Seen along the trails on Adams today

[MylesLI]

OK, fair enough -- but even people who take no reasonable precautions about communicating their plans usually become noticed as missing sooner or later if they stay gone long enough. It's true, too, that some people manage to get into serious trouble and extricate themselves without external help. I'd like to hope that any one of us, if we were to come upon such a case, would intervene and assist to the best of our ability. Either way, though, it doesn't really change the point I'm trying to make, which is that nobody is really in a position to say their decisions cannot impact anybody but themselves. Again, I don't have a bright-line "therefore, everybody must carry X or do Y" type of a rule to extrapolate from this. I don't think there is one. But I think the attitude that what one does out there and how one does it is nobody's business but one's own is naive.

As much as my crew never went out and expected any help, the fact is that in today's world that attitude won't cut it anymore. Mirabela is right and Tom makes great points as well

 

[Remix]

Well said, Sierra! Pontificating will only garner contempt! I also carry a good-sized pack year round and am asked, from time to time, if I'm spending the night. I guess I should reply "possibly", and leave it at that

I just say "Hope not!"

 

[SherpaTom]

Like many subjects on this board, many can be debated back & forth...just look at the debate on the tragedy on Adams only a few weeks ago. I was fortunate enough to hike Adams/Madison on the first day of winter this past year and we had incredible weather (so good we did not need our winter jackets on either summit). Now that is not to say we did not have all our gear, snowshoes (never used them), or most other items stayed in the pack. We saw a young guy hiking in shorts and gaiters. Was he nuts, well in a 58 y/o like me, I would not do it but he certainly he seemed safe enough for his adventure. I no longer hike solo, a promise I made to my wife after we debated whether it was safe or not.

In the end, as one poster said, as long as someone's decision does not have a negative impact on someone else, then a hiker can do what they feel is within their safety zone. I know when I was 30 years younger, I probably did some things...strike that, I know I did some things that were not safe.

 

[Bob Kittredge]

I was coming down Washington one cloudy summer's day when I encountered a family with a couple of teenagers. Only the father had a (smallish) pack on his back. "Oh", say I, "Dad gets to carry all the raingear?" He gave me a somewhat uncertain look and said "I was hoping it wouldn't rain." Hmmm. Why hadn't I thought of that? I'll just leave all this stuff I carry at home next time and hope for the best. (It did not, in fact, rain that day.)

 

[Remix]

Old, Acrid Debate

This is an old, acrid debate which has led to alot of contention on other sites.

http://www.seattlepi.com/local/article/Climbing-light-and-fast-also-proves-deadly-1225351.php

 

[sierra]

I'd like to agree with the spirit of this -- I really would -- except that every time a recreational user has a disaster in the woods, dozens of other men and women put themselves at risk trying to find them in time to save them. I don't have a "bright line" answer about what is OK and what isn't -- none of us do, and that's probably why we debate it here so often -- but one thing I wish everybody understood is that none of us are recreating in a vacuum. Our choices inevitably do impact others.

To be honest, this is an argument I have never agreed with. People have a right to do what they want out there, if there are severe consquences, so be it. SAR goes out because they want too, nobody has to join SAR. Don't get me wrong, I love what they do and respect the hell out them all, they are heroes for sure. But, you cant say someone shouldn't do something only because SAR might have to go out. That's like saying, don't have a camp fire because the fire dept might have to come out. Just my 2 cents.

 

[DayTrip]

That's like saying, don't have a camp fire because the fire dept might have to come out. Just my 2 cents.

That's a great analogy. But like all the other noted examples there are degrees of common sense. Having a nice small fire after carefully clearing the immediate area of tinder is different from piling dozens of pallets together and having a 15' tall flame going on the edge of a dry field. Going "light" on a reasonably good weather day in an area you know well is different from going "light" in a treacherous stretch above treeline you've never done before with foul weather approaching.

There is a sliding scale of probability for a negative outcome that your free choice will eventually begin to encroach on other people's enjoyment, safety and expense. Where "the line" is between the freedom to decide for yourself and what is irresponsible and foolish because of its impact on others varies from person to person. I don't buy into the notion that I should be out hiking for the enjoyment and consideration of others as is often sited in various online debates about not doing blah-blah-blah because it is "rude" and "inconsiderate" behavior. Rude and inconsiderate as defined by who? But at some point there is a line that gets crossed where "rude" and "inconsiderate" becomes negligent and irresponsible.

 

[Tim Seaver]

It's always struck me as a bit odd the way this board responds to the latest mountain death, as if it should somehow "change everything", and then morphs into these misguided attacks on trail runners and anyone who isn't carrying a 45 pound pack. It's not going to change anything.

The person who died wasn't "going light" - "going light" has ZIP to do with her death. She headed out in atrocious conditions - THAT is why she died. In some conditions, no amount of gear is going to save you.

As far as religiously following recommendations, if people actually did that, 99% of them would have to turn around after reading the very first sentence in the USFS sign:

"Use this trail only if you are in top physical condition..."

