Avalungs & Avalanche Balloons-risk reducers or enablers?

While this debate has raged since the Avalung’s introduction a decade ago, what do Telluride’s backcountry skiers & boarders think about these gizmos? We’ve all seen people wearing them (at least Avalungs), and when asked, they usually have the same valid reason of “wanting to put all of the odds in one’s favor.” It’s without argument that these devices have saved a few lives, but the real question is, does it make one justify taking bigger risks?

The survival stories attributed to the Avalung, and newer Avalanche Balloons, have almost always been in big, open terrain and above treeline. The sad fact is that a huge majority of avalanche deaths are caused by bodily injury. And here in the San Juans we don’t typically tour in terrain far above treeline and without cliffs. There are, of course, exceptions, but the statistics don’t look good.

Sure, if you’re a ski patroller, guide or snow scientist, the Avalung is probably a good idea. You are somewhat obligated to be out in risky conditions, and therefore should do everything in your power to stay alive. But it still boils down to personal choice and one’s individual acceptance of risk. Recreational users aren’t required to accept these risks at all. But we all still do to some extent, whether the avi danger is low, high, or the usual “moderate with pockets of considerable.”

There is also the factor of Risk Homeostasis. This theory/idea is that the more you “puts the odds in your favor,” the easier it is to justify taking bigger risks. If all of your buddies are at the ready with their new, super-accurate beacons, probes and shovels, and you’ve got the Avalung in your mouth, is one’s risk level actually reduced? Or are you just taking one bullet out of the chamber for your turn at Russian Roulette, and hoping for the best?