The Climbing Story

I'm a bit surprised no one has brought this one up--the Mt. Hood deal. Seems pretty obvious this one isn't going to have a happy ending. So, what about the talk of attempting to ban people from climbing the thing? Here's my take.

The people that are going to do it are going to do it. They will sneak up somehow. Can't very well fence off a mountain. OTOH, they are being irresponsible from my own POV. Mostly to their families, but also to taxpayers. Another point is they put good people in jeopardy when they go look for them. Are local search & rescue people really reponsible for these folks? How come we can't just let it be known that if you get stuck doing something like that, you are STUCK? It's one thing if you're in a plane that goes down and get stranded, but quite another if you choose to climb something like that in winter. Shouldn't search & rescue crews be used for the former and not the latter?

While I think these guys were being a bit selfish and more than a bit dumb, I'm not ready to side with those wanting a ban. For one thing, I don't think it would work. For another, it seems like one more choice we have being taken away. Really, it's NOT the government's responsibility to keep us safe from ourselves like that. Here's what I think might be an improvement though. How about to climb, you must have some sort of insurance to cover any expenses? That might be too expensive though, and we're back to people climbing anyway. That leaves one other possible solution that might work. How about anyone doing those kinds of risky hikes/climbs has to carry an emergency locating beacon? They don't weigh much, are fairly cheap, and could help rescuers zero right in immediately if there was a problem. In the current tragedy I think it would have led searchers directly to the three guys and spared the expense of such a massive search. I also think that if the three guys knew they could push a button to summon help they might not have felt the need to try walking through a blizzard and would have just sat tight in a shelter. There, they could be quickly found. Then, billed for the helicopter flight.


Kent in SD

John--

I'm just not convinced "closing" the mountain will work at all. There's no effective way to enforce it, and the guys who would climb something dangerous are risk takers in the first place. Taking one more relatively minor risk (getting caught as opposed to getting killed) just doesn't strike me as solving the problem--preventing these kinds of searches. Closing a school has a different rationale. There, you are protecting the innocent. Also, consider that no kid is going to try to go to school if it is closed. At least, mine sure wouldn't.


Kent in SD

What about the talk of banning people from eating junk food, becoming obese, and imposing a (much much greater) burden on the system? Here's my take.

The people that are going to do it are going to do it. They will sneak in a burger somehow.

And what about the talk of banning smoking...

Well, you get the point. Stranded climbers are barely a drop in the bucket compared to the financial burden of all kinds of stupid things people do. You can't ban adventurous feats any more than you can ban greasy hamburgers. The latter represents a much greater risk to your health and to society and a much larger portion of your tax dollars.

A life without risk is a life of stagnation without challenge and thrill. Personally I feel much sadder for people who pass away in hospital beds never having been on a mountain top than any climber who has met their demise on the slopes.

Montani semper liberi!

Guy

Guy--

I agree with everything you wrote. You are right that from the big perspective, the Mt. Hood deal is rather limited. I also agree that life with no risk (if that's even possible, LOL!) would be boring and a waste.


Kent in SD

There is a voluntary registration service in our Mountain Parks (Jasper, Banff, Yoho, etc) for climbers as well as for backpackers. Essentially you show up in person at the Information Center and let the Park Services people know of your plans, where you are going and when you will return. You must return to the Center with the registration form so they know that you are back. I did that when I went backpacking.

When climbers and hikers report to the Info Center or Warden Office, they will also be informed of any hazards such as avalanches and trail closures.

A wise adventurer would heed any warnings and choose a better time.

The idea of banning climbers from any mountain is "impractical"

Will
Edmonton, Alberta
Canada

I believe if you are doing the more challenging treks around Mount Everest, you are supposed to sign some document which makes you pay if you are required to be evacuated, which is almost always done by helicopter. This makes everybody buy insurance before they start on their journey (except for those handfull of cases when the evacuated climbers had no insurance but promised to pay later, and then fled back to their own countries after getting a free evacuation by the RNA).

I think more experienced folks like Vandit may be able to shed more light on this.

The local taxpayers pay for searching, but also benefit from the tourism.

We could close every lake where someone has drowned, every ski slope where someone has died.

But mortality is still 100%.

According to the sheriff, the climbers were properly, but lightly, equipped. They apparently could not handle multiple problems.

I know in Colorado you can buy "Backcountry Insurance" to pay for your rescue if you become stranded somewhere and need assisstance. Most of my buddies carry it as it's only $10-$20 for a year, which can be a real bargin if you end up footing the bill for rescue.

Being from Canada I always think its interesting how people seem to expect to be rescued down in the States. It always seems to end up with the debate about more laws to "protect" people from themselves, which in the end make you less free. You wind up so protected you can't do anything except watch TV and drink coffee.

