Which is more dangerous?

[dinomyte]

I was just reading in the newb forum, and billcoe stated that he "still rock climbs, which is lower risk than mountaineering."

 

I was wondering what people think of that statement. Please note that this not to jump on him, and I totally understand that there are many different variations of "rock climbing" and "mountaineering."

 

Personally, I am more of a mountaineer.

 

Because the two are so different, I have a hard time comparing them. I did have a few thoughts though, and this is just rambling.....

 

- Rock is rarely climbed in horrible weather.

- It seems like you have to know a lot more knots and such to rock climb.

- To me, it seems like moutaineering could be more forgiving, i.e. you take a fall and self-arrest. But I guess that could be compared to taking a fall on rock and your pro holding.

 

I'm sure that more people die mountaineering than rock climbing, but I think that's probably because people underestimate the difficulty. Seems that the gear required is less as well, which might open it up to more people.

 

Anyway, sorry for the rambling and sorry if this has been discussed before.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

[ericb]

I was just reading in the newb forum, and billcoe stated that he "still rock climbs, which is lower risk than mountaineering."

 

I was wondering what people think of that statement. Please note that this not to jump on him, and I totally understand that there are many different variations of "rock climbing" and "mountaineering."

 

Personally, I am more of a mountaineer.

 

Because the two are so different, I have a hard time comparing them. I did have a few thoughts though, and this is just rambling.....

 

- Rock is rarely climbed in horrible weather.

- It seems like you have to know a lot more knots and such to rock climb.

- To me, it seems like moutaineering could be more forgiving, i.e. you take a fall and self-arrest. But I guess that could be compared to taking a fall on rock and your pro holding.

 

I'm sure that more people die mountaineering than rock climbing, but I think that's probably because people underestimate the difficulty. Seems that the gear required is less as well, which might open it up to more people.

 

Anyway, sorry for the rambling and sorry if this has been discussed before.

 

Thoughts?

 

 

 

Great question....his thread got me thinking as well as I just recently became a father and was thinking about starting a similar thread. I think one question is as far as rock goes, are we talking trad or sport. I'm guessing trad is more dangerous as the protection is less sure.

 

I think you can get hurt or killed doing either one, but perhaps the big differentiator is objective hazard. I think making a mental error in either rock climbing or mountaineering can be fatal, but I think you are more in control of your own destiny when rock climbing...that is assuming you are not on a multipitch crag route with people potentially kicking rocks down on you. Those are my first thoughts but I look forward to the discussion.

Edited November 27, 2007 by ericb

[ivan]

mountains are clearly more dangerous than cragging, espeically if you're doing difficult rock climbing in the mountains - what's it matter? we all know we can get killed anywhere, so if we have commitments that matter we cover'em w/ insurance and go about enjoying our lives? i respect folks decision to give up alpinism in view of their new families, but i just can't begin to understand it - i guess the mountains just mean so much more to me? it can't be that my family means less...but then how the hell does one ever go about quantifying such things?

[ericb]

..... so if we have commitments that matter we cover'em w/ insurance and go about enjoying our lives? i respect folks decision to give up alpinism in view of their new families, but i just can't begin to understand it - i guess the mountains just mean so much more to me? it can't be that my family means less...but then how the hell does one ever go about quantifying such things?

 

FWIW, my wife would much prefer my son having a father growing up than having $750K in her bank account

[dinomyte]

I'm a new father as well.

 

I was just interested in a discussion of the comparative dangers. Of course, we all know you can die doing pretty much anything.

 

My family means a lot to me, but that doesn't mean giving up mountaineering, snowboarding, etc. Does it mean taking fewer risks? Maybe.

 

For me, I think I'd be a worse father for sitting around with the family and resenting them for the fact that I couldn't go out and do my thing than actually going now and again and being the happier for being around them.

 

I can't quantify those things either.

 

I guess my interest was not necessarily in parents giving up their passions for family, though that is an interesting point as well.

[G-spotter]

By "mountaineering" do you mean volcano hiking, or alpine climbing?

[ClimbingPanther]

 

what's the difference?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

hehe

[kevbone]

 

- Rock is rarely climbed in horrible weather.

 

 

You apparently dont live in Portland.

[Rad]

This is something all fathers on this board, and there are many, have wrestled with internally. Ultimately, each must make his own choices. For me, coming back in one piece is imperative, but what would be the point of climbing if all risk and uncertainty were removed?

 

Regarding some comments above, I disagree with the suggestion that 'hard' rock climbing is more dangerous than easy rock climbing. I would argue that the opposite is true.

