Ageism or Irresponsibility?

[Peppersass]

As a hike leader in my community (and someone in her 60s), my first thought when I heard where he was hiking was of his age. I’m being honest - not judgy. I have folks in their 70s and a few in their 80s hiking with me and they are good company - grateful to be still doing it. But my routes are mostly flat. Balance, flexibility and coordination are challenged as we age. I don’t like hiking the Whites alone, but I never did. The difference now is that I worry less about unanticipated weather events and more about falling, tripping, turning my ankle without someone to get help.

 

[Spiny Norman]

Going out solo again would be irresponsible.

 

[Stan]

No and No.

It is a judgement call both by the hiker and those evaluating his fitness and experience for the specific hike. Age would not be the overriding factor.

... but, for me personally, there are hikes I would certainly buy my first Hike Safe card.

 

[peakbagger]

Going out solo again would be irresponsible.

Kind of a broad brush comment, who is the one to draw the line? and how is the line established? I encounter far more clueless young folks making potentially stupid moves than older folks.

 

[hikeritz]

One benefit of retirement is being able to hike mid-week, avoiding the weekend crowds, and most of the folks I meet on these hikes are of an "experienced age" and enjoying the same benefit. In late November 2019, when I was 61, I met a group of folks in the snow atop S. Kinsman, all with at least 15 years on me. I climbed the slide on N. Tripyramid last year with another retiree, and chatted with two other older gentlemen on Waumbek a few weeks ago. Then there was the time I met Ed Hawkins on Tecumseh, before I knew who he was. Thank goodness I didn't crow about my climbing accomplishments to a man who was working on his 9th Grid! Still going strong at 76.

 

[skiguy]

Going out solo again would

Maybe you folks can help me sort out a question I have regarding a recent rescue in Pinkham Notch...

The victim was an 83-year-old male who was hiking solo. He initially fell descending the Wildcat Ridge Trail and then again on the Lost Pond Trail, suffering a head injury. He called for a rescue after the second fall. (This guy chose to return on Lost Pond rather than do the easy road walk up Rt 16 to Pinkham, but that's another issue of judgement.)

His rescue required a difficult carry at the end of a long day for F&G. So here is my question:

Is it irresponsible for an 83 year old to attempt a hike (solo or otherwise) in the Whites?

I recall the guy who had a hip replacement that would occasionally dislocate being deemed irresponsible and charged for his rescue on Franconia Ridge a few years ago.

Do you think this aged fellow should be charged for his rescue?

Not crossing the Ellis at the bottom of Wildcat Ridge versus hiking Lost Pond Trail was a good decision IMO. Especially with what water levels have been as of late. Litter carries are difficult but Lost Pond Trail pales in comparison to above tree line scenarios. Anyone else regardless of age could have been in this same scenario. IMO teenage kids with very little experience would be more likely to land up in this same scenario. So is that irresponsible especially if they are hiking solo? It’s a free country and it’s National Forest Land where many of us pay Taxes to have those freedoms. Take that away and we are headed down a real slippery slope. It’s not anyone’s business other than the individual hiker to make decisions about their responsibilities regardless of the consequences good or bad.

 

[sierra]

Going out solo again would be irresponsible.

Why? it's his life.

 

[Jasper]

Kind of a broad brush comment, who is the one to draw the line? and how is the line established? I encounter far more clueless young folks making potentially stupid moves than older folks.

The hiker is responsible for assessing his/her capabilities. If it is an organized hike the leader has a responsibility as well. However, the primary responsibility remains with the hiker.

 

[peakbagger]

I think the case of Inchworm in Maine brings up some points not mentioned. Inchworm was the AT section hiker that got lost in Maine and effectively starved/froze to death waiting for a rescue that never came despite major efforts. Despite the Maine warden service trying to keep some details personal, the hiker was reportedly on various medications for onset of dementia/mental decline and had been for some time. Her husband was supporting the effort by dropping her off and picking her up at the end of each section. This was not a case of sudden onset decline, she reportedly had increasing issues for months. Another section hiker effectively adopted her to keep an eye out for her, reportedly for several weeks, and eventually got off trail as a reason to stop hiking with Inchworm as she was at the point that stepping off the actual trail footbed generally would lead to her becoming complete disoriented.

