Boston Globe article on Mt Washington hiking

True, many people tend to be "overly" cautious about the danger of these mountains, but we also have many who are "overly" blaise as well. These assessments are based on the degree to which a hiker respects the danger potential.

I think that many people are lulled into underestimating the danger once they have come close a few times without disasterous results, while others, like myself, have the opposite reaction to a close call. Color me "overly" cautious.

This adult hiker would be just another one of us pushing the limits without disaster, had he been alone. Bringing those children with him qualifies him as an absolute a**hole. They were at the mercy of the adult's gamble.

I just think that when kids are involved and under the care of an adult there are certain things that are questionable in the mountains. This story as reported in the globe is bad due to the kids ages. They don't know any better at that age and they are folwing the lead of an adult. It sounds like ideal hypothermia conditions. IMO - You don't risk that with kids that age to toughen them up.

any mountain big or small is dangerous on any given day if conditions are right.

In reading the article again, did he mention the date of the hike? I couldn't find it if it was there. The article date is 8/26, but no mention of hike date. I wanted to look up the raw weather data for the date to see how dramatized it may have been. If anyone sees it, let me know, i just can't find it if its there.

I appreciate that much of what you're saying Dr. Wu is for effect, but still - this is serious business.

Just a couple more points - hopefully my last on this thread:

This fellow had other people's kids on the hike. It's one thing to endanger your own, but quite another to put someone else's. Society holds us to a higher standard when we endanger other people's kids.

Kids get chilled/cold/hypothermic much faster than adults. I saw this first hand when a friend (an experienced hiker and scoutmaster) asked to bring his 12 year-old son on a hike up Tom/Field/Willey on what turned out to be a cruddy day in early winter conditions. I said OK, as his son had lots of hiking experience, and 2 other highly experienced friends were along as well. In a nutshell - we assumed that Dad was in charge of himself and his son, but what happened was Dad was having a hard time staying warm himself, and didn't notice that his son was going sour with hypothermia until we were on the top of Field. We knew we had to get him and his son down in a hurry, so without unduly alarming them, we zipped up his son's jacket (he was too hypothermic to do it himself and had left it flap open the last 3/4 mile), and announced we were headed for a flat spot about a mile down the trail for something to eat and drink - and we booked. Fortunately it worked - by moving quickly he (the son) regained some body heat, and we stuffed him with candy and other goodies. One of my friends had some hot spiced tea, and that was hit as well. After about 15 minutes he was in much better shape, and we all learned a sobering lesson about how fragile kids are. They go sour faster than adults, and by the same token can bounce back faster. I also decided that day that I'd never do a winter (or near-winter) hike with a youngster again.

Perhaps this fellow (the Globe writer) wasn't the only adult on the hike - that's not clear. But, it is clear that not only did he display an abysmal lack of judgment in dismissing expert advice (I know Steve Ahearn and he's been hiking a long time) but he climbed INTO worsing weather. And, he wrote up the whole experience as an adventure, which suggests to me that he doesn't understand the near-miss, or he's too frightened/arrogant to admit it.

Re-read this thread Dr. Wu when you have a son about 8 years old who wants to hike Mt Washington with his friend's Dad. You might have a different take on the situation ...

copy of an email I wrote to the author

Mr. Jermanock,

I found your article through a link at the Views From the Top hiking forum. I am a 29 year old avid hiker. I first climbed Washington at age 13, and have climbed over 3/4 of the four thousand footers, most of them twice. I am also on the advisory board of the New Hampshire AMC Young Members Group, and am a certifed trail adopter in the White Mountains. I typically hike in the White Mountains 2-3 times a month.

I read your article, and was kind of disturbed. The fact that you took them above treeline after the weather was bad is very irresponsible. It would have been a much safer option to turn around when you hit treeline than it would have to reach the summit and take the cog down. I try to avoid being above treeline when the conditions are questionable, and have turned back more than once. I am certainly more experienced and well equipped and conditioned than someone who's experience consists soley of Monadnock and Mansfield, and feels that the surrounding ridges are anonymous (I certainly can name most of them).

