|
|
Post by frankhs on Jul 27, 2012 16:36:12 GMT -5
This spring there were a two or three mountain climbing pairs who perished climbing Mt. Hood. I used to feel sorry for any such human deaths. But I now preach to self (against natural feelings) that these men (and many other similar risk seeking types) probably do not value their lives the way I value mine. Feel sorry for their innocent families at home, but not for this this kind of unnecessary risk takers. Additionally, public funds should not be used to rescue such risk taking. Let them climb mountains while funding their own stand-by helicopter squad, or however they choose. Long ago mountain climbers were a scientific endeavour, but to climb Mr. Hood is purely an ego trip. Do it if you must, but don't involve the public. Anyone disagree?
|
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Jul 27, 2012 16:49:07 GMT -5
I agree. I mean, if I feel like dancing on the highway, I'm taking a risk, and I shouldn't expect someone to bail me out when things don't go according to plan.
|
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Jul 27, 2012 17:43:53 GMT -5
I disagree that mountain climbing is an ego trip. The primary reason most people climb mountains is because they enjoy it. The ego element is there but typically no more so than with any other hobby.
I love hiking, getting to the top and enjoying the view. I can't think of any hike that was so singular as to give me bragging rights though. Hiking is safer than mountain climbing but at age 17, I managed to fall down a precipice while hiking and broke my back (compression fracture of the lumbar vertebra). No helicopters were involved, no rescue teams assembled, I just limped back down using my younger brother as a crutch. Once down, my father drove me to the hospital after which I was bedridden for three months. I still managed to graduate from high school that year. My brother was so sore from the burden I place on him that he couldn't go to school for two days.
If public funds shouldn't be expended to rescue stranded or injured mountain climbers, should we then not spend money to rescue swimmers who accepted the risk of swimming in the ocean or boaters who assume the risks involved in their sport? How do you determine what risky activity merits government funded rescue services?
Incidentally, many rescuers are volunteers but of course even with them, there are still costs borne by the taxpayer.
|
|
|
|
Post by frankhs on Jul 27, 2012 17:55:54 GMT -5
If public funds shouldn't be expended to rescue stranded or injured mountain climbers, should we then not spend money to rescue swimmers who accepted the risk of swimming in the ocean or boaters who assume the risks involved in their sport? How do you determine what risky activity merits government funded rescue services? . I don't claim to know exactly where to draw the finer lines, but I do know low-hanging fruit is the place to start. No public funds for rescuing anyone wishing to climb Mt. Hood, and none for anyone wishing to swim the ocean. Traditional beach lifeguards, and easy hiking parks, different thing. If you like big risks, then make your own big provisions. |
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Jul 27, 2012 18:59:33 GMT -5
People can do whatever they want for fun, but I personally think that anyone who really risks their life just for fun and has a family back home is incredibly selfish.
As far as public funds go for rescue, I'm not against public rescues being provided, but I think there should be a requirement for those rescued to pay for it. I broke a collar bone on a mountain biking trip in Moab and walked 8 miles out of the desert in pretty tough shape (lost 4 toe nails in the process b/c I was in biking shoes). I thought about calling for help but figured I could make it and I did. Had I been more seriously hurt, out of water, or otherwise in desperate shape, I would want the option for some help.
|
|
|
|
Post by herbhunter on Jul 27, 2012 19:19:47 GMT -5
I agree that folks with dependents at home shouldn't participate in the riskier sports.
When a member of my family had to be airlifted by helicopter out of the Grand Canyon, we were billed for the helicopter flight and the stay in the park clinic.
|
|
|
|
Post by naill on Jul 27, 2012 19:59:26 GMT -5
Usually the danger comes from inexperience and lack of the skills to self rescue. I paddle whitewater and am certified in swift water rescue. I went through the training because I feel I have an obligation to my other paddling friends since they also were there for the training so they could aid me if needed.
