Climbers Missing on Mount Hood
A Mountain of Risks and Mirrors
By Dan Richardson, 12-20-06
It’s strange what fascination the mountains hold for humans.Nearly two weeks ago, three climbers climbed Mount Hood. We all know their names and details by now, how they appeared to have summitted, but suffered some injury, and been slammed by the ferocious storm that roared through the Northwest. It looks increasingly like none of them made it safely through that.
We all know, too, about the media eruption that followed the lost climbers. The grim-faced television reporters, with their breathless nightly news accounts. The extra-bold headlines.
That same storm that appears to have killed Kelly James, Brian Hall and Jerry “Nikko” Cooke also killed three other adventurers in Oregon — three sailors whose catamaran capsized in the storm. And heavy weather seems to have taken three others on the water, fishermen missing since Saturday when their boat sank at the mouth of the Rogue River.
Precious few national TV crews bothered to make the drive to the coast, though. The sea, perhaps, fascinates a few, while the mountains awe the many. Regardless, for those poor men and their families, the news was much drier, lacking the trappings of a story with legs.
Which is perhaps for the best. Because they won’t have to overhear the coffeehouse comments and avoid the endless letters to the editor castigating their husbands, sons, brothers for taking risks and costing public search-and-rescue dollars. No, the judgment of the sedentary is unleashed entirely on the mountain climbers.
Climbers should carry insurance, say many in the letters to newspapers, on the street, and in the Internet fora. Maybe they should be hit with a rescue bill, too — well, you know, if they’re found. On Metafilter, the popular talk-about-everything site, the climbers-must-pay thread has drawn 200 comments, more than any other recent topic. And at least one national TV program went out of its way to highlight the cost of the search — as if to say, “See what these bozos are costing us?”
There’s no word on how much the average viewer has cost the mountain climbing community, though. You know, Mr. and Mrs. Public? The ones with the high-fat diets and coach-loafing lifestyle, who vastly outnumber climbers and cost them higher taxes and health care prices? How many mountain searches would it cost to treat one uninsured person with chronic heart disease?
The people in harm’s way — the searchers, most of whom are volunteers — don’t complain much, it should be noted. Not only is the idea of paying for rescues borderline unethical and complicating (people will hide rather than face a rescue bill), the matter is pretty well settled in their minds.
Portland Mountain Rescue, one of the primary groups on scene during mountaineering accidents on Hood, explains its voluntary, non-profit and self-funded philosophy: “PMR does not place judgment on the mountaineering community, but we stand ready to help if accidents happen - regardless of how they may have occurred. ... The fact of the matter is that many of the people we rescue are generally good people who simply made a mistake. If you ask most active outdoor enthusiasts, they can probably list one or two incidents where they made a mistake, were lucky, and learned from their experience. For those who make an error and are not so lucky, PMR is there to help.”
Mountaineers also note that climbers make up a tiny fraction (like, 3 percent) of National Park Service rescues. Most rescues, accidents and outdoors deaths are the mundane fatalities of fishermen, sailors, hikers and boaters.
There are few calls for Billy Bob Boater to register each time he braves the lakes, or for Huffy the Hunter to carry rescue insurance. True, the Mount Hood three could have saved their families all sorts of grief, and the searchers much time and effort, had they bothered to carry a personal beacon. But the point remains: Many people run as much risks at routine outdoors activities — swimming the Sandy River, hiking in the Columbia Gorge — as the climbers did on Hood.
One climber and volunteer searcher has penned an editorial that argues that, for all its presumed cost and risk, climbing mountains imbues mountaineers’ lives with greater depth, and inspires those around them. Writes he, “We need more people in this world like Jerry Cook, Brian Hall and Kelly James.”
Perhaps mountains fascinate us because they act as mirrors of our hopes and fears. In them we see a sharper, grander vision of life, if we’re open to that frame of mind. One climber commented during the hot back-and-forth on Cascade Climbers that “The goal of life isn't not to die, because we will all fail at this.”
Or else, we glimpse the terrifying abyss of mortality; and out of our fear we grow angry at those who walk the edge of the chasm. The three climbers, like the famous Kim family of last month’s search-and-rescue circus, made errors that, compounded with the weather, cost their lives. Errors that they could have avoided — should have avoided — or at least mitigated. I wonder, though, if those who spout indignantly about those crazy, reckless people who climb mountains aren’t really raging against themselves. [End of article]
Obesity and obese people are estimated (conservatively) to cost the US taxpayer $80B in Medicare and Medicaid. Note, this excludes the ridiculous loophole that enables obese people to buy personal scooters. It is time people become responsible for their actions including their ill health which others pay for.
Comment By Steve Kingsford-Smith, 12-21-06Damn fine piece of writing there, Dan. Solid points delievered with some flavor. Climb on...
sks
Thanks, Steve. I'm (almost) surprised at the moralizing that goes on from the vertically disinclined when it comes to mountaineering. On the other hand, a quote I once read often comes back to me when I climb (rocks), to the effect that climbing is worth risking death for, but not worth dying for.
Stay alive. Dan
No one likes to see themselves as others see them, so it is easier to in essence transfer the blame. What pray tell does being a couch potoato have to do with someone delibertly putting their life an that of others in danger.
Those who indulge in "green" actities tend to see themselves as superior to other folks, so they really are entitled to risk their lives and the lives of others becasue they are somehow superior.
I see this as strictly a self indulgent behavior that benefits one's own ego and disregards a respnsiblity to others.
