Recently a party of two guides and four clients died on Liberty Ridge on the north face of Mt Rainier. Their deaths has raised again a long standing question about the merits of allowing climbers to continue to climb routes on mountains where skill doesn't become the determining factor in success or failure, but rather "Lady Luck"!
Over the years I have heard varying arguements from those on both sides of the debate. Some Rangers in American parks have advocated shutting down routes like Willis Wall Central Rib Route on Rainer's North Face. Reason; The objective dangers from rockfall and avalanches is so great all year round that the merits of climbing vs the potential for disaster are just too great. They argue that the Ranger Rescue Teams and volunteer Mountain Rescue Units are put in to serious jeopardy in rescue and recovery attempts on routes like the one mentioned. They say it just isnt worth the potential for loss of life to allow such routes to be repeated or new ones opened up in these dangerous areas on mountains. Besides, they argue, the cost of rescues are very high.
Those that argue against closing routes on dangerous terrain say that this is America and we are free, in most part, to determine our own destiny. If I am well trained, in good condition, and pick the right time frame I should be allowed to climb any route, anywhere without interference from the government. If I get injured it is the duty of the Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and State and Federal Authorities to come to my aid just as though I was hurt in an auto accident, etc. That is what I pay my taxes for!
I think that both views have some merit in their arguements, I think however that those in the climbing world who attempt dangerous routes should weigh very carefully their own abillities to complete the climbing route they desire. They should be wise enough to take out insurance to cover the costs of recovering them if they are injured. Should they die on the mountain they should have in writing filed with the authorities that no body recovery should be attempted. Family should be made aware of the risks involved.
if you are not willing to do the above stay off of these dangerous routes!!
What is your opinion on the topic?

Pass a law that says, "If you aren't on pavement the government isn't responsible." Problem solved. No rescue. No body recovery. You are truly on your own.

Or, as the chief said, post a sign at the trailhead that reads, "fire breathing dragons, keep out."

Murph1 wrote: Those that argue against closing routes on dangerous terrain say that this is America and we are free, in most part, to determine our own destiny.

Why on earth (pun intended) are you limiting this discussion to America?

Murph1 wrote:If I am well trained, in good condition, and pick the right time frame I should be allowed to climb any route, anywhere without interference from the government. If I get injured it is the duty of the Park Service, Forest Service, Bureau of Land Management, and State and Federal Authorities to come to my aid just as though I was hurt in an auto accident, etc. That is what I pay my taxes for!

I agree that climbers should be allowed a very large measure of freedom in choosing which routes to climb, and when to do it. Those that chose foolishly may end up getting a nomination for a Darwin award. For those that are simply unlucky there is at least the consolation that they died doing what they loved. While my goal is to become an old mountaineer, I would prefer to die on a trip in the mountains than, say, suffer a long, painful illness. And on a different note, if you want to outlaw dangerous activities, we had better stop driving cars...

I completely disagree that it is the duty of any authorities to rescue me if I get in trouble. First and foremost it's my own duty to try and stay out of trouble. If I get in trouble anyway, whether it be through a freak accident or because of an error on my part, it still is my own responsibility to try to make it back to safety. If I can't, and there are any rescue services around to begin with, well, then I very much appreciate it if they come and help me, but I certainly don't want them to risk their own lives for it. It's not their duty to rescue me at all costs; only if it's safe for themselves.

As for paying for rescue? In some countries it's free, in others you have to pay, either sometimes or even always. If you can't afford that, get insurance cover. And there are even places where a rescue attempt won't get off the ground unless you have a friend that organizes it, and pays up front!

What would define a "dangerous route," and who would make the decision? People die on non-technical routes, due to inexperience, bad conditions, or bad luck. 10 clients and an RMI guide died in an avalanche on the Ingraham glacier in 1983. Does that make the route "dangerous?" Or does a route become "dangerous" when deaths on the route are covered by mainstream news reporters, who may not appreciate that any outdoor activity has a certain element of danger?

