"Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Use this forum to post links to news stories from other websites - ones that other hikers might find interesting. This is not intended for original material or anecdotal information. You can reply to any news stories posted, but do not start a new thread without a link to a specific news story.
User avatar
Bosterson
Posts: 2317
Joined: May 18th, 2009, 3:17 pm
Location: Portland

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Bosterson » January 16th, 2018, 3:33 pm

Touche, Brian. I guess I should have been more precise about government-maintained trails into areas that would otherwise be too rugged for most users to visit, and specific rules governing "safety" measures, especially ones that limit the choices of experts as a byproduct of requiring best practices for beginners who may not know better. I would especially ask whether it is philosophically defensible to mandate certain kinds of compliance from users "in their own best interest," even when non-compliance poses no risk to anyone else. (Good examples of this are seat belts and helmets.) For some of these types of regulations, it is possible that "reduced risk" (presuming this is factually born out) would entail reduced societal cost from rescues, and reduced risk to rescuers (most of whom are volunteers). This would then have to be weighed against the loss of liberty to users. But the question remains: if beginners don't know how to do something safely, does requiring them to carry a widget solve that? And does a one-size-fits-all widget requirement make sense for experts? Is the reduction in experts' liberty justified by the (potential) safety increase gained for the high-risk beginners? Is the elimination of risk a worthwhile, let alone feasible, proposition that should be attempted by society? Etc. But, again, I'm trying to discuss an article about climbing restrictions on Mont Blanc that could be a template for the US, not about whether Native Americans or rabbits used trails. :geek:

Consider a hypothetical:

Problem: Many people who hike in the Gorge lack navigational skills, which puts them in danger of getting lost, potentially causing injury or requiring rescue.
Solution: All people who hike in the Gorge are required to carry a PLB at their own cost. All people who hike in the Gorge must file a detailed "hike plan" with the government at the trailhead. Failing to carrly the PLB, register your hike, or deviating from your plan results in a fine. Only official trails are permitted for safety reasons, and so all off trail hiking is banned.

Assuming such a policy actually does result in reduced injuries and rescues (almost exclusively among beginners), would policies like these be justified?
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

pcg
Posts: 372
Joined: May 31st, 2011, 7:46 pm
Location: Chehalem Mountain

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by pcg » January 16th, 2018, 5:17 pm

Guy wrote:...no frills signs...
Attachments
sign-210729.jpg

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Aimless » January 17th, 2018, 12:13 pm

Bosterson wrote:Problem: Many people who hike in the Gorge lack navigational skills, which puts them in danger of getting lost, potentially causing injury or requiring rescue.
Solution: All people who hike in the Gorge are required to carry a PLB at their own cost. All people who hike in the Gorge must file a detailed "hike plan" with the government at the trailhead. Failing to carrly the PLB, register your hike, or deviating from your plan results in a fine. Only official trails are permitted for safety reasons, and so all off trail hiking is banned.

Assuming such a policy actually does result in reduced injuries and rescues (almost exclusively among beginners), would policies like these be justified?
That's a questionable assumption. I'd point out that the solution doesn't match definition of the problem, which is that people lack navigational skills, become lost or get injured. Neither PLBs nor filing detailed hike plans could reduce the number of rescues or injuries; they could only make rescues somewhat easier after the hiker has become lost or injured.

On the other hand, banning off-trail hiking might conceivably reduce hikers getting lost or injured, but the difficulty and expense of enforcing such a ban would make it highly impractical, especially when you consider how little difference it is likely to make in terms of prevention. The same people who today happily plunge down hillsides so steep as to resemble cliffs, in order to get down to what looks to them like a swimming hole are not going to honor the rules about staying on the trail any better than at present, where their only restraint is common sense and an appreciation of how risky their behavior is.

My conclusion is that such policies would not be justified, simply on the grounds that they do not solve the problem they purport to solve, while imposing significant restraints and costs that have no practical benefit.

