G-spotter Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 north south twin Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MountaingirlBC Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I'm still waiting for a compelling argument here. It bothers other people? You're telling me that on a mountain that size you can't get away from 14 people if you want to? It increases the risk of accident exponentially because why? I would think that a larger group would be in a better position to deal with an accident should one occur and I don't see the connection between group size and the likelyhood of an accident. I'm not saying there isn't one... I'm just saying I want to hear it. There were 26 people spread over two mountains which rise above logging roads & clearcuts. You'll find a hell of a lot more people than that in way more ecologically sensitive areas on any given weekend. What do you propose? Should we station rangers at all access points and only allow 3 people per mountain per day? What's the magic number? Why is the fact that we all knew each other more offensive to you than the throngs of smaller groups trampling alpine meadows in more popular areas? Surely you must have bigger fish to fry than this. There are worse evils in the world than 14 responsible mountain loving people playing outside. I'm not saying that large groups are a always a good idea. Yeah, as a general rule I like smaller groups. But given the facts, in this case, I don't think having a large group was a problem. Yes, I'm crabby and feeling like an asshole because I can't play this weekend. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
layton Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 I'd be happy to share reasons over some beers one of these days, but the amout of typeing i'd have to do to answer all your questions is way beyond my attention span right now. short answer: personal opinion. If I went to go do the twin sister and saw that many people on the route, i'd be pissed off, turn around and go home. as for a number, I'd say no more than 3 people per route. i think the accident increase should be common sense. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nolanr Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 3 people per route? Good luck w/ that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 For anyone having trouble understanding how more than 4 people in any backcountry trip increases chances of accidents as a product of decreased communication, here's a good recent read: http://clubtread.com/sforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16436 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MountaingirlBC Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 For anyone having trouble understanding how more than 4 people in any backcountry trip increases chances of accidents as a product of decreased communication, here's a good recent read: http://clubtread.com/sforum/topic.asp?TOPIC_ID=16436 Funny.... one of the guys in our group was on the SAR team that rescued these people. To compare our group to this group is a bit like comparing apples to lug nuts. And I believe this incident was a result of inexperience, poor planning & bad decision making which could have happened to any group size. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 This is not a hard concept. Large groups take longer on anything more technical than a sidewalk. They knock more rocks down. They have way more trouble communicating than a smaller group. There are way more personality clashes unless they are all sheep, in which case they cannot think for themslevs and are a liability to everyone else. As a general rule, anyone competent enough to be self-reliant in a technical mountain situation is not going to be content following instructions as part of a large group without having an opinion or input. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 Sending good vibs out to the injure party: good luck and speedy recovery. ____________________________________________________ Perhaps Mike is concerned that you built some fires for drying yourselves out? I heard that might be an issue. I understand that the tree limbs and twigs are suppose to rot or stay put as fuel for forest fires. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
luwayo Posted June 16, 2006 Author Share Posted June 16, 2006 (edited) some useful information has arisen from one of these tangental arguments. but it's poor form, with some disrespecting of the injured to continue criticising the injured party on an "accident notice". that alone raised my ire. so let's not slander them by declaring ineptness on this notice. truly distasteful. as for any appropropriate sentiments & discussion, carry on. Edited June 16, 2006 by luwayo Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted June 16, 2006 Share Posted June 16, 2006 some useful information has arisen from one of these tangental arguments. but it's poor form, with some disrespecting of the injured to continue criticising the injured party on an "accident notice". that alone raised my ire. so let's not slander them by declaring ineptness on this notice. truly distasteful. as for any appropropriate sentiments & discussion, carry on. Argh, I hate reading accident threads - impossible not to have it morph into an "issue" discussion Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
layton Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 no one has mentioned anything about the accident here, and no one died. that's like bringing up the holocaust as an example in an argument, or saying, "won't someone PLEASE think about the children" I'll talk about what I want when I want. TS. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
layton Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Click: good current events example The lead party fell backward, hitting a second party, and the mass of climbers then fell into a third party, he said. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 short answer: personal opinion. If I went to go do the twin sister and saw that many people on the route, i'd be pissed off, turn around and go home. as for a number, I'd say no more than 3 people per route. i think the accident increase should be common sense. So, Layton, if you walked up to...say...the NE Ridge of Bugaboo Spire, and there were more than three people on the route, you'd get pissed off and go home? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
layton Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 no, but if there were 26 people on it, i would. learn to read. i should also clarify that 3 people per climb meant, per group on said climb. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jordop Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 short answer: personal opinion. If I went to go do the twin sister and saw that many people on the route, i'd be pissed off, turn around and go home. as for a number, I'd say no more than 3 people per route. i think the accident increase should be common sense. So, Layton, if you walked up to...say...the NE Ridge of Bugaboo Spire, and there were more than three people on the route, you'd get pissed off and go home? I think you know the difference between a mass of people sieging a route together and a bunch of separate parties converging via a coincidence The difference lies in the responsibility a "party" has to its members. The larger the group the greater the responsibility/management gong show. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tanstaafl Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 no, but if there were 26 people on it, i would. learn to read. I did, I read that part where you said there should be "no more than three people per route." And um, speaking of reading comprehension, how do you get 26 people on one ROUTE out of 14 on the North Twin and 12 on the South Twin? Aren't those two separate mountains? And I always thought N Twin was a walk-up anyway, is it actually a "route," like there's only one way to go? Anyway, I'm not a fan of large groups either; I can't remember the last time I climbed with more than two other people, but hey, the people who like going out in big groups pay for public lands just like I do and I have trouble making the argument that they don't have the right to enjoy the land in their way because it might interfere with me enjoying it in my way. I admit I'm sort of playing devil's advocate here (and trolling Mike a little), but I read Guy and Laura Waterman's "Wilderness Ethics" a while back, and while it was interesting and definitely worth the read, I was kind of bothered by what I saw as their underlying assumption everyone else is somehow morally obligated to play by the rules of the people who want the most primitive experience. I don't like rules much and I'm not interested in making more even if they benefit me. Sure if I had my way all the national parks would look like North Cascades Nat'l Park, no visitor center, no RV hookups, no nature walks, none of that shit. But the people who love all that stuff pay their taxes too, soo...what about their rights? I don't think there's any simple answer. Sorry about the drift... Besides Mike I've seen you in action, I put my money on you to out-obnoxious any large group you want any day of the week, no contest. In fact that would be worth watching. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
matosan Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Any one have any more specific details regarding this accident? I'd like to get in touch with someone from the injured party if possible. If anyone has any contact info please send to me a message. Thanks, Matt Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
layton Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 "Besides Mike I've seen you in action, I put my money on you to out-obnoxious any large group you want any day of the week, no contest. In fact that would be worth watching" That's certainly true. where did you have that displeasure by the way? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MountaingirlBC Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Click: good current events example The lead party fell backward, hitting a second party, and the mass of climbers then fell into a third party, he said. sounds like it was 3 seperate parties (of probably 3 people per party which would be in keeping with your party size per route rule) Accidents on insanely busy routes like this are a whole 'nother topic. Hope they'll be ok. Details are still pretty sketchy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Choada_Boy Posted June 18, 2006 Share Posted June 18, 2006 Maybe it'd because people form Portland climb like shit. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.