I have no idea how well prepared the guys that climbed Mt. Hood were. You could argue that they are/were being selfish towards the other people in their lives by doing what they wanted and risking their lives. But wouldn't the other people in their lives be acting selfish if they asked them not to do something they loved?

Most of the people I know are partnered with people that share like values and understand the risks involved in our hobbies. They might not like it, but we'd be very different, and difficult, people if we reigned all our passions in for the sake of others.

My .02,
Alex

Kent: the Hood story hasn't been discussed because there's nothing worth discussing. I'm saddened for these fellow climbers and their families, but they knew the risks. Climbers die and get lost on moutains all around the world every year, but only a few each year are somehow deemed newsworthy. And when we learn of them, everyone calls the climbers stupid, irresponsible, selfish, blah, blah, blah.

I'm a technical climber, and I've done plenty of climbs that you might consider stupid, irresponsible, or selfish. As Guy points out, there are more hazardous things in life like eating poorly, watching too much TV, and not getting sufficient exercise. Driving to work is statistically more dangerous than climbing. In Yosemite Valley - where people gather from all over the world to climb - stumbling tourists and reckless picnickers cost YOSAR (Yosemite S & R) more money and time than fallen climbers. The thought of restricting or putting off-limits climbs is downright idiotic unless we plan to ban urban bumblies from walking in the woods as well.

Here's a couple of good quotes from Helen Keller for you:
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure The fearful are caught as often as the bold.
.
Life is either a daring adventure or nothing.

Attached is a photo of me being irresponsible and selfish on an alpine ice climb in the Sierra Nevada about five+ years ago (I have great photos of all my climbing partners on climbs, but very few of me. I climb with non-photographers )

As far as costs go, it's a well know fact that far, far more money is spent rescuing fishermen and your average everyday hiker then in these spectacular (and fairly rare) "mountain climber" rescues. I live in Hood River and I have friends who are Crag Rats who were up on the mountain all this week (for free I might add) who hike up Eagle Creek just about every other weekend to "rescue" some hiker who twisted an ankle or simply didn't have a headlamp and couldn't hike out in the dark.

I'm not surprised a few people have brought that up though it is certainly has not been played up by major news. Always some ignorant fringe types with opinions. Those in the Northwest have a tradition of playing in their mountains in all seasons. Mountaineers and backcountry skiers are doing all manner of incredible often dangerous stuff though much of that is out of sight thus out of mind of Joe Normal USA. Thus such ideas would only get chuckles from those setting policies. ...David

While I'm not a mountain climber, I was heavily and seriously involved in cave diving for a number of years, so I do think I can speak with some authority on risk-associated activities. I have participated in too many body recoveries and the central theme in 95+% of them was stupidity, ego, or ignorance. I imagine it's the same in mountain climbing. The few fatalities of experienced, well trained divers were generally related to extreme circumstances and pushing the exploration envelope, and the people involved were very aware of the risks. For the most part education, unending training, and careful planning can mitigate most risks, but you can NEVER make it risk free. The best way to mitigate risk is to put your ego in check and thoroughly engage your brain.

I can't speak about the climbers in question as far as experience and skill are concerned, and I certainly wouldn't believe the media or family concerning those matters. In so many of the body recoveries I particpated in there was some family member there telling us what an expert diver this guy was when it was extraordinarily clear he was a moron (not properly trained, not properly equipped, etc.). I'm not saying this was the case for the three climbers, but I'm certainly thinking that seeing as how they went up in December only lightly equipped (or so it's been reported).

Ban it? No way. You can't stop someone who's intent on killing themselves through stupidity - they'll only go somewhere else to do it. I believe it's known as "Natural Selection". Anyway, getting the gov't involved in anything is the surest way to screw it up forever.

Just my take on it...

Let's not call these guys stupid. They were experienced and were probably just like you and me with hopes and dreams and challenges. They chose a climb and things didn't pan out, the weather turned bad, one of them got hurt and they paid the price. No one wants to pay the price, but let me tell you, I'd rather die living life than not.

On Angle's Landing, 2004.

Micheal--


I wasn't very specific (a curse of trying to get too much done at once this time of year!) When I said I considered the actions of the climbers to be a bit selfish, here's where I was coming from. I have a family who depends on me--two kids and a wife. It wouldn't be fair of me to put her into the situation of raising them by herself. I do keep that in mind when I do my own risky stuff. I was also thinking of the people whose job it was to go out and look for the lost guys in lethal weather like that.

