Boston Globe: "A beautiful place to die"

[Whiteman]

I generally think of the Whites as a beautiful place to hike, but the Boston Globe this weekend talks about the dangers, and the follies of inexperienced weekend warriors, on some of our favorite peaks. A Beautiful Place to Die

Some familiar talking points here, to be sure.

 

[jniehof]

Good article, although I'm amused at the admonition that one should carry the WMG on the trail. I read it when planning, but carrying the thing? Ooof.

(timely, too...I stopped by Mountain Wanderer last night and Steve wasn't in. PVSAR was called out for a rescue on Falling Waters).

 

[Kevin Judy and Emma]

Nice to see...

the Boston Globe print a responsible article about hiking MW. Last year's article where the writer took his cold exhausted kids to the summit in the rain and then thumped his chest about how they had stood up to MW and won was just unbelievable. It may have been the most irresponsible piece of journalism I have ever read. Kudos to the Globe for printing a more responsible article this time around.

KDT

 

[w7xman]

I agree, it was a great article, and timely considering the weather yesterday. I saw things on the summit of Washington yesterday in the hail and lightning that would have made the stories in this article seem rational...

By comparison, here's the thread on the article last year that Kevin's post eludes to:
http://www.vftt.org/forums/showthread.php?t=18181

 

[Zimmer]

The toaster made my day in a warped sort of way.

 

[Trainwreck]

I laughed out loud when I read about the toaster.
I always stop at the warning signs to take a breath and look at the sky and the ground. Then I take a big breath and continue on, or like last October on the Edmunds Path, turn around and go down because it didn't feel right. I hope that anyone who wants to hike these mountains reads the cautionary tales.
b.

 

[weatherman]

Yup, great article- how often do you see the ten essentials list without a high-tech, expensive add-on in a mainstream publication these days?

The toaster story was great. Reminded me of those many off-color jokes we grew up with: dealing with the heat by bringing a car door so one could roll down the window when it got too hot... making a successful expedition to the sun by going at night.... etc.
Weatherman

 

[DougPaul]

Articles like this annoy me. A heavy dose of sensationalism fostering an unbalanced view of hiking. A bit like the local news searching out every horrific event in the country in the hopes of increasing its ratings with the net effect of convincing people that life (or in this case hiking) is much more dangerous than it really is. Its a wonder that anyone is willing to get out of bed or go hiking at all...

How about a balanced view: Hiking (and life) have both benefits and risks. The risks are generally higher for beginners, but experienced hikers (and livers) attempt to reduce the risks to acceptable levels.

Articles like this one may also feed the "charge hikers for rescue" sentiments. If hiking were this dangerous, then it must be reckless and negligent for anyone to do it...

Doug

 

[dr_wu002]

Articles like this annoy me. A heavy dose of sensationalism fostering an unbalanced view of hiking. A bit like the local news searching out every horrific event in the country in the hopes of increasing its ratings with the net effect of convincing people that life (or in this case hiking) is much more dangerous than it really is. Its a wonder that anyone is willing to get out of bed or go hiking at all...

I agree with DougPaul! I love the Whites but the 'dangers' are way over hyped.

Trashy Sensationalism in my opinion. Very trashy. I wish the NYT would interview the billion or so other people that have hiked in the Whites over the past 10 years and not gotten hurt or killed to write a more 'balanced' article.

-Dr. Wu

 

[griffin]

Yeah, the other problem with over-hype, is that it teaches people to ignore sound advice.

 

[dr_wu002]

Yeah, the other problem with over-hype, is that it teaches people to ignore sound advice.

This is the type of article that my in-laws will read and freak out even more whenever I go hiking.

-Dr. Wu

 

[griffin]

This is the type of article that my in-laws will read and freak out even more whenever I go hiking.

-Dr. Wu

It has that effect on people like MY M-I-L, too. She thinks the woods are dangerous (according to her, it's a miracle I've not been devoured by bears), and this article would only reinforce taht.

But I think for people who are likely to go hiking it has the opposite effect. They don't think there's ANY danger involved in hiking, and articles like this help them disregard even common-sense warnings as mere hysteria.

