I wonder what Tiger Woods thinks of all this media attention.

Tiger Wood drive the point home with an iron swinging all the way...what??? I think that wood be par for the course...

ExcitibleBoy wrote:

Bryan W wrote:Of course they could have gone without a phone, but that would be foolish in its own right.

Really?

Relying on a communication device to save your ass rather than experience, equipment and good judgement is foolish.

Yes, really, and nobody said that you don't rely on the things you mentioned. I said it would be foolish not to take a phone with you(on a mountain where you can get reception). Just as it would be foolish to leave an MLU in the car if you had one. Neither is going to do you much good when you are stranded on a mountain somewhere if they are sitting in the car or tent. Thanks for trying to flame though...DB.

BTW, everybody else thanks for the correction, updates, and so forth. I had thought Jerry was the guy, but now you have jogged my memory. This getting old thing sucks .

Bryan W wrote:

ExcitibleBoy wrote:

Bryan W wrote:Of course they could have gone without a phone, but that would be foolish in its own right.

Really?

Relying on a communication device to save your ass rather than experience, equipment and good judgement is foolish.

Yes, really.. I said it would be foolish not to take a phone with you(on a mountain where you can get reception). .

The three blokes who died on the NF a couple of years back had a cell phone. Fat lot of good it did them.

ExcitibleBoy wrote:

lowlands wrote:First, you decide to climb Hood, how long does a winter ascent usually take, 2-3 days?

One day.

lowlands wrote:That being said, you bring food for 4, maybe 5 days, yes?

No, it is only a one day climb

lowlands wrote: You start hiking, and a huge winter storm hits. This is where I'm getting lost, were these hikers not sensible, did they decide to keep climbing? Wouldn't you just hunker down, dig a small ditch, put your tent in it and wait? Did they get caught in an avalanche>

I've read the articles regarding this story, and from what I understand they were well-equipped and experience. Is this just the un-luck of the draw?

Nobody knows what this party did or did not do.

Thanks for the clarifications.

MoapaPk wrote:The kids who survived more than a week in the snow cave on Hood were on a milder route, were backpacking, had a shovel, a fair amount of food, and a stove. My former boss holed up in an emergency snow cave for 4 days, but he had a shovel.

Im not sure if this was a reply to my post or something written before it. I was referring to this story, specifically:

http://www.nzherald.co.nz/mountains/new ... 737&pnum=1

Inglis survived two weeks stranded on Mt. cook- although he did lose his legs.

If these poor guys are trapped in a crevasse they might not have any reception on their phones. But, if they have warm clothing and a stove (and survived the plunge), then perhaps they could make it several days. I hope the weather clears and somebody is able to examine some of the crevasses (or better yet, a fumerole) up high.

Fingers are crossed...

Perhaps a repeat...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34430112/ns ... yContinued

MoapaPk wrote:I wonder what Tiger Woods thinks of all this media attention.

Considering the last week, I would think he was hoping for about 400 people missing...that might pull a few media trucks from the front of his house.

MoapaPk wrote:Perhaps a repeat...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34430112/ns ... yContinued

more and more info, but still so many things unclear. Here's to hoping....

Does Hood seem to claim more than its share of victims? Or do the deaths there just get a lot of press?

BobSmith wrote:Does Hood seem to claim more than its share of victims? Or do the deaths there just get a lot of press?

Hood claims it's share, but based on the sheer VOLUME of bodies climbing that hill every year, it's gotta be a small percentage from a per capita standpoint. Prob seems that we have had some very heavily media-covered incidents, seems like one a year at least, that are enough to pull the armchairs out so they can start waving their legislation around...

lasvegaswraith wrote:

BobSmith wrote:Does Hood seem to claim more than its share of victims? Or do the deaths there just get a lot of press?

Hood claims it's share, but based on the sheer VOLUME of bodies climbing that hill every year, it's gotta be a small percentage from a per capita standpoint. Prob seems that we have had some very heavily media-covered incidents, seems like one a year at least, that are enough to pull the armchairs out so they can start waving their legislation around...

So now VOLUME dictates that DEATH on this, or any "hill", is now acceptable....


ONE DEATH IS ONE DEATH TOO MANY!

BTW, hiking up an established trail to any peak's summit, is not considered "Climbing" in my book. So please be careful how you and some others here, loosely throw this "ARMCHAIR" crap around.

The Chief wrote:

lasvegaswraith wrote:

BobSmith wrote:Does Hood seem to claim more than its share of victims? Or do the deaths there just get a lot of press?

Hood claims it's share, but based on the sheer VOLUME of bodies climbing that hill every year, it's gotta be a small percentage from a per capita standpoint. Prob seems that we have had some very heavily media-covered incidents, seems like one a year at least, that are enough to pull the armchairs out so they can start waving their legislation around...

So now VOLUME dictates that DEATH on this, or any "hill", is now acceptable....


ONE DEATH IS ONE DEATH TOO MANY!

BTW, hiking up an established trail to any peak's summit, is not considered "Climbing" in my book. So please be careful how you and some others here, loosely throw this "ARMCHAIR" crap around.

Chief - what I meant by volume is the simply the amount of people that head up Hood each year, both equipped and not, experienced and not. There can be no debate about that... I agree wholeheartedly that one death is too many. But based on the amount of people, the number would be lower in ratio than others. Just like Mt Washington in NH - nothing technical about it, but it claims people every year, as there are so many visitors, it just means the odds are eventually going to come around to unpreparedness (maybe not this case - we don't know yet) bad luck, weather, etc...

By armchairs, I mean to say bystanders, news watchers, politicians, people looking for an excuse, that clamor to have restrictions and closures and mandatory MLUs and self pay SAR, etc... People that have not and will not venture up this or any other mountain. You know the type...

Like this kind of stuff Chief....

http://www.sltrib.com/news/ci_13879115


this is what I mean by 'armchair'. I realize I use the same word thrown around earlier, but not with the same connotation.

Saddle mtn on the coastal range has claimed approximately 30 lives.

And it's only 2,300 ft high and considered a family day hike.

Perhaps the chief would like to ball out these people?