I think it's obvious that to a rational outside observer, she should not have been hiking solo or even with casual assistance. Yet hiking apparently gave her great joy and her husband did what he could to let her live out her goal of hiking the AT as her world closed in. Was it irresponsible for her to keep hiking? Was it irresponsible for her husband to let her go out there?. My guess is as a couple they would have answered no, while any rational outside observer would probably say yes. In that case, and by extension any competency question, what authority is going to make the call and how will that call be enforced? I think in the rare cases that pros are called in, about all they can do is put on their "therapy hat" and try to convince the party that what they are planning to do is not advisable. Of course, there is the take a name and next of kin approach but ultimately in the US someone is going to have to go out in the woods and haul the person or body out. BSP used to have the rangers "screen" hikers and prevent hikers from ascending Katahdin on certain days due to weather conditions but even they have pretty well have given up screening hikers and the no hike days are now just advisory.

 

[dug]

I think the case of Inchworm in Maine brings up some points not mentioned. Inchworm was the AT section hiker that got lost in Maine and effectively starved/froze to death waiting for a rescue that never came despite major efforts. Despite the Maine warden service trying to keep some details personal, the hiker was reportedly on various medications for onset of dementia/mental decline and had been for some time. Her husband was supporting the effort by dropping her off and picking her up at the end of each section. This was not a case of sudden onset decline, she reportedly had increasing issues for months. Another section hiker effectively adopted her to keep an eye out for her, reportedly for several weeks, and eventually got off trail as a reason to stop hiking with Inchworm as she was at the point that stepping off the actual trail footbed generally would lead to her becoming complete disoriented.

I think it's obvious that to a rational outside observer, she should not have been hiking solo or even with casual assistance. Yet hiking apparently gave her great joy and her husband did what he could to let her live out her goal of hiking the AT as her world closed in. Was it irresponsible for her to keep hiking? Was it irresponsible for her husband to let her go out there?. My guess is as a couple they would have answered no, while any rational outside observer would probably say yes. In that case, and by extension any competency question, what authority is going to make the call and how will that call be enforced? I think in the rare cases that pros are called in, about all they can do is put on their "therapy hat" and try to convince the party that what they are planning to do is not advisable. Of course, there is the take a name and next of kin approach but ultimately in the US someone is going to have to go out in the woods and haul the person or body out. BSP used to have the rangers "screen" hikers and prevent hikers from ascending Katahdin on certain days due to weather conditions but even they have pretty well have given up screening hikers and the no hike days are now just advisory.

I hadn't heard about some of these issues, which would be a cause for concern.

But it also strikes me in reply to Sierra's comment about it being "their life". The issue becomes when the resources go beyond that individual's life. The S&R cost the state a lot of money and potentially put those personnel into harm's way. We do know of rescue personnel meeting a tragic end themselves. So I believe we should be aware of how our decisions impacts others, intended or not.

 

[jrcinnh]

I don't know the answer, but there is a pattern here:
Hey I'm having fun doing something.
Sometimes people get hurt
Let's get together and help the people who get hurt
Still, too many people get hurt
Let's make up some rules
People are still getting hurt, let's get the government involved
Do you remember the old days when you could just go hike, without permits, and licenses

 

[BillyGr]

I think the case of Inchworm in Maine brings up some points not mentioned. Inchworm was the AT section hiker that got lost in Maine and effectively starved/froze to death waiting for a rescue that never came despite major efforts. Despite the Maine warden service trying to keep some details personal, the hiker was reportedly on various medications for onset of dementia/mental decline and had been for some time. Her husband was supporting the effort by dropping her off and picking her up at the end of each section. This was not a case of sudden onset decline, she reportedly had increasing issues for months. Another section hiker effectively adopted her to keep an eye out for her, reportedly for several weeks, and eventually got off trail as a reason to stop hiking with Inchworm as she was at the point that stepping off the actual trail footbed generally would lead to her becoming complete disoriented.