User avatar
Bosterson
Posts: 2317
Joined: May 18th, 2009, 3:17 pm
Location: Portland

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Bosterson » January 17th, 2018, 12:58 pm

Aimless wrote: That's a questionable assumption. I'd point out that the solution doesn't match definition of the problem, which is that people lack navigational skills, become lost or get injured. Neither PLBs nor filing detailed hike plans could reduce the number of rescues or injuries; they could only make rescues somewhat easier after the hiker has become lost or injured.
It's a complete hypothetical for illustrative purposes (hence the rhetorical assumption that it would work), but analogously, requiring climbers on Mont Blanc to carry a harness at penalty of fine does not, necessarily, affect their likelihood to die in the mountains. (Harnesses, for example, are not of much use if you don't know how to correctly build anchors, nor do they have much effect on the weather.) Ditto for requiring all climbers in the Himalaya to hire guides (which, for instance, would not bear on whether they might be killed by an avalanche).

The question I'm asking is about the efficacy, or, perhaps, philosophical validity, of lumping disparate user groups under common regulations that might not make sense for all of them (and do little to address root causes), especially in the context of an activity traditionally associated with philosophical tenets of freedom. Feel free to keep taking my rhetorical examples literally, though; I don't think we're having the same conversation. :)
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

User avatar
jessbee
Posts: 877
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Contact:

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by jessbee » January 17th, 2018, 1:12 pm

Bosterson, here's a recent article called "The Illusion of Safety" that I think speaks to what you're talking about:

http://rockandice.com/climbing-accident ... of-safety/

In sum, two different climbing accidents in the Alps last year. Both teams were topped up, but neither were able to stop the fall, so several of the climbers died. The ropes provided the "illusion of safety" but decision-making and snow travel recipes were to blame for the accidents.

I certainly see this as a problem with making blanket regulations. Mostly they make people in charge who know nothing about the risks feel better that they're "doing something" even though no one is safer. Looks better on paper.

Decision making skills, navigation skills, etc comprise a highly under rated skillset among (some) outdoor users and teaching these things should be prioritized over making more stupid rules.
Will break trail for beer.

Blog and photos

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Aimless » January 17th, 2018, 1:35 pm

The question I'm asking is about the efficacy, or, perhaps, philosophical validity, of lumping disparate user groups under common regulations that might not make sense for all of them (and do little to address root causes)

If nothing else, my literalist answers to your question have prompted you to refine your question to more closely resemble the one you are interested in answering. However, the main problem with discussing hypotheticals is that they vary widely in their resemblance to reality. Regulations imposed on mountain climbers in the Alps do not make a very close analog to hikers in the Columbia Gorge, in that the governments differ, the cultures differ, the terrain differs and the activity differs. As a consequence, we must fumble our way to imagining what hypothetical regulations might arise, and in doing so, we will probably imagine what suits our position and strengthens our argument for that position. That's just human nature.

A more fruitful discussion, in my view, would be attempting to identify and define what general processes are common to good problem solving and rule making, then, when future problems are addressed and various rules proposed, those standards can be applied.

User avatar
BigBear
Posts: 1836
Joined: October 1st, 2009, 11:54 am

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by BigBear » January 17th, 2018, 2:47 pm

Is it a theory of keeping us safe from ourselves, or the government safe from your lawyers when you do something unsafe and the government didn't stop you from doing it?

A couple of years ago, the family of a man who drowned in the Sandy River sued the USFS for not removing the bridge on which he was standing when a flash flood was coming down the canyon. As I have read in the paper, the man was intentionally photographing the flood as it approached.

This situation is not unique: May 18, 1980 Mt. St. Helens eruption and the I-5 bridge over the Toutle River - all the people wanting to photograph the approaching lahar.

One month after the massive tsunami in the Indian Ocean, a half dozen people went out onto the beach at Pacific City to get a better view of the approaching tsunami (which proved to be nothing).

