Change and controversy in chasing and snow sports - some comparisons

[John Farley]

As some of you no doubt have heard, two more back-country skiers died in an avalanche near Aspen during Chasercon. A growing number of back-country skiers and snowboarders have died in similar incidents the past few years. Part of the reason has no doubt been elevated risk of avalanches due to the snow conditions in recent years, but a more important cause is the explosion of people heading into the back country in recent years, sometimes, though by no means always, without the knowledge and experience necessary to handle the associated risks. It strikes me that there are parallel trends and controversies in snow sports and chasing, some of which no doubt reflect larger social trends that are not limited to snow sports or chasing.

In recent years, an increasing number of skiers and snowboarders have headed to the back country (i.e. areas outside the boundaries of ski areas where avalanche control programs limit the risk). The desire to ski 3 feet of untracked powder, huck cliffs, and get away from the crowds has led more and more to take the risk of back country skiing and snowboarding. If you read skiing and snowboarding magazines today, or look at skiing and snowboarding movies today, they are very different from what they were 20 years ago. Much more emphasis on extreme snow sports, cliff-jumping, etc. And the availability of fat, rockered skis has made it much easier for inexperienced powder and back-country skiers to ski the steep and deep terrain outside the boundaries of ski areas. And if you look on Youtube, you can find lots of video of skiers and snowboarders doing extreme, dangerous things outside the boundaries of the ski areas.

All this strikes me as rather similar to the trend in chasing the last several years to get closer to the tornado, take more risks, and get more extreme video. And just as the fat, rockered skis have made extreme skiing possible for those with lesser levels of skill and experience, the availability of radar in the car has increased the confidence of more extreme chasers in their ability to get closer to the tornado, in some cases with little chasing experience.

In both chasing and skiing, these trends have generated controversy, often involving divisions by age and experience level. Just as some long-term, experienced chasers have deplored the tendency to get closer and closer to the tornado, older and more experienced skiers, writing in publications such as Skiing History magazine, have deplored the trend toward more extreme, out-of-bounds skiing. Although the number of fatalities that have resulted from extreme skiing and snowboarding has been much greater than anything that has happened in chasing thus far, it seems that the pubic controversy has come sooner to chasing, perhaps because people live in the towns we chase through, while backcountry snow sports are by definition done in very thinly populated, remote areas. But make no mistake - among the emergency managers and mountain rescue organizations who are increasingly having to respond to back country emergencies, often at considerable risk to themselves, this is a growing topic of conversation.

I suspect that the changes occurring in both chasing and snow sports are reflective of larger societal trends, so I suspect there are other areas of activity where similar trends could be observed. But being both a skier and a chaser, I find the parallel trends interesting. And perhaps a bit scary for the future of both activities.

 

[Simon Brewer]

John, I've also brought up this parallel in conversation this winter. I have to say I don't feel the public is as alarmed or concerned about the high number of skiers killed each year as they might be by storm chasers killed. Perhaps it's because skiing is well established in society, and therefore does not alarm the public when a skier is killed by this activity.

USA stats from years 2002-2012: avg. of 41 deaths from skiing/boarding per year, avg. of 45 serious injuries per year (paralysis and head trauma)

(data from National Ski Areas Association)

 

[Warren Faidley]

This is a very interesting topic.

Someone pointed this out to me last fall during a lecture and I recently thought about it after watching the X-Games and the Olympics. It seems some extreme sports are indeed becoming riskier and more people are getting killed and injured. Our society is becoming increasingly desensitized when it comes to risk vs. injury and death. Then again, a lot of people have lost their lives throughout history when it comes to sports and adventure. Auto racing, for example, use to be quite deadly, not only for the drivers but for spectators as well. The big difference today is that television and social media feed the lust for increasingly dangerous stunts so it's become a marketing scheme no one wants to end.

The fact that the media often "overlooks" the actual purpose of a chaser's pursuits drives me nuts, and such misleading endorsements only justifies the risks in people's minds as legitimate actions -- thus encouraging additional stupidity.

