Re: [at-l] Billing for rescuing idiots. . . .

[Rick Bombaci <rpb@eoni.com>]

At 11:20 AM 1/3/00 -0500, Coosa wrote:

>"stupidity" occurs when a person does NOT prepare for the adventure, and
>when warned that his equipment is non-existent or not sufficient continues
>on dispite the warnings.   These are the people climbing the waterfalls.  Or
>those who proceed on up Mt Washington when they are warned by other hikers
>and rangers to return to the base.
>
>HOWEVER:  My local SAR friend, practices on the waterfalls a couple times a
>year with the SAR group -- they have harnesses, ropes, and all the
>paraphernalia of a "waterfall" climber.  They are prepared and they know
>what they're doing.
>
>Ernest Shackleton didn't light out wearing cotton shorts and teeshirt to
>cross Antarctica -- he prepared, studied, planned, set his course and
>carried the necessary gear and equipment.  It was not stupid that he got
>stuck on an ice pack.  One of the things he couldn't control the outcome of
>was the weather.
>
>Evil Knievel (and didn't his son do great recently!) studied all the angles
>before he made his various attempts to jump cars, canyons, etc.  He didn't
>hop on a moped and rev it up and try to fly across the objects.  I saw how
>his son checked the direction and strength of the wind, and I'm sure he
>learned all that from his Dad.
>
>Those who climb Everest and other high mountians in some countries have to
>pay big bucks before they're given a permit -- after paying large sums to
>climb up a mountain (or to challenge a mountain), they don't grab their
>nylon wind suits and tennies and start running up the trail.  They plan,
>sometimes for years and years, buy the best equipment they can find, test
>it, etc.  If they pay guides, they pay for the guide's planning expertise,
>too.

Is it stupid to keep climbing to the summit of Everest when it's after 1:00
p.m. and you know that if you do so, you will almost certainly die, because
you will not have enough time to descend to camp before nightfall?  Is it
stupid to keep pushing your ship into the icepack when you can see the odds
are that it is going to close around you?  Is it stupid to prepare well,
only to find yourself in a fix because you miscalculated the distance, or
failed to resupply at the last available water and decided to take a chance
and push on, or misread the map and gambled that you could bushwhack your
way out rather than staying put and waiting until morning?

I think my point is, "hindsight is 20/20" and oftentimes the line between
success and disaster is mighty fine indeed.  Isn't history full of episodes
in which people took great risks, perhaps flying in the face of accepted
beliefs, only to demonstrate that the "impossible" could be done?  And
isn't history equally full of episodes in which people took great risks,
failed, and were dismissed as fools?

Surely many people in the climbing community thought Reinhold Messner was
insane to attempt a climb up Everest solo and without oxygen.  If he had
died in the attempt, perhaps some would have shook their heads and called
him stupid.  But he succeeded, and has become a climbing idol.

I think part of the reason many people climb is precisely because there is
risk involved, and by accepting that risk one lives in the present, and by
succeeding in the face of that risk and surviving, one tastes the sweetness
of life all the more.

>
>Is "stupidity" a "right" -- "You have the right to be stupid, however this
>right may cost you a rescue fee if you fail to heed warnings and proceed in
>an activity which causes you to need to be rescued if that rescue is deemed
>reckless and an endangerment to the rescuers who have to rescue you from
>your stupidity."
>

In years gone by, the burden of responsibility was on the adventurer to
arrange for possible rescue in the event that things went awry.  In our
culture today, it seems the burden of responsibility is now on the
adventurer to arrange for NO rescue to occur.  Perhaps that is why some
people do NOT sign into trail registers--because at some level they are
trying to (temporarily) abandon the social contract.

Sooo, maybe... we should rethink whether Search & Rescue is a good thing.
(I know, I know, HERESY.)  This ties into the "have we the strength to
refrain from using technology just because it's available?" discussion.
Does the fact that we have the means to rescue people in remote locations
mean that we have a moral obligation to do so?  Perhaps we are actually
infringing on the individual's right to sever that social contract, to
eschew the comforts and safety of civilization.  Does the answer have
anything to do with the fact that, in most states, suicide is illegal?

Well, my stomach's growling and I've talked too much.  Just a few random
thoughts...

>Do I get the thirty points?
>Howling Wolf
>

Yes, oh yes, you get the 30 points.  Come on out to Oregon to collect.
Thirty points is worth two weeks in the Wallowas in my backyard.

R.
* From the AT-L |  Need help? http://www.backcountry.net/faq.html  *

==============================================================================