46-year-old hiker from Hinesburg dies on Hunger Mountain trail

[Maddy]

Most people leave their dogs alone when they are at work, in the grocery store, etc just not while hiking.

Right on. I would not leave Bernie because he is too slow, or Kodi because she it turning back as she had done on several occasions.
I would not do it to a friend either. It's that simple.
Whatever reason I would have to contrive I would accompany them back. Too often people who do not feel quite right will not complain because they don't want to ruin the day for everyone else.
Even in a hospital setting patient's will tell the nurse "I've had chest pain for an hour but didn't want to bother you." People who have heart attacks don't always grip their chest and fall flat to the floor. Some feel they have a little indigestion, or only their arm aches, etc.Some feel a little nausea. You can become gravely ill very fast with a variety of medical condtions, but have only minor symptoms at the onset. Why risk it? If you stay the outcome might still be grave but your friend will not have to die alone.

I think you are mixing apples and oranges. Guided trips will get sued if they leave somebody behind (and something bad happens) so they have to stay together, and Outward Bound is as much a group dynamics exercise as outdoor education anyway. Most OB courses do deliberately leave people alone for a solo day under controlled conditions.

I may not have been clear enough when I wrote "Outward Bound certainly taught us that you don't ever leave someone under any circumstances, unless it's to get help."
We were separated into sub groups several times and did our solos. These were controlled situations and cannot be compared to leaving someone alone on a trail to hike back down.
What we were taught was not intended to be some useless exercise to get us through the course and avoid a lawsuit. It was up to each one of us to determine if we wanted to live by these principles.
I respect that other hikers disagree.
SARDOG said it best.
"Each person must decide which group h/she would want to be with."

 

[cushetunk]

I think this debate has interesting philosophical underpinnings about the relationship between people and nature.

No really...

The "never split up once you start up the trail" group is applying a hard-and-fast rule that only applies in the context of being out in nature. This sort of rule seems to arise from the mindset that nature is separate from everyday life, and fundamentally different.

The "split up based on context" group is applying to hiking essentially the same standard that gets applied most everywhere else in life. This seems to arise from a sense that being out in nature is not fundamentally different from the rest of our everyday world.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

The "split up based on context" group is applying to hiking essentially the same standard that gets applied most everywhere else in life. This seems to arise from a sense that being out in nature is not fundamentally different from the rest of our everyday world.

For me, it is exactly that. Just an extension of my everyday existence. I don't spend as much time as I would like but I am certainly comfortable enough in the woods that it is just an extension of my everyday existence and how I treat people every day. I don't treat people differently simply because I find them out in the woods. They are still competent to make decisions about and for themselves unless otherwise indicated.

Keith

 

[Maddy]

I think this debate has interesting philosophical underpinnings about the relationship between people and nature.

No really...

The "never split up once you start up the trail" group is applying a hard-and-fast rule that only applies in the context of being out in nature. This sort of rule seems to arise from the mindset that nature is separate from everyday life, and fundamentally different.

SAR-EMT40

I don't treat people differently simply because I find them out in the woods. They are still competent to make decisions about and for themselves unless otherwise indicated.

I disagree 100% with that statement. I think the "groupies" come from a place of commitment, of loyalty, of caring. We are all in it together. We are a team, and we can all feel comfortable with the knowledge that our peers will be there for us. We share our joys, our difficulties, and our weaknesses.
I experienced this way of being during my OB expedition. In my last post I wrote "It was up to each of us to determine if we wanted to live by these principles." I took these home with me and live by them each and every day.
I don't feel that we disrespect other people's right to make their own decisions. I think most individuals function very well independently but when we take on the responsibility of joining a group, we function as a unit. We respect each other and work out our differences. We want to be supportive. Everyone in the group has a voice in the decision making process. I believe this transfers very well when dealing with everyday problems at home and at work.

There are just two different "group" systems and we get to pick which one we would like to be affiliated with. What more could we ask for??? It's what makes the world go round.

 

[Taconic]

I think this debate has interesting philosophical underpinnings about the relationship between people and nature.

No really...

The "never split up once you start up the trail" group is applying a hard-and-fast rule that only applies in the context of being out in nature. This sort of rule seems to arise from the mindset that nature is separate from everyday life, and fundamentally different.

The "split up based on context" group is applying to hiking essentially the same standard that gets applied most everywhere else in life. This seems to arise from a sense that being out in nature is not fundamentally different from the rest of our everyday world.

