Boston Globe article on Mt Washington hiking

[Mike P.]

I was not attempting to infer any similarities only that the locations were different.

Any comment regarding weather is that sometimes people think Mt. Washington has the Worse weather & that if you are going to Madison or Adams it won't be as bad. The weather in Edmands Col can be as bad & maybe worse as the wind goes between Adams & Jefferson. (of course all us smart people here know this )

 

[Gris]

Huh?

In the same category as ''Are public schools bad'' and ''what age toddlers should be potty-trained''.

I'm sorry Timmus. You'll have to explain that one to me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

 

[David Metsky]

I'm sorry Timmus. You'll have to explain that one to me. I have no idea what you are talking about.

Let's not hijack this thread any more then necessary. You can discuss that via PM if needed.

Folks, I don't think people are going to change each other's minds much more in this thread. We've all expressed our opinions and tried to support them as best we could. Perhaps it's time to let sleeping (but not hiking) dogs lie?

-dave-

 

[king tut]

Here is the list of deaths in the Presidentials and the causes...

Deaths

A minority of the deaths in the Presidentials are caused by hypothermia in the summertime. I would really enjoy seeing a report of deaths on the drive to the trailheads in the Whites. I would imagine that the number of people killed on the drive to or from hiking in the Whites is greater than deaths due to hypothermia in the summertime. But no one would ever start a post saying, "Do not drive to the Whites, it might kill you!"

I do not advocate putting chilldren in danger, but I just believe that society has taught us to fear everything. When you watch the news, you are told to tune in b/c coming up is "the top killers in your kitchen cabinet" or "why you will die of cancer if you do not watch the next segment". Fear is a huge marketing concept, and it really has transformed us into a nation of scared people. I think you should respect the mountain, but not be scared into inaction. Live your life...Don't take stupid risks, but don't be scared senseless. There was a little bit of rain and it was cool, it was not Hurricane Katrina baring down on the mountain.

I also am a bit shocked at how people attacked the author of the article. Maybe he did something that you might not have, maybe he glorified the experience, but it's hard to tell when fiction meets reality or how hacked up his story got when it hit the hands of the editor. No one else was there, maybe you can disect the whole experience from a couple hundred word article in a newspaper, me, i did not get enough info the hang the guy up on the gallows.

A lot of people said that they would be mortified if he brought their kids up this mountain for that experience. Seriously, if I had kids, I would not send them to climb the highest mountain in New England with a stranger. This is quite possibly the stupidest argument that I have heard, it just rings of absentee parenting.

By the way, the youngest death recorded in the Whites, besides the train accident, is 16. I do not think this guy is trying to start a new trend of infant mortality. The reality of adults mortally endangering adolescents is just not backed up by facts.

 

[jmegillon149]

By the way, the youngest death recorded in the Whites, besides the train accident, is 16. I do not think this guy is trying to start a new trend of infant mortality. The reality of adults mortally endangering adolescents is just not backed up by facts.

does someone really have to die to cause a problem? Wet rocks can cause injuries like ankle sprains, people (especially kids) can catch colds due to getting drenched, etc. None of this is gonna kill you, but its not good for you either. Not saying you should stay inside your whole life, I've certainly had my share of trail and sport injuries, but the "not a lot of people have died, so it must be totally safe" theory is not looking at the whole picture.

 

[king tut]

does someone really have to die to cause a problem? Wet rocks can cause injuries like ankle sprains, people (especially kids) can catch colds due to getting drenched, etc. None of this is gonna kill you, but its not good for you either. Not saying you should stay inside your whole life, I've certainly had my share of trail and sport injuries, but the "not a lot of people have died, so it must be totally safe" theory is not looking at the whole picture.

This is an understandable mindframe, nothing to rail against here. What I am theorizing is that the major life changing events that will happen to you will not be on a mountain. Maybe it is a youngster near a pool, maybe it is a drunk driver, maybe it is white patch of skin or a lump, maybe it is something that blindsides you on a random tuesday. Life has taken many more victims than a single mountain. Life is not safe, proof of that is death. Death, at last check is pretty near a 100% certainty. On the other hand, quality of life is not nearly near a 100% certainty.

 

[SherpaKroto]

Hmmm... If one's having children would make him "see it differently", then wouldn't the author of the Globe article (who has children) "see it" as you do and thus wouldn't he have turned around when the weather went south?