I think it's obvious that to a rational outside observer, she should not have been hiking solo or even with casual assistance. Yet hiking apparently gave her great joy and her husband did what he could to let her live out her goal of hiking the AT as her world closed in. Was it irresponsible for her to keep hiking? Was it irresponsible for her husband to let her go out there?. My guess is as a couple they would have answered no, while any rational outside observer would probably say yes. In that case, and by extension any competency question, what authority is going to make the call and how will that call be enforced? I think in the rare cases that pros are called in, about all they can do is put on their "therapy hat" and try to convince the party that what they are planning to do is not advisable. Of course, there is the take a name and next of kin approach but ultimately in the US someone is going to have to go out in the woods and haul the person or body out. BSP used to have the rangers "screen" hikers and prevent hikers from ascending Katahdin on certain days due to weather conditions but even they have pretty well have given up screening hikers and the no hike days are now just advisory.

Perhaps in such a situation, if she still wants to hike and he is OK letting her, simply don't request the assistance.

If you are planning to pick her up at a certain point and she isn't there, you can attempt (if you are OK) to hike back to the start point for that section and look for her (then if you find her, you can request help as it is much less risky than a big group searching, or if she is beyond help you can mark the location for recovery when conditions are better), without putting others into the situation.

Sounds odd, but with someone in that situation they may be happier to have such an ending than they would sitting in a chair (much the way some want rules to allow people to end their own lives when a condition no longer allows them to live regularly).

 

[maineguy]

Do you remember the old days when you could just go hike, without permits, and licenses

I hear ya...but...I have been hiking for a loooong time and back in the 60s there were fire permits required in the Whites as well as permits required for overnight trips into the Great Gulf. Had to use overnight permits in Yosemite in the 70s...etc, etc, etc.

But I agree...you don't want the government involved.

 

[skiguy]

I don't know the answer, but there is a pattern here:
Hey I'm having fun doing something.
Sometimes people get hurt
Let's get together and help the people who get hurt
Still, too many people get hurt
Let's make up some rules
People are still getting hurt, let's get the government involved
Do you remember the old days when you could just go hike, without permits, and licenses

Don't forget more signage on top of Lafayette while were at it.

 

[maineguy]

Take that away and we are headed down a real slippery slope.

I try to avoid those at all costs, especially when hiking alone

 

[jrcinnh]

I'm not sure I want to give up the safety net, But also not sure the best way to pay for it, also don't want anyone telling me what to do.

 

[peakbagger]

Long ago one of our forum members who was in the insurance game ran the numbers on the market for a theoretical rescue insurance policy. I think he came to the conclusion that no private company would ever offer it as it was a loser. Sort of like flood insurance and homeowners insurance in Florida, the only entity that can offer it is the government

 

[JoshandBaron]

Long ago one of our forum members who was in the insurance game ran the numbers on the market for a theoretical rescue insurance policy. I think he came to the conclusion that no private company would ever offer it as it was a loser. Sort of like flood insurance and homeowners insurance in Florida, the only entity that can offer it is the government

Given that I have a rescue insurance policy, what made the theoretical one impossible?

 

[peakbagger]

You would need to go searching around the archives for that discussion.

 

[Puma concolor]

“Irresponsible” is a subjective notion that is probably defined differently by everyone here. So my “no opinion” hat is firmly in place as far as that’s concerned.

But I think there was a clear overestimation of physical ability/underestimation of the effects of age at play here.

My first season of 4K hiking was exactly 30 years ago when I banged out 20 46R peaks in the Adirondacks. The effort required to hike uphill can be managed across the decades with good cardiovascular fitness and I can still do a 4,000 to 5,000 foot elevation gain day without too much of an issue. Uphill is all about gross large muscle movement.

Downhill is a different story. My legs were like shock absorbers 30 years ago and I could fly. Practically run downhill and jump down 6 foot drops. Now, not so much. No amount of training will change that as muscle reflexivity goes away with age. I am slow.

There is a reason that almost all professional athletes are retired by age 40. Even Tom Brady only made it to his mid 40s. This isn’t ageism. It’s observation of the obvious.

This unfortunate gentleman fell not once but twice and then couldn’t react quick enough to stop himself from konking his head. That’s age. Plain and simple.

I’m not going to suggest that he change anything though. As others have said, it’s his life and it’s a national forest … so hike on if that’s what he wants to do.