You raise a valid point and make an excellent observation. I never viewed it from that angle.

I have always felt very comfortable with and spent a lot of time in nature, so it's really not surprising that I feel the way I do. It's also not surprising that somebody more divorced from it may have the antithetical viewpoint on this issue.

Again, great observation. It puts things into an interesting perspective that I think all parties can share.

 

[Maddy]

I have always felt very comfortable with and spent a lot of time in nature, so it's really not surprising that I feel the way I do. It's also not surprising that somebody more divorced from it may have the antithetical viewpoint on this issue.

I have spent most of my free time for ~40 years in nature and I feel very comfortable there. In fact it's my positively favorite place to be. I am not comprehending your point. Are you saying that the "never split up once you start up the trail group" would be likely to have an antithetical viewpoint on how we interconnect nature and the everyday world as described by "Cushetunk"? I am very interested in your observations.
Would you be willing to share in more detail how you arrived at that conclusion? What specifically about a group that hikes together would make us have a more divorced relationship between nature and the everyday world?
My experiences with nature be they in a group or solo enrich my daily life in more ways that I could write on this post. I know that for me nature is very much interconnected with the everyday world.

I feel very badly for the hiker who died and for his friends. They will never forget.
If nothing else this sad story serves to remind me once again that I need to be there for my friends is we are hiking together. If I was concerned about a friend in the "everyday world", I would do my best to be available to them in any way I possibly could. I have taken 4 wilderness courses and they all teach the same thing. I don't view any of my instructors as having a divorced relationship between nature and the everyday world. If I learned anything it was to care more deeply for my fellow humans in this everyday world. IMHO there is no "divorce" or "disconnect" from nature in how I live my life each and every day.

 

[SAR-EMT40]

I think the "groupies" come from a place of commitment, of loyalty, of caring. We are all in it together.

I reject out of hand the concept that "groupies" are somehow more noble, humane, or even more committed, loyal or caring, than another simply because they want to force their presence on an adult who has expressly stated his/her wish that their help isn't needed or wanted.

On this we will need to agree to disagree.

Regards,
Keith

 

[The Hikers]

Some great things to think about in this discussion!!
As for us, We seldom hike with anyone else,basically because our hikes follow weather forecasts and we don't have to wait for weekends. I always let Joyce lead, because I am comfortable with her pace. Sometimes, if she feels "off" she will say "you go ahead". I ALWAYS decline. I am not comfortable with not knowing how she is doing, and besides I didn't come to hike alone.
One time on a summit in the Winter, the wind was howling and cold. I wanted to take a few more pictures, so I told Joyce to go further down the trail, around the cone and I would join her when I was done. Through miscommunication, she continued on down the trail, and when I came around the cone, she was not there waiting. What followed was panic on both ends.
Joyce was now waiting a good half mile below for me to catch up. I was still on top, not knowing if something had happened to her. Shouting upwards "Are you alright?", She thought she heard "No".
By the time I decided to go down, and we met,you can imagine the frantic state we were in.
So my answer, at least for us, is that we will stick together. In an emergency situation where it might be necessary for one of us to go for help, we both have our cell phones, and GPS to make sure of location. Hopefully we will never have to worry about that scenario.

 

[erugs]

One time on a summit in the Winter, the wind was howling and cold. I wanted to take a few more pictures, so I told Joyce to go further down the trail, around the cone and I would join her when I was done. Through miscommunication, she continued on down the trail, and when I came around the cone, she was not there waiting. What followed was panic on both ends. Joyce was now waiting a good half mile below for me to catch up. I was still on top, not knowing if something had happened to her. Shouting upwards "Are you alright?", She thought she heard "No".
QUOTE]

Great story which I can relate to. I was hiking Howker Ridge with friend Joni. I was taking a photo and wanting to take the time to get it just right and Joni said she was going ahead to take a "bio" break. Unfortunately, I didn't see where she left the trail to do so and kept going trying to catch up. I pushed myself harder and harder and still didn't catch up to her. Finally, in desparation I blew my whistle. (Of course then I couldn't hear anything so didn't know if there was a reply. Lesson: if you blow your whistle, cover your ears!) Finally, I learned that I was way ahead of her on the trail. We agreed that if either of us stepped off trail again we would leave our pack trailside.

