Randwill, have you ever participated in any “high risk” activities, such as scuba diving, skydiving, mountain climbing, anything like that?
Reason I ask (and I’m not singling you out) is that there’s a world of difference between “taking a calculated risk” and “doing something very stupid”. I don’t know these three guys and I’m not up on the exact details of what they did so I’m not going to make any pronouncement on how smart or stupid they were, but if you have experience, good training, good equipment, are in proper condition (mentally and physically) and prepare properly to minimize the hazards, that’s taking a calculated risk.
If you have no idea what you’re getting into, don’t have any experience or training and are just generally clueless yet you charge in anyhow, that’s being reckless/ignorant/stupid.
When I check the signals, look both ways and keep my eyes and ears open as I cross the street, that’s a calculated risk. If I am listening to my MP3 player, looking at my cellphone and don’t check for traffic before I run out into the street, that’s stupid.
In the one case I’m actively minimizing the danger to myself. In both cases I can get injured or killed. In either case, if I get hit by a car, the paramedics will still risk life and limb speeding over to save my butt - that’s their job and nobody is making them do it. It’s certainly my moral responsibility to try and avoid getting injured because (amongst other things) those guys are at risk every time they do their job, but this doesn’t mean that we should all stay home.
How about describing them as overconfident? As Duckster shows they were experienced, yet they didn’t take the precautions that they knew they should have. Pride go-eth b4 a fall. If they do rescue them then yes they should pay for the rescuers services, because they knew what they were doing was stupid. If they are not rescued they will serve as a great example of what not to do.
Randwill, can you tell us what activities you do for fun and explain how they do not involve the potential for injury and death? You can get killed going for a walk, riding your bike, taking a Sunday drive, going for a swim…
The point isn’t that people “risk their lives” doing stuff - everything that everyone does involves some risk. It’s HOW we approach that risk that helps us draw a line between stupid and sane.
This reminds me of a little blurb by Mark Twain. He commented on a news report of an accident on the Matterhorn. I don’t remember the exact details but it went something like this.
News Report: Three climbers suffered a fall on the Matterhorn yesterday. Two of them were killed. The third suffered a broken leg and collar bone and 3 broken ribs. From his hospital bed he said that as soon as he is able he will tackle the mountain again.
Twain: That’s the way it is wth mountain climbers. The more fun they have, the more they want.
Agreed. However the fact that taking a walk is less risky doesn’t mean that experienced mountaineers attempting this summit was suicidal, stupid, crazy or selfish.
As with any high-risk activity, you have to make intelligent decisions to safely participate, which includes weighing the potential dangers against the payoffs. If you want zero risk, you’d better lock yourself indoors.
The search & rescue teams exist because people need to be found and rescued as an inevitable result of people setting foot outside of their homes. SAR is in itself a high-risk activity and the people who participate are well trained, well equipped and they’re volunteers - nobody is forcing them to do that job. Are they nuts as well?
Part of making intelligent decisions in these activities includes knowing when you should NOT go; if these guys knew that they were getting in over their heads (based on the conditions, their experience and gear, etc) then that was dumb and they ought to get chewed out and think about their future in that sport, but if this was a case of “Mother Nature bats last” I won’t call them idiots.
I seriously doubt any thrill-seekers who accidentally die are actually suicidal.
However, a suicidal person who “accidentally” dies from a thrill-seeking behavior gets to have his cake and eat it too. They get the sweet release of death, and life insurance still pays. Plus, no awkward stigma for their loved ones whenever somebody asks how they died. “Skydiving accident” sounds about a thousand times cooler than “hanged himself.”
But, the chance of dying from such things is also proportional to how often you do them. For most people, driving a car, for example, is a very risky thing they do indeed. I have thought about this as someone who is naturally pretty timid but does participate in some moderate-risk activities like rock climbing (mainly in a gym or with a “top rope”), bicycling on the roads in a city not very used to many bicyclists, … And, when I think about it, I still think that it is more probable that I would die in an automobile accident than on my bike or rock climbing. (Admittedly, this is my own estimate with no way to prove or disprove it.)
So, if one just does moderate or high risk activities very occasionally, one’s risk may not be significantly increased than engaging in everyday activities like driving a car much more often.
Suicidal, no. Stupid, yes. Trading safety for a cheap thrill is a personality trait that transcends logic. Going into a dangerous environment without taking survival precautions just increases the odds of a fatality.
Sure, but mountaineering (even in bad weather) is not necessarily throwing away all safety for a cheap thrill. I used to skydive all the time - every jump was a thrill and also a risk; it’s possible to get hurt or killed, which is why I trained hard, used good judgement and had good equipment. I was trading SOME safety for the thrill of unpowered human flight, was that stupid? Does it transcend logic? The risk makes you focus on safety.
I’ve found that by and large people who think of any high-risk behavior as “crazy”, “stupid”, “reckless” and the people who do it as “suicidal” and “selfish” are people who don’t actually know much about those activities. The folks who reacted that way to skydiving didn’t have any idea of the actual risks involved, what sort of equipment is used, how people train or what actually causes injuries.
Many times the people who do this kind of thing have a better overall attitude towards safety than people who don’t; we have a careful, methodical approach to safety.
The Pacific Northwest has experienced some pretty unusual weather of late. In early November there was the Big Wet that dumped tons of rain all over the place. The damage is widespread, and there are many areas all along the Cascade Range that will not be repaired for the forseeable future. Think years here. Anyone viewing weather systems on a big map could plainly see the storm tracks were regular, constant and practically never-ending — one front after another as either the Pineapple Express (the Big Wet) or all those Alaskan blows coming in.
