Seattlest: About Those Climbers

frank

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 20:05:43 -0800

"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?

Joey

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:16:57 -0800

That's The debate shouldn't be over if we'll save them.

Joey

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 18:15:01 -0800

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.

Courtney

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 17:16:51 -0800

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.

Seth

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 14:12:35 -0800

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.

Dan

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 11:29:38 -0800

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.

pffft

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:51:22 -0800

they took all the necessary steps to be as prepared as possible Not true Officials said photos taken by James show the team was not well-equipped for a long stay. [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.

gc

Wed, 20 Dec 2006 10:46:13 -0800

I agree wholeheartedly!