Below is my response to the post that Dan removed. The context of my response is lost, but it that doesn't matter much. It could really be to anyone who criticizes another's decision in the mountains without having the facts straight while not providing any insight into how one should have acted differently. I'm all for criticism as long as it's truthful and constructive.
This post by "An Old Friend" is non-productive for the following reasons.
(1) It does not have the facts straight regarding avalanche warnings. There have not been any avalanche warnings for the mountain range where Splattski triggered an avalanche. In fact, there has never been an avalanche warning for that range because there never has been avalanche advisory provided for that range. The avalanche warnings for other mountain ranges over the past week are related to loading of a deep instability that formed during the dry period in January and February. The avalanche triggered by Splattski appears to have been a windslab that formed in the few hours prior, and is not related to the deep instability.
(2) It does not have the facts straight regarding the "posts on this board talking or warning of the current danger". The only posts that I am aware of spoke of this deep instability, and not newly formed windslabs.
(3) It doesn't provide any insight into how Splattski could have done things differently (other than apparently not being in the mountains at all yesterday) or ask any questions of the incident to further the learning process.
(4) Because it is critical of Splattski's decisions, both yesterday and over the past 2 years, without providing any information that could further the discussion, it discourages him and others from talking about their avalanche incidents in a public forum. That would be a shame because people learn from other's mistakes.
(5) It's done anomalously. I believe a name should be provided when someone is critical of another's decisions.
Here is my take. This is Splattski's first avalanche incident despite having traveled extensively in snow-covered mountains over the past several decades. That's better than most. He admitted his mistake in a public forum so that others can learn from it. I'm giving him a "pass" on this one, and saying I'm glad nobody was injured and wishing him well on his travels for the remainder of this snow season.
And I'll add my own snowpack observations, albeit from a completely different part of Idaho. The wind hammered the Boise Mountains yesterday. Strong winds were from many points of the compass, mainly NE, E, SE, and SW. After approaching our intended touring area for over an hour, the winds caused us to change our plans. We spent the day skiing protected slopes out of the wind and away from any windslabs, mostly in the trees on N- and NW-facing slopes. The turning was quite good and the trail-breaking was easy.