The current blow hitting the Pacific Northwest tonight has been watched for days, if one bothered to read beyond the five-minute snip on the TV news, or the little map on the newspaper’s back page. No big deal if your plans are pretty much concerned with daily trips to work/school/shopping, and back home again.
These climbers were all experienced (news reports said numerous successful climbs of Rainier, McKinley and other mountains among the three). Sure, their planned fast climb was probably a good idea, if the weather cooperated.
I wish I could be optimistic as so many others for their safe return. Winter climbs of Mt. Hood are not uncommon. One should take all the normal precautions of a winter climb. But if you are planning an extended outing, in winter, climbing a mountain, you would think your plans would include some indepth weather watching. Sure, a storm could just blow up out of nowhere in 24 hours, but that’s part of the risk.
Yet, I’m getting the distinct impression they didn’t do any extended weather watching, especially with the way winter here has blown in with such a vengence for more than a month now.
I agree with this. Some people just need the rush to feel fulfilled. There’s a huge difference between Mt. Hood and Mt. Everest. These guys were experienced climbers. An ex-climbing mate was on CNN and said they were fully qualified for this particular climb. Mt. Everest is so deadly that I think your need for “living on the edge” goes far beyond the typical “type B” personality (though they all sound perfectly normal when they’re not hanging from a rope with an oxygen mask strapped to their face )
I know guys who have been air-dropped into the Canadian wilderness, jump out of perfectly good planes, go 4-wheeling in extremely rugged terrain, etc. These guys are built different, but I don’t consider them nuts. There’s a line. I’m not sure exactly where it is, but it’s there.
The Forest Service announced they closed Mt. Hood to all climbing, effective today.
It is expected that better weather is arriving for searchers and by closing the mountain there will be no extra tracks or cell phone signals to screw up the search.
Exactly. We’ve been subjected to a chain of storms over the last few weeks, each storm foretold more than a week in advance. The day the climbers went missing I heard people on the radio wondering what they were thinking attempting a climb given the weather forecasts.
I’m hearing a sort of ‘all handicapped people are saints’ theory of climbers here. (When I’m not hearing ‘all climbers are morons’.) Is it not possible that the demographic that climbs mountains includes both wise individuals who can be counted on to take precautions and calculated risks and individuals who are much less cautious? And is it not possible that this lost group is in fact among the latter? Which would not mean that ‘all climbers are careless’ but just that this particular bunch were not as careful as even risk-taking thrill-seekers ought to be? OK maybe there’s some merit to the ‘quick climb’ theory where you take less equipment but really, how onerous is it to take a dang transponder or two?
A lot of people are oblivious to the risks involved in SAR, particularly with respect to aircraft. Flying is inherently risky in the best of conditions. It’s also damnably expensive. I think the salient point in this discussion is that it is selfish to force (whether SAR teams are “volunteers” isn’t really relevant) others to risk their lives because of boneheaded maneuvers. Whether this situation rises to that level is another matter.
These discussions come up frequently amongst climbers and other outdoor enthusiasts. Interestingly, lands that are designated “Wilderness” by the federal government have a prohibition on motorized travel, or even chainsaws for that matter. All sorts of interesting rules could be implemented if one truly wants a wilderness experience. Many people have suggested that the rescued should be held liable for the costs associated with their rescue, but this is hard to implement for a number of reasons, none of them very good, and local SAR have resisted the idea for some very good reasons. I think a compromise would be a requirement for climbing teams and others in higher risk activities post a bond prior to being issued a permit.
I am not in disagreement with what you’ve said, particularly since the media has failed again to accurately report the situation. It’s more of a general feeling of mine that climbing a mountain for bragging rights is negated if it involves a lot of physical danger. I can throw an oxygen bottle in my plane and see the same view in a much safer environment. Physical tests of endurance do not impress me if it is done for the sake of suffering. Climbing a mountain for the beauty of it makes sense. Freezing your ass off and seriously endangering rescue teams is a poor way to spend a day.
One of my skydiving books has the phrase “If riding in a plane is flying then sitting in a boat is swimming. To experience the element, get out of the vehicle.”
Before the pilots and sailors pile on, yes that’s somewhat tongue in cheek but skydivers are not limited to falling straight down. We have a great deal of maneuverability (air at 120mph gives lots of thrust to play with) including attaining forward speeds of around 60mph.
I don’t know the individuals involved in this case but people don’t just do these things for bragging rights. It’s an athletic endeavor, it’s fun, it’s being out in nature, challenging yourself, doing something grand with your friends, etc. Freezing your ass off can be a lot of fun - the other week I did a 9 mile run in what turned out to be high winds and cold rain. Got back to my truck cold, wet, skin bright red and I felt fantastic. Sure I could stay inside and only go out when the weather is perfect but to my mind that’s no way to live. It means you don’t get out much and (IMHO) it’s boring.
Yes, you can fly over a mountain in perfect comfort and safety. There are people who think that flying a plane over a mountain is as crazy as climbing it, they’ll say “I can sit in my livingroom and look at a postcard photo of that mountain, it’s so much safer!” Sure it’s safer but it’s not anything like being there.
Again, I’m not saying that someone who does something risky gets a free moral pass. There’s a big range between “stupid reckless idiot” and “100% safety”; people who take a calculated risk are somewhere in-between and the point is that they know what they are getting into and accept the risk of danger which very specifically includes the responsibility for taking adequate precautions to minimize the risk and handling problems as they arise. If these guys went out there intentionally ignoring all risks, or were just so clueless that they had no idea what they were getting into, and had the attitude that if anything at all went wrong they would just whip out the old cellphone, dial 911 and say “It’s cold, come save me” then they should be in for a ration of hell, because yeah that means they were intentionally (or at least recklessly) putting the SAR folks at risk.
)