If we abstained from everything that might affect our family, we would not leave the bed.
|
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Jul 27, 2012 20:37:01 GMT -5
If we abstained from everything that might affect our family, we would not leave the bed. True, but some activities have a very high likelihood of serious injury or death. For example, until recently, climbing Everest had a pretty high death rate. |
|
|
|
Post by donalgdon on Jul 27, 2012 20:38:06 GMT -5
Good point. I don't have any particularly dangerous hobbies, although not leaving the bed (couch, chair) is actually turning out to be more dangerous than the other options, including smoking, as the data emerges on the effects of the sedentary lifestyle plaguing most Americans today.
|
|
|
|
Post by naill on Jul 28, 2012 6:36:24 GMT -5
If we abstained from everything that might affect our family, we would not leave the bed. True, but some activities have a very high likelihood of serious injury or death. For example, until recently, climbing Everest had a pretty high death rate. That is the extreme, Tod. I think I remember that you like to do some road bikeing like me which carries some danger from motorists, same with jogging. Hunting has it's dangers as does, swimming and hiking. There is also the subject of experiencing a good death. I would prefer to die doing something I enjoy than wasting away in a hospitial bed. I think my family would prefer the former as well. |
|
|
|
Post by thedude on Jul 28, 2012 7:31:01 GMT -5
True, but some activities have a very high likelihood of serious injury or death. For example, until recently, climbing Everest had a pretty high death rate. That is the extreme, Tod. I think I remember that you like to do some road bikeing like me which carries some danger from motorists, same with jogging. Hunting has it's dangers as does, swimming and hiking. There is also the subject of experiencing a good death. I would prefer to die doing something I enjoy than wasting away in a hospitial bed. I think my family would prefer the former as well. Well, yes, I'm talking about the extreme cases. Also, regarding going out in style, I'm not sure I can agree on that. It's one thing to die in a hospital bed at the end of a long illness and suffering, but who is really going to trade that to die many years earlier doing something fun and in the process lose all those years spent with the family? |
|
|
|
Post by naill on Jul 28, 2012 8:39:55 GMT -5
Also, regarding going out in style, I'm not sure I can agree on that. It's one thing to die in a hospital bed at the end of a long illness and suffering, but who is really going to trade that to die many years earlier doing something fun and in the process lose all those years spent with the family? Me. I can't add days to my life, but I can add life to my days. My grand mother just passed away at 103. Because of her refusal to use a cane and or walker, she sat down at 94 and never made any effort to get out of her chair. |
|
|
|
Post by frankhs on Jul 28, 2012 8:40:52 GMT -5
Also, regarding going out in style, I'm not sure I can agree on that. It's one thing to die in a hospital bed at the end of a long illness and suffering, but who is really going to trade that to die many years earlier doing something fun and in the process lose all those years spent with the family? Ditto. Some folk speak on behalf of the dead after accidents, such as for dead pilots. "Well at least he went out doing what he loved. And when my time comes, I hope I'm blah, blah....etc" Okay, let's pretend Dead Pilot got to see the future early that morning--would he have said, "YEAH BABY, let's go fly, I love it!" |
|
|
|
Post by naill on Jul 28, 2012 8:55:19 GMT -5
Also, regarding going out in style, I'm not sure I can agree on that. It's one thing to die in a hospital bed at the end of a long illness and suffering, but who is really going to trade that to die many years earlier doing something fun and in the process lose all those years spent with the family? Ditto. Some folk speak on behalf of the dead after accidents, such as for dead pilots. "Well at least he went out doing what he loved. And when my time comes, I hope I'm blah, blah....etc" Okay, let's pretend Dead Pilot got to see the future early that morning--would he have said, "YEAH BABY, let's go fly, I love it!" Take the same pilot, give him either flying or being diagnosed with small cell ca of the lung the following week and ask him what he would prefer. I don't think this is a topic that requires a consensus but it is interesting how people live in fear and never live. |
|
|
|
Post by frankhs on Jul 28, 2012 9:08:17 GMT -5
Take the same pilot, give him either flying or being diagnosed with small cell ca of the lung the following week and ask him what he would prefer. I don't think this is a topic that requires a consensus but it is interesting how people live in fear and never live. Agree, and I accept the personal decision of someone who may say "Livin' without cigarettes ain't really livin', so leave me alone." Fine. But too bad your choices costs everyone else in your health insurance pool. From "It Ain't Necessarily So" ( Ira Gershwin) "But who'd call that livin' when no gal would give in, to someone who's 900 years.?" |
|
