- Get link
- Other Apps
Risk is part of adventure experience
photo: National Post online
The cost of search and rescue for skiers is infinitesimal compared with other government expenditures
The cost of search and rescue for skiers is infinitesimal compared with other government expenditures
By Jon Heshka, Vancouver Sun January 7, 2013
While I appreciate the sincerity of The Vancouver Sun's Dec. 28 editorial - Have fun in the snow, but don't forget safety - to save skiers, snowboarders and snowmobilers from themselves, the approach tilts the scale a little too close to comfort to that of a nanny state.
The editorial properly suggests that such recreationists take responsibility for their safety, warns would-be adventurers of the potential price tag of irresponsible behaviour and ends with the suggestion that dying in the mountains would prove that they have not taken such responsibility.
The conversation about out-of-bounds skiers and boarders would benefit from a little balance and perspective. Seven people die daily in car accidents in Canada. There are approximately 400 drowning deaths a year in the country. Let's not forget that smoking contributes to more than 37,000 deaths a year in Canada. On average, 14 people die per year in Canada due to avalanches. In this light, the public's shrill opposition and moral outrage seems disproportionate to the offence of skiing out-of-bounds.
Those who go out-of-bounds or recreate in dangerous backcountry conditions are often called stupid or labelled as misfits. Even further, there is a cruel undercurrent out there saying that those who die while skiing out-of-bounds "had it coming" and "got what they deserved." It behooves us to re-examine the risk-reward calculus.
There is value in adventure and exploration. There is worth in climbing a mountain "because it's there." This same attitude drives those who backcountry ski or duck under the ropes. If we as a society value adventure - and I think we do (witness the reverence attached to Sir Edmund Hillary, Amelia Earhart and Sarah Burke) - then we should be prepared to accept that it comes with a cost.
While I am sad when someone is hurt or killed in the mountains, I am not surprised when it happens. Many people are too quick to pound the square peg of adventure into the round hole of socially acceptable behaviour and judge the reasonableness of risk-taking actions against such conventions. Those who participate in adventure - whether it be snowmobilers, climbers or backcountry skiers - are (or should be) willing to accept responsibility for their actions.
Some argue that the answer lies in the regulation, legislation and criminalization of the behaviour (i.e. reckless skiing, boarding or sledding) which gives rise to these deaths. I believe that many people who pursue such activities balance the risks and make informed decisions but I also acknowledge that some go in blind with little real skill and are essentially playing Russian roulette.
The inconvenient truth is that recreationists have the right to