Seattlest Pix 09Nov24
Tuesdays are Muppet Days
Seattle to Remain Famous for Coffee and Rain
Thanksgiving Pairing Suggestion: Dessert Isn't Just a Meal
Mayor-To-Be Schedules Town Halls for Input and Companionship
In the shadow of the Kim tragedy, we did not pick up the thread of the three climbers lost on Mt. Hood--one of whom, Kelley James, was found dead in a snow cave on Sunday. The other two have not yet been found, but despite their experience and the gear they carried with them, the prospects are horribly grim. We didn't think we'd have much to add in covering the story.
Obviously, this is very different scenario than the Kim family, and yet people are pretty pissed off about it--there's a shitstorm brewing over at Gothamist (one of the pair still missing is a Brooklyn man).
Many people seem to think that these men are selfish, with no regard for their families when they undertake something risky like climbing in the winter. However, unless they took up climbing after they got married, which does not appear to be the case, then their wives knew what they were getting into when they married them. It's probably part of why they loved them. You marry a firefighter, you know what you're in for. We live with the off chance that our beloved could hurt himself snowboarding or mountain biking--we're also thankful he has no apparent interest in more high-risk sports like mountaineering or clas-5 white-water kayaking. This is not to diminish what those climbers' families are going through because that is unimaginable, but it seems myopic for sideline observers to simply say these men were wholeheartedly selfish.
There's another line of griping about how much the rescue will cost in total once this is all over. On this Seattlest must call bullshit. Humans do a lot of stupid, asinine things that other people ultimately pay for somehow. These men were experienced, and while some have argued that they chose the wrong time of year for this climb, they took all the necessary steps to be as prepared as possible. We'll be curious to hear if any of them had climbing insurance to cover a potential rescue effort--while obviously (and perhaps problematically) not required, this is becoming more common. That said, they are active, intelligent people and I'd rather we pay money trying to rescue them than dealing with say, assholes sending text messages from their Blackberry while driving on the freeway or idiots trying to smuggle dope across the border in a blizzard.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
I agree wholeheartedly!
Not true
[http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/national/1110AP_Missing_Climbers.html]
However, I do agree that we can't, as a society, pick and choose who we save -- that's a slippery slope. What's next, telling smokers that they're ineligible for life-support in case of smoking-related disease?
I DO agree that all climbers should be forced to get a permit to climbe that includes paying for rescue insurance. And it should be expensive.
In other Seattle-related mountain climbing tragedy news:
1) The owner of Seattle's Mountain Madness is missing somewhere in a range of 20,000-foot Chinese mountains, and has been for most of the month.
2) I saw the episode of Discovery Channel's "Everest: Beyond the Limit" last night where they abandoned David Sharp on the mountain. In the context of the show it seemed like a reasonable course of action, however, only a week later Dan Mazur of Olympia and a bunch of other climbers performed a rescue of an Everest climber who was in a similar condition near the summit. Having some sense of what it would take to get that guy down I have to say, Dan Mazur is a fucking badass.
What's weird to me is that people who ski and rock climb and such pay the exact same insurance rates I do, and the only way I'm likely to break a leg is in a high-school-bleacher collapse.
It is also a little weird that we'll spend thousands of dollars and hundreds of man hours to rescue dudes lost on a mountain and yet ignore mentally ill people on the street every day. That sounds really bleeding-heart-ish, but, honestly, it's sort of weird.
Yeah, Seth, I have similar thoughts sometimes but that's the slippery slope again. Should fat people not get health care either? In Britain, they're far more of a drain on the public system than a few adrenaline junkies. And really, far more people die every year drowning while out recreationally swimming than climbing mountains (or hiking, or skiing, or...). Should we spend more money helping people who are mentally ill and on the streets? Well, yes. Should we just let three guys die on a mountain? Well, no. Should people who engage in that kind of activity take on their own extra insurance and make sure their family could pay for a rescue effort? That makes the most sense, and it is a big issue w/in the climbing and S&R community.
I didn't read the arguments on the Gothamist, so I'm a little in the dark here, but if they're saying we should let these guy die on a mountain when we have the ability to save them, I disagree. Regardless of the cost, we have to try to save them as long as there is a chance they are alive and we can reach them. That's part of the social contract: if at all possible, the rest of us will do what we can to save you.
I also agree that for extreme sports conducted in our natural resources, participants should be required to have rescue insurance -- and should be costly. Unlike smoking or overeating, or swimming or drinking, this is a activity that poses a unique risk -- being trapped in a location where normal rescue facilities cannot reach you, don't normally go. People who build homes in flood plains are required to get Flood insurance before building, because of the special risk involved. Climbers should be compelled to seek similar protection.
But no matter what, no one should shiver to death on a mountain -- or on a downtown street for that matter -- thinking society won't come for them because of a bad choice they made. When a homeless person freezes to death, I hope it's because we simply haven't come up with the way to prevent it, the size of the problem being immense and difficult to solve, not because we haven't or aren't trying. That goes for the mountain climbers, too.
We can argue over who should pay after we've saved them. The debate should be over if we'll save them.
That's The debate shouldn't be over if we'll save them.
"then their wives knew what they were getting into"
And the kids? Did the kids know what they were getting into when they were being born?