"Rise in 14er deaths reflects rise in..fearless behavior?"

Anyone see an "increase in fearless behavior?" I personally see this as a sensational headline without an substance in the article to back to back it up, in a sad attempt to get more readers and sell more advertising space.

I'm curious to know what others think about this, and the ideas of charging hikers and climbers to play, and requiring people to register.

--Marc

Beware the explosive growth of the Nanny State.
As to charging ever more to use public property, SCAM.
As to the 10 faces of tragedy, I see 10 faces of people who lived and died according to their own rules.

It's slightly sensational. The writer even says that there are fewer deaths in recent history and that the statistics are being kept by none.

The part that worries me is that this could be used to drive legislation or fees for the areas. When we clearly do not need them.

As an aside though, I do think and would have no problem paying a fee for Long's Peak usage. The park pass is $40/year. At least charge the people who aren't getting alpine starts. Just like the rest of the park, you can get in before the sun rises without having to pay.

New studies also show a positive correlation between increased human deaths and increased human population.

Yeah, I read that article this morning; was pretty disappointed in the state of our newspaper after finishing it. Blatant sensationalism, on top of which he (Jason Blevins, author) intermingles and freely substitutes "climber" and "hiker" as if they are one and the same. Looking at his other articles, maybe he's new and trying to get a foothold in the industry. In the end it's the editor that's responsible for greenlighting such crap to make final copy. Hell, it might even be the editor that pasted the title on the piece.

Misleading headline, pretty well written article with quotes from a variety of sources.

As others have stated, more people = more accidents. I do see a lot more dumb lines being skied on berthoud pass in the winter, but again, a function of numbers and not related to the explosive growth of the medical marijuana industry in Colorado or some other asinine idea.

And really ten people in one summer is comparatively low number. In the two months I spent skiing in Chamonix, there were something like 14 ski and climbing related deaths in the area.

Absolutely hate paying fees to access areas that were free in my teenage and college years. Would be willing to pay money for a dedicated, statewide, professional search and rescue program versus the current patchwork local volunteer system funded by fishing licenses and COSAR thing we have now.

Phillip Morris wrote: Would be willing to pay money for a dedicated, statewide, professional search and rescue program versus the current patchwork local volunteer system funded by fishing licenses and COSAR thing we have now.

Interesting thought, but I shudder at the political side of the state taking care of this. Not sure if that's what you meant by it. Or rather just a state wide private group.
The current small groups are nice in their ability to mobilize somewhat quickly though.

Sensationalism sells.

Is it fearless behavior or is that more people are taking to the peaks who don't have proper training, clothing etc?
Not saying that experienced people don't make mistakes or do things that can get them killed.

Yes, newspapers often use ignorance of statistics to gin-up a news story.

Mount Washington in NH is the "deadliest" mountain!!!

Not because it's so hard, but because more then 30 million people live really close and a lot of them go there.

Something I have seen about accidents in the mountains is that the headline sometimes really has nothing to do with the article. I believe one person takes the effort to research the article, gets sources, and writes a their findings; then another person (or group) does some creative editing to sex-it-up.

As for defining hikers v climbers, it really doesn't matter other than statistic counting. It's obvious to the responders that the accident happened while hiking up a trail or easy snow couloir, versus a team working a 5.10 route in Eldo or the Diamond. The responders are still going to respond. And the general public sitting on their f'n sofas arm-chairing their own failings in life will always think of anyone in the mountains as a complete moron. I lose no sleep over their supposed misery, they can always leave Colorado for all I care. They are not looked at to financially cover any of this.

This article though does have some points; it's not entirely without substance. Howard does have a good philosophy about personal responsibility and accidents in our mountains; as he has in the past proven how effective a level-headed approach can be to conduct successful mgt of any SAR response. He's only been helping save lives in the mountains since the early to mid-80's. Dale has probably been doing it since he was in middle school, granted I don't think he was stated in this article in question, but he does a great deal for ski mountaineering and avy training, on top of SAR efforts.

As far as fees, there will be no fees for SAR costs in this state or the NPS; nor will there be cost recovery for any SAR response, unless criminal conduct is a finding, or direct pre-hospital medical care is provided which then is only for the medical care portion.

Any discussion of fees are for a conservation purpose. The article does not correlate this very well at all in my opinion. They put up the dead bodies and post how much user fees will be to mitigate high use impacts on the lands (totally unrelated).

Whether you agree with the conservation purpose or not, a fee implementation or increase; no fee is charged based on an accident and SAR response, period. No bill is ever sent to anyone for the rescue that happens in the worst possible terrain five to twenty miles off the beaten path.

As for the system itself, it works. When was the last time anyone saw a climber not be rescued or recovered? Not too mention, these rescues by trained SAR happen fast. I will agree though, a big failing of what I see is that the mutual aid system is not used/refused to be used based on ego or a lack of understanding about what is really needed to operate efficiently and safely in back-country and technical terrain.

One thing also to consider, if you do a state sponsored pay to play & rescue program, all recreation will then be closed due to liability potential as a duty to rescue will then be created. Our society will not accept similar programs as Europe has as we are not supposed to be in the mountains to begin with; much less hanging our asses out on a five hundred foot cliff.

(this may be a better served discussion in the Colorado section, instead of looking for a climbing partner)

BrianH wrote:Yes, newspapers often use ignorance of statistics to gin-up a news story. Mount Washington in NH is the "deadliest" mountain!!! Not because it's so hard, but because more then 30 million people live really close and a lot of them go there.

"Not without peril" is a great book on Mt. Washington deaths...wait that didn't sound right.

HOOK LINE AND SINKER.......

That story did just want the author wanted it to do.....

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOOL