<mod hat>
Let's try and keep our speculation out of the realm of slander and accusation, OK? Remember these are real people.
Let's try and keep our speculation out of the realm of slander and accusation, OK? Remember these are real people.
My feeling is, who the hell cares? Dude went in the woods, got lost and eventually got out. He might have had too much in his pack. Why speculate what his I.Q. is or why did he have so many screws or why no snow shoes. Who cares? If you want to take snowshoes in April, May, June, July or August, who cares? Take them. These threads turn into endless and nearly useless discussions of nearly blind speculation about the dude's motives and his expertise, was he well equipped, did he go the right way etc. Yet, if this guy was caught in the bottom of a pit toilet people would just assume he's weird, sick and disgusting -- no further discussion. There's a double standard going on in these threads...
-Dr. Wu
Thank You..I usually don't get involved in these discussions..on any of the forums...but it does amuse to some extent as I watch the hiking elite circle the carcass.
Note that he had basically self rescued before he was found while resting a short distance from the road.
Doug
Doesn't matter how close to the end you are, if your friends and relatives call you in missing, you're a rescue responsible and accountable for having mobilized public resources. People don't seem to get that.
haha, kinda true, the only think is IMO, its actually not the hiking elite - but rather those that have been hiking for a short period of time, maybe completed a list, do AMC type hikes with bring everything but the kitchen sink with you- (nothing wrong with that, but they aren't everyones' cup of tea) and all of a sudden think they know everything.
I will just end by saying in regards to snowshoes, I have noticed a difference in opinon by climbers and hikers. Most hikers love snowshoes and can't fathom anyone not wearing them and bringing them. Most climbers that I know don't like them- consider them a pain in the arse, extra gear, large gear hanging off a pack when climbing, and will stick to terrain where they are not needed, (pack trails, climbing routes, alpine, etc etc..)
Coco Chanel would be proud."little" black dress dry-cleaned
Waumbek, I hear what your saying, but this costing folks money argument bothers me a bit - and of course I will tell you why
my guess is this guy (and many like him) will cost the tax payer less money in the long run becuase they are healthy, in good shape, etc..
Hikers/climbers/Skiers for the most part are driven, succesful people that are not a drag on society. My guess is he is not on welfare, doesn't become a public money suck on housing and state funded health insurance, he is likely not overweight, doesn't smoke. so the 10K (or whatever) is spent on this fellow is money well spent because chances are, he will be healthier in the long haul due to being in shape.
drive through depressed areas and everyone seems overweight, smoking, and never at work (how about that early monring line at the boston meth clinic??) and I will bet most are some sort of "public" assistance costing taxpayer way more than probably all the rescues combined. I realize there is legit use of these social programs...but just trying to make a point.
my guess is the small amout of money spent on mountain rescues is lots less than the bill we flip these other things.
Hobbies keep people focused and enjoying life. People hiking the mountains is a good thing for society. For the amount of people that hike in the whites, I think rescues are rare and "shite happens".
Empirical "proof" is what Giggy's dishing up, or opining. Unequivocal scientific proof? Fuhgettabout it. Too many variables and anyway someone else can always come up with some other study that says what they want it to say.I'd want to see some empirical, actuarial proof that hikers are healthier than the general population. Sounds good, but is it really true?
Thank You..I usually don't get involved in these discussions..on any of the forums...but it does amuse to some extent as I watch the hiking elite circle the carcass.
I do, however, notice the number of hikers on this board who complain about or admit to being overweight. (Who's done that poll lately?) And think how many joint replacements we could avoid if people swam rather than hiked.
I am not familiar with the stats on hikers needing joint replacement, but there is plenty of research indicating obesity for the same. Put them together, and .....?
Obesity boosts risk of joint replacement
In 2005, 24% of the general population was obese, whereas 52.1% of arthroplasty patients were obese.
(sorry for the drift, but...)
I can't see basing rescue policies on the activity involved because one (hiking) is supposedly healthier than others.
I'd want to see some empirical, actuarial proof that hikers are healthier than the general population. Sounds good, but is it really true?
Enter your email address to join: