Mountaineering Ethics

[desertdog]

It’s simple, don't leave your partner, unless the only option is you need to go get help for them or your own life is in danger. Then you have a decision to make.

[blazintoes]

Hard not to notice the contrast lately. Sunseri cuts a corner chasing an FKT and gets pardoned, while a dad rescued with his kids in Big Cottonwood is facing serious charges, and an Austrian climber is charged after leaving his partner behind. Same mountains, wildly different judgments. Feels less about terrain and more about where the line gets drawn.

Strip the courts away and it comes back to ethics. FKTs are simple: stay on route or the style doesn’t count. Shortcutting doesn’t make you a villain, but it does invalidate the effort. A pardon doesn’t change that. Kids are different — they can’t consent, so the responsibility bar is higher whether the intentions are good or not. I’ve watched a grown man push a sobbing six-year-old up King Peak because it was “only” 200 feet left. To her, it was Everest.

And the hardest question never changes: do you leave a partner behind? We’ve seen it in Austria and on Holy Cross. When you move together, there’s an implied pact. I’ve been left behind and I’ve also parted ways by agreement — and even when it’s mutual, it’s a slippery slope. Conditions change fast, clarity fades, and decisions age quickly. Style, consent, and responsibility aren’t abstract up there. You usually only understand them after you’ve lived them.

Cutting a switchback to get credit for a FKT vs. an inexperienced hiker dying as a result of being left behind in the dark on a technical peak in winter are two different circumstances that warrant different responses, though not saying the FKT'er should be let off the hook; maybe forced to do a year of trail work as community service and not get that FKT count, whereas the latter could be criminally responsible.

But yea to the your other point of leaving someone behind, it depends on situation and climbers. On a straightforward or a shorter, easy trail, in sight of trailhead or with dozens of climbers around, maybe not the end of the world if it's done under agreement together. I've turned around on climbs or stayed back to go slower when others continued on - I don't fault anyone, was my decision and I was not ill or injured but just wasn't feeling it, or didn't feel comfortable, felt tired, weather came in etc. or wanted to do more photography around the area and felt I could get back to the TH. People committed time, money, vacation days, days of travel to get there and I wasn't going to ask them to abandon their plans for me, I get it. Had it worked out differently, maybe it would be a news topic people arguing about but it didn't.

I've turned around on several hikes when someone was not feeling it for whatever reason and didn't seem wise to separate for whatever reason and we went back together, in some cases with them waiting in the car or just going home. On other hikes, I've had folks say they wanted to stop and wait for me to return, when they didn't want to go on but were not ill or injured - on an easier day hike, sometimes it seemed fine, a low risk option on easier terrain, clear forecast, lower elevations, experienced hiker with proper gear, clear trail etc. In situations where conditions are tougher then probably not a good idea to separate. On a longer trip, technical climb, colder weather, snow, in the dark, questionable weather, then would stay together and/or turn around. Now all the above situations were where we started out together on a planned trip. Another more thornier question is when you meet up with a hiker, previously unknown to you but where you then start hiking together, where THEN something happens where they may not want to continue...

The point I failed to make is that the precedent of a presidential pardon is now on the table for the next set of perpetrators.

[nyker]

roger

[MaryinColorado]

Interesting thread and good topic.

Going back to the original question: "How much responsibility do you have for another person?" I feel this is situation-dependent and very skill-level dependent. I see skill-level disparities as an obvious reason why level of responsibility can/should take on other forms. I also see those disparities as a theme in many SAR stories, many separation stories, etc. There's a lot of nuance, and I think this takes on different tones if the skill/experience disparity does NOT exist, of course. But in the Austria case, I don't think it's as simple as the skill disparity/level of responsibility angle; there are enough details that don't line up, character and intent seem in question.

More generally, not specific to the case: I feel partners should always look out for each other's well-being simply because it's the right thing to do, but definitely where significant experiential disparities exist, I feel there is inherently more onus on the more experienced individual. Whether or not it's explicitly stated, the lesser experienced is almost certainly relying to some degree on the person with more experience, and they don't know what they don't know - which the person of more experience should be mindful of.

[colingoodman]

Also covered in the NYT, but I don't have access to that.

Here is a gift article link, it should let everyone here read it: https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/20/worl ... =url-share

They had cell service everywhere on the mountain, but he seemed to delay asking for help. He told the police via phone at 12:30 that everything was fine, then called them again at 3:30 to tell them that he had left her behind and she needed a rescue. He had packed thermal blankets but did not leave her with any. The details are strange and certainly imply poor judgement.

[seannunn]

It’s simple, don't leave your partner, unless the only option is you need to go get help for them or your own life is in danger. Then you have a decision to make.

What about if your partner is fine, but just runs out of gas and doesn't want to go to the summit?
I have climbed with people and I have said: "Before we start, I want to make clear that each one of us has to make our own decision as to how far to go. If one of us is clear headed and not injured, but decides to turn around, the other one is welcome to go on to the summit and meet up later. Of course, if one of us is injured and needs help, then that supersedes any summit attempt."

Do you think this is contrary to good mountain ethics?

[John619]

My rule of thumb for the past 50 years or so is to stay with your partner.

[Jim Davies]

What about if your partner is fine, but just runs out of gas and doesn't want to go to the summit?

I've been the "out of gas" partner in this situation, with my wife. I was way too slow, at about 12,500' on Wetterhorn, and we decided I'd wait there and she'd go for the summit. The weather was perfect, she had plenty of experience (although no other solo summits), and I stayed put until her return a few hours later. I think, as always, it depends...you don't ditch an inexperienced partner because they can't keep up, but in situations like ours it's fine to split up.

