"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

"Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Bosterson » January 15th, 2018, 1:17 pm

Mr. Peillex indeed justified his decree [requiring climbers on Mont Blanc to carry specific gear at penalty of fine] by claiming that Mont Blanc is no longer a wild place, but as a destination for crowds of tourists and guides, an “urban space of commerce.” The mayor would have us believe that the meandering contours of Mont Blanc’s upper snowfields and wildflower-strewn buttes are now conterminous with weed-strewn sidewalks and traffic lights.

What his decree accomplishes is the mitigation of risk through behavior modification, not the diminution of hazards on the peak. It is but another version of “protecting us from ourselves.”

...

Recently, I spoke with Scott Fitzwilliams, supervisor of the White River National Forest, whose boundaries contain some of Colorado’s deadliest mountains, about what could potentially force the United States to adopt similar measures. Mr. Fitzwilliams didn’t miss a beat: “The lawyers,” he said.
On a similar note, Nepal has now created a rule requiring all climbers of all abilities for all peaks in the country to hire a guide as a condition of their climbing permit. This is a continuation of "one size fits all" regulations that address the side effects of mass consumerization and consumption of the outdoors versus the actual root cause, which is of course the mass consumerization and consumption of the outdoors.

Though right now the USFS/Dept of the Interior is too busy holding a fire sale of public lands to extraction industries (thanks, Ryan Zinke!), it's troubling to imagine these overarching "safety" regulations being applied in this country. (Can you imagine Alex Honnold, after free soloing El Cap, getting a fine from the Yosemite rangers for not wearing a harness?) But, of course, at the local level it will be interesting to see how long the FS tries to keep people out of the Gorge after the fire, or what kind of restrictions they may try to put on trails that are damaged or can't/won't be repaired.

Frankly, given the shared root cause of all these problems (ie, the inexperienced flocking to the wilderness), I'm tempted to push for no trails, no bottled oxygen, no guides, no infrastructure. Remove the crutches of modern civilization and let the difficulties keep the masses at bay. I await the TKO trail-believer rebuttal. :)

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/opin ... erous.html
#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 15th, 2018, 4:19 pm

I like this: "Remove the crutches of modern civilization and let the difficulties keep the masses at bay."

It truly pains me to see people recreating in the wilderness who are so woefully underprepared: physically, mentally... Because they saw that pic on Instagram.

We need to have people get humbled by wilderness. That's what wilderness is. It's the opposite of civilization. And we need to have that so we don't forget where we came from.

I'll just grab a bowl of popcorn and see what you all have to say about the concept of how much is too much hand- holding in our beloved outdoor spaces.
Will break trail for beer.

Blog and photos

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Guy » January 15th, 2018, 6:02 pm

I think this could be done in some places and would be a good idea but I wouldn't do along with in areas so close to large urban areas like the Gorge. People benefit from being able to see and experience wilderness and a persons inability to bushwhack and travel cross country without aid shouldn't shut them out of ever seeing it. Similarly a persons desire to travel off trail and without aid shouldn't be curtailed by government on the grounds of them "knowing whats best for you".

I would vote for a middle ground, basic trails no frills signs only on the most used day use trails. Also a clear understanding that if you get hurt out in the woods it's not governments fault and you can't sue because you fell off a waterfall or a tree landed on you.
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

User avatar
Peabody
Posts: 524
Joined: August 12th, 2011, 8:37 pm

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Peabody » January 15th, 2018, 7:02 pm

As long as people are willing to pay big $$$ to climb then "safety" is really a secondary consideration.

In a similar vein on the local scene.............Link

I'm disappointed they weren't allowed to interview the boulder.

Reporter: So what happened?
Boulder: I was on a steady decline and finally hit rock bottom.
"I arise in the morning torn between a desire to improve the world and a desire to enjoy the world. This makes it hard to plan the day.”
― E.B. White

User avatar
Guy
Posts: 3333
Joined: May 10th, 2009, 4:42 pm
Location: The Foothills of Mt Hood
Contact:

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Guy » January 15th, 2018, 7:57 pm

Peabody wrote:
Reporter: So what happened?
Boulder: I was on a steady decline and finally hit rock bottom.
:lol: :lol:
hiking log & photos.
Ad monte summa aut mors

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

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by VanMarmot » January 16th, 2018, 8:25 am

Thanks (again) to Bosterson for injecting some lively controversy into our hum-drum hiking lives.

