Boston Globe article on Mt Washington hiking

[DougPaul]

Yawn...

I think we have moved on from "castigate the victim" to "castigate the person who did something that doesn't look particularly wise".

Doug

 

[jmegillon149]

I think the real danger is that Washington is arguably the most dangerous peak in the Northeast. Despite that, it also has the highest ammount of ill-prepared, inexperienced people hiking it, at least in the White Mountains.

This article basically describes the author's level of experience as less than it probably is. It also describes the weather as being worse than it may have been.

My fear is that people will read this, and think that the hike is no big deal, bad weather or not. How many people will hike it, and think - "a bunch of inexperienced ten year olds made it, we can too."

Travel articles often inspire readers to go to those places and do those things, especially ones that portray seemingly difficult trips as being accessible. By writing a positively spun article about trekking above treeline in poor conditions with children may inspire people with even less experience to take a similiar risk in the future.

It would be more responsible, in my opinion, to talk about risk assesment, pro's and cons of choices, exactly what is required from a preparation and gear standpoint. It would also be well served to discuss outdoor training seminars such as those offered by AMC.

 

[Mike P.]

Albee, don't you add a judgment when you add shouldn't to your closing arguement? Without it, your just stating that just because I wouldn't do something, does not make it right or wrong, Shouldn't changes the statement.

Just like we should learn about auto accidents, touching the stove when the burner is red, etc. from other people's mishaps instead of our own (I failed these lessons personally) thinking through other people's hiking adventures or misadventures, as one fortunate rescuee referred to his trip, so we can learn somethings IMO is valuable.

From the way the article is written there does appear to be some seperation between the leader & the sweep. The writer is the leader of the article we don't know if he was the trip leader. We don't know the amount of experience & we don't know how much group communication was going on.

There are times that I've hiked with some of you & I've said straight out I'm a trip coordinator not leader. If weather is questionable we discuss it as equals. (that said, some of you I trust more in those discussion than others, a couple of you more than my own thoughts, I know I can get focused on the summit) If I thought the group was heading into danger, I could always turnaround & head back.

There are other times though, with school groups where I have more experience, more knowledge of the terrain, conditions, possibilities of what could be up higher & how long it may take to get to safety. In those situations I am the leader.

You sign up for a trip with a leader & the leader makes those decisons. The article never discusses leading, turning back, (except that he thought it would be hard & slick) discussions other people's thoughts, etc. I have read other descriptions where other people's thoughts were mentioned, not in this article.

In looking at the trail conditions, a couple of days after the 6/23 someone opted out of a S. Presi trip opteing for Willey Range. A couple of people did variations of pemi-loops 1/2 loops, reporting 40-50 MPH winds needing winter clothing & clothes. Tuco, our Tuco? & a couple of friends went up to Madison hut planning a traverse, they bagged it.

I trust that those who may get the globe keep us up to date in case the general readership makes some comments in the editorials.

IMO, this was a dumb trip almost in line with my drinking & driving as a teen. It must have been okay, I made it, I don't remember it all but I made it with no fur, skin or clothing in the grill & me & car in one piece. No danger, no worries.

 

[giggy]

It bothers me when people make speculative and judgemental statements..

you'll get over it -

last I checked we are allowed to have opinons on matters here. I have been on washington and the presidentials enough to back up my statments.

It was not a smart move in my opinion to do what he stated he did in the article. I don't give a crap if its embelished or not.

 

[David Metsky]

Remember, it's OK to argue with the post, but don't attack the poster. This isn't directed at any one person, just a general warning. This thread is running hot, please everyone take a step back and consider your words a little.

 

[Gris]

soaked..." If we could just make it to the shelter at the summit...

That kind of thinking has caused many deaths on the rockpile...

 

[Grandaddy]

we CAN just get along

OK, I think that we can all agree that this article should not have been printed in the Paper-of-Record-for-Eastern-MA-and-SNH.

The danger is in the encouragement that this article may give to desperate fathers trying to impress their son one last time before Dad's slow, inevitable decline into irrelevancy...at least until it is time pay for college.

 

[Kevin Rooney]

I think there's a big difference between this newpaper article and the type of posts which have occurred in S&R situations in the past. In this article we have to take the author at his word, that the situation, weather and conditions were as he described, that he had some cold weather gear for himself and the group but no raingear, and that he ignored (he used the term "undeterred") expert advice on conditions, and that he climbed into worsening weather. Based upon the facts as he presented them, many experienced posters have presented their views on whether he should have turned back or even done the hike on that day. I found very little speculation about the weather, conditions, etc - unlike some of the S&R situations.

If the conditions were as he described them, and there is no reason to believe they were not, then he made wrong choices.

 

[Kevin Judy and Emma]

I can't resist

I've been to the summit in pouring rain and high winds, then hiked back down. The wet lichen on the rocks was worse than ice, you can't wear crampons on rocks. In retrospect, I probably shouldn't have gone. I took some nasty tumbles. Could have easily broken something. I was alone, probably another dumb thing. As was mentioned before,how much more time is added out there in the rain and wind if something goes wrong. Is everyone in trouble now from the cold and wet? If I had anyone with me, we'd have turned around at treeline.

I just think the #1 rule is: the summit is only half the journey, you have to get yourself back out. Getting to the top to reach a train, or coach or whatever should not be a goal. Getting back down by your own power, intact should be the goal, of any climb. I don't give a damn if there are other options if "You just make the summit." Pushing on to reach the train wasn't smart. Getting himself and the people he was responsible for down and out of that situation, that would have been smart.

Once, going up the Jewell Trail we got soaked minutes from the summit on the Trinity Heights Connector. I immediately opened my pack and put on my raingear, my wife refused, opting to reach the safety of the summit building. She was soaked, we took the Cog down. It was never the plan, but the thought of hiking down the Ammo in the rain freaked her. It saved our asses, but I would never plan a trip with that in mind. Generally, I won't carry my wallet, so I purposely could not have the option anyway. On this day, my wife had hers, so we lucked out.

