Mountaineering Ethics

[justiner]

My point is really to be cautious. We're stacking up some shaky ground: out of print/out of date guidebook, second hand knowledge from a trip report from a very well seasoned outdoorsperson, a lot of money to pay out for the privilege, the allure of something being easier. This isn't what I would suggest for someone unfamiliar with the mountain and/or out of state to look at and think this is a green light to attempt.

This region has had its fair share of quite dramatic SAR missons, some of which have not been without tragedy to the climber or rescuer.

[seannunn]

My point is really to be cautious. We're stacking up some shaky ground: out of print/out of date guidebook, second hand knowledge from a trip report from a very well seasoned outdoorsperson, a lot of money to pay out for the privilege, the allure of something being easier. This isn't what I would suggest for someone unfamiliar with the mountain and/or out of state to look at and think this is a green light to attempt.

This region has had its fair share of quiet dramatic SAR missons, some of which have not been without tragedy to the climber or rescuer.

Meesa thinkin' yousa might be right.
My query and comments on this issue stemmed from a single sentence in Roach's book: "The easiest route--from Arrowhead Ranch to the south--is not open to the public."
Sounds like that is still pretty much true, and that it may or may not be much easier.

Sean Nunn

[seannunn]

My point is really to be cautious. We're stacking up some shaky ground: out of print/out of date guidebook, second hand knowledge from a trip report from a very well seasoned outdoorsperson, a lot of money to pay out for the privilege, the allure of something being easier. This isn't what I would suggest for someone unfamiliar with the mountain and/or out of state to look at and think this is a green light to attempt.

This region has had its fair share of quiet dramatic SAR missons, some of which have not been without tragedy to the climber or rescuer.

Meesa thinkin' yousa might be right.
My query and comments on this issue stemmed from a single sentence in Roach's book: "The easiest route--from Arrowhead Ranch to the south--is not open to the public."
Sounds like the "not open to the public" is still pretty much true, and that it may or may not be much easier.

Sean Nunn

[supranihilest]

Man this thread really went true 14ers.com-style off-topic pedantic wankery mode! Awesome.

Trinchera Ranch won't allow access. Judd tried for Hamilton and was denied. It's likely that a 14er would be denied as well. Even if they didn't deny that request a direct route up would be pure s**t and I'm sure that's an understatement.
Don't trust old maps or Roach (or any guidebook, trip report, etc.) explicitly. Roach is not infallible and anyone who's climbed many of the routes he describes has found one that is a lot worse than he described.
If you aren't willing/capable of doing the bushwhack or Mama Bear->Little Bear scramble then you should not do Little Bear. The southwest ridge, including the bushwhack, is easier and safer than the Hourglass. All routes on Little Bear are not to be taken lightly.
Not everyone needs to climb every mountain. It's OK not to climb something even if you really want to.
Three of the six pages of this thread are not about the original topic. Holy crap, guys.

[greenonion]

Wanker in chief here. Sorry for the detour! So right you are, Ben!

[susanjoypaul]

I haven't done any of the class 4 peaks yet, and I've been considering ways for an old guy like me to get it done. Everything from hiring a guide to joining the CMC and going through their courses so I can get on one of their trips. One thing I've looked at regarding Little Bear is the ranch that owns the land south of it - https://trincheraranch.com/. I've looked over their page up and down, and while it doesn't specifically say they provide trips up the peak, it does hint at it. And their side of Little Bear is actually the easiest route documented in very old guidebooks. They have a 3-night minimum stay at $350 a night, so it would cost over $1000. Grabbing a few other peaks from the ranch may make it worth the money, though most people here would laugh at that. I don't really care, I'm 60-something and have never been up a dangerous class 4, so it could be worth it to me. Something to consider.

Someone who "hints at" providing trips doesn't have a legal permit to guide clients in that area. Google "unpermitted guiding" for the risks and potential consequences.

[Scott P]

I haven't done any of the class 4 peaks yet, and I've been considering ways for an old guy like me to get it done. Everything from hiring a guide to joining the CMC and going through their courses so I can get on one of their trips. One thing I've looked at regarding Little Bear is the ranch that owns the land south of it - https://trincheraranch.com/. I've looked over their page up and down, and while it doesn't specifically say they provide trips up the peak, it does hint at it. And their side of Little Bear is actually the easiest route documented in very old guidebooks. They have a 3-night minimum stay at $350 a night, so it would cost over $1000. Grabbing a few other peaks from the ranch may make it worth the money, though most people here would laugh at that. I don't really care, I'm 60-something and have never been up a dangerous class 4, so it could be worth it to me. Something to consider.

Someone who "hints at" providing trips doesn't have a legal permit to guide clients in that area. Google "unpermitted guiding" for the risks and potential consequences.

If it's on private land don't they just have to be insured and register with DORA? Guiding on public land is different as far as permitting goes but none of that route would be on public lands.