 

Look at accidents over the past few years in the Northwest and you'll find that most cases involve inexperienced people getting badly hurt or killed on easy (4th-low-fifth class) terrain. Someone else can chime in with statistics, but accidents in North America and Yosemite almost always boil down to one of two things: bad judgment (e.g. rapped off rope end) and/or bad luck (e.g. rockfall or avalanche). In many cases, good judgment can reduce the 'bad luck' events as well (learn to read weather and alpine terrain, know how to retreat, know how to climb gingerly in the alpine, carry the right gear, and have experience getting out of jams).

 

I would suggest that 'hard' rock climbing (say 5.10 and up), including alpine trad, is usually quite safe. I suspect this is largely because these climbers are more experienced and make better decisions than newbies and the routes are steeper and may be less prone to rockfall.

 

Regarding trad vs sport, RUMR has suggested, and I agree, that well-placed trad gear on non-runout routes is pretty much as safe as bolts. In fact, trad leaders are more likely to think strategically about protecting themselves than those who blindly clip and go.

 

In sum, safety is born out of good judgment, which usually comes from extensive experience. That's my rationalization anyway...

 

OK, now back to work so I can get to the gym and then get the kids from daycare

[ericb]

.......For me, I think I'd be a worse father for sitting around with the family and resenting them for the fact that I couldn't go out and do my thing than actually going now and again and being the happier for being around them....

 

I hear this a lot, and I guess what I come back to is that resentment is a choice. If you really believe that your kids are better off having a father growing up (both financially and emotionally), and that it would seem selfish to deprive them of this, even if you died "doing something you loved", then why would you become resentful of this. Our attitude is something we control.

 

If my wife was the one that was spelling out what I could and couldn't do, I suppose I might be a bit resentful of her, but that's not the case. I know she craves time with me, and that she does not want to contemplate a life without me. I know she feels my son's emotional well-being is highly dependant on the quantity and quality of his relationship with me (as do I). Ultimately, she leaves it up to me to decide and set the boundaries around my activities, and I choose to climb less, and with less tolerance for risk. If I become resentful of this, shame on me...I chose to get married, and I chose to have a family.

 

 

[billcoe]

hmmm

 

What Rad says certainly strikes a cord. Jim Anglin passed away 2 weeks ago by falling off of the descent trail. Not on a burley dangerous climb, of which he had FA's on many. I was with another well known Oregon Climbing pioneer whom almost died after slipping on the mud at the Butte at the bottom of the easy downclimb by Blackberry jam (he had finished the downclimb and was standing on the wet dirt when he slipped, several surgeries and 4 weeks or so in the hospital...).

 

My statement on the other thread was for me: and I see many other parents putting it way out there further than I want too on a regular basis. Here's a reworked version.

 

Originally Posted By: Stick

I appreciate your comments and concern.

To the ones who commented on the risks they take climbing and not wanting to put there kids into the situation, if its such a dangerous activity why would you risk leaving your kids to grow up without a father should you be killed climbing?

.......

 

 

Speaking only for myself, it was considered and acted on.

 

I had summited Hood well over 30 times before my (now 21 year old) daughter was born.

 

I have not been there to climb except once since, (COUGH*outofshape*COUGH*fatbastard*COUGH) and that was only to fulfill a guide contract for a friend. We got off the summit 20 min before a major lightning storm hit. We stopped below the cloudcap and started back up when it passed to go help some highly skilled, highly experienced, very savvy Portland Mt. Rescue folks who were still going up as we were going down. They were fine as it turned out, but not by much. Proving you can be the very best Mt climber in the world and end up dead. I can name some names and circumstances if you would like.

 

The loudness of a lighting strike near you is not something you can communicate on a computer. An unexpected avalanche, crevasse bridge collapse or humoungous rock whizzing right by your head can be equally shocking.

 

As far as answering your first question, I bumped my life insurance and stopped what I consider the high risk things. I don't do the mountains and ice. Stopped drugs and toned down the partying. I do not ride a motorcycle now as well, although my wife does: go figure eh?

 

Kids made a huge impact on us both, yet we draw our own lines, with our eyes wide open knowing both the risks and the consequences.

 

I still rock climb, which I consider a lower risk activity. I do not make judgments for or about others who still climb ice or Mt's and have children, this is my choice. They make their own choices. I understand those parents still mountain climbing, I sometimes ache to run up Rainer or jump on the ice in the gorge when it hits, but I can easily get a quick pump in the rock gym, where it's warm and safe all winter, and spend the evening with my family, which makes it worth writing off the mts. As a family we do things together as well. A hike up dog mountain gets talked about for months, and your son would most likely love doing that with you as well. He doesn't give a shit about Mt Hood, he wants to be with you.

 

You came on the board asking advice, and got good advice in my opinion. These guys have seen people come on this board asking advice whom later wound up dead in what some would say is a tragedy. It is something these cascadeclimber folks take seriously (generally).