 

[Technetium]

I suppose I've been lucky. I've never had to turn back solely due to weather conditions, and I've only had to turn back at all 3 times. Twice on Chocorua (the first NH mountain I did and due to lack of skill and equipment), and once on Wildcat (movement was too slow due to very deep snow).

I think one of the things that really helps with deciding when to turn back is to learn to recognize the difference between warm front rain and cold front rain. Warm front rain is harmless, though not all that much fun. All the bad stuff comes from cold fronts moving in.

 

[BlackBuffalo]

My brother forwarded this link of the article today, "You should read this!." He's a non-hiker and non-outdoors person. I also get other articles from family with concerns that this hobby of mine, hiking into the backwoods is dangerous. Okay, it has risks.

I take what I do on the weekends with more care than most take getting into their cars. I bearly remember the terrible films they showed us in driver ed. Fact is and sad to say I vividly remember all I've read about the the dangers of hiking in the back country.

For an activity that most adults are involved in, driving. I wish more articles could be directed toward this risky activity. Cause there are so many cocky, uncareful individuals behind the wheel and those things are lethal objects.

I know a little off subject, but hope my point is heard.

Dave G.

 

[king tut]

Maybe the dangers were a bit over-hyped, but i thought it was a decent article. Keep in mind that 95% of the population that reads the article rarely hike Mt Washington or the other Presidentials. When these "city folks" hike in the Presidentials, I see a lot that are not even remotely prepared for bad weather. I would rather see them a little scared and prepared than hiking up Mt Washington in sandals and jeans.

I wasn't overly excitable about the article last year and this one does not do much to ruffle my feathers either. The fact is that the drive to the trailhead is more dangerous than hiking. Hell, if you are carrying a dangerous nalgene water bottle and talking on a brain cancer inducing cell phone, you probably won't make it through the weekend. Odds are the computer you are staring at right now is probably emitting dangerous toxins to your body as well. The only safe thing to do these days is join a cult and drink the kool aid. Or just be prepared, ignore the hype, and go out and get some exercise in the mountains.

 

[giggy]

a co-worker pointed this out to me and then I read and was like - oh god.. come on.

I agree with Dougpaul. Sensationalism at its best. Author makes it sounds like a warzone.

for every person that gets in trouble - 2000 don't.

 

[WinterWarlock]

After all the comments I read about overcrowded trails, I'd think anything that encourages a few to stay home would be welcomed!!

 

[BobC]

How about a balanced view: Hiking (and life) have both benefits and risks. The risks are generally higher for beginners, but experienced hikers (and livers) attempt to reduce the risks to acceptable levels.

Isn't this the message the article is sending? At least, that's what I got out of it: the mountains can be dangerous for the unprepared, but with some preparation and a little common sense, it can be a fun, safe hobby. The only thing I object to is the headline, to me that's the only part that smacked of sensationalism.

 

[Mike P.]

It's F^)*@ dangerous, if people are not hiking now, they should not start. If everyone thought it was easy & safe & thought that 2/3's of the days on Mt. Washington might be okay instead of daunting terrible, the Whites & the roads would be even more crowded.

(BTW, any of you who have heard rumors that the Jersey Shore is nice & does not look like the swamps & refineries you seem from I-95, it's just a rumor, it's awful at the shore, don't go )

The main stream press typically doesn't get the outdoors right, I'm not even bothering reading it. Is it the same author from last year? On occasion, the Hartford Courant will have an article by Steve Grant that I'll read. He was one of the newspaper reporters who did the AT several years ago & he's still out hiking.

(Rats, I went & read the first two pages, not that bad & while late August may feel like fall up high on many days, IMO October & April are the trickiest months, April, it can be nice at home & at the trailhead with deep soft snow higher up & October, especially later, can be a crisp fall day & winter like up high - not winter for us but for neophytes, it'll feel like winter.

Hardened winter hikers, the author apparently has not seen all of our ab's I look like I've had too many six packs)

* & then I read the whole thing, more publicity for Dahl's silly website which is more about financial planning, making a $. that whole thing p!$$ed me off 8+ years ago