You are very lucky to be ok. While your kids have a good story, it could have worked out much different. Inexperienced people who overestimate themselves, along with the cog/auto road are the reason I will no longer hike up Washington. People who lack respect for the experience in either of those ways have ruined mine. I now prefer to spend my weekends hiking on undeveloped peaks (like the ones on those "anonymous" ridges).

Your article very much illustrates both my pet pieves about hiking that mountain. On that note, your kids will be glad to hear that when/if they ever pursue the Four Thousand Footers Club, they will not be able to claim Washington, as the did not hike down.

On another note, I'd have been embarassed to publish that article. Taking unprepared children up a mountain in poor conditions is irresponsible for a parent. Additionally, taking the cog is a lame copout for anyone claiming to want the hiking experience. I can see maybe turning to the Cog option if the weather turned while on the summit, or close to it, but to aspire to take the cog when you are halfway up the mountain - not really what its all about. To admit both things, let alone publish it, truly shows that you "don't get it" on several levels.

I hope that you take a long look at your hike, and see how lucky you are, and use it to make better decisions in future excursions. Please check out the forums: http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?p=198556#post198556

You will see that many people, all of them experienced hikers, share my sentiment.

Jamie Gillon
North Hampton, NH

Fisher Cat said:

In reading the article again, did he mention the date of the hike? I couldn't find it if it was there. The article date is 8/26, but no mention of hike date. I wanted to look up the raw weather data for the date to see how dramatized it may have been. If anyone sees it, let me know, i just can't find it if its there.

Click to expand...

He says (on the first page) that it was "late June". He also refers to it as a "party of six", so I would guess that the other boys' father was there; surely at least their grandfather was, as he "anchored the team".

I don't know this fellows background and skills, but I have done washington 26 times in all seasons (and turned back at least 10 additional times due to weather), all conditions, both technical and nontechical routes and if it were me, I would have been bailing in that situation (kids) once at the top of lionhead.

IMO - teaching someone to turn back due to weather less than ideal conditions is a vaulable lesson. Its tougher to turn back than go on sometimes.

but kudos to the kids for staying in the game.

The author has written a few books on outdoor adventures; I believe he is probably as experienced as many hikers on this board. Personally, I'm most bothered by the article not having any discussion or acknowledgment of the mistakes made, including that it would have been best to have listened to the guy at Pinkham in the first place.

If the author didn't include that, the editors should have taken care of it.

<Moderator>
Please keep this discussion focused on the article and the dangers involved.
</Moderator>

Wait a Minute?

JJHikes said:

Personally, I'm most bothered by the article not having any discussion or acknowledgment of the mistakes made, including that it would have been best to have listened to the guy at Pinkham in the first place.

Click to expand...

I think the article is just too vague and it might have been (as people have suggested) overly dramatized to capture a certain "angle" or something. His intended audience probably was not VFTT...

You know how it goes sometimes, you do a hike and it was bad weather. To some people when you tell them the story you're like, "oh it was horrible! Rain! Snow! Hail! Death! Volcano!" and then to other people you're like, "oh, it wasn't that bad..."

Whatever. I think we (me included) have over analyzed (surprise!! ) yet another article appearing in the Globe. I wonder if the guy is really a troll -- he wrote it to get all our pants wet and in a knot! Clever. How is it that I don't even read the Globe and yet I can get worked up like this.

-Dr. Wu

If I was one of the kids on the trip, I would have learned a lot about the weather on the mountain.
At one point, he said they were soaked through, not a very skillful state to get in. Also, he said they reached a point of no return where it was safer to go up because of slippery rocks. That is not a stragedy the state park people on top want to promote, yet in some cases can be true.
The summit in the summer is, after all, what it is. This article promotes the idea that it is not a "real summit," but a warm train and car station, and
that idea is getting more established every year. The only way to regulate it is higher cog and stage prices for getting back down, and that is happening too.
I think they should have gone to a lower mountain that day, and waited to attempt Mount Washington. From the beginning of the hike, they saw the summit as the end of the hike, and that is unfortunate.

Most accidents occur in the ...

Last Sunday, Aug. 19, I climbed Washington via Nelson Crag and ended up doing the last mile in 50 mph wind, fog and rime ice. A little hairy, but I was well equipped, being real careful, and prepared to turn back. On my way down Tux I heard that rangers at HoJos were actively trying to discourage folks from proceding to the summit, including some who looked very well equipped indeed.

