This premise is wrong.
So is this.
First, my dear fellow, by what means and measure are YOU quantifying risk–and where are you placing a threshold on unacceptable risk?
Are you making the categorical statement that all climbing is inherently and unacceptably risky vis-a-vis ALL surfing? Versus all ultra-marathoning, skiing, sailing, driving, motorcycling, etc.? Your distinctions seem arbitrary; your suppositions conjectural; your experience rather thin. Truth be told, I doubt you’ve ever touched foot on a big mountain.
Indeed, ARE we talking about rescuing–or about comparitive risk and the extent to which others should are responsible for an individual’s “unacceptable risk-taking”?
Before concluding that mountain climbing is a “life-threatening waste of time,” please feel free to post your climbing resume, citing accomplishments on rock, ice, or at high altitude. In the final analysis, it’s all about degrees of risk–and I’m taking life.
Like tsunamisurfer, I don’t find this scenario very plausible. Furthermore, if you are suggesting that there were pressures on the rescuers to go ahead with the rescue in marginal circumstances because of this reason, I find it even more implausible. My guess is that the rescuers have many motivations for doing their job and that pressure put on them by fear of lawsuits doesn’t even make the list.
I didn’t mean to suggest anything of the sort–merely commenting on human nature. When a loved one dies, especially in such circumstances, the families want to hold somebody responsible. And I would find defending against lawsuits by aggrieved family members to be a much bigger waste of resources than actually rescuing (or trying to rescue) people.
Do I just say everything wrong? Because people sure want to seem to want to extract the worst possible interpretation from what I say.
Let me chime in for Vinnie on this point. One does not need direct experience with an activity to gauge its level of risk.
At the same time, Vinnie offered no cites.
Though I have extremely limited climbing experience, I have read accounts of climbing accidents in The Best of Outside (1997). And frankly, I was appalled at the ethics of some of the climbers in the book.
I have no problem denouncing people who risk their lives and others (excessively) for dubious and self-indulgent purposes. Drawing a line between “excess” and “acceptable” is tricky of course. At the same time, IMnotsoHO, climbing Everest, for example, seems to be a decent example of a dubious purpose, c. 1980s+ and possibly 1960+. (Is there really any purpose, scientific, artistic or otherwise, for mastering the West Face?)
FWIW, I follow you just fine, Phil, and I find the idea that a lawsuit would not be brought to be, well, naive.
A few people have made blanket statements about climbing being a waste of time, i.e. valueless. The problem with this statement is that living is about more than just surviving from one day to the next. Many (most?) people need – and I do mean need – to meet and overcome challenges in order to feel content. One person’s challenge of choice may be mountain climbing. Another’s may be cycling. You may have your own favorite challenge. These activities have as much value as the local sports arena that our local government subsidizes, or the museum of modern art that receives public subsidies and favorable tax status.
There’s no evidence the climbers were foolish or stupid, but even if they were, fools have as much right to be rescued as anyone. The golden rule is “treat others as you would want to be treated”, not “treat smart, responsible people as you would want to be treated.” Who here has not made some stupid mistake and been “rescued” in some way, even if it’s only arriving at a business meeting unprepared and having a co-worker fill in for you.
Also, regarding the helicopter pilot: Pilots always, by law, have the right – the responsibility – to judge for themselves whether conditions are safe and to take appropriate action, including staying on the ground. I’ve been a pilot for many years and I’ve known many pilots. Personal responsibility is a trait of pilots, at least when it comes to flying. I’m pretty confident the helicopter pilot would feel insulted to hear Rhum Runner say that the climber put the pilot at risk. The pilot in command is responsible for the safe operation of the aircraft. It was the pilot’s choice to be there.
While I’ve never been a rescue pilot, I’ve flown “missions” that involved some risk to help a stranger who needed it. It’s a good feeling to do good for others, even more so because it was challenging. I have to believe the helicopter pilot felt the same way.
Great post, netskip, especially the first paragraph.
Let me be the first to welcome you to the SDMB.
I’m not sure how far my problems with the climbing ethic extend outside the (easy) cases where the climbers are blatently unprepared. I also wonder whether it’s fair or appropriate to ask those needing challenges to redirect their energies towards something elses.
This is probably unenforceable.
After all, it is incredibly stupid to use gasoline to clean things, or to smoke in bed but when somebody does and sets their house on fire, the fire department comes.
Let me say that I attacked Vinnie because he’s a tough bastard and thrives on close-quarters rhetorical combat.
I disagree with your assumption that one does not need direct experience in an activity to gauge its level of risk. Or, at least, having some experience in it makes one’s assessment more credible.
FTR, mountain climbing is such a broad proposition that it escapes categorization. On another thread, someone with zero (and I mean ZERO) climbing experience described Everest’s southeast ridge (i.e. Standard) route as a “piece of cake.” He obviously had no idea what he was talking about. Moreover, there are many routes up any mountain, thus making it impossible to make a summary judgment on the entire “sport.”
Re: “the West Face,” which west face are you speaking of? Everest? K2? Kanchenjunga? Blanc? The Eiger? I agree that some climbs are insanely brash (or what I think of as “heroic”), but that’s the way it should be.
I know it won’t exactly strengthen my argument, but I’ve been so gassed on a couple of major Asian mountains (and I mean totally enervated), that I looked around me and calmly thought, “This wouldn’t be a bad place to die.” The slightly irrational side of me thinks that doing something even insanely brash brings one to the very edge of living deeply. I could go on, but this ain’t a coffee house.
Flowbark, either you “get” climbing or you don’t. I’m thinking you really do, you’re just playing dumb. (no insult intended.) Go climb Hood or Rainier and you’ll be a true believer.