Most of my friends now use Marco - Polo to let us know how far apart we've spread out. Usually not far at all. The words seem to carry well and the simplicity of it gets the point of "where are you" across -- unless someone else, not of our group, hears and responds as in the game.

Finally, I, too, am very comfortable being in the woods alone. I feel self-sufficient and confident. I don't understand the suggestion previously posted that people who prefer to stay together have a fear of some sort.

 

[hikerbrian]

If I am interpreting cushetunk's point correctly, I believe these are the questions he is asking:

1. In everyday life, do you ever leave those that you care about alone?
2. In the mountains, do you ever leave those that you care about alone?
3. If your answers to these two questions are different, why?

Cushetunk has suggested one possibility, which is that some treat their time in the woods differently than they treat everyday life.

 

[Maddy]

I reject out of hand the concept that "groupies" are somehow more noble, humane, or even more committed, loyal or caring, than another simply because they want to force their presence on an adult who has expressly stated his/her wish that their help isn't needed or wanted.

On this we will need to agree to disagree.

Regards,
Keith

I can understand your concern and I hope to help sort it out.
I wrote "I think the "groupies" come from a place of commitment, of loyalty, of caring. We are all in it together. We are a team, and we can all feel comfortable with the knowledge that our peers will be there for us. We share our joys, our difficulties, and our weaknesses."
I did NOT write that we are " more noble, humane, or even more committed, loyal or caring, than another simply because we want to force our presence on an adult who has expressly stated his/her wish that their help isn't needed or wanted."

The key word is more.
We DO come from a place of caring and concern for each other. I could have written that "we are bunch of idiots, who beat our teammates into submission, who are terrified of the woods, and cling to each other for support." That's just not true. I never said we cared MORE than others.
ALL of my experiences in the mountains, including my courses, taught me to be less self-centered and more caring. Yes...I try to practice this but I think it would be the height of arrogance and stupidity to say that others are insensitive, uncaring, not loyal because they choose a different path.

We hikers are all very different people.
We need to pick the group we want to hang with, the one where we feel most comfortable.
I thought this was a discussion about how the groups operate and why we believe and respond the way we do. Very simply, I spoke from my heart and shared a story of personal growth.
I think it might be time to review my disclaimer.

 

[funkyfreddy]

I think that in the end we all need to hike our own hikes...... try as we might to prevent - s##t happens. We can all analyze and Monday morning quarterback from the comfort of our chairs and couches, but it won't change a thing.....

I don't hike in handcuffs, ropes, or leg chains and I hike with companions that are both faster and slower than myself. The key is communication..... I don't expect them to hike at my pace and be joined to me at the hip 24/7.

Wilderness can kill you...... a fact that can be both beautiful and terrible.... if I die on the trail I hope folks will remember that i died doing something I loved.... not such a bad way to go all things considered....

 

[SAR-EMT40]

I can understand your concern and I hope to help sort it out.
I wrote "I think the "groupies" come from a place of commitment, of loyalty, of caring. We are all in it together. We are a team, and we can all feel comfortable with the knowledge that our peers will be there for us. We share our joys, our difficulties, and our weaknesses."
I did NOT write that we are " more noble, humane, or even more committed, loyal or caring, than another simply because we want to force our presence on an adult who has expressly stated his/her wish that their help isn't needed or wanted."

The key word is more.
We DO come from a place of caring and concern for each other. I could have written that "we are bunch of idiots, who beat our teammates into submission, who are terrified of the woods, and cling to each other for support." That's just not true. I never said we cared MORE than others.
ALL of my experiences in the mountains, including my courses, taught me to be less self-centered and more caring. Yes...I try to practice this but I think it would be the height of arrogance and stupidity to say that others are insensitive, uncaring, not loyal because they choose a different path.

We hikers are all very different people.
We need to pick the group we want to hang with, the one where we feel most comfortable.
I thought this was a discussion about how the groups operate and why we believe and respond the way we do. Very simply, I spoke from my heart and shared a story of personal growth.
I think it might be time to review my disclaimer.

Just checking, because on my read it appeared to me to be implicit in the narrative. If I misinterpreted it, then so be it. Me mentioning that I believe that the "Hike your own hike" group to be a very self reliant, knowledgeable about outdoor activities and generally very handsome/pretty, productive citizens. Could be interpreted by some to mean that I consider those not of a like mind to be less capable, not as smart, productive, etc.

But, I am very glad we were able to clarify this.