It's my own position that it would be unenforceable to keep people from climbing who want to do it. I also agree with the opinion that it's not the government's responsibility. While there are no mountains taller than 7,000-some feet, I do my own share of risk taking. For one, I like to take photos of the eagles using the Missouri River during February. From my duck boat! It's often around zero, I have to dodge big sheets of ice zipping by at 6 mph, and lots of things can go wrong. I do wear my 5mm neoprenes and a life jacket, but that wouldn't help me if I started to get sucked under the ice. Since I do have a family, I look things over very carefully and have often not put in at all because I just didn't like it.


Kent in SD

Oh what the heck

Not as extreme as Mark and Michael, this is a 10+ mile round trip (3,700ft gain/loss) with some exposed 3rd class rock to make it interesting. Oh yeah, and the trailhead is about 10 miles from my house.

Guy

I'm not saying this was the case for the three climbers, but I'm certainly thinking that seeing as how they went up in December only lightly equipped (or so it's been reported).

Bill: all my climbs and adventures outdoors are done 'lightly equipped'. I do so because I'm confident in my abilities, and I dont like carrying unnecessary weight. I've done forced bivouacs at high altitude without proper gear in below freezing temperatures and I'm alive, so I know what I'm capable of. Based on the resume of at least one of the climbers on Hood, he no doubt felt the same way; that his experience would get him out safely if things got bad. Things can and do go wrong, and not everyone comes off the moutain alive. It's a risk climbers take - they know it, their families know it, and stupidity and moronity (new word?) have nothing to do with it. If you're talking about someone who has little experience on mountains, and is trying to climb Mt. Hood in December without a warm jacket and wearing tennis shoes and jeans, it's a different story.

Ban it? No way. You can't stop someone who's intent on killing themselves through stupidity - they'll only go somewhere else to do it.

Understand, Bill, that had you perished in one of your cave divings, some couch jockey know-it-all would also say that you got killed through your own stupidity. Would you agree with them? Calling these climbers stupid is just plain ignorant.

Michael - perhaps you either misunderstood my viewpoint or I didn't state it very well. I meant no ill will toward properly equipped (even if lightly) and properly trained mountaineers. Nor did I mean to disparage the three climbers in question. Concerning the three climbers, I was only saying I didn't know their experience level personally, only what's been reported (the reporting is what I don't trust). My last statement was not in reference to them specifically. Absolutely, bad things can and do happen to experienced and properly trained people (I've buried several close friends due to accidents in extreme or experimental circumstances), but that's the exception. Again, I can't speak for mountain climbing, but with cave diving I can categorically state that MOST incidents are caused by EGO, improper training and/or being improperly equipped. Perhaps climbing and cave diving don't have that much in common, but I would think many of the same risk/stress factors are similar (serious time pressure, lives being dependant on equipment, etc.) I'm not comparing climbing with regular sport diving on a reef or something, I'm talking about serious distance penetrations in caves at serious depths, much the same as serious mountaineering in brutal conditions.

As for the deaths of what I might deem "stupid" people, the best analogy I can think of might be comparing the deaths of Alex Lowe with some of the tourists who pay huge sums of money to have a guide drag them up Mt. Everest. One was a tragic accident, and the others are an accident looking for a place to happen due to ego or unrealsitic expectations. Again, not referencing the three climbers in question specifically here.

In my last statement you questioned Ban it? No way, et al. I only meant those who know what they're doing shouldn't be punished because of those who don't. I guess I've gotten rather callous about it, but if some dummy wants to subject themselves to conditions that are way past their experience level and die while doing it, that's fine with me, but don't penalize me for someone else's stupidity. If I were to try to climb Mt. Hood, I would definitely be way out of my element (which is why I'm not out climbing - that plus my fear of heights) - but for the sake of argument let's say I did try it and died in the attempt. So be it - don't penalize you because I was an idiot.

I hve nothing but the utmost respect for true mountaineers, divers, explorers, etc, who know what they're doing, but with the advent of reality TV, it seems that too many people think they can just run out and do extreme things, without paying the dues of training and experience. As in most things in life, there are no shortcuts if you want to maintain a reasonable degree of safety and a realistic expectation of coming home alive.

Not trying to start an argument here, just clarifying my statements. Take care.

Clarification understood and accepted, Bill. I might have also read and digested your initial reponse too quickly. Thanks, and Happy Holidays to you.

More tragedies in climbing: http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/12/25/china.climbersluggage.ap/index.html

Boskoff has ascended six of the world's peaks over 26,000 feet, including Mount Everest. She owns Mountain Madness, a Seattle adventure travel company.

Just to give a heads up, Mountain Madness was one of the two climbing groups that were attempting to climb Mount Everest on that ill-fated day of the 10th of May, 1996, when 8 climbers lost their lives.

Just to give you a heads up, Boskoff bought Mountain Madness after the Everest debacle, She had nothing to do with it and it has nothing to do with this subject. Also, there were almost a dozen climbing groups on the mountain that season.