Driving a car is one of the riskiest things you'll ever do. But it's presumably voluntary so you don't mind. Going into Nature is also presumably voluntary and its very real risks are ones we presumably impose on ourselves. So we presumably shouldn't mind when that boulder falls on us. BUT WAIT! There is now the very real expectation that no matter where you go, no matter what you do, no matter how clueless you are, you will be "safe" (i.e., have zero probability of any adverse outcome) and that it is someone else's responsibility (i.e., their liability) to ensure your safeness.

This absurd expectation creates futility for natural resource managers - no matter how many signs they put up, no matter how many guardrails they weld in place, no matter how detailed their websites, no matter what they do, they simply can't meet this expectation. A boulder falls because of natural processes that have been in operation since the Big Bang, hits someone, and the lawyers arrive saying "Why didn't you warn my client?" or "Why didn't you stop this from happening to my client?" There is no recognition here that risk (the probability of an adverse outcome) is never zero and that, depending on the circumstances, you, not the managers of the park or forest, determine how much greater than zero it is.

I do agree with Guy that making it possible for the average person to get out and experience 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 hiking without a guide) everyone's access to Nature are crude approaches to such indemnification. Yet, as I write this, personal injury lawyers bearing torches are gathering on my front lawn yelling "Kill the monster..."

And to continue Bosterson's suggestion, why not push for no trails, no bottled oxygen, no guides, no infrastructure, and no free rescues. No dispespect for the wonderful work of SAR folks, but if you knew having your sorry butt hauled out of Nature was going to involve some serious cash, it might (just might) dissuade you from, for example, climbing Mount Hood in January in flip-flops (although I once saw someone above the Hogsback wearing only socks over plastic bags...).

Well, the popcorn is ready - time to kick-back and see where this goes...

User avatar
retired jerry
Posts: 14395
Joined: May 28th, 2008, 10:03 pm

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by retired jerry » January 16th, 2018, 8:36 am

Just to add, not really popcorn worthy...

Biggest causes of death are heart disease, cancer. Going out into the wilderness may reduce the risk of these. Exercise may reduce obesity reducing those risks. Perhaps experiencing nature reduces risks...

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

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Aimless » January 16th, 2018, 1:16 pm

I think this subject will attract more rants than controversy. The sort of people who would expect that rocks never fall down off cliff faces are unlikely to find their way onto an OregonHikers.org forum in order to argue their point. Furthermore, I have a strong suspicion that few such people exist (although there are a few, yes, to be sure). The impression that there are legions of such people is in part due to the propensity of the media to glom onto any story that smacks of 'man bites dog'. Stories about 'idiot files foolish lawsuit' also qualify. :)

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, 2:36 pm

Aimless wrote:I think this subject will attract more rants than controversy. The sort of people who would expect that rocks never fall down off cliff faces are unlikely to find their way onto an OregonHikers.org forum in order to argue their point.
I don't know if people are actually reading the linked article, but this topic is not about individual users who expect "safe" outdoors experiences, it is about policies that are being instituted to "guarantee" such experiences but that, in doing so, diminish the outdoor experience.

That said, outside of opposing specific legislation (yet to be an issue here in the NW), certainly a bunch of people on the internet will not solve this issue through discussion, and it will likely devolve into rants. But I'm still waiting for one of those pro-trail people to argue why it's better to have infrastructure and rules rather than not. (I mostly agree with Guy, but am probably somewhat less charitable. :) )
#pnw #bestlife #bitingflies #favoriteyellowcap #neverdispleased

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

Re: "Keep our mountains free and dangerous"

Post by Aimless » January 16th, 2018, 3:07 pm

I'm still waiting for one of those pro-trail people to argue why it's better to have infrastructure and rules rather than not.

Trails help you get places. Native Americans made trails. Ungulates make trails. Rabbits make trails. Lots of creatures make trails. Therefore, based on the historic usefulness of trails for humans and many, many other forms of life, I endorse them.

The mere existence of trails does not require the imposition of any particular rules, or any rules at all, upon their use, so it makes sense to decouple arguments in favor of trails from arguments in favor of particular rules. One can want trails and not want rules and be logically consistent. I want trails.

As for the making of rules generally, human societies everywhere have agreed that they are very useful. They regulate our interactions in ways that spread general benefits. When it comes to rules concerning the use of trails, I generally endorse those that preserve the common space from despoilation by selfish individuals. I am not an admirer of rules that limit access to the common space only in order to limit the number of people exposed to ordinary and manageable risks. If the risk is really enormous, like a trail that is clearly days or hours away from falling away into a chasm, then trying to keep people off it makes good sense to me. In real life, every rule needs to be evaluated individually. The devil is usually in the details.

I'm sorry if this is not an especially controversial set of opinions, but maybe some wrangling can be squeezed out them. ;)

Post Reply