For the record, I agree with your general point that he should've turned around and saved the summit for another day... and I do NOT have children. One either watches out for the little dudes or he doesn't, being a parent doesn't automatically make you more qualified to do it.

dvbl: you indirectly made my point (FWIW, albee and I discussed this briefly off line). He should have known better. I'm not saying that having children makes you smarter, I'm just saying that it should make you think more. It introduces another factor to the equation. Sort of like not worrying about getting a flat until you have a car (or bike...)

 

[Gris]

I also am a bit shocked at how people attacked the author of the article. Maybe he did something that you might not have, maybe he glorified the experience, but it's hard to tell when fiction meets reality or how hacked up his story got when it hit the hands of the editor. No one else was there, maybe you can disect the whole experience from a couple hundred word article in a newspaper, me, i did not get enough info the hang the guy up on the gallows.

By the way, the youngest death recorded in the Whites, besides the train accident, is 16. I do not think this guy is trying to start a new trend of infant mortality. The reality of adults mortally endangering adolescents is just not backed up by facts.

Completely agree with the first opinion/observation, but totally disagree with the second: use of low % of child death on Mt. W stat as extrapolation for ANY argument. Common sense says the stat most likely reflects the lack of kids in the zone of danger in the first place (which would support the other side of the argument - better safe than sorry).

 

[giggy]

Common sense says the stat most likely reflects the lack of kids in the zone of danger in the first place (which would support the other side of the argument - better safe than sorry).

kind of in the same league as why I don't stroll down blue hill avenue with my son on a friday night droping n bombs with a megaphone. Use common sense to stay out of potentially hazard situation.

 

[chipc]

kind of in the same league as why I don't stroll down blue hill avenue with my son on a friday night droping n bombs with a megaphone. Use common sense to stay out of potentially hazard situation.

I would hope that common sense would prevent you from dropping n bombs in front of your son even in your own living room

 

[dvbl]

dvbl: you indirectly made my point...

Ummm...no I didn't. Let's chalk it up to my failure to explain my point clearly enough.

Anyway, this is a great thread. Good debate.

 

[Bobby]

I've stayed out of this one until now. If the date in question is 06/23, AMSTony, my 15 year-old son Eric and I were headed to Adams and Madison, but the weather reports deteriorated all week, and we headed to the Twins instead. Why? We wanted to hike a 4K, but did not want to be exposed, especially with my son with me. Even if we only got to North Twin, we would have been sheltered. As it was, we got blasted with the wind on South Twin. Part of the parent thing is to teach your children to think and act responsibly.

On the same note, Eric and I went to Mt. Washington on 07/28. We were geared up, jackets, hats, gloves and raingear. The weather reports for that day were late in the day thunderstorms. We were with a large group, and hiked the Lion Head Trail. It was a humid, overcast day. We were constantly asking hikers headed down from the summit what the Obs was forecasting. All reports were that there were no boomers in the area. If I had heard one person say anything about thunderstorms or any adverese weather moving in, at least Eric and I would have retreated. Live to fight another day. The mountain ain't going nowhere anyhow. I'm OK with hiking in the rain, as is Eric, but we both know that rain above treeline = slippery, head-busting rocks. Getting caught is one thing, hiking into rotten, above treeline weather is another. Eric learned last year on the Flags on the 48, that boomers are scary sh*t. I already learned, which is why I ran faster than him that day .

 

[Zimmer]

If the date in question is 06/23... As it was, we got blasted with the wind on South Twin.

On Monday, the Caledonian published the first of Nikki White's columns on her 4000-footer hikes. The first column recounted her hike of the Falling Waters/Bridal Path loop on June 23rd, and her description of the wind sounded pretty brutal. I couldn't help but wonder whether it would have been similarly windy on Lion's Head.

 

[banjolady]

I think the real danger is that Washington is arguably the most dangerous peak in the Northeast. Despite that, it also has the highest ammount of ill-prepared, inexperienced people hiking it, at least in the White Mountains.

as a first timer on mt washington as of yesterday aug 29, on a gorgeous sunny day with a temp of 63 F on the summit--the hike was TOUGH both ways and we did supposedly the easier ways (amonoosuc up and jewell down}
i CANNOT IMAGINE doing this hike in wet weather and esp not from the east. gives me the shivers. glad they made it ok tho!!! TERRIFYING story.

 

[albee]

Could some of the experts posting in this thread clearly define the exact summit weather conditions when the decision changes from go to no-go on Mt Washington?

