I can't tell you - but I regard all regular media coverage to be wildly inaccurate on such details. My rule is simple: If it is in the regular newspaper/radio/TV, just take for granted that they don't have a friggin clue what they're talking about. Modern media emphasise speed over accuracy - and who but us (and their relatives) gives a squat about their equipment anyway?



That list covers so different conditions it is almost incomprehensible. Only the very best elite climbers dare to try climbing K2. Mt hood has how many thousand visitors each year?



For climbers above a certain level of expertice and climbs above a minimum challenge, I am absolutely certain it would make no difference what so ever - they will climb that mountain anyway. (As a side note, I'm pretty sure if the official SAR service stopped going after them, their climbing friends - or unknown members of the climbing community - would go after them. Pretty much what happens anyway - ground based search and rescue after climbers must be done by climbers, right? Of course the government has stuff like helicopters that are too expensive for most spontaneous friends-and-friends-friends initiatives...)

If something goes wrong in the wild, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN! Search and rescue is a bonus you shouldn't take for granted. Your predicament may be so quick that everything else is a funeral service. Or all sorts of mishaps such as foul weather may put you beyond the reach of even the worlds best SAR resources. You can push all the magic buttons in the world, if it blows too hard neither that helicopter nor those on the ground will be able to do anything for you. You maximize the odds by preparing (which is what this site is all about, right?) but nothing can guarantee that you can't die out there. All climbers know this. They climb anyway.


Susan, you raise a very important ethical question. Where is the limit for the communitys life saving efforts? At what point does the community stop reaching out the helping hand? What level of danger is inexusable? What level of stupidity, boldness and thrill seeking behaviour is so flat out dangerous that we as a society will refuse to risk our resources when it goes wrong?


My own take on this: I start with the basic premise that I will not impose my judgement of "too dangerous" on other grown ups. Their life, their thrill seeking, their level of adrealine addiction - and they have to live with whatever happens as a result. I'm not a high risk thrill seeker, by the way, but I still enjoy doing stuff that some of you may consider flat out ridiculous dangerous. That's OK, by the way - if you think something is too dangerous you probably should not be doing that anyway. (Moving those "too dangerous" boundaries by proper training is one of the true joys of life, but each to his own).

From this premise I am led to a very practical solution: Since I have this "live and let live" approach to whatever dangers people choose to expose themselves too, I can't let those choices dictate wether saving them is appropriate or not. Sometimes it is not possible - too bad, stuff happens. But for me it is unacceptable to say to another fellow human: Sorry, but you are so stupid I will not save you even if I could.


Another take on this: It saddens me to hear of human stupidity having totally pointless mortal consequences. Trying to minimize that loss by searching and rescuing those who still can be saved seems to me to be a pretty good investment.