I said it once and I'll say it again -- I think we are entering a period when the death or injury of storm chasers and/or "chase inspired individuals" will be a yearly event -- by shear accident or by negligence. We can't forget an amateur was killed last year while trying to photograph the El Reno tornado, and individuals pursuing the 2011 Tuscaloosa tornado were also killed or injured according to EMS workers. So we are not too far away from this sad prediction.

The only thing that will prevent (or slow down) this is if the media stops glorifying "idiotic" pursuits. And that's not going to happen!

Warren

 

[Paul Knightley]

I agree that this post brings up some very interesting comparisons. One point we might consider, though: If more people ski, then on average, more people will be involved in accidents, whether skilled or not - note that very skilled skiers can also be seriously injured or killed (Michael Schumacher, for example - hoping still he makes a recovery). By the same token, if more people chase, more people should, by the law of averages, be injured or killed. Events are generally random in their capriciousness - Tim et al were skilled, experienced, conscientious chasers, but they were tragically killed.

Much as we'd like to be able to stem the increase in chasers, especially those who would bring what we might consider 'our' hobby/calling/whatever you might want to class it into disrepute, do we really think we have the power, or right? We would probably hope so in the former, and say 'yes' to the latter.

Very recently I've seen videos on YouTube of 'free climbers' scaling very high buildings in what I would consider a ridiculously dangerous pastime/hobby/thrill. Were these people copying others? Will others copy them? Will someone die doing it? Probably, almost certainly. Perhaps regular climbers who use safety ropes, etc etc, will have a similar view of these people as we might of 'thrill seeking' chasers (although we must all derive some kind of thrill from chasing, but I think you know what I mean).

Ultimately people will do these things whether or not we care, or do, anything about it. I would rather it was not like this, and will always try my best to chase responsibly such that if someone asks what I'm doing, or asks me about it, I can give a measured, reasonable response. Are we trying to control an uncontrollable situation?

 

[Rob H]

This is a very interesting topic.
The only thing that will prevent (or slow down) this is if the media stops glorifying "idiotic" pursuits. And that's not going to happen!

That ship sailed a long time ago. "The media" is now Facebook, Twitter, Vine, YouTube, etc. It doesn't matter if the mainstream media didn't show a single clip of chasing footage - Reed Timmer has 300,000+ fans on Facebook and videos of near death encounters at El Reno will go viral.

I'd wager that even if a few chasers died every year, nothing would really change. Getting to the moon didn't really do anything important for us, we were just tired of looking at it from a distance. It's the exact same with tornadoes. Who wouldn't want to see one of nature's most violent and uncommon forces up close if odds are relatively good that you won't die?

 

[Andy Wehrle]

Who wouldn't want to see one of nature's most violent and uncommon forces up close if odds are relatively good that you won't die?

One of the best, most succinct rationales for chasing I've ever heard.

 

[Stan Rose]

Who wouldn't want to see one of nature's most violent and uncommon forces up close if odds are relatively good that you won't die?

Relatively good?? What's that? What a silly statement. Not to mention the fact that I'd rather see the 'violent and uncommon force' from a distance so I can appreciate it better--being pelted by debris makes that a bit of a challenge.

Getting back to the OP--as a back country enthusiast and chaser I agree with the comparisons made here--it is an interesting subject. There are some significant differences of course; A total newbie can follow an extreme chaser and probably be ok, whereas a total newbie wouldn't make it two feet in following an extreme skier or boarder--and probably would not even want to follow. Also, another thing to consider as a factor that has pushed more winter enthusiasts into the back country is cost; lift tickets and other expenses are making resorts less appealing to many folks who would like to avoid the outrageous expenses. The parallel to chasing might be more tour groups (shared expenses) and more backyard chasing as opposed to the cross country treks that I prefer.

 

[Skip Talbot]

I think the difference in scrutiny between storm chasing deaths and extreme sports deaths is partially justified because they are actually quite different in the level of risk the participant has to actively elect to accept and train for.