"Only" is underlined. Why do so many people blatantly ignore this, yet spend so much time harassing other people on what they are or aren't carrying?

 

[dug]

I've said this before: half the people I see on the trail think I'm carrying too much gear; the other half think I'm not carrying enough....

 

[DayTrip]

It's always struck me as a bit odd the way this board responds to the latest mountain death, as if it should somehow "change everything", and then morphs into these misguided attacks on trail runners and anyone who isn't carrying a 45 pound pack. It's not going to change anything.

The person who died wasn't "going light" - "going light" has ZIP to do with her death. She headed out in atrocious conditions - THAT is why she died. In some conditions, no amount of gear is going to save you.

As far as religiously following recommendations, if people actually did that, 99% of them would have to turn around after reading the very first sentence in the USFS sign:

"Use this trail only if you are in top physical condition..."

"Only" is underlined. Why do so many people blatantly ignore this, yet spend so much time harassing other people on what they are or aren't carrying?

If the "going light" thing is directed at me you may have misunderstood my intent. I am NOT referencing the recent fatality in any way. The original post referenced snowshoers with little gear and the online article link referenced by Remix discussed the concept of going light out West. I was just trying to tie in the analogy with the point I was trying to make (apparently not very well).

My point was that I'm all for people doing whatever they want to do with their lives but there is a point where the probability of a negative outcome will increase to the level that it will impact others whether it is intended or not, with a negative result for the others. That "negative result" might be lending someone a jacket, cutting a hike short to attend to an injured person or ultimately someone risking life and limb to save the original decision maker.

 

[Tom_Murphy]

The person who died wasn't "going light" - "going light" has ZIP to do with her death. She headed out in atrocious conditions - THAT is why she died. In some conditions, no amount of gear is going to save you.

If she had brought an avy shovel, sleeping pad, sleeping bag, bivy, snowshoes, food, stove, and a compass, she would be alive today. People have bivouaced in worse conditions for multiple days and then walked off the mountain.

 

[Raven]

To be honest, this is an argument I have never agreed with. People have a right to do what they want out there, if there are severe consquences, so be it. SAR goes out because they want too, nobody has to join SAR. Don't get me wrong, I love what they do and respect the hell out them all, they are heroes for sure. But, you cant say someone shouldn't do something only because SAR might have to go out. That's like saying, don't have a camp fire because the fire dept might have to come out. Just my 2 cents.

I was going to add my two cents, but Sierra already has.

I have the utmost respect for S & R personnel and personally know two of the people on the recent recovery team as many of us must, but that doesn't change the fact that everyone who goes into the woods chooses to do so. I think if you choose to go into S & R, law enforcement, EMT, fire department, you are going to have to accept that you will be putting yourself at risk to save people who made decisions you don't think are smart.

MUCH respect for Search and Rescue personnel, but I draw my line at this point as well.

 

[sierra]

Doing what we want to do without restriction is a great freedom. The issue is with the consequences. If you make a decision you should have to suffer the consequences of your choices.

But that is just not how our society works, at least in the US. Many people don't want to wear helmets on motorcycles. Fine by me. But what happens when you wreck your bike, seriously mess yourself and have no health insurance because you think it's too expensive? Can't just let you die so someone has to pay for the healthcare. Wanna take cocaine every day? Fine by me. But when you crash and go bankrupt and go on disability so you can afford to live? Not your dime. Let the tax payers cover my "second chance". Light up your credit cards on toys and vacations, go out to eat instead of paying your mortgage? No problem. Just file for bankruptcy and leave someone else holding the bag. Wanna run trails with no gear? Doesn't bother me at all. But when you roll an ankle and need a rescue and balk at paying the costs? I could go on and on.

I personally think we should be able to do just about whatever we want (with obvious exceptions) without someone or some law inhibiting my behavior. But when you make bad decisions planning on someone else or someone else's wallet as your bail out plan that really irritates me. You should be responsible for your own safety net. Safety net too much trouble for you? Then you hit the ground and I don't feel bad for you. But I respect your right to hit the ground.

You make some valid points, but in this forum, I'll pass on the "society" based issues and stick with the backcountry topic. I am all for freedom, I do not want anyone telling me what to do, what to carry and how to plan my hikes. That being said, I stand by my personal choices and back them up. I plan for self rescue, I leave no plans, I don't want anyone coming for me. I've performed a self rescue before and I would do it again, if I have too, that is my right. I don't infringe on anyone or expect anything from anyone. This philosophy is for very few, many have given me thier share of negetive comments regarding the way I climb. To me, the way I climb is just as important as the climb itself, its pure. When I'm on a high peak here or in CO, looking at a dicey move high up, its my stict adhearance to being completely solo and alone that pushes me to be the best I can be, to settle for anything less would not do it for me. Granted, I'm single, no kids, so for me its cool. On the other hand, I have short-roped an injured climbed from the summit of Lions head to the Tucks trail myself and if I had too, would help anyone to get out.