So, maybe it wasn't this guys plan to take the Cog down. Maybe it just saved his ass, but it seems to me he had ample time to rethink things and turn around. Being a tenth of a mile from the summit and being 5 or 6/10ths, as they were when it started raining on Lion Head, is a big difference in the rain and wind. If he's alone and wants to go for it, fine. If he's got kids in tow, well, I don't think he had the right to endanger them. They're only kids, they don't know. And as was said before, now they have this false sense of,"We can make it through anything." because their dumb luck got them through this time.

I think they took an unnecessary risk, pushing on.

KDT

 

[Grayjay]

We are more concerned, are we not, about the article rather than the actual experience. We all fondly remember similar days in the mountains, when the weather was a challange and our comradery deepened.
Experience is the key. There are a vast number of hikers who descend on the Whites with no experience. People you meet on the trail even assume that you have none, like them.
The media should be more mindful about misleading them.
By the way, this story brought to mind Dr. Dahl, who arragantly kept going and used his cell phone for rescue. Good thing it didn't end up like that.

 

[giggy]

for a couple of adults, the conditions were no big deal really, another day at the office for a pressie peak - and who cares if they planned to take the cog down, so what - that means nothing to me.

I just think the ages of the kids is what I didn't care for - combined with the conditions reported (true or not). In my opinion, this is all about the kids (not the adults) and you just don't take chances when they are that young - but thats just me.

 

[timmus]

Were you there? How bad was it?

Maybe the writer embellished the danger to make it a more exciting story.

I didn't even bother reading the article, and I went really fast through everybody's post. Right from the start I got to the same conclusion as Albee.

Newspapers exists to sell advertising, not to educate people on how to climb mountains.

It scares me how some vfttr's seems to put so much energy in trying to prove how right-minders they are. c'mon people, get a life !!

I am with you Dr Wu.

 

[dr_wu002]

c'mon people, get a life !!

I am with you Dr Wu.

Yes, but I'm really just a shadow of the man you once knew...

-Dr. Wu

 

[MadRiver]

I am slightly hesitant to post this, yet given that it does answer some lingering questions, I thought it might be relevant. Being somewhat evil, I emailed the author this thread so he could get a broader and unbiased perspective on his little adventure, and which might offer some gentle guidance for future hikes. I know, but I am sticking with that.

Anyway, here is his response. Keep in mind, however, he falsely assumes that I was the original author of the thread given his response, which you all know to be false. I have since corrected his error with a responding email, which I will not share. I’m not that evil.

“Hi R.J.,

You should never come to conclusions about a person from one article in a newspaper. This story had to be cut dramatically. Important information like Steve Ahearn's second comment to me, "that if you have the proper gear, you shouldn't have a problem" was unfortunately cut. As was his third comment, that there's "a steady stream of hikers who've already started up." You also state in your thread that I had a problem on Lion's Head. That's not true. It was perfect conditions all the way up Lion's Head to the top of the ravine. That's when I had to make a choice to either go back down again or continue along the ridge. All three children are strong hikers who I've climbed with extensively, so I never once thought we couldn't make the lodge. Also, it was our intention to take the Cog down the entire day. We had already booked our tickets. And I disagree with Rooney that you have to climb down a mountain to bag a peak, especially at age 8. Then why go to Washington in the first place, with its Auto Road and Cog Railway. Climb Lafayette.

Most of the negative emails I received from this piece were from people like you and Rooney who hike extensively and already know that the weather above treeline can change on a dime. They would have preferred I climb back down Lion's Head and try again. But I continued onward. I'm happy to tell an honest story of forewarning to climbers who aren't educated as you might be. And those are the people who thanked me for giving them a frank assessment of what Washington can be like in inclement conditions. They'll think twice about heading above treeline with the possibility of poor weather.

So don't be so quick to judge.”

Steve

 

[Puck]

Thanks for posting this Madriver. So now I think we should sent the editor through the gauntlet.

 

[dr_wu002]

Thanks for posting this Madriver. So now I think we should sent the editor through the gauntlet.

Maybe the editor had a bone to pick because he wasn't invited on the hike and he got all passive-aggressive when editing the article.

-Dr. Wu

 

[--M.]

Is it appropriate for a newspaper to write an article (which, as written, is tantamount to an advertisement) for a hike without adequately mentioning safety issues? Is there a responsibility to educate, or is it enough to call it a fluff piece and assume the reader will infer? When does editorial responsibility end and caveat emptor begin?

[There's a pretty good discussion of liability in Howe's "Not Without Peril."]

I'm otherwise mostly with Wu on this one (crazy and high though he may be).

--M.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Also, it was our intention to take the Cog down the entire day. We had already booked our tickets.

If we could just make it to the shelter at the summit, we could take the Cog Railway down, a far preferable option.

His statement about their plans doesn't really jive with the way it's framed in the article, which is what threw me off. If that was the plan all along, fine, but it kind of qualifies his statement about an "honest" story. But I suppose honestly stating that the top was their destination with locomotive ticket in hand kind of messes with the whole "adventure writing" theme.

That's "journalism" for you.

 

[Frodo]

A little discrepency I noticed:

Cog Railway Ticket Info

Line 11 states: "One-way tickets are sold from the top only and are subject to space availability".

Maybe their website is wrong, but it seems to imply that one way tickets down can not be purchased in advance.

The reason why I know this is because I am trying to purchase a one way ticket for my 13 year old daughter for the Flags on the 48 event.

 

[MadRiver]

Do you mean to suggest that a journalist misrepresented the facts? I’m shocked, shocked!