On another occasion, we were climbing Bierstadt with a group of about a dozen including several teenage scouts. One of them was having altitude problems at 12K, so I stayed behind with him while the others went to the summit. In this case, leaving him alone would have been the wrong thing to do, IMO, but keeping me there as a "guide" was fine.

[ekalina]

It’s simple, don't leave your partner, unless the only option is you need to go get help for them or your own life is in danger. Then you have a decision to make.

What about if your partner is fine, but just runs out of gas and doesn't want to go to the summit?
I have climbed with people and I have said: "Before we start, I want to make clear that each one of us has to make our own decision as to how far to go. If one of us is clear headed and not injured, but decides to turn around, the other one is welcome to go on to the summit and meet up later. Of course, if one of us is injured and needs help, then that supersedes any summit attempt."

Do you think this is contrary to good mountain ethics?

As long as everyone's in agreement, that sounds perfectly reasonable to me. I'm an adult and if I think I may need help, I'll ask for it. If I make the wrong call, that's on me. But then again, I hike alone frequently and many also think that isn't ok.

Hopefully it goes without saying, but both situations described in the articles fall well outside of the bounds of what I'm saying here. One should always put their partner(s) well being above making the summit. Splitting up when someone isn't doing well and/or doesn't (or can't) consent is the part that's unethical.

[seannunn]

What about if your partner is fine, but just runs out of gas and doesn't want to go to the summit?

I've been the "out of gas" partner in this situation, with my wife. I was way too slow, at about 12,500' on Wetterhorn, and we decided I'd wait there and she'd go for the summit. The weather was perfect, she had plenty of experience (although no other solo summits), and I stayed put until her return a few hours later. I think, as always, it depends...you don't ditch an inexperienced partner because they can't keep up, but in situations like ours it's fine to split up.

On another occasion, we were climbing Bierstadt with a group of about a dozen including several teenage scouts. One of them was having altitude problems at 12K, so I stayed behind with him while the others went to the summit. In this case, leaving him alone would have been the wrong thing to do, IMO, but keeping me there as a "guide" was fine.

Yes that all makes perfect sense.
I would not leave an inexperienced partner, even just to sit and wait for me.
I would not leave a young person either. (Did it once actually, that was a mistake, although he ended up fine.)

Sean Nunn
Peculiar, MO

[nyker]

This discussion brings back some moments...

Sept 2007, Longs Peak. This was our first 14er so we were excited and filled with that curiosity / adventure / caution / nervousness that that first alpine start on such a signature peak provides. We got to the Keyhole just before sunrise, a little winded and tired, but feeling good.
The wind hit us as did some early rain and we nervously looked on at the route that lay ahead, which is where this route earns its stripes so to speak. In addition to the snack break at this planned pre-dawn stopping point we were also met with blood curdling screams and nonstop crying from this poor girl clinging to a boulder at that junction. The wind had muffled her cries up until this point (something to think about in a rescue situation).

She said she had not been feeling good, nauseous and terrified (her word) to move past this point, so her boyfriend continued on to the summit and left her there, all alone in that dark cold morning screaming and crying, she said she had been there at least an hour. While this was my first 14er, it wasn't my first high mountain and had several dozen summits under my belt including a dozen 13ers, but I never encountered something like this and frankly wasn't sure what we should do. We felt terrible continuing on and leaving her there. We stayed with her a half-hour wondering if her boyfriend would return, he didn't. She didn't want to join us, nor descend (we offered to go down with her) and didn't want to move from the vice grip she had on that rock and got more agitated as we asked. She kept encouraging us to go ahead and move on and leave her there. We had no radio or cell phone back then so we stayed longer as it just felt very uncomfortable to leave her there.

It wasn't until another 20min when another small group of three seemingly well-prepared women climbers came up, where one said she would stay there with her and not continue on as she was tired also, but coherent and a local and they said they would descend together. We then left for the summit...with an eye open for a lone male climber, again not sure what we would say to him and should we encounter him but also not planning to go up to every climber and questioning them. We also were trying our best to look after ourselves too to make sure we were indeed still feeling ok at our new elevation record not completely sure how our bodies would be, as the terrain on that side as you know is not where you want to stall or start any potential confrontation. This was also a time when there were only a dozen climbers seen all morning and we had the summit nearly to ourselves so few other people would pass by the girl. Upon returning to the Keyhole, she and the other girl were gone, so assumed that made it down ok.

[desertdog]

It’s simple, don't leave your partner, unless the only option is you need to go get help for them or your own life is in danger. Then you have a decision to make.

What about if your partner is fine, but just runs out of gas and doesn't want to go to the summit?
I have climbed with people and I have said: "Before we start, I want to make clear that each one of us has to make our own decision as to how far to go. If one of us is clear headed and not injured, but decides to turn around, the other one is welcome to go on to the summit and meet up later. Of course, if one of us is injured and needs help, then that supersedes any summit attempt."

Do you think this is contrary to good mountain ethics?

My answer was about an emergency where the partner is in trouble. That said, I think you need to communicate and evaluate a non emergency situation. A rule of thumb I have is we both need to be in agreement on the decision. That sometimes makes for uncomfortable situations if we aren’t in agreement. Its probably time to find a new partner in that scenario. The few times I’ve made the decision to split up, often I’ve been the one holding back. I end up being more worried about the person going forward, so its an irritating for me. I’ve seen so many times where partners split up and it turns bad even in non life threatening situations. Obviously if you are on an easy trail hiking with a ton of people splitting up isn’t a bad decision.