In 2003, the University of Utah and the National Outdoor Leadership School (NOLS) completed a study that developed a risk management taxonomy in the outdoor adventure industry and assessed how different outdoor expeditionary programs (OEPs) managed risk (Szolosi, Sibthorp, Paisley, & Gookin, 2003). By unifying the language around risk, the goal was that OEPs would be better able to understand how their risk management strategies compared to that of similar organizations; however, to do so, they needed empirical data against which to compare themselves. The study ultimately resulted in the identification and definition of 21 risk management strategies and 15 categories of hazards that OEPs typically encounter. OEPs then completed a survey in which they ranked what strategies they use to manage each hazard. Among the key findings were that larger organizations (defined by budget and user field days) tend to employ more risk management strategies than smaller organizations do. The survey also produced a ranked list of how frequently OEPs use each strategy. Since then, the outdoor industry has largely maintained a focus on the staff team, participants, environment, and equipment as the central areas in which risk can be managed (Dallat, Salmon, & Goode, 2015). Attention to these areas can be seen, for example, in the Meyer and Williamson (1998) accident matrix, which looks at potentially unsafe conditions, potentially unsafe acts, and potential errors in judgment. The accident matrix continues to be widely taught, and one can draw parallels between the categories it attends to and the 2003 survey hazards. The purpose of this study was to update the findings to understand how the use of risk management strategies has changed. A second goal was to identify OEPs' contemporary concerns.