On one end of the spectrum, extreme sports such as a back country downhill skiing, rock climbing, and cave diving, require that that the participant is fully immersed in the danger. You have to travel at high speed without an enclosure, suspend yourself from a rock face, or surround yourself with rock while underwater in order to participate in these sports. Even adhering closely to regulations and with ample safety precautions, a small mishap can still easily result in a fatal accident.

On the other end of the spectrum, an activity such as rail fan photography is such a safe activity that you have to be almost intentionally reckless and irresponsible to have a fatal accident while engaging in it. You'd have to do something as irresponsible as setting up your tripod on the tracks.

Storm chasing is somewhere in between these two ends. The weather is unpredictable and hazardous. However, chasing is also an activity where participants are spectators that watch from a distance (usually). You do not have to immerse yourself in the danger to be a successful storm chaser. There are so many great tornado shots where the chaser was never in danger. Accidents do happen in chasing. Tornadoes can change directions quickly or a lapse in situational awareness can result in dangerous positioning. I think much of the public scrutiny that chasers receive above that of other sports though is because much of the risk taking is unnecessary to accomplish the end goal: a picture of a tornado. Many might perceive chasers that get hit by tornadoes as those rail fans who get hit by trains while setting up their tripods on the tracks.

 

[Rick Schmidt]

Great observation, John! I had not thought about the extreme skiing aspect. I think you hit the mark. But regarding chasing, all us old guys can say is: Thank you 'TWISTER', and Discovery's 'STORMCHASERS'. (Ah......the good old days when you were the only one around seeing a tornado from a safe distance).

 

[Rob H]

Who wouldn't want to see one of nature's most violent and uncommon forces up close if odds are relatively good that you won't die?

Relatively good?? What's that? What a silly statement.

That's rather condescending for no reason.

Just because you haven't gotten close or don't like to get close doesn't mean that your method is the only proper one. One of my closest intercepts I was surrounded by an NWS employee, two people that worked with Josh Wurman, and one of the most well respected researchers out there. So it's just not us crazy amateurs looking to score Internet fame that appreciate seeing individual vortices and feeling 70mph inflow.

edit: Why do people swim with sharks instead of just watching Shark Week? Why do they race cars instead of just sitting in the bleachers at the county speedway? Because life is an experience - and the reality is that more chasers have been killed by untreated mental health issues, drunk drivers, and other things even after factoring in 5/31/13.

 

[Stan Rose]

That's rather condescending for no reason.
.

Pot calling the kettle black, Rob. You're the one purporting to tell everyone "Who wouldn't..." implying that there's something wrong with you if you don't want to take a death risk. That's silly, and im just calling it for what it is--a silly statement. I actually like the adrenaline rush of getting close, but I don't have a death wish. You misinterpreted my objection.

 

[Rob H]

I think you inferred something from my broad, generalized statement that I didn't intend to be present, and then took it personally. I would never judge someone for wanting to stay further out for a more safe and relaxing experience. It was just a general statement that amazing things are usually more interesting up close, and getting within 1 mile of a tornado doesn't necessarily equate to a death wish. I'd rather you asked for clarification than dismiss my opinions as silly. I'm not mad, I just thought it was a rude response. PM me if you want to discuss further, otherwise I'll just drop it.

 

[Stan Rose]

I think you inferred something from my broad, generalized statement that I didn't intend to be present, and then took it personally. I would never judge someone for wanting to stay further out for a more safe and relaxing experience. It was just a general statement that amazing things are usually more interesting up close, and getting within 1 mile of a tornado doesn't necessarily equate to a death wish. I'd rather you asked for clarification than dismiss my opinions as silly. I'm not mad, I just thought it was a rude response. PM me if you want to discuss further, otherwise I'll just drop it.

No problem Rob--didnt take it personally, was just asking for clarification and wasn't meant to be dismissive. Think of 'silly' as a positive term Peace, Bro