by Norman » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:36 pm
by Bryan W » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:46 pm
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.
by ExcitableBoy » Tue Dec 15, 2009 10:55 pm
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). .
by lowlands » Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:00 pm
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 climblowlands 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.
by rickford » Tue Dec 15, 2009 11:07 pm
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.
by MoapaPk » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:30 am
by lasvegaswraith » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:36 am
MoapaPk wrote:I wonder what Tiger Woods thinks of all this media attention.
by lasvegaswraith » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:37 am
MoapaPk wrote:Perhaps a repeat...
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/34430112/ns ... yContinued
by lasvegaswraith » Wed Dec 16, 2009 1:59 am
BobSmith wrote:Does Hood seem to claim more than its share of victims? Or do the deaths there just get a lot of press?
by The Chief » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:13 am
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...
by lasvegaswraith » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:31 am
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.
by lasvegaswraith » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:34 am
by billisfree » Wed Dec 16, 2009 2:43 am
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests