I wouldn’t say that Kim was “stupid” or “suicidal” for the choice he made. He made a bad decision but he may not have been aware of the standard procedure for what to do in that situation. He also didn’t choose to put himself in that situation. He really was a victim of rotten luck and (maybe) a lack of knowledge about what to do in it (he also made the mistake of leaving the road when he tried to walk for help).
I don’t put him in the same category as the climbers who knew their decision to climb at this time of year contained a significant level of risk and who also knew that if something went wrong (like an injury), that it would be very tough to get help. They chose to climb that mountain. The Kim family did not choose to get snowbound.
Ya know, what I’m saying doesn’t have anything to do with whether or not anyone who finds themselves in these sorts of positions is either “stupid, suicidal or the like.” That’s for more intelligent folks then I to determined, although humble little ol’ me sees none of that. However, I’m talking about the ‘looking back and knowing what was best" capacity some have in reviewing, say, the climbers’ actions. I only used Kim as an example of “You can be damned if you do and damned if you don’t.” I realize he had no choice, but considering that we don’t have complete information on every last thing these guys on Mt. Hood did yet (or if we ever will), then I feel that’s not a determination anyone can make but them. Unless you’re of the position (which it seems you are – please correct me if I’m not understanding you correctly) that no one should perhaps hike during the winter, if at all.
I just think that attitude (of 20/20 hindsight) is woefully misguided. Maybe we need to part company here and do the old agree-to-disagree thing.
Oh, and good posts Telemark, Valgard and just now, xbuckeye. Especially on the you-should-be-as-prepared-as-possible front. That always go without saying. Their are more Dopers who’ve echoed that in this thread, but those are the ones that stuck out to me most.
“Hiking” would be to broad a word, but my position is that they shouldn’t have tried to climb the mountain in december in the first place, that’s correct. There was no necessity for it, they knew it was risky and they knew that problems which could occur on any climb (like the injury to the climber who was found in the snow cave) would have much greater consequences this time of year than at other times of year. Their margin for error or bad luck was smaller and they knew it. It wouldn’t have killed them to wait for spring. It literally killed them not to wait.
I understand then. I suppose we really were talking at cross purposes, as your point and mine didn’t refer necessarily to the same thing. As I now get where you were coming from, I’ll just apologize for the hijack and move along. Thanks Dio for the discourse. As always, it’s been a pleasure.
But I like winter mountaineering. It’s a great activity, not without risk, but with huge rewards. I choose to climb NH’s Mt Washington in winter because it’s difficult, spectacular, and a whole lot of fun. True, it has probably killed more people then Mt Hood (very bad weather year round) but people climb it pretty much every week in winter.
You could make the argument that there is no necessity for climbing any mountain, any time. I don’t buy that argument and I don’t buy this one. People choose to do things because they are difficult and they choose a level of risk that is appropriate for them. Of course the consequences are greater in winter. But you are compensated by greater enjoyment.
If you start down the road that things that aren’t necessary are somehow inherently without value then you’ve eliminated most of human leisure time activity.
Fine. If you think the “rewards” to you personally are more important than your family then go ahead, climb mountains in the winter. I don’t think you have any right to expect to be rescued when you fall in a gully, though.
But if I hike in summer then I should expect to be rescued? I don’t get the logic; who draws the line at what activities are worthy to included?
All recreational activities have risks; all have rewards (no need to put them in quotes, everyone has their own set of rewards). In NH, the state has decided that the line is if your actions are “reckless” then you can get fined. They’ll still look for you and rescue you if they can, but there are consequences. But the S&R people still volunteer to go no matter how you got into your predicament. The people who do S&R seem very united on this; everyone deserves rescue if it is possible.
We don’t hold firefighters back from entering a house if the person fell asleep with a lit cigarette, or a meth lab blew up, or stop the EMTs from treating people who crashed their cars during a drag race or driving drunk. Those rescuers are risking their lives because people made poor choices or choices the majority wouldn’t make for themselves, but we as a society decided that they are still worthy of rescue.
Winter hiking is legal, fun, and contributes to the economy. I also think it contributes to society by giving people a place to push their boundaries, explore their world, and expand their horizons. I don’t see why it should be excluded from the infrastructure support system. Especially since the vast majority of the manpower for S&R comes from the volunteer hiker community.
It may be worth pointing out here that one of the worst accidents on Mount Hood happened in 1986 when nine people out of a group of thirteen froze to death (the other four were injured but alive) in a blizzard. In May.
