Posted on 12/17/2006 3:43:18 PM PST by ConservativeMan55
One climber found dead on Mt. Hood
"I don't think they should be prosecuted, but they should be billed for the expense"
Why don't you go back and compute that cost, and return to this thread once you've come up with a defensable figure.
Thanks for your "input".
"being at the top of Mt. Whitney and Mt. Rainier was the closest he came to touching God"
Gazing at Mt. Everest with my own eyes from 18,500 feet was something more than earthly. I was transfixed and speechless for almost an hour.
Climbers, hikers, mountaineers, and trekkers are all rewarded with that same feeling of closeness to the spirit, which most call God.
There is no nobility in dying from stupidity - dying for nothing, and hurting your family in the process, and also causing others to risk their lives.
Not all people have to take serious risks with their lives in order to feel alive.
You say he was a fighter. Fighter of what? A self-created disaster? Other than ego-stroking and/or personal gratification, what benefit would he derive had his climb been successful? What benefit does his family derive from his unecessary and completely avoidable death?
You, anchor, are being a jerk. You're asking for information that is not available to the general public (ie total number of hours spent) but is readily available to the agencies engaged in the rescue operation, but I'll tell you how to calculate it. Bill the SAR workers' time at $20/hour. Bill the helo time at $1400 an hour, bill any ground vehicles at $.47 per mile; multiply the number of hours spent, miles driven, etc by the appropriate dollar amount and add it up - not a particularly difficult task if you have the records, which I'm sure the agencies involved do.
"Why is it MY responsibility when they take on this risk?"
It isn't.
I suggest you get a law passed banning use of public funds for SAR activities.
The mountain rescue teams will still operate, and still go after "stupid" mountaineers, since they are private 501(c)3 non-profit organizations composed of volunteers. They'll operate as they always have, sans state or local public involvement.
But don't expect these non-governmental SAR teams to participate in your "government-authorized" rescues of "paying customers". They're under no obligation to do so.
But it's all worth the thrill they get at playing fast and loose so they can get that adrenaline rush from the danger of experiencing living on the alluring "edge."
It kind of reminds me of these homosexuals who refuse to wear condoms because of the thrill they get at the danger of contracting AIDS by having unprotected sex. They have said that very thing and now they have special orgies for them. I think they're called "bug chasers."
I didn't mean to compare the two as equal in their origin, only in the response of people. It is just what we do.
Because I don't feel like it, that's why. It's a lot of money to be sure. The exact sum isn't important to this conversation.
"Climbing season in the Himalayas is not in the winter though. Typically it is April through early May."
Not so. Lesser peaks like Pumo Ri, Island Peak, Ama Dablam (all within spitting distance of Everest) are regularly climbed beginning in November, at the conclusion of the monsoon season.
Sounds like he might be a trekker. The endurance needed is similar to climbing, but I don't think trekking is as dangerous.
Maybe not from a technical standpoint of the climb, but that's not what I'm talking about. I'm talking about wisdom and judgment. A fall on a slippery surface is predictable. A fall can cause an injury that prevents the injured from negotiating further slippery surfaces, also predictable. Sudden blizzards with hurricane force winds dropping temperatures to considerably below zero during December on that slope and summit was also predictable. Therefore, getting stranded on a steep, slippery slope at a high elevation where hurricane force winds and sub-zero temperatures was all predictable. The question then becomes is the thrill worth the risk of death? They obviously thought it was because they derive thrills from it, and that seemed more important than death to them, or perhaps he thought, "Nah, won't happen. Everything will be fine." Therein lies the lack of wisdom and judgment, which includes gross inconsideration of loved ones. I wonder if as Kelly came to the knowledge that he was going to die, he may have had second thoughts about how good an idea it really was when all was said and done, for his family, for himself......for eternity.
You may think him brave and his actions admirable somehow. I simply view him as selfish and foolish.
But whichever the case, may he rest in peace, and God bless his grieving family and friends.
I see. Got it.
*grin*
Yep, it was very strange to watch. You could almost hear King contemplating his best response, then just deciding to ignore the comment altogether.
I am tired of all the judgemental couch potatoes who sit around clucking like a bunch of hens.
These guys were experienced climbers doing what they loved. They have no doubt experienced more in a week than most people do in several lifetimes.
I am sorry for their families and I know these men would not have chosen to die, but they were doing what they loved and they knew the risks. They may have made mistakes, but they were not being stupid.
"It kind of reminds me of these homosexuals who refuse to wear condoms because of the thrill they get at the danger of contracting AIDS by having unprotected sex. They have said that very thing and now they have special orgies for them. I think they're called "bug chasers."
Just when you think you're read it all...
They can do what they want, but I get just as much "real living" by doing stuff with my kid, and I don't obligate the taxpayers to put up a big wad of cash if my activities don't go as planned.
I have a further theory that these people live on the "phoney edge" That they engage in risky behavior, but with the expectation that nothing will really happen to them. When it does, it comes as a big surprise to them and they expect everyone to dive in and bail them out.
That's one of the dumber posts on this thread.
But please, don't stop now. Follow your rambling to its logical conclusion: don't have children because you might have to drive them somewhere and that's taking a risk.
Agreed.
It was tongue-in-cheek. ;>
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.