 

My dad died when I was 18 months old, due to no fault of his own, I take my responsibility as a parent pretty seriously, it is my prime job, and all else is secondary. But, I can see a time - where we kick the lil boy out soon as he's 17 now, where this will be changing. My son and I have gotten season passes the last 2 years, and it's pretty safe (and fun) to burn some fast runs at Meadows all winter. Great fun. So I'm ON the Mt, but not really ON the Mt. in a serious way. If the weather turns we head for the bar and a couple of hot buttered rums, and the lad has a hot chocolate and then drives me home while we discuss the highlight reel of the days events: prime jumps, runs where dad got left in the dust, major crashes, turns missed, etc etc :-) Sweet deal!

 

Good luck with whatever you choose. I feel you have already taken a very responsible and intelligent path gathering as much info BEFORE you jumped in, something not everyone does. Your son is lucky to have such a committed and caring parent.

 

Regards;

 

Bill

 

ps, read this trip report of Ivans day on the Mt. Keep in the back of your mind as your read this that this horror show was during great weather in PDX today.

 

[Choada_Boy]

I'd say that none of these "Fatherly Concerns" couldn't be remedied with a good life insurance policy and a few visits from either Uncle Ex-Boyfriend or Mr. Pizza Delivery Guy.

[Rad]

Well said Bill.

 

For me, it all comes down to consequences. A 50 footer on a slab at Darrington while wearing a helmet? I'll take that risk, whimpering, from time to time. Solo glacier travel where a crevasse fall means certain death? I won't take that risk.

Everyone finds their own balance point.

[dinomyte]

I too chose to get married and have a family, but with the full knowledge that these choices would not prevent me from doing all the things that I love to do.

 

I still get do the occasional "guys night out" and a bit of outdoor activities.

 

I guess when I talked about being resentful I meant if someone told me I could not do those things because I had to "think of my family."

 

Although it's not a perfect analogy, I compare it to "staying together for the kids." You might choose to do it, but it's probably more out of a feeling of obligation than a preference. And it is probably not healthy for anyone involved.

 

That doesn't mean that a family should not have an effect on us. Hopefully, it makes us grow, or grow up! Having a wife, let alone a child, has made me take fewer risks, but I personally believe that, with proper preparation, the outdoors things that I do aren't significantly more dangerous than other things.

 

I'm probably more likely to get taken out by a drunk driver on my way home from work than I am by a rock or avy on a mountain.

[dinomyte]

Well said Bill.

 

For me, it all comes down to consequences. A 50 footer on a slab at Darrington while wearing a helmet? I'll take that risk, whimpering, from time to time. Solo glacier travel where a crevasse fall means certain death? I won't take that risk.

Everyone finds their own balance point.

 

To me "solo glacier travel" would be more comparable to rock climbing without helmet.....or pro!

[G-spotter]

Do you think that John Harlin III is a worse person because JH II died on the Eiger when III was young?

[Rad]

Do you think that John Harlin III is a worse person because JH II died on the Eiger when III was young?

 

Well, it certainly left him with demons that haunted him for nearly forty years until he could vanquish them on the big screen for the benefit of his adoring fans. Still can't get over the wife being helicopter short-roped straight from summit to backyard family hug. Ugh!

[high_on_rock]

My fatherhood “awakening” came up in the Adament Range as I was chased across a glacier @ 10,000 ft by a lightening storm as we were dismantling the high camp. It eventually caught up with us, and the only reason we lived is pure luck. During that storm there was little we could do to effect our live/die chance, my death was beyond my “control”. I thought about my babies, knowing that no amount of skill or effort could now save their father, and that I did not have the right to put myself there. I have given up most mountaineering, but still leave open the option. Purely a personal choice. I don’t mess with weather, avalanche, or herds of people above me; as they are dangers that I cannot control.

 

With that said, I like rock climbing because it seems that my live/die chances remain in my skill and attentiveness, and I like to “control” my fate. There is a much less chance of being surprised by weather, as most that I do now is single day.

 

Purely personal choice.

 

[dinomyte]

The things you mention (weather, avy, lots of people) may be out of one's "control" but in many instances can be avoided.

 

I'm not at all arguing with your point and your choice, but I look very carefully at the forecast, avy danger, and where the Mazamas are climbing before any of my trips.

 

Can shit still happen? You bet, but I have never been on a hill in lightning, and I have only been behind a group of 12 Mazamas once!

[K^2]

I'm a new father as well.

 

I was just interested in a discussion of the comparative dangers. Of course, we all know you can die doing pretty much anything.

 

My family means a lot to me, but that doesn't mean giving up mountaineering, snowboarding, etc. Does it mean taking fewer risks? Maybe.

 

For me, I think I'd be a worse father for sitting around with the family and resenting them for the fact that I couldn't go out and do my thing than actually going now and again and being the happier for being around them.

 

I can't quantify those things either.

