Dear Dr. Jürg Schweizer,

thank you for providing detailed responses to comments by the Referees. 

Based on positive feedback from the two Referees, two other commentators, and my own reading of the related discussion, I would like to invite you to submit a revised version of your paper. Both Referees suggested to "publish subject to minor revisions". Nevertheless, I believe, you would agree that the constructive comments by the Reviewer #2 extend well beyond minor fixes and can be seen as more moderate corrections (even volume-wise).

P.S.
A formality, but I would appreciate if the comment SC1: 'Avalanche Risk Management', by Scott Thumlert could be also responded.

Best regards,
Evgeny Podolskiy

Dear Dr. Schweizer,

thank you for submitting a revised version of your manuscript, which I am pleased to accept for a publication in The Cryosphere. 

I hope you would find the following technical corrections useful while preparing your final files:

[main text] 

line 114
AAI has not been defined yet. This abbreviation seems to be explained and referenced only 2 pages later
(line 163).

line 178
Spearman rank order correlation->
Spearman rank-order correlation

line 178 and many other similar places
{p} should be in italic

line 180
well known analysis
->well-known analysis

line 258
was->were

line 320
Spearman rank correlation->
Spearman rank-order correlation?

line 323
In total there were ->
In total, there were

line 435
Just a note on the observation bias (in regard to low frequency of size 1 avalanches). Actually, this suggestion is also in line with magnitude-frequency relation of most earthquake catalogs, which miss smaller events. For dealing with this statistical seismologists introduced a so-called magnitude of completeness (Mc), which is the minimum magnitude above which all events are reliably recorded in some area. Usually Mc is obvious to an eye on a cumulative curve of events (the cumulative number of N events greater than a given magnitude) and appears as a departure from the slope.

line 458
(Wäger and Zweifel, 2008)
->
Wäger and Zweifel (2008)

rom->from

line 501
reflecting inconsistence usage of the danger scale ->
... inconsistent usage ... 

[Supplement]
In point 2, a reference to "(line 120)" is not clear. Can be removed?

***
Best regards,
Evgeny Podolskiy