I think your comments more-or-less validate my point, Marion. So it's self-indulgent? We don't try to help people in trouble if their motives were impure?
And if we're going to cast fellow Americans outside the pale of our assistance (would you prohibit the volunteers from helping, too, I wonder?), who gets to decide which vices are the damnable ones? I mean, if mountain climbers are outside the pale and shouldn't be helped or searched for, what about the folks who ingest 4,000 calories a day in processed junk food and proceed to clog up our medical system with expensive, under-insured needs?
What about bad drivers, who cause vastly more damage and emotional pain every minute of every day than a year's worth of lost climbers? Should we leave the drunken driver on the side of the road to bleed out after an accident? Turn away the obese at the emergency room door? Leave the disoriented hiker in the woods? Let the foolish boater drown because he couldn't be bothered with a life vest?
No, we help as we can. We might ticket them or castigate them if they were particularly reckless, but we help.
Right on, Dan! It's the best op-ed piece I've seen yet on this subject.
Let me know your e-mail address -- I want to send you some recent photos with graphics showing what probably happened to the two missing climbers on the Newton-Clark headwall.
I am in favor of helping, that must be done regardless. My point is that people need to be discouraged from doing thoughtless dangerous things to begin with. The problem is with glorifying what they did. Work in an ER and have to tell the bad news to a mother or other family member, or have that kind of news given to you. It changes your whole perspective. One kind of reckless behavior for ones own pleasure is no better than another. SAR is needed for hikers, skiers, mountain climbers etc every winter because of the idea that their risk taking somehow makes them superior...it doesn't.
Comment By dan, 12-25-06I don't know about superior, Marion. Maybe it just makes them feel alive, thriving, fulfilled and at peace.
I'm not sure anyone (else) considers most hikers, skiers, even climbers, as reckless. Sure, there's SOME amount of risk to venturing beyond one's home in the wider world. That doesn't make going outside a reckless act. Statistically, driving to the trailhead is riskier than going for a walk in the woods.
True, many people who venture outdoors — for business or pleasure — find themselves in trouble and need of help they'd never anticipated. Something like 700 Oregonians get lost and need help each year. Should we sneer at every hunter, dog-walker, mushroom-picker, boater and wildflower photographer because they were reckless for being outside, far from the safe confines of their safe cities and the paved roads?
Dan
From a practical standpoint, I may simply have to buy a personal beacon. An EPERB of sorts from REI (they have them for $600-700 with the warning: "never use this until you have exhausted all possibilities of self-rescue) Still, after all the recent publicity, if that's what it takes to assure my loved ones that I have done what I can to minimize risks and continue climbing, it may be worth it.
The plain fact is that skill, proper equipment, and experience are not enough to remove all risk. Many, thus prepared, have gotten into trouble, some personal friends of mine. Notwithstanding the tragic loss of life and expenditure of resources, on Mt Hood, I plan to keep climbing, because it's who I am.
Perhaps the following short poem explains it best:
Mountaineering
“Why on Earth do it?” My friends all want to know.
“Wildlife threatens, and you have to sleep on snow!
It’s cold; no air! What makes you risk it all?
You could freeze your toes--or worse still, if you fall!
Just what are you thinking, as you start out on the trail?
You know the chances are you are going to fail!”
Here is my answer, true but hard to see,
Why I want to reach out, and touch eternity.
Alpine crispness, at fourteen thousand feet
Quenches my desire, and makes me feel complete.
I crave the golden spill, of spreading morning sun
On untrodden snow I see blue shadows run!
Between the granite spires, I see the eagle fly
Tilt of wing inspires, I hear the lonely cry!
Wildflowers are burning, and over tundra spread.
I see flames of yellow, licking blue and red,
I see stars’ icy splendor at 18,000 feet,
My soul flies up to join, they twinkle down to greet!
The challenge of endurance, that puts me to the test,
The supreme excitement, of putting forth my best,
Knowing extremes of body, and the limits of my mind,
Effort and ability, in mountain air combined,
Face to face with elements, whether lion or a lamb,
The infinite satisfaction, of knowing who I am!
© David Pomeroy 2004
Dan, the problem is not with skiing, hiking, or even mountain climbing. The problem is taking unreasonable and unnecessary risks that put other people at risk. There is no relationship between what they did and the activities you mentioned. There are lot's of ways of getting a thrill and feeling exhilarated, but that doesn't mean that it is ok to ignore the effect on other people and the environment.
I simply do not understand how anyone concerned about the environment can feel okay with the use of pitons. That is probably the one thing done to nature that cannot ever be healed over. It will destroy the rocks eventually.
David, if the controversy over this episode makes others stop and think about what they are doing, that will help a little.
Marion,
Your statement that "the problem is taking unreasonable and unnecessary risks that put other people at risk" meshes perfectly with Dan's statement: "Getting to the trailhead is more dangerous than going for a hike"
Most people take driving in a car as a "reasonable risk"- it puts the driver at risk, and also the drivers and pedestrians around them at risk.
But climbing in the mountains doesn't put anyone else at risk- just the climber. If the climber gets lost and a rescue is initiated, the rescuers (who are volunteers!) are also personaly accepting risk. Climbers are not putting rescuers at any risk that they (the rescuers) are not willing to accept.
In short, it seems to me as though driving puts others in one's community at much more risk than climbing.
As far as who bears the cost of a rescue, that's another question.