 

I guess my interest was not necessarily in parents giving up their passions for family, though that is an interesting point as well.

 

To me it seems that there are some serious mistakes you can easily make rock climbing which will lead to certain, serious injury or death, and less such mistakes on moderate glacier routes. For example: rapelling.

 

Beyond that I'd say the question has more to do with the commitment level of a climb (e.g. grade III and up) than to whether it's rock versus glacier. Once you get up to higher grades on glaciers for example, it seems the margin for error shrinks.

 

[ivan]

climbing or spraying about climbing?

[billcoe]

Absolutely.

 

Risk can be mitigated in many many stages as well in the Mt's. A 2 team FA of a steep route deep in the Wallows in late winter/early spring is radically different and dangerous on so many more levels than a spring jaunt up the South Side of Hood with 3000 other (working) cell phone carrying individuals.

 

It is what we chose to do, vs what we believe are the risks.

[JosephH]

Yes, well said Bill.

 

Many of us are still spinning in the wake of Jim Anglin's death and as Bill said, that happened three steps from completely flat ground at the very beginning of a descent trail. One can be understandably hard pressed to categorize such an accident in the context of a discussion of comparative risk in climbing. What can be said about it, though, is it was a clear example of an entirely subjective risk in that nothing about that spot in the descent trail changed before or since Jim's accidet. This is in contrast to objective risks such as weather, or non-climber-initiated rockfalls or avalanches. As ericb rightly points out, this is a very real differentiator when it comes to comparing the risks different activities pose comes down to those risks you control versus those you do not.

 

Under that comparative rubric - subjective versus objective risk - you are constantly are faced with the twin questions of a) where does the real 'burden of risk' lie - with you, your circumstance, or both? And b) what is the 'quotient' of the combination of an endeavor's subjective and objective risks? By way of example: objectively this afternoon, Mt. Hood is what it is - subjectively, who presents a higher combined risk profile setting out for the summit in an hour: me or Kitty Calhoun? Ok, so that should be easy, but it well illustrates the role subjective personal competency plays in the final analysis regardless of your pursuit of choice.

 

I think we can all agree the combination of a low level of subjective competence and a high level of objective danger is clearly an undesirable state of affairs whether we're talking biking to work or climbing Mt. Hood. But most of us didn't end up here on cc.com to be absolutely 'safe' so in the end, and on any given day staring up, it really comes down to the combined 'risk quotient' of just what game we have in mind to play. What can make things murky, as Bill suggests, is our ability to appropriately perceive and assess risk; in essence, we're generally the real wild card in the deck. This is a conundrum best summed up in 1971 when Harry asked: "you've got to ask yourself one question: Do I feel lucky? Well, do ya, punk?"

 

Back to the OP's question about the comparative 'safety' of rock vs. mountain climbing, it can sometimes help to scale out to extremes to get an answer and we can do that in this instance as well. Who would you bet your first-born's life on them returning safely - Tommy Caldwell on the Nose Or Steve House on Rupal Face? The the answer can sum up the question because it essentially subtracts subjective competency from both sides of the equation leaving only the objective hazards to be compared. I'm guessing most of us would be betting on Tommy in such a matchup.

 

As to sport vs. trad you need only look at the role of bolts - they remove a whole range of subjective competencies and objective dynamics (placement locations and options) from the equation. Once you eliminate the host of technical and emotional skills associated with protecting a route and statically define the objective points of protection, you've basically narrowed the equation down to the repeating question: "can I pull the moves between point a and b?". Trad climbing 'safely' at the same grade requires a much, much higher level of subjective competence than sport climbing no matter how you slice or dice it. If you do possess the requisite competencies, then 'safety' in trad climbing basically comes down to your ability to match your choice of routes with your capabilities on any given day.

 

As for the question of climbing vs. Family - well, that does say a lot about a person and their choices, to the degree that it's a matter of choice at all for each individual's psyche. I have a family and still risk, but I attempt to do so in circumstances I control and have faith that, thirty three years later, I know when to hit it and when to back off.

 

[ Note 1: Sport climbing on gear, which I see a lot of folks doing these days, is an inheretly risky proposition, especially if you aren't double-checking your gear each and every time you start climbing again after weighting a piece. ]

 

[ Note 2: Ivan is a paradoxical maniac - his thoughts on this subject are simultaneously both wise and suspect.]

[dinomyte]

Exactly the type of response that I was hoping for! Well thought out and clearly stated.

 

I'm certain that most feel fine with the dangers that they can "control" so I was trying to think about the objective obstacles.

 

In mountaineering, I always think about weather, people kicking stuff down on me, avis, etc.

 

Not being too familiar with rock (except that which is inconveniently formed into a summit spire) I was interested in hearing others' thoughts.

 

Thanks JosephH.

[John Frieh]

Note to self: don't get married and/or have kids.