Regards,
Keith

 

[Maddy]

Just checking, because on my read it appeared to me to be implicit in the narrative. If I misinterpreted it, then so be it. Me mentioning that I believe that the "Hike your own hike" group to be a very self reliant, knowledgeable about outdoor activities and generally very handsome/pretty, productive citizens. Could be interpreted by some to mean that I consider those not of a like mind to be less capable, not as smart, productive, etc.

But, I am very glad we were able to clarify this.

Regards,
Keith

Dittos Keith!!!

 

[--M.]

Doesn't this come down to some basic logic-tree decisions?

Is there difficulty/distress? That's different from "I'm slow, go ahead."
==If so, then this ____...;
==if not, then that ____....

There's a difference between stylistic differences and intra-issue (apples-to-apples) philosophical differences. In the example given in the OP, the hiker slowed because of difficulty/distress and made the (apparent) error of recommending splitting the group, when he maybe should have said "I'm having chest pain." If his fellow-travelers detected difficulty, that's very different from "Oh, you're fine? Okay, we'll see you at the next lean-to."

I have been in several of these situations, just never with a bad outcome (yes, a very limiting factor). In one, the right play was to split the group and half (2 guys) run ahead to get dinner going and the other 2 guys (one struggling, one fine) coming along as they could. I've also been very ready to tell partners "I'm fine, but slow; go ahead to the next check-point." It takes self-knowledge and mutual trust & familiarity between partners. My hiking buddies know when I'm fine and when I'm bonking, and I know these things about them. It's tougher hiking with people we haven't hiked with before (aren't familiar with their bio/style/health/fitness).

I like cushetunk's idea, but even with a high comfort-level within the woods, I realize that I can run into deep water there much more easily than I can in suburbia. It's not a true apples-to-apples comparison, for me, unless you convert "everyday life" to, say, a trip to the city (in which case the same rubric applies).

 

[Grumpy]

This thread has turned into quite a discussion, and I’ve enjoyed it.

Having raised the issue of the old group hiking rule, “start, stay and finish together” I’ll add a comment on the application of it, and maybe rules in general.

First, though, let’s look at the Hiker Responsibility Code, as it appears on the http://www.hikesafe.com/ web site:

Hiker Responsibility Code

You are responsible for yourself, so be prepared:

1. With knowledge and gear. Become self reliant by learning about the terrain, conditions, local weather and your equipment before you start.

2. To leave your plans. Tell someone where you are going, the trails you are hiking, when you will return and your emergency plans.

3. To stay together. When you start as a group, hike as a group, end as a group. Pace your hike to the slowest person.

4. To turn back. Weather changes quickly in the mountains. Fatigue and unexpected conditions can also affect your hike. Know your limitations and when to postpone your hike. The mountains will be there another day.

5. For emergencies. Even if you are headed out for just an hour, an injury, severe weather or a wrong turn could become life threatening. Don’t assume you will be rescued; know how to rescue yourself.

6. To share the hiker code with others.

hikeSafe: It’s Your Responsibility.
The Hiker Responsibility Code was developed and is endorsed by the White Mountain National Forest and New Hampshire Fish and Game.

Please note item 3 in that short list. This is not an appeal to authority. It is mentioned to illustrate that my belief is not distanced from mainstream thinking.

The idea of a “bright line” to guide decision making has been mentioned somewhere along the line in this discussion, maybe more than once. How do you really know when your companion, who says, “go on head, I’ll be OK,” is really in distress or not? What’s the “bright line” of his/her distress or situation that tells you to stick with your teammate?

Actually, the rule is our bright line.

It serves as a check rein on impulses. We are about to leave our panting companion, just for a little while to go on and bag the summit, and then we bump up against the rule. It causes us to pause, take a serious, more reasoned and less impulsive second look at our choices and the situation and our pending decision.

That really is what most rules are about.

Not things to be followed slavishly, as many have pointed out or argued. But rules serve as bright lines defining the appropriate default decision in a given situation – the decision that may or may not actually be necessary or even obviously indicated (or optimum, or even "best"), but at the same time never, ever will be the wrong or harmful or regrettable choice to take.

On to other matters …

Custehunk posted, above:

The "never split up once you start up the trail" group is applying a hard-and-fast rule that only applies in the context of being out in nature. This sort of rule seems to arise from the mindset that nature is separate from everyday life, and fundamentally different.

The "split up based on context" group is applying to hiking essentially the same standard that gets applied most everywhere else in life. This seems to arise from a sense that being out in nature is not fundamentally different from the rest of our everyday world.

