Ageism or Irresponsibility?

[Andrew]

Over the 15 yrs. I was performing S&R on Monadnock, except for one, I never begrudged having to rescue a senior. The one was only because he complained about how he was being rescued and insulted us throughout the hours long litter carry; as I think he expected a gold-plated helicopter.
I tend to be old-fashioned, so always behaved with respect to my elders, and I realized I almost always learned from the experiences. In almost every case the subject was always apologetic and said things like 'I should have known I wasn't 50 anymore' and other self reflective statements, and many their past ability was so apparent, and it was sad to see the personal impact of this realization on the individual.
I always did everything I could to let them know I was more than happy to be there to help them and had no problem with the result of their decisions, it was my job. I tried to do all I could to maintain their dignity. Maybe it was because I was a state official that I felt this was an inescapable responsibility?

Now the foolish young person who is old enough to know better was another story.

 

[ChrisB]

You had/have a great attitude Andrew. Thanks for being there for so many Monadnock mis-adventures.

And thanks to all of you responders for your thoughtful responses to this thread. Yes, there are 80 year olds that hike like they are 60. And tramping old and/or solo is an individual decision, if not a "right."

But having wrestled car keys from a few seniors in my family who were a threat to themselves and others behind the wheel, I wonder how that "I am fine to Drive/Hike" scenario might play out in real life.

Let's hope all us senior hikers have a caring and loving family around us who know when to take the keys (or trekking poles) and remind us we are accident prone and might negatively impact others by our actions.

 

[sierra]

I hadn't heard about some of these issues, which would be a cause for concern.

But it also strikes me in reply to Sierra's comment about it being "their life". The issue becomes when the resources go beyond that individual's life. The S&R cost the state a lot of money and potentially put those personnel into harm's way. We do know of rescue personnel meeting a tragic end themselves. So I believe we should be aware of how our decisions impacts others, intended or not.

I do you see your point, yet I do not agree with it. Two reasons, one, people who are doing SAR work made a choice to do so, they can feel free not to risk their lives anytime they want. As far as costing the state money? that what taxes are for. The difference between our lines of thinking is twofold, my thinking is that our freedoms trump everything else. The freedom to go where you want and do what you want is the most fundamental freedoms of them all. SAR teams, cost to taxpayers, none of that overrides our basic freedoms. Granted, I fly under the radar and don't agree with many conventional theories. Just so I understand where you're coming from. Your position is, that if your older and not in the best health, live alone, have no family and the only thing that makes you happy is being outside doing what you love the most, that's too bad, you have to stay home, because the SAR guys cannot be put at risk and the state can't afford to help you. We definitely don't agree, but that's nothing new.

 

[JoshandBaron]

If "that's what taxes are for" why are we charging hikers, relying on volunteers, and selling cards?

 

[dug]

I do you see your point, yet I do not agree with it. Two reasons, one, people who are doing SAR work made a choice to do so, they can feel free not to risk their lives anytime they want. As far as costing the state money? that what taxes are for. The difference between our lines of thinking is twofold, my thinking is that our freedoms trump everything else. The freedom to go where you want and do what you want is the most fundamental freedoms of them all. SAR teams, cost to taxpayers, none of that overrides our basic freedoms. Granted, I fly under the radar and don't agree with many conventional theories. Just so I understand where you're coming from. Your position is, that if your older and not in the best health, live alone, have no family and the only thing that makes you happy is being outside doing what you love the most, that's too bad, you have to stay home, because the SAR guys cannot be put at risk and the state can't afford to help you. We definitely don't agree, but that's nothing new.

No, that is not my point. If you want to hike alone and leave a note or tell anyone "If I'm lost let me be" - OK. If you go out and get lost and someone volunteers their time looking for you, and is then met with a tragic fate, your actions no longer affected you alone. Personally, I don't care what you or anyone does, either it's on a 14-footer out west or on a rail trail in a city. Simply stating that our actions, while done for our own purposes, have impacts on others as soon as those others are called out to assist you.

How you got from that to what your perceived my position to be I have absolutely no idea.

 

[NH2112]

If "that's what taxes are for" why are we charging hikers, relying on volunteers, and selling cards?

Because taxes will never fully fund anything, unless we want to pay 80% or more of our income as taxes.

 

[DayTrip]

Isn't that the issue - when does your freedom impact my freedom? It seems like nowadays everyone wants their freedom to do whatever they want but they don't want to be at all responsible for their actions. Many decisions made by others because they have the right to do what they want most definitely affect my freedom, my resources and what I can do. So where do we draw that line?