On another note, this past Friday I scrubbed my kitchen floor. I sponged up most of the water in shorts, T-shirt and bare feet. As I started to take the bucket over to the sink to dump it, my feet shot out from under me and I crashed heavily down on my left thigh. Still limping today. Next time... crampons!

I don't understand what the big deal is about this article. After reading it, I got the impression that 3 adults and 3 kids hiked up to the summit, prepared with winter clothing in their packs, and planned to take the train down. The cog was "a far more preferable option". That is true - the train is there and for some people that is a viable option. They didn't get wet until they were above treeline, and even then they weren't so far from the summit.

Even if they had full GoreTex suits, they would have been cold and wet. Any of us would have been cold and wet. When you know there's a snack bar at the top that sells dry clothes and hot chocolate, it becomes a safety net that not many other peaks in New England offer. I can bet that the parents and the kids have more of a respect for the mountains after getting back from their adventure, and this sentiment did come across after reading the article.

This article does seem to glorifiy their ability to overcome some nasty weather. I hope it doesn't influence and encourage more people to try and repeat this trip. "Hey, if three young kids can make it up there in the rain, hail, and snow, then I can, too - weather forecast and expert's advice be damned." That isn't the best message to send to the people of Boston.

If I were going to the highest summit in New England with my kids, I would at least want to pick a day with a clear forecast so the kids could experience the full expanse of the views. But that's just me.

Finally - I don't understand what Dr_Wu's point is that no child under the age of 15 has died on Mt Washington. Does that mean that young children don't die easily? That they are immune to the situations that chaperones with poor decision-making skills put them in? This fact that you cite has no bearing on the situation at hand. But I will agree that it seems like the hiking purists and those easily drawn in by a potentially embellished tale are the ones taking the most umbrage at this "trip report". I wasn't there, so I won't speculate on whether it truly was a bad decision or not.

Reminder: you cannot count on taking the train (or the stage) down. There is no guarantee or promise that either will have a seat available for you. Or in the case of inclement weather, no guarantee either will even be *running*.

My .02 on this article printed to sell newspapers....

What do we know?

They hiked Monanock & Mansfield. Most routes on Monadnock involve a fair amount of climbing, some more mileage but all in excess of 1,000 feet of gain.
Mansfield, do we know their route? No they could have come up on the LT from the north, very worthy climb, a climb up from Underhill, decent climb but from a higher trailhead, or taken the lift to the top of the ski area & then walked up from there. Plenty of people do that. We don't know.

They had winter hats & coats, yes, made out of what? We don't know but we know they were soaked & one bought a dry shirt so likely cotton like most kids.

If you did not know what you were doing, you'd probably consider the PNVC volunteer to be knowledgable. I would hope that he would tell his readers that; A) it's advisable to listen to people who know more than you but he was experienced OR b.) he knew the area well.

As the choir knows here, while Crystal Cascade is pretty, his description has a bit of literary license, his description of Tuckerman Ravine trail goes beyond that.

His thought at the .4 sign that they soon would be drinking hot chocolate but he did not take into account the the boulders that make up the upper section of the trail (I don't like that section myself) so I would assume he had never been on the upper section of the trail. Literary license would have worked different & he could have held himself as an expert better had the kids thought they would be inside soon but he told them they had more work to do.

If I remember correctly, author & his son, friend & his two sons & friend's 64 year old dad.

I'd chalk this up to fools that the weather spared. Should have turned back whe weather first started, hail comes down with wind usually so they went up into the teeth of the storm wet rocks were better than ice covered. Unlike Bob K. who has winter experience, these kids likely spend winter time outdoors at Breton woods on groomed trails not ice covered rocks. Had an adult slipped (especially the author who sounds like he was ahead with the kids) & broke a tiba - footwear????- or badly banged up a knee they would have spent considerable more time outside. How much more time could they have spent out in the weather?

Kids are tougher then we think but their bodies in general are more vulnerable to hyperthermia, the fuel tank is smaller, less stored up & the engine runs faster.

