[Ski]

Nope. Not my problem. I have no progeny, and all of what's left for me is "bonus time" and I'm going to enjoy it. Not. My. Problem.

[Tom]

Are you a troll? How many hiking related posts here?

[Tom]

Some people just show up here to debate rather than talk hiking. 99% participation in stewardship and contentious topics doesn't inspire confidence.

[neek]

[Tom]

Yes, nuanced and thoughtful approach is commendable, but I'd like to see folks contribute more to this forum than just debate. Plenty of topics to discuss. Rather than debate endlessly, say your peace and seek out threads to build community.

[Malachai Constant]

Agreed, the Stewardship forum is the place,for breezy speculation (BS) and most users here reasonably avoid it like an active case of the clap. Nothing is really accomplished by calling others stupid or careless without suggesting reasonable ways to avoid accidents.

[Ski]

[Anne Elk]

I started this post, and must say, I have to apologize. I had no idea how much people like to argue, even when the topic isn't political or inherently controversial. It seems even stupidity can be controversial. I did appreciate the subsequent posts with relevant topical links - even a Wikipedia entry for "selfie deaths" - who knew? In the meantime, I'd searched the NWH archive b/c this thread reminded me of the uptick in fatalities at Big Four Ice Caves and the subsequent closure controversy. Was curious what the NWH members thought about that. I'd submitted input when the USFS solicited commentary on that problem and attended one of their focus groups held in Everett. One question I raised during the FG discussion was why the FS was so obsessed with doing "something" to improve safety near the ice caves, when there were dozens of deaths happening on FS and NPS land annually, against which the agencies could do little besides post warning signs (Yosemite, Grand Canyon & Yellowstone being perhaps the top 3). One of the FS people remarked that the ice caves present a unique condition of accessible danger to unsophisticated tourists that is normally only present in more inaccessible alpine environments where hikers/climbers who are more familiar with such terrain are knowingly taking calculated risks. I found that answer unsatisfying although I appreciated that it reflected real concerns about liability given this unusually accessible but apparently not universally obvious danger. Fortunately the resolution involved only improved signage and educational materials and not some of the dumber (and likely to be ineffective) ideas like fences and dynamite. Meanwhile, somewhere in Arizona (from my collection):

WARNING!

[Ski]

[Anne Elk]

[Bernardo]

There is something fundamentally wrong with talking about human life so callously. If it's ok to be happy that someone "stupid" takes themself out of the gene pool, where does that end? Maybe not you, but maybe someone else decides it's ok to make the world a better place by helping someone stupid or otherwise undesirable leave the gene pool? I don't want to go anywhere near the edge of that slippery slope. What about the harm to the parents, family, and friends of those who take themselves out of the gene pool? They suffer and are scarred. A calous response to their suffering from the world only makes the pain and suffering greater. There is such a disrepect for life in many places, and it wreaks such havoc, I shudder at the idea of not putting all human life on a pedestal. There's nothing wrong with respectfully discussing moral/philosophical topics especially those related to outdoor accidents. I appreciate that Ski shares his unvarnished views openly and honestly. It's thought provoking and in my view adds much to the conversations on this site. Despite what Ski said about having no sympathy for the stupid, I think he'd be the first to help out someone in need. Ski and I have something in common. My grandfather was also born in 1899 back in the old country. It was a good year!

[Ski]

[Tom]

Yes.

[kvpair]

Hate to wade into this (surprisingly) contentious topic. We've all made errors in judgement before and the fact that we are reading this means that we've lived to tell the tale. Ski does not ask for sympathy and is not willing to give it either. Fair enough. Others are, and that is good - "vive la difference". OTOH, if we were at the lookout and saw that woman standing so near the edge, I like to think that we'd have said something to her. It is just a willingness to engage others as fellow human beings - something that Nancy exemplified when she saved Katharina. I'm sure that Ski is a giving human being and would have engaged with that woman. No-one wants to see a preventable death.

[DIYSteve]