[susanjoypaul]

I haven't done any of the class 4 peaks yet, and I've been considering ways for an old guy like me to get it done. Everything from hiring a guide to joining the CMC and going through their courses so I can get on one of their trips. One thing I've looked at regarding Little Bear is the ranch that owns the land south of it - https://trincheraranch.com/. I've looked over their page up and down, and while it doesn't specifically say they provide trips up the peak, it does hint at it. And their side of Little Bear is actually the easiest route documented in very old guidebooks. They have a 3-night minimum stay at $350 a night, so it would cost over $1000. Grabbing a few other peaks from the ranch may make it worth the money, though most people here would laugh at that. I don't really care, I'm 60-something and have never been up a dangerous class 4, so it could be worth it to me. Something to consider.

Someone who "hints at" providing trips doesn't have a legal permit to guide clients in that area. Google "unpermitted guiding" for the risks and potential consequences.

If it's on private land don't they just have to be insured and register with DORA? Guiding on public land is different as far as permitting goes but none of that route would be on public lands.

They own the summit of Little Bear?

[Scott P]

Someone who "hints at" providing trips doesn't have a legal permit to guide clients in that area. Google "unpermitted guiding" for the risks and potential consequences.

If it's on private land don't they just have to be insured and register with DORA? Guiding on public land is different as far as permitting goes but none of that route would be on public lands.

They own the summit of Little Bear?

Technically yes but just barely (depending on how literal you want to get with the property/land grant maps). The boundary is the supposed to be ridgeline but the actually summit is slightly on their property. If climbing from their ranch, the part of the route from South Little Bear to Little Bear straddles the boundary between their land and the NFS so I guess you could argue that any of their clients might have one foot on FS lands at times but that would be a slippery slope to try and claim so as they could use the same reasoning to cut off the summit of Little Bear to public access since it straddles the boundary and the actual summit is slightly on their land.

[HikesInGeologicTime]

Reviving the original topic since The Guardian decided to take their own approach to it recently: https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyl ... king-trail

While I'm not necessarily convinced that being left in the dust by a faster partner is exclusive to women in heterosexual romantic partnerships (although I will say that the only time I had a hiking partner who was an a—hole about my slower pace, he was a boyfriend, and I was still trying to make that pesky F on my birth certificate work), I do think this article addresses actual gray areas of mountaineering ethics better than the Austrian case that inspired the topic (which, yes, is referenced in this article as well); I personally don’t think the Austrian guy - or the Salt Lake City man in the article greenonion linked - showed any ethical considerations for their partners. Both seemed to be acting with some degree of willful malice to the people they were climbing with.

A lot of the dudes in this most recent article, though, do seem to come closer to the issues that came up in this thread before the diversion into Little Bear access in that they apparently had different goals for a hike and different paces than their partners had. I suspect it’d be obvious to most who have already contributed to this topic that the proper - ethical - thing for the guys to do once it became clear that there were different motivations at play would’ve been to communicate with their partners (and better still to have communicated in advance of the hike), but clearly I’d be interested to see if this somewhat different angle reignites a vigorous discussion.

[Jandy4008]

A lot of the dudes in this most recent article, though, do seem to come closer to the issues that came up in this thread before the diversion into Little Bear access in that they apparently had different goals for a hike and different paces than their partners had.

I would argue that when doing something dangerous in the outdoors with a partner, your goals can't and shouldn't be different. For me, adventures and workouts by myself are totally different than when I am with someone. Especially, if they are not as capable as me. I do a lot of hiking with people slower than me and I am totally fine with spending extra hours on the mountain because the goal is to get them to the top and have a good social time with them. If I want to get to the top as fast as I can, I go by myself or with someone who matches my abilities. A guide doesn't ditch slow clients. A guide aligns the activity to fit the slowest client.

I do have a problem with the premise of the discussion though. In these specific heterosexual relationships, why are the women validating and dating these men? This is not going to be a one off issue. Its a reflection of how the relationship is as a whole. People need to think more critically about who they date and are friends with. These men didn't just all of the sudden become an a**hole on the side of a mountain.

[justiner]

(first and only post, huh?)

People get into abusive relationships because it's oftentimes all they know and abuse is equated with being loved. This happens when someone grows up in an abusive family, where it's hard to untangle the two apart from each other. They're also then more vulnerable into falling into an abusive relationship themselves, as the pattern repeats.

And when you do find yourself in a abusive relationship, it's also very hard to get out. You do try to make excuses for their abuse, as you probably care for them and want things to work out, but there is also a very real danger that if you say something you will get further hurt. Friends of abusers will oftentimes ignore the actions of the abusers for many of the same reasons.

Abandoning a partner is one form of manipulation you'll see in abusive relationships, intertwined with trying to control the abused. The abuser becomes the resource of love and protection, and they make it clear that this can be taken away at any time, unless you listen to them and do what they say.

POS male climbers who spend years abusing women is pretty rampant in climbing.

https://www.justice.gov/usao-edca/pr/pr ... ional-park

https://www.reddit.com/r/climbergirls/c ... te_valley/

https://monocounty.ca.gov/da/page/jury- ... c-violence

And this is why we don't victim blame. We listen to them and we believe them. Oftentimes they are a prisoner in a relationship they cannot get out of and what has come to light is not an isolated incident.