 

[dug]

IMO if she had brought an avy shovel, sleeping pad, sleeping bag, bivy, snowshoes, food, stove, and a compass, she would be alive today. People have bivouaced in worse conditions for multiple days and then walked off the mountain.

IMO, none of that would've mattered. The wind blew her off the top of the peak, landing face first. She was probably concussed, knocked out, and unable to care for herself (IMO)

 

[ChrisB]

A recent issue of Appalachia Journal has a lengthy article on trail running, with a focus on the Whites, by Gorham-based Doug Meyer.

What's interesting is that as a Winter hiker, he self-rescued from Madison Hut after he suffered a tib/fib break many years ago.

cb

 

[DayTrip]

You make some valid points, but in this forum, I'll pass on the "society" based issues and stick with the backcountry topic. I am all for freedom, I do not want anyone telling me what to do, what to carry and how to plan my hikes. That being said, I stand by my personal choices and back them up. I plan for self rescue, I leave no plans, I don't want anyone coming for me. I've performed a self rescue before and I would do it again, if I have too, that is my right. I don't infringe on anyone or expect anything from anyone. This philosophy is for very few, many have given me thier share of negetive comments regarding the way I climb. To me, the way I climb is just as important as the climb itself, its pure. When I'm on a high peak here or in CO, looking at a dicey move high up, its my stict adhearance to being completely solo and alone that pushes me to be the best I can be, to settle for anything less would not do it for me. Granted, I'm single, no kids, so for me its cool. On the other hand, I have short-roped an injured climbed from the summit of Lions head to the Tucks trail myself and if I had too, would help anyone to get out.

We are in agreement. But not everyone has your code of ethics, knowledge or decision making ability. A lot of people, consciously or unconsciously, put the burden of responsibility of their actions on others.

 

[JCarter]

IMO, none of that would've mattered. The wind blew her off the top of the peak, landing face first. She was probably concussed, knocked out, and unable to care for herself (IMO)

except for the minor detail that she activated her PLB. Which argues persuasively against "knocked out".

 

[sierra]

We are in agreement. But not everyone has your code of ethics, knowledge or decision making ability. A lot of people, consciously or unconsciously, put the burden of responsibility of their actions on others.

That is true and the sad thing is, it will always be that way. On an average year ( winter ) 1 to 2 people die in the Whites, on really bad year, its more. That is the hard truth and it will proboly always be that way. Its a funny sport we enjoy, it can be the most rewarding thing, yet it can be very dangerous, or deadly. The novices and the foolhardy are the ones who ussually pay the price, or in the event of some bad luck it could be anyone, including myself. That is why SAR folks go out, you cant change what is, but you can try to help if you can. Life is not perfect, it just is.

 

[dug]

except for the minor detail that she activated her PLB. Which argues persuasively against "knocked out".

Not permanently, but laying there unable to move, activating a button, doesn't mean one is able to light a stove, crawl into a tent, put on warm clothes, and wait it out.

What killed her was leaving the parking lot, not all the missing gear...IMO.

 

[Mike P.]

A recent issue of Appalachia Journal has a lengthy article on trail running, with a focus on the Whites, by Gorham-based Doug Meyer.

What's interesting is that as a Winter hiker, he self-rescued from Madison Hut after he suffered a tib/fib break many years ago.

cb

Thanks Chris for the link, it was an interesting read. Nice to see Tim named in the article. It will be interesting to see how trail running sport matures as more people do it. While a single of a couple of trail runners really don't impact trails as all, I'm not sure how races will impact the trails. (Do they run at the same time where they need trails wide enough for passing or are starts staggered and runners have chips to track times)

Nice to see that they are enjoying the views just quicker. Seems many people have been quite familiar with the trails they run on. As the sport grows, will rescues increase? As the article mentioned, helicopter rescues in the Alps seem run of the mille (or from here in America, they seem that way from afar when reading climbing books) while costs seem to be brought up often in NH. Interesting paragliding mention also as I like reading Joe Simpson of "Touching the Void" fame. Some of his mountaineerings friend and Joe did some paragliding and they enjoyed it. Eventually they did lose friends and have accidents paragliding too.

I see why trail running is alluring. Running on pavement is harder on joints and, IMO, kind of boring. (I prefer running on boardwalks at the beach, it's different than my regular scenery, the boards are softer than the road and flat....) I like jogging on the local rail trail over the road although it's familiar too. I could see myself jogging at some of the flatter state parks in CT, which also have wider abandoned roads as trails, but doubt I'll ever be fit enough to run up Valley Way. (ok, I prefer hiking over jogging but jogging does provide a faster cardio work out and can be done everywhere and a twenty minute run out my door is a cardio workout and takes twenty minutes. Until I move to Randolph or Waterville Valley, (add your favorite trailhead town here), a twenty minute hike requires time to get to the trail.

Now time for my least favorite exercise.... s&*@ shoveling snow!