As far as I'm concerned people can do just about whatever the hell they want but when it all goes to s$%# don't come looking for me with your hand out looking for me to finance your nonsense or complain about the response of others to your self created misfortune. You did it. You figure it out. But our society doesn't work like that. Everything is someone else's fault and they're expected to pay for it.

 

[Puma concolor]

So back when I was a cop (which I was for 21 years), I thought of individual rights in pretty simple terms. While going about my job, my personal anthem, which I frequently articulated, was that “the rights of the individual end when they infringe upon the rights of others.”

So if I punch you in the face, that infringes upon your right to go through your day without getting punched in the face. If I break into your house, then I infringe upon your right to feel safe and secure in your home. If I drive like an ass, I infringe upon the rights of and endanger the lives of other users of the highway. And so on.

But there is a school of thought that goes beyond that relative simplicity, which is why there are seatbelt and motorcycle helmet laws. And why public intoxication and open containers are illegal in many places. At least part of the argument is that you must wear a seatbelt or wear a motorcycle helmet to protect other drivers from the trauma of seeing you seriously injured in an accident with them. Or from kids seeing drunk adults doing adult like things in public because of the loss of inhibitions that goes along with intoxication. The children!

So IMO, there is never going to be agreement on this irresponsible hiking thing because folks here are coming from entirely different schools of thought about the basic definition of individual liberty.

As for my own feelings about the many different types of rescue situations I was involved in as a cop, I never felt any ill will toward a victim even when he/she had done something pretty dumb to get into a bad fix. Of course, I was paid well for it so might have a different perspective than a volunteer. But really, I think most SAR volunteers are answering a personal calling of some sort and are not going to ever be angry for getting called out to perform the exact thing that they’d signed up for.

 

[jrcinnh]

Personally I'm more libertarian in my thinking, rights are mine, society can't take them away because society doesn't want to pay for some service they invented.
I never ride without a helmet or hike without the right gear but I don't think either should be illegal.
There tons of things more costly to society, that are not prohibited. For example, clearly we could save billions by limiting obesity. I'm not voting for a law to put my fat ass on government scale. Obviously we could save tons by limiting alcohol, didn't work out.
Absent dementia, I don't think limiting a person right to travel is a winner.

 

[skiguy]

Absent dementia, I don't think limiting a person right to travel is a winner.

Is this a blanket statement for all traveling or just hiking? How do you presume that would be limited? Are we all going to need a note from our doctor to go take a walk in the park or go to a friends house for dinner?

 

[dug]

Is this a blanket statement for all traveling or just hiking? How do you presume that would be limited? Are we all going to need a note from our doctor to go take a walk in the park or go to a friends house for dinner?

We did go through a stretch not long ago where in some areas of the country, you were forbidden from travelling, being outside, etc.

 

[jrcinnh]

Is this a blanket statement for all traveling or just hiking? How do you presume that would be limited? Are we all going to need a note from our doctor to go take a walk in the park or go to a friends house

 

[jrcinnh]

Is this a blanket statement for all traveling or just hiking? How do you presume that would be limited? Are we all going to need a note from our doctor to go take a walk in the park or go to a friends house for dinner?

Not sure your question, but imagine you walk up to the gate house at Monadnock and they say, no hikers over 65. We have science that says older hikers use a disproportionate share of state rescue dollars.
Outside of hiking, I'm walking down the road, sorry sir you must take the bus, we have math that proves a high number of older people are injured or lost and it's cheaper for the town to bus you than allow you to walk.
It's different for physical tests like driving a car. You can't pass an eye test, or some other direct, measurable skill and you a pose direct danger to other people by hitting them with your car.

 

[skiguy]

Not sure your question, but imagine you walk up to the gate house at Monadnock and they say, no hikers over 65. We have science that says older hikers use a disproportionate share of state rescue dollars.
Outside of hiking, I'm walking down the road, sorry sir you must take the bus, we have math that proves a high number of older people are injured or lost and it's cheaper for the town to bus you than allow you to walk.
It's different for physical tests like driving a car. You can't pass an eye test, or some other direct, measurable skill and you a pose direct danger to other people by hitting them with your car.

So what your saying especially in the last scenario you will need a license to go hiking. Good luck instituting and administrating that. To quote your earlier post. "Personally I'm more libertarian in my thinking, rights are mine, society can't take them away because society doesn't want to pay for some service they invented".

 

[jrcinnh]

I'm arguing the opposite, these are distopian examples.