Diogenes, I also think that your idea that climbers either love their families or they love climbing, with no middle ground, is wrong on a couple of levels, notably the implication that “winter mountaineering = certain death”, which is obviously untrue.
As has been said several times, each individual has to assess the risks and rewards for themself, taking into account their own skills and circumstances. If you decide that backcountry camping in deep snow (or riding a rollercoaster, to use your example) is too dangerous for you that’s fine, I respect your decision, however I find it a wonderful trip which is safe when done properly.
An update for everyone, glwaned from news sources and other places:
The search is being scaled back. The sheriff believes they are merely “spinning our wheels” to continue a major search.
Bad weather is moving in. Freezing rain. Think Eiger Sanction.
The search is/was costing more than $5,000 a day, ramping up to more than $6,500 a day. The military will most likely charge their costs to their training budget. It is estimated that the hourly rate for each Blackhawk helicopter (there were two) is $2,800. No costs were reported for the Nevada Air National Guard C-130 aircraft.
Other government agencies will just absorb their costs. Oregon law places a $500 limit on how much a rescued person may be required to pay back for their rescue costs, but only if they were negligent.
Quietly, it is believed the remaining climbers fell some 2,500 feet to their deaths. Whether the bodies will ever be recovered is not known.
Saw an interview with a mountaineering expert on the tube last night (sorry, no other cite.)
He made the point that a big factor was that these folks had traveled in from out of town. They had X amount of vacation, and the climb had been planned well ahead of any reliable weather forecast. They basically painted themselves into a corner where they were unwilling to wait out the weather.
Not unlike the “I have to be at work on Monday” line of thinking that private pilots sometimes allow to kill them.
I think this is all rather silly, honestly. You can talk logically about it all you want, but if your brother became a mountain climber tomorrow and got stuck, would you really say “Oh, he was dumb, no search party please?” I really doubt it. It’s very easy to discuss detached.
Also, $5,000 a day? For a couple of weeks? And how many rescue missions on this specific mountain this year?
That’s pocket change. If we were talking millions of dollars per rescue, I’d understand, but you’d rather let somebody die because they took a risk than let state government pay 50 grand? That strikes me as really callous, given all the frivolous spending of your tax dollars that have nothing to do with life-or-death situations. As for the argument about people risking lives - it’s the jobs they CHOSE. They want to do this. No one is forcing them.
So it really comes to down 50 grand vs a life saved. To me, that’s no choice at all.
As a long time government employee, I have to admit I’m mighty suspicious of these figures. Seem mighty low.
But, the second sentence I quote has pretty much changed my mind on this issue. The military is going to be spending the money on training anyway. Why not do it in a manner that has real consequences, instead of just some drills?
Still couldn’t care less whether the climbers lived or died. But not as upset over the financial costs society bore due to their poor planning/bad luck/recklessness/irresponsibility/stupity/what have you.
So, the one guy recovered apparently died of hypothermia and the other two are presumed to have died in a fall after going for help. Since the searchers used heat-seeking technology and the infrared footprint of three guys is, oh, three time that of one, the lesson we can draw takes us back to the rule Dio and I had drilled into us since childhood, “Don’t get out of the car.” Or snow cave, in this case.
I can agree with your sentiments about the low-ball figures. Still, those are the amounts being reported.
As for the military getting involved, they’ve been doing such rescues for years in the Pacific Northwest. They’re top notch people. Unfortunately, they don’t have any money in the budget to actually perform rescues so they deliberately use their training money when called to do rescues, and they were not the rescue folks who used to do the work:
Still, they did the best they could with weather and budget constraints.
I agree with your sentiments. Having said that, local government bodies here in the Pacific Northwest really don’t have that kinda cash anymore. In fact, it’s about to get a whole lot worse. A federal program to assist communities since 2000 when federal timber production was effectively stopped because of the northern spotted owl court cases is not being renewed by the Bush government. There is talk all over the Northwest of local libraries, schools and police/sheriff support in small towns getting cut because the funds are now gone. I don’t have any specifics regarding the Hood River sheriff’s office, but you can probably wager their funding isn’t that great and doesn’t look good for the future. I don’t think anyone will publicly make it a budget issue, but I can see problems ahead when an SAR is initiated, but there is no money to pay for it. No one will hesitate to pay for the SAR, but locals will start getting upset when the consequences of an SAR means other services will shut down. I can see it coming when the local sheriff starts calling for an insurance bond for all climbers. It’s not a bad idea.
