In learning the science of snow, there happens to be lots of math involved. After all, mathematics is the language of physics, and physics is the radness by which we can start to describe some of how snow works.

But how math should be applied...what math should we learn...how we should learn it...all of these questions are complicated and unanswered. For those of you interested in math education, I've found two talks especially interesting.

First, a statement that statistics should not only play a larger role in math education, but be the pinnacle of it:

I find this quite interesting as (a) Dr. Benjamin is a professor at Harvey Mudd, (b) I went to Mudd, and (c) one of the things I wish I learned more of at Mudd was statistics, because I use them all the time in snow science. It reminds me of how much I love small schools, that ideas like this can crop up and become real in a very short time.

Speaking of making ideas real, another (longer, but worth it) video describes how having less information actually inspires people to go out and really figure things out:

Dan Meyer, the speaker, does a good job of not only describing why I think math is really cool ('the language of our intuition') but one of the reasons why I think snow science is cool -- i.e. that there is so much real, hands-on information that we don't know, that we can be inspired to find out.

It is always interesting reading avalanche-related news. Some of it is good -- a way to help get important information out to the public. And some of it, well....

I empathize with the media. However multidisciplinary avalanche science is, working in the media must demand general knowledge of many, many, many topics. But every so often, an article comes along with a phrasing that shows a lack of understanding of how avalanches work.

Most commonly, erroneous media assume that avalanche conditions are more long-term then they really are (they actually change by the day, or even hour) or are more dangerous than they really are (yes, people can ski safely in select places even when the danger is High). Here are two examples over the past month, meant for humour only, as I'm sure (and hope) someone out there is also chuckling over my writing:

• An example implying that avalanche hazard can be consistent across large geographic areas:
  
  Take care: Avalanche danger is 'considerable' on slopes statewide
  
  Although the content of the article does a nice job of discussing specific areas where the considerable rating is applied, the title implies that everywhere across Montana has the same rating.

• And my all-time favourite, from the BBC:
  
  Avalanche risk in Scotland raised by crystals
  
  The title probably says it all. It's actually a nice highlight for surface hoar, but the title always makes me say "as opposed to?"

These article titles simply caught my eye. Overall, the relationship between the source of avalanche information and the media is improving dramatically, and this is much to the media's credit. It is good to see that the articles above are the wost of it.

And, if you are looking for Canadian media information straight from the source, try the Canadian Avalanche Centre's Media Page, or, better yet, their Avalanche Bulletins.

One may recall the tragedy from this past winter where no one called in a search for two lost skiers outside of Kicking Horse resort. Now, a lawsuit over the issue has targeted individual search and rescue volunteers on the teams that did respond.

The 'official' called-in notification for the couple who did not return from their skiing trip apparently occurred on Feb 23; they were found February 24. From that perspective, the search took a perfectly reasonable amount of time.

Things get sticky, however, when one considers that they had been missing since February 15. In addition, there were multiple sightings of SOS messages in the snow which were spotted and reported, including to the RCMP. However, no one (including the RCMP) apparently took any action. Thus, the surviving member of the lost couple has begun a lawsuit against the Golden and District Search and Rescue Association, among others, which includes volunteers.

Having volunteered on a SAR team in the States, and just starting to get involved in one up here, I find this whole thing very interesting. In the States, the order goes like this:

(1) Someone calls in a missing person to the police
(2) The police call the SAR team with the needed skills or jurisdiction
(3) The search commences

Even if one of our team members saw something that might warrant a search (say, an SOS) he/she would still report it to the police. The police would then call out the necessary resources. Sometimes, sticky situations like this do arise, but if any one of the volunteer members act without an official call out from law enforcement, it is clear that the person is acting independently and is possibly personally liable. Thus, due to liability fear, a good rule of thumb to remember in the States is:

If no one calls you in missing, no one will search for you.

Thus, it is a good idea to have a contact to call you in! In addition, there are many legal protective barriers in the States available to the rescuer. These include the Good Samaritan Law (for acting in good faith and without formal training) and the Volunteer Protection Act (for acting without pay and with formal training). However, one must also realize that the States has NASAR, a formal training program for individual rescuers, and the MRA, one of many formal certification programs for rescue teams.

Thus, one might sue a certain team, but not the individuals on that team. The team may be disbanded, but the members will usually be protected under the Volunteer Protection Act. Or, (or maybe in addition) they often carry personal liability insurance.

A similar situation can sometimes be found in for-profit organizations. For example, the lawsuit from a 2005 in-bounds avalanche in Mount Charleston, Nevada closed the resort for more than a month, and just recently finished in settlement. But it did not target the patrollers individually.

Apparently not so here in Canada. From CBC News:

The big message is, that there does appear to be a situation in the Canadian legal system that will allow a subject to sue societies for something that happens operationally, so we better have insurance, we better be covered, because if we are not, it can all affect us personally

Yikes! Teams are already reacting to this terrifying realization. Many volunteer teams in the area have already shut down, with extreme examples such as the Fernie search and rescue board resigning, and Golden's team removing all available equipment for response and technical rescues. And the stagnation has moved beyond the backcountry; BC highway response teams have drawn back their responses because of liability fears.

I personally find it exceptionally sad that a lawsuit -- which essentially is trying to sue for lack of response -- is showing liability issues which will create an even worse lack of response. Something needs to be done.