This is obviously a sliding scale... such as:
Children aged 5 and younger - 50 degrees and clear, no wind
Children aged 6 to 7 - 45 degrees and clear, 15 MPH wind max
Children 8-9 - 45 degrees, overcast but no threat of rain, 15 MPH wind max
Children 10-11 - 40 degrees, overcast but no threat of rain, 15 MPH wind max
12-13 - 45 degrees, light rain, 10 MPH wind
14-15 - 40 degrees, rain, 15 MPH wind

This decision depends on the experience of the adults as well as the experience of the children. (I bet nobody tries - it is far easier to just say somebody else is wrong rather than risking your reputation and giving your own honest answer.) Does the scale change if they are girls instead of boys? Is the ratio of adults to children on the trip part of the equation?

After you define this scale, I will ask you to tell me if everyone should follow your decision, or if that is just your opinion and other parents are allowed to have different expectations for their children's abilities. Then, I will ask you to tell me exactly what time of day they were hiking, how much rain came down, what the temperature was, if the forecast was for improving or deteriorating weather in the next 6 hours, what his children's abilities are/were, and if he made the proper decision or not. If you can answer these last questions, you are either smarter than I am, or you feel more comfortable making judgments based on speculation.

Note: I have never advocated taking children hiking in poor weather (but thanks for accusing me!), I am simply defending Mr. Jermanock's right to make his own decisions based on his first-hand knowledge of the situation. How would you like it if we all called you out for taking your kid hiking anywhere, at any age, in any weather, in any clothing? My definition of what weather is suitable for kids is probably different than yours (maybe more cautious, maybe less) but which one of us is right?

 

[forestgnome]

use of low % of child death on Mt. W stat as extrapolation for ANY argument.

Agreed. The lack of disasterous results prooves nothing. Satistics can mislead. If we count how many people drive >60mph around the curves near Oliverian Brook on the Kancamagus at sunset/sunrise without disaster, we can say it is not dangerous because 99.999% of the time nothing bad happens. But doing so is incredibly stupid and dangerous anyway, IMO.

I offer my opinion that the adult hiker was a stupid a**hole for bringing children into a situation that we are warned against. Had he been alone, no criticism. He endangered them and taught them that it's ok.

Once we are adults we can chose what is dangerous for ourselves. I consider ice climbing too dangerous for me, yet I'll hang out within feet of a bull moose in autumn or a mama moose/bear with calves/cubs. If someone says "that's stupid and dangerous", I just smile and agree, and warn against it. This is my pleasure in life, and I live high!!! But, you won't see me bringing a child into such a situation.

It's good to read other's opinions on danger and risk. It's an enlightening and thought-provoking thread.

Happy Trails

 

[marty]

It's good to read other's opinions on danger and risk. It's an enlightening and thought-provoking thread.

Absolutely. This should be required reading for anyone wanting to take children into the alpine zone...

Marty

 

[Waumbek]

How would you like it if we all called you out for taking your kid hiking anywhere, at any age, in any weather, in any clothing? My definition of what weather is suitable for kids is probably different than yours (maybe more cautious, maybe less) but which one of us is right?

Well, ya can't hype up your story--numb, shivering, soaked, frightened looks, anxious kids, blow 'em down winds, blah, blah, blah--and not expect criticism and concern about the kids. C'mon. The world doesn't work that way. Thankfully. It doesn't really cut it to backpedal later on and say aw shucks, the kids were fine, it really wasn't so bad, the editor who cut the story is to blame. Accept responsibility. Thank concerned readers for their concern about your kids, all kids. Learn something about writing; move on.

 

[giggy]

I've stayed out of this one until now. If the date in question is 06/23, AMSTony, my 15 year-old son Eric and I were headed to Adams and Madison, but the weather reports deteriorated all week, and we headed to the Twins instead. Why? We wanted to hike a 4K, but did not want to be exposed, especially with my son with me. Even if we only got to North Twin, we would have been sheltered. As it was, we got blasted with the wind on South Twin. Part of the parent thing is to teach your children to think and act responsibly..

This post should be framed and hung on the wall and I think its safe to say Bobby knows his stuff in regards to risky situations.

 

[timmus]

Part of the parent thing is to teach your children to think and act responsibly.

I agree.

Hiking with a 4 yo I would just take a decision myself and make the child follow me.

Hiking with a 8-10 yo kid I would ask him what he thinks, let him take a decision. Chances are his conclusion will be the good one.

We all make the mistake to under-estimated the children's intelligence, and this is why we end up over-protecting them. Kids are not idots, they can feel the danger too.

BTW, I believe most kids are tougher than many adults. They just see the fun part of it and they don't feel the discomforts that usually hold up the adult's motivation.