| About This Archive | | DCHAS-L 2019 Index | | DCHAS-L Yearly Index | |
Check out Safety Emporium for your N95, N99, and face shield needs.
|
Previous by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] New Article Date: Saturday, August 10, 2019 at 4:18:30 PM Author: lhlatimer**At_Symbol_Here**MINDSPRING.COM |
Next by Date: Subject: Re: [DCHAS-L] [New post] Health and Safety II? Date: Sun, 11 Aug 2019 21:46:29 +0000 Author: "Stuart, Ralph" |
Hi Rob,
That is indeed terrible. In this instance the sign wasn't merely a warning, but notification of closure. So how does one interpret similar situations in comparison to the free soloist and impact to first responders? When person ignores a warning sign (believe we see several of these for Yosemite waterfalls annually) or chooses to go hiking sans map and navigation device? Do they all get lumped into a collective Wilderness Moron group? My suspicion is that for most people they don't.
The reality is that folks view this through a lens that's heavily impacted by personal bias influenced by personal experience. I'd bet many of us, either personally or through close friend/family member, knows a situation where a warning (or closure) sign was ignored or hiking without a map occurred and there was no undesired outcome observed. That personal experience is likely to lower our risk perception of those activities and situations. But that may be faulty as they occur with far greater frequency than free solo attempts, and can have the same secondary impact on others such as first responders.
I'm fully aware that my experiences climbing and mountaineering impact my assessment of free soloing. I also think it's important to see that one person's definition may differ from another. Is it simply technical rock climbing moves without the use of protection? Of what technical difficulty, YDS Class 4, 5.x, 5.1x, etc.? Of what distance, a single move, a few moves, half a pitch, a full pitch, five hundred feet...? The more conservative one becomes defining it brings in a much broader group of people and frequency. And depending on how conservatively that definition is made, I could be viewed as a free soloist. Though I would never personally consider myself one. So we need to be sure we're all evaluating the same set of criteria (as it relates to free soloing) or the range of our assessments and perceptions is likely to be even greater.
If the park system deems the risk to first responders (i.e. YOSAR) to be too great and occurrence too frequent, they have the right to ban the activity within park boundaries. While base jumping wasn't solely banned on the basis of safety risks, the activity is prohibited in Yosemite. And there is no mention, not even a cautionary one, of free soloing anywhere on Park's page on rock climbing https://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/climbing.htm.
I just hope that folks consider when looking at secondary impacts of activities/decisions, that the free soloist isn't disproportionately skewed when many things/circumstances can have similar outcomes. This is heavily impacted by personal bias and experience. And they are not unique to the wilderness environment, when things like distracted or impaired driving occur with far greater frequency and potential to impact far greater numbers of people directly or indirectly.
Ralph, I do hope this has been helpful as you prepare content for San Diego.
Thanks for the opportunity,
Chris
---
For more information about the DCHAS-L e-mail list, contact the Divisional membership chair at membership**At_Symbol_Here**dchas.org
Follow us on Twitter **At_Symbol_Here**acsdchas
Previous post | Top of Page | Next post