Hands numb inside the building, they obviously had good winter clothes

Dr. I don't have stats but I'm confident no one under 12 has died on Everest, K-2, Denali, etc... When's the first little MD due, I'm curious how'd you feel if he had your kid up there.

Had this guy taken my kid up there without me (which seems really silly why I wouldn't go) & I then read this account, he'd be in more peril when I got my hands on him then he was on those icy rocks.

OK, I'll peg the date as 6/23 based on his description. Average temps: 31-38F, Average wind: 41mph, liquid precip: .68 inches. He said "late June" and this was in the middle of marginal week of weather up there.
Mt Washington Obs

I've got no problem with them heading out in it. I do have a problem with some of the statements:
1) "...the three boys became more and more excited by the views and I grew more and more anxious about the black cloud hovering above us. We were on the steepest part of our ascent up mighty Mount Washington..." Ok, he saw the clouds, and based on the views they were still relatively low.
2) "...In less than a minute, we were completely soaked..." Ok, 30's wind, and soaked. Sure, take the kids up further.
3) "...To retreat down our sinuous trail, now slick and wet, would increase the chance of injury. If we could just make it to the shelter at the summit, we could take the Cog Railway down..." Ok, call me an idiot, but wouldn't it had made more sense to head down considering they still had considerably more than a mile to the top? Remember, this was the trail that they were told to take, not the one they chose.
4) "...Following a series of rock towers or cairns was our only way off this obstacle course...". Hmm, map? compass? Doesn't sound like it.

C'mon folks, how many of us would have turned around if we had 10 year olds with us? Take another look at that picture. One pack is visible. I don't see the winter gear (ok, hats and gloves). I would have turned around.

What's the point in continuing to perpetuate the strawman that the writer took other people's kids with him??? He didn't - each of the three kids on the hike had their father with them. That's very clear. He may have been the leader, but he wasn't the only adult on the hike.

So the story is not one of a guy taking three kids into a tough situation by himself. There may have been questionable judgment used - various of us obviously have different opinions about that - but the issue has nothing to do with the supposed irresponsibility of dragging some other person's kids up a mountain. That didn't happen.

SherpaKroto said:

C'mon folks, how many of us would have turned around if we had 10 year olds with us?

Click to expand...

Most reasonable people would have turned around in this situation for sure sherp.

Sleeping Giant said:

What's the point in continuing to perpetuate the strawman that the writer took other people's kids with him??? He didn't - each of the three kids on the hike had their father with them. That's very clear. He may have been the leader, but he wasn't the only adult on the hike.

So the story is not one of a guy taking three kids into a tough situation by himself. There may have been questionable judgment used - various of us obviously have different opinions about that - but the issue has nothing to do with the supposed irresponsibility of dragging some other person's kids up a mountain. That didn't happen.

Click to expand...

Reminds me of the movie Office Space when the injured Tom explains his "Jump to Conclusions" mat. From reading these posts, you would think that there was one guy in Bermuda shorts hauling a kindergarten class up the slopes of Everest, looking for a good sledding trail.

giggy said:

Most reasonable people would have turned around in this situation for sure sherp.

Click to expand...

Were you there? How bad was it?

Maybe the writer embellished the danger to make it a more exciting story. Maybe it was actually worse than what it sounded like. What he does wth his kids is his responsibility, not yours. Maybe he smokes cigarettes with his kids in the car and the windows closed on the ride home - are you gonna get upset about that, too? Why are people getting so worked up about something they read, anyway? Maybe it was 45 degrees and a light mist, and he made it sound like a Nor'easter... he wrote the article for the newspaper, would you blame him for making it sound extra-death-defying?

It bothers me when people make speculative and judgemental statements. This is no different from all the obnoxious fault-finders that come out every time someone talks about search-and-rescue situations. "Oh, he did this wrong, and she did that wrong..." How about everyone that has never made a mistake or a questionable decision are the only ones that are allowed to say something negative here. The only difference is this "fantastic" story was printed in a newspaper for public consumption.

Hike your own hike - this guy did something that you wouldn't (or shouldn't), just as you might do something that I wouldn't. Doesn't make either situation "wrong" or "right".