Until the recent incident made the mainstream news, most descriptions I'd seen of Liberty Ridge refered to it as a committing and moderately technical route with some objective hazards, but not as an extremely dangerous route (that was also my experience on the route, and that of my friends who have climbed it). Any committing alpine route becomes dangerous when conditions are bad and/or when climbers move slower than expected, are forced to deviate from their plan, and expose themselves to objective hazards of the route for longer than expected. According to reports, the Alpine Ascents team was forced to bivy on the ridge above Thumb Rock (the one relatively safe bivy spot on the ridge) but below the bergschrund - a very exposed place. While I haven't seen a reason given for why they bivied there, one can speculate that it was a combination of bad weather and moving slowly, perhaps because of the skill level of the client team. They were forced to rely on being lucky, i.e., that an avalanche wouldn't occur and sweep them off the ridge. That's apparently what did in fact happen, and killed them.

Just a few clarifying comments1
rgg: I didnt mean to exclude other places in the World . I was just using the context of the incident on Rainier. It could apply to many places in the World and many people. Europeans have been dealing with this question much longer than here in the U.S The governments and people of Nepal, Pakistan, Russia, and a number of former republics from the old Soviet Union are dealing with the issue right now.
JHH60: You mentioned than places like Ingraham Glacier might get a reputation as a "dangerous" route because climbing accidents have happened there. Anyone who has climbed near or on places like Willis Wall or the Wilson Headwall on Mt Adams can very quickly see the difference between these places and a climb on routes on other mountains. Climbers who go to mountains like Annapurna, and Kangchenjunga are well aware that their success is not based on technical ability, but on nature being on their side while on the two mountains.
Basically I am saying that dangerous routes seperate themselves from other routes by their shear threatening! When rocks, chucks of ice, and snow avalanches are coming down regularly around you any thinking idividual knows that the odds of getting injured are very high and sticking around in these conditions is a death wish. That is far different than going out on a glacier where a ice pillar collapses, or a snow bridge fails and someone is injured or killed.
I agree that "speed" and perfect "climatic conditions" are key to the success of attempts on dangerous climbing routes.

Murph1 wrote:JHH60: You mentioned than places like Ingraham Glacier might get a reputation as a "dangerous" route because climbing accidents have happened there. Anyone who has climbed near or on places like Willis Wall or the Wilson Headwall on Mt Adams can very quickly see the difference between these places and a climb on routes on other mountains.

I don't think you can assign a binary, "dangerous"/"not dangerous" value to routes. There's a continuum of danger that depends on the objective hazards, the conditions at the moment, and the overall skill, health, and fitness of the climbing party. Some of those things can be known in advance but others vary greatly and can be even greater factors in the overall danger of a climb for a given climber at a given time. That's why I ask how you would propose to decide a route is dangerous, and who would make the decision, assuming there were some kind of special process or insurance or permit or whatever for "dangerous" routes.

I've climbed next to Willis Wall and watched huge avalanches crash down it, and can't imagine that I would ever feel safe climbing it. But I also clearly remember, on one of my first alpine ice climbs (Dana couloir, a route many people would consider very safe), when a bowling ball size rock came down the couloir to my left, sounding like a jet plane as it passed. I remember thinking "I'd be toast if that hit me - I better make sure to stay away from the left side of the couloir when I can, speed up, and if I climb this again, start earlier in the day." Is Dana Couloir a dangerous route? Most people would say no, because the route is easy, and objetive hazards are relatively low, so the probability of something bad happening at any instant in time is lower than on some other routes, all other things being equal. But if you are inexperienced, unfit, or don't minimize your time in the risky sections of the climb, the danger of Dana Couloir is higher than a much more dangerous route would be for a highly skilled, fit, and fast moving climber.

PS clearly the risk and expense of a rescue or body recovery on a route like Dana couloir is going to be a lot lower than on a route like Willis Wall. But that problem could be solved by the authorities setting the clear expectation that, while your decision to climb is yours, based on your assessment of conditions, your own skill level and tolerance for risk, your chances of being rescued or recovered if something goes wrong are dependent on the rescuer's assessment of conditions, their own skills, and tolerance for risk, which may not be the same as yours.

The world is full is complete morons who can barely stumble their way through daily life. No one is clamoring to outlaw their stupidity.

Leave climbers alone. Out idiocy is carefully planned and well-intentioned, even if we end up like bugs on a windshield.