Isn’t a big strtech of the ascent up Everest via fixed ropes? Is it really a climb (in the definition of mountaineers)?
Maybe the solution is to set up a tramway/ski lift, to get the egomaniacs to the top.
I think the relevant line here has less to do with the strictest assessment of relative risk, and more to do with the reasons for climbing Everest specifically.
As noted earlier in the thread,
You go hiking in the mountains of New England with a child during 140 mph winds and -40 degree temperature then it is child endangerment. If you let your child fly an airplane into a thunderstorm, it’s child endangerment. If you stand in the middle of an open field with a child while chasing a tornado it’s child endangerment. It’s not just the act, it’s the conditions and probability of injury that makes it relevant.
That made me laugh Ralph!
Sheese, I’m sorry I ever mentioned taking my son hiking up Mount Washington! We climbed it 4 times and he was 8 the first time. It was summer and warm and a nice day. Now our most dangerous hike was Mt Chocorua because we had 50 mile an hour winds once we got above the tree line. My son says he was like 7 for that hike. We had done it once before and had a pic-nick lunch on the summit. It was one of those beautiful summer days, warm and no wind. The second time it was a total nightmare. We got above the tree line and we had to hold hands. He wanted so bad to bag that peak but it was just too dangerous. We turned around and headed down with that awful feeling of close but no cigar… That was the time we got attacked by a barn owl on the way down.
The thing about hiking is the weather can change at the drop of a hat. You have to be prepared for anything. I was impressed by this young mans previous climbs. I hope he makes it since it looks like he is going to climb it.
My son was just saying that Mount Washington is not that hard for a child. It was the trail we did that was hard. Huntington’s Ravine was the toughest way up. He said the fat people have a worse time then the kids do.
The elevation makes any effort a huge problem. Fix ropes just means you are caught if you fall. People often die on the fixed ropes.
The standard route isn’t an advanced technical route in mountaineering terms, but it’s still more than 99% of most climbers will ever do. It’s a real climb, just not the hardest technical climb out there.
Did it keep Major League Baseball from spying on you?
Had I heard of this story while the family was still in the US, I would have reprted them to their state child protective service agency. That kid should have been removed from his parents’ custody while he was still in their jurisdiction.
I’m not certain if intent to endanger the child is sufficient grounds. But I see in the OP linked article that a Dutch court took custody of a child to prevent her parents from allowing a similarly stupid stunt. So I would leave the legalities to the lawyers and drop a dime on the family.
Well, he climbed Denali (Mount McKinley) in 2008 when he was 11 years old and there’s no indication that the Alaskan authorities attempted anything to prevent it. And, Mount McKinley can be a dangerous mountain to climb.
According Huffington Post June 12, 2009:
Back to Boyo Jim:
Well, the case of Laura Dekker is similar in that she is a minor undertaking a dangerous activity (solo sailing around the world). From Sunday Star Times (New Zealand) a few days ago:
Also, as for the quantification of the risk:
Please provide the calculation that results in “1 in 50”.
Are you using the data for all attempts back to 1922? Or for all summits from that date? Or, are you restricting the data to more recent attempts/summits?
What about the specific climbing route and the time of year? Are they all equally dangerous? If ego is a consideration, then it makes sense that some highly experienced climbers tried a more challenging, more dangerous climb and some of them paid the ultimate price.
Also, there are records for the fastest climb (any attempt at which would increase the risk) and some have attempted a climb solo and/or with no canned oxygen, and quite a few succeeded. (The merits of relying on canned oxygen are disputed by some.)
And, although the weather is unpredictable, there are often warning signs that a climbers can choose to heed or ignore, at their own risk. Do all climbers accept the same level of risk? Given that many climbers did not reach the summit (and not because they died), it’s clear that many of them chose not to continue, for a variety of reasons, rather than subject themselves to even greater risk.
I’m certainly not disputing that climbing Everest is very dangerous (nobody in this thread is disputing the danger), but I wonder how “1 in 50 chance of death” became a “fact”.
You got a better “fact”?
Tell us YOUR numbers, reasoning, and calculations…
If you don’t like someone else’s back of the envelope calculations, show us your better envelope…
There’s no information the authorities knew anything about it in advance, or they might have done something. Though I was thinking about the California authorities because he lives there.
https://www.pay.gov/paygov/forms/formInstance.html?agencyFormId=16355280
That’s the online registration form for climbing Denali, you need to provide the age for everyone in the group and the form must be filled out 60 days in advance of your climb.
I’m wondering if there is a sponsor out there who would front all the money for the expedition in return for the kid changing his name to Kenny.
Well, if Mary Woodbridge and her dachshund can do it…
All I can think of is her holding a dog leash that is embedded in a pile of snow yelling “walkies”.
That’s a Federal parks form. It’s very doubtful that any state agencies would ever see it.
I looked at the FAQs link and didn’t see any restrictions at all as far as who may climb. That’s interesting – I wonder what would happen if a 12-year-old sent in a form without anyone else listed? There must be SOME restrictions, or there would be no point to collecting the data at all.
Though aside from all this, comparing Everest to any North American peak is almost apples to oranges.
Here, BTW, is the definition of child endangerment in California, Section 273a.:
The bolding is mine. I don’t think there is any question at all that walking your child up Everest fits this definition.
The 13 year old, his dad, and his dad’s girlfriend were on the Today Show this morning. They’re all at base camp rarin’ to go, handfuls of little junk like rabbits feet to scatter at the summit when they get there. The dad pooh-poohed as ‘naysayers’ those who think a 13 year old is too young. So there.
I hope they all come off the mountain alive and intact.
Almost anything fits this description. Allowing a child to play contact sports, for example.
You really think it would be a good idea for social services to take the child from his parents? That the parents deserve to lose their kid? Or that the boy deserves to lose his parents?
I believe the parents shouln’t be allowed to expose the kid to this level of danger. If they would agree to cancel the expedition, that would be enough for me.
And I understand that the law’s description is extremely vague, probably by design to allow for a prosector’s discretion. From what I’ve read the law is more often used to remove children from the homes of drug dealing parents.
I think Everest is going to be more effiecent then social services in regards to all said scenarios.