warning signs maybe not that threating until forward car travel is stopped by deep snow and ice. Traveling on foot over trees down and large voids around rocks and trees ,no easy contact with the outside support services. Now we have a chance to enjoy the wilderness and all that it offeres using our skills and ability, That"solitude" we search for and find so rewarding.
Bob and many others offer a passage into that solitude by the wealth of experiences over many years but the final challange is upon "you" as one takes that journey either on the road or into the elements . Kurt said it to the point we are here not because of the things we did right in the past but we had the gift to look back and see the errors of ego and lack of experience and grow from that experience.Thanks Doug

I personally found nothing objectionable with Bob's article. However, I read it after having read many of his earlier posts and had a high level of confidence in his assessments. So I didn't question it then and I won't now.

I am not sure who Bob's intended audience was but it is possible that someone not familiar with Bob could interpret the article slightly different than I and all of those familiar with the area.

I think more harm and potential damage is done by those that minimze the risks associated with travel up the mountaineer's route when in snow cover and glissading in general.

The criticism of Bob's article is not warranted, but oppposing fact based opinions are welcomed.

I'm one of those who keeps falling back into the bad habit of "taking things lightly," not in terms of how I act in the moutains, but in how I often post. I think this is probaly related to the fact that I don't have a big ego (although my sarcastic wit may makes it seem that way sometimes), and assume that most people are better than I am (and almost all of the people I climb with are).

One of the things that has always stood out for me in Bob's writing, and conversations, is that YMMV (your mileage may vary), so you need to interpret it to your level of skill/confidence/whatever. He makes this very clear. If someone can't interpret this, it's their problem, not his. All writing is subject to interpretation...there is no way around the fact that certain words may mean something different to you.

Hi Bob R., Here's a quote from the end of your report. I added the part in brackets for your consideration. Are the brackets consistent with what you meant? Bob K.

"Wrap-up

Generally speaking, the popular winter and spring climbing routes to peaks in the Mt. Whitney basin are pretty safe [for those familiar with avalanche avoidance]. But saying something is pretty safe is not saying it is perfectly safe. Learn as much as you can about avalanche hazards and avoidance, be alert and observant, and take a longer path around or retreat if you sense that the conditions are not quite right. "

Yep. And I still plan to make some other changes, clarifying what I mean by "danger." However, I probably will not be able to satisfy everyone. My Rodale Press The Synonym Finder gives 22 synonyms for the word, with the first and fourth in the list being "risk" and "hazard." In this context they can hardly be called two very different things.

But most important is to make the information as helpful as possible, and that means accurate, complete, clear, and precise. I'll give it another shot.

There is one other factor on this subject that stands out for those with Avi training, but probably lost on those who have not:

In Avi training, we are educated to the fact that virtually all avalanches that are of importance (kill people or put at risk), are started by the persons, themselves.

I note that 100% of the historical Whitney area avalanches were NOT caused by humans.

This points out, again, the different issues involved, especially for the issue of skiers vs. mountaineers.

While Avi's certainly occur, and regularly, on the Eastside, one of the main reasons that people are not caught, is that they tend to be when you cannot easily get to the areas. Very few people will plod for miles through waist-deep snow, as they generally must, to get to the steep areas in the danger time after a dump. By the time they can get there, things have generally stablized. Which brings up the question:

If there is an avalanche, but there is no one there, does it make a sound??

To answer Richards question about the area that avalanched during an aborted Mt. Whitney trip... it is near the area on Bob's map labled #1. If that circle was made a bit bigger it would encompass the area of that slide. That whole section of trail where it switchbacks is wide open to sun exposure (it's south facing) and there isn't enough vegetation to offer adequate anchoring of the slope if the accumulation gets large enough. Also, look on the map and notice the topo lines. Where they get really close together is a good place to trigger a slide.

Thanks for the reply Kurt. That's where I thought you might be concerned. The chute just left of the steep slopes slides regularly. The trees at the Carillon Creek crossing pay the price. One of the scariest days I had on Whitney was when I was returning from snowshoeing up above Lone Pine Lake. On the return, I saw the debris down in the drainage. That was a wake-up call to pay attention to the snow that hasn't sloughed off of those slopes. It usually only takes a few days of warmer weather before they slide, and you definitely don't want to be under it when it happens.