I’m also guessing that Vinnie would be totally jazzed climbing a mountain. He just doesn’t know it.
Flowbark, Thank you for the cordial welcome.
For me, it’s easy to answer the question about redirecting energies toward something else. I’ve been there. I used to fly small airplanes, an activity that some regard as dangerous. Like many such activities, the risk is highly dependent on the preparation and attitude of the practitioner.
I’ll skip the long drawn-out description about how passionate I was (and still am) about flying, but it ends with my being diagnosed with epilepsy in 1992. Although I haven’t had a seizure in 9 years, 5 months and 18 days, there is approximately zero chance that I will be Pilot In Command anytime soon.
I’ve tried desperately to find other hobbies. I’ve tried gliding, hang-gliding, SCUBA, reading, video games, amateur radio, golf, tennis, photography and probably some others that escape me at the moment. Nothing has filled that void. In some cases I don’t have the right kind of mind for a particular hobby. In other cases, the hobby just isn’t “interesting.”
After I lost PIC privileges a friend commented “at least it’s not your job or something.” This friend didn’t understand what I was going through. A more understanding friend commented that “it’s like losing a spouse.” Yes!! That’s it.
Not everyone who flies, or climbs, is passionate about the activity, but please understand that for many people asking them to redirect their energies someplace else is akin to asking them to be single (no SO) for the rest of their lives. It’s only an analogy, but it’s the best way I know to explain what my attempt at redirecting my energies elsewhere has felt like.
tsunamisurfer, you and I see eye to eye. There have been moments watching seagulls landing in the field in back of our house when I’ve wondered if the ability to fly would be a worthwhile trade for having a bird brain.
For the rest of you wondering if tsunamisurfer and I have perhaps been spending a little too much time in the sun, there is actually a medical basis for this. I can’t do justice to an explanation, but the intense focus needed to manage a very real physical risk does make some people high in a way. Ironically, if I were a bird, I probably wouldn’t enjoy flying so much. 
If I get a chance to research this and report back, I will.
Yall aren’t getting it.
The military allocates a specific number of flight hours a year for training. You’ll hear the same idiots bitch about Air Shows “My tax dollars are being used for entertainment… blah blah.”
The aircraft will be flown, either in some remote training area, or perhaps at an air show. So the money is spent – regardless. The fuel is burned, regardless. So, S/R is a good allocation of a limited resource.
How about this for a reason. To prevent the dead from littering our scenic mountans. Could get pretty gruesom after a while. Didn’t the Nepaleese just do a major housecleaning of Everest to bring down all the bodies of dead climbers that were strewn about the mountain?
Yick.
A few more comments.
The “pay to play” argument is generally frowned upon by both agencies (who may be the ones to organize and mount the initial rescue efforts), organized groups (whose members participate in said activities). Consider this site
http://www.americanalpineclub.org/policy/DenaliRescueStudyOfficialResponse032001.htm
which fleshes out some of the previous mentioned points. Within this letter are a few interesting tidbits though that I’ll list here.
-
In 2000 only 3.6% of all National Park Service (NPS) rescues were for climbers.
-
“There is no direct correlation between the type of visitor activity and the cost of rescue.” In other words, rescuing climbers is no more expenseive than rescuing hikers, swimmers, boaters, etc.
-
“In 1999, the total cost per visitor of performing all search and rescue activities was a mere 1.2 cents – a small fraction of the total cost of $6.90 per visitor for all NPS functions.”
The point with these three selected points is that the financial burden argument seems misplaced at best. If as a taxpayer, one is worried about out-of-bounds government spending, there are likely much better targets.
So if not arguments based on cost, then what about the lives of the rescuers? As noted previously, these rescuers often themselves choose this line of work because of the challenge, excitement, thrill, etc. In short, many of the motives for becoming an S&R professional parallel those motives for participating in the activities which may use the skills of the S&R professionals.
I have been on one S&R mission in the backcountry in Montana and two of my friends hold Wilderness First Responder and EMT certifications specifically so that they can be called upon to help when help is needed. In the end many of the people involved in rescuing climbers, hikers, skiers, kayakers, campers, etc. recognize the risk inherent in their jobs and yet still continue to do it regardless of the fault/no-fault, or preparedness/unpreparedness of those they are sent to rescue.
Finally, I think netskip’s cogent comments on the importance of any activity to any person are worth reiteration. I don’t climb and have absolutely no desire to begin. However, I recognize how fulfilling this activity is to some people. In another thread I suggested that focusing only on length of life is a poor measure of the value of one’s life. Hopefully it is through our work and our leisure that we are able to achieve a rich, meaningful, and fulfilled life. I feel that to remove those avenues by which some choose to flourish is tantamount to literal incarceration. The measure of value has been and continues to be ‘quality of life’ not ‘quantity of life.’
“…Didn’t the Nepaleese just do a major housecleaning of Everest to bring down all the bodies of dead climbers that were strewn about the mountain?..”
-
-
- Dead bodies I don’t know for certain; I believe that if accessible, they are always recovered ASAP and removed. I never been though… If somebody falls down a 300-foot deep crevasse that’s two feet wide at the top and narrows towards nothing the bottom though, it’s a pretty good bet that nobody else is going down there to get them.
-
- What was done in -uh, 1996?,was to remove the huge amount of trash left at the two main campsites: discarded sleeping bags, food and food wrappers, camping equipment, oxygen bottles, anything that would have made “making the summit” harder was regularly discarded, and not picked back up on the way down. It was several tons of discarded gear, if I remember right. And there’s still -uh, areas where rather personal human waste is disposed, that aren’t ever cleaned up.
~
-Fuckin’ climbers! Fuckin’ shitbag assholes! - DougC