In Yellowstone, a Portland lad walked 1,000 feet off the boardwalk and fell into a geyser at Norris Basin. The family sued NPS to get the body extracted from the geyser.

At Eagle Creek a year ago, how many people ventured onto the crumbling Metlako Viewpoint to get one last picture? I appreciate your "taking one for the team" to get the photo, but seriously, in retrospect how stupid was that adventure? (the viewpoint collapsed into the canyon during Christmas Week 2016)

People are naturally curious. Their lawyers are naturally vicious. So, if people want to be curious without the safety constraints, then their lawyers need to be declawed. You don't get to prance out into the danger zone with a safety line tethered to your attorney. If you want to take the risk, then you gotta risk it all. You die or get injured, you get nothing from the courts.

I'm sure quite a few readers will claim they are willing to sacrifice their day in court while they are warm and dry at their computer, but I have my doubts that their frontier commitment will stand the test of injury at the bottom of a cliff, etc. The court dockets are full of extreme sport enthusiasts who are looking for someone else to blame for their folly.

User avatar
VanMarmot
Posts: 1924
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm
Contact:

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by VanMarmot » January 17th, 2018, 3:20 pm

BigBear wrote:People are naturally curious. Their lawyers are naturally vicious. So, if people want to be curious without the safety constraints, then their lawyers need to be declawed. You don't get to prance out into the danger zone with a safety line tethered to your attorney. If you want to take the risk, then you gotta risk it all. You die or get injured, you get nothing from the courts.

I'm sure quite a few readers will claim they are willing to sacrifice their day in court while they are warm and dry at their computer, but I have my doubts that their frontier commitment will stand the test of injury at the bottom of a cliff, etc. The court dockets are full of extreme sport enthusiasts who are looking for someone else to blame for their folly.
To repeat my similar point: [visiting] "Nature is a good thing, but only if we defeat the expectation of "no risk" or somehow allow for complete indemnification from liability. Banning (no hiking in the Gorge) or otherwise restricting (no climbing without a guide) everyone's access to Nature are crude approaches to such indemnification."

So:

(1) How do we replace boundless restrictions on going outdoors with bounds on liability lawyers?

(2) What about charging for rescues or recoveries right upfront? Since bad stuff can (and does) happen to even the experienced, the equipped, the prepared, etc., everyone would have a chance to dispute the charges (but not sue) after the fact. If your reasons for disputation weren't deemed lame ("My dog at my rope..."), then you'd get some money back. If not, the SAR team would get some spiffy new gear (or whatever).

No restrictions, you can't sue, and (absent a good excuse) it's going to cost you (or your estate).

Aimless
Posts: 1922
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:02 pm
Location: Lake Oswego

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Aimless » January 17th, 2018, 4:17 pm

How about we just add a liability waiver to wilderness permits, stating that, by the act of entering the wilderness, the wilderness user agrees to assume full liability for their own safety for the duration of their wilderness stay? Furthermore, the wilderness user agrees that if a SAR operation is initiated to rescue them, the SAR personnel shall be held harmless for the manner in which they conduct that operation. Put the same message on a sign at the trailhead, too, so no one can claim that because they didn't fill out or sign the wilderness permit, they retained their right to sue. Put it in several languages. Simplicity itself.

User avatar
bobcat
Posts: 2764
Joined: August 1st, 2011, 7:51 am
Location: SW Portland

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by bobcat » January 18th, 2018, 4:48 pm

What the article is highlighting is the cultural phenomenon of increased use generating increased abuse, which generates increased attention and public policy, in the form of regulations, signs, and flush toilets. Usually what happens is that those who had enjoyed it all to themselves move on to another "remote" place, and the whole cycle repeats itself. I don't see any comparable situation to Mont Blanc in our area (The connection really is totally hypothetical), but I do agree that the best solution is to find a way to restrict the legal avenue rather than over-regulate.

Post Reply