I don’t think this is true at all. I apply the same concept of team to my everyday life as I do to hiking in groups. My career working as a news photographer covering all sorts of events certainly put me on a team. I sure as shootin’ worked diligently to never leave the word guys stranded without the full support of my services. It is a matter of professional obligation. It requires self-reliance and understanding, personal initiative, self discipline and, sometimes, the willingness and ability to go where my personal impulses and conveniences don’t take me.

Same applies to my now nearly 42-year marriage with Mrs. (Pretty) Grumpy. Hey, we long have operated separately, at times. For years, Mrs. G reluctantly ceded to my wish to hike alone, understanding that if something dire happened to me out there, sadness was OK but there was to be no anger or regret. And I’ll tell you what: Never has there been doubt between us that the other has his/her back. Tough times and good times, we’ve hung in there, honoring that long ago pledge to start, stay and finish together. It’s been a life of commitment, and not a bad one, by any means.

A closing thought.

Anybody who can wear a silly chicken hat and still retain a sense of personal dignity is somebody whose comments are worth attending to. So Dave Metsky gets the nod this time:

And those of us who split up when the group is in agreement and we feel the situation makes it acceptable are sometimes labeled irrational as well. There's room in this world for all of us to enjoy the out of doors.

Hike your own hike, and/or the hike of your group ethic. It's all good.

I couldn’t agree more with that last comment. Except to add, please do it responsibly.

G.

 

[RoySwkr]

Please note item 5 in that short list. This is not an appeal to authority. It is mentioned to illustrate that my belief is not distanced from mainstream thinking.

Do you mean #3?

Until Conservation Officers and Wilderness Rangers patrol in pairs instead of singly, I consider that code the height of hypocrisy.

 

[Grumpy]

Do you mean #3?

Until Conservation Officers and Wilderness Rangers patrol in pairs instead of singly, I consider that code the height of hypocrisy.

Yes. Number 3. My error.

You may consider that code the height of hypocrisy. That doesn't at all mean it fails to convey first rate advice.

G.

 

[blacknblue]

You may consider that code the height of hypocrisy. That doesn't at all mean it fails to convey first rate advice.

Quite the thread indeed...

3 thoughts:

1) The hikesafe principles may be generally sound, but please understand the context of them.
First of all, they are only the most current of a long line of different educational and safety codes that have surrounded outdoor recreation in the northeast over the past century or so. I'm sure they will be modified again before too long. It would be chronological snobbery to assume that we've somehow arrived at the most proper and thorough safety code.
Secondly, these sorts of things are usually aimed at novice hikers. Look at the other five items on the code. Would you really want to harp on them to the VFTT community, which is, by and large, an experienced group? Some of them read like motherly nagging. It's fine and well for those getting their feet wet, as we all did at some point, but I no longer need to be reminded that "Weather changes quickly in the mountains" any more than that I can never ever ever split from a group for any reason whatsoever.

2) Most (if not all) of the examples thrown out by the "never separate" contingent involve sickness, injury, etc. I don't remember anyone in the "okay to separate" contingent arguing that it is okay to separate in those conditions. So, it seems largely a strawman argument.

3) This reminds me of the "never leave your pack in the col" thread (somebody smarter than me can figure out how to include the link). The two main contingents there argued over "never" and "sometimes", with the "nevers" citing endless examples of catatrophes, and the "sometimeses" citing particular circumstances in which it's okay. In my mind, it came down to whether you chose inflexible, hard-and-fast rules, or whether you take things situationally and make wise decisions based on the circumstances.

My main thrust on both of these topics is that being out of doors is seldom predictable and never the same situation twice. There are countless variables, and real expertise and wisdom comes not from following hardened rules that were set in the valley below, but from adapting to the situation on hand. Does that make for more complications? Sometimes. Does that make me more hesitant to hike with people I don't know well? Absolutely. But it also makes the outdoors more interesting and enjoyable.

 

[funkyfreddy]

My main thrust on both of these topics is that being out of doors is seldom predictable and never the same situation twice. There are countless variables, and real expertise and wisdom comes not from following hardened rules that were set in the valley below, but from adapting to the situation on hand. Does that make for more complications? Sometimes. Does that make me more hesitant to hike with people I don't know well? Absolutely. But it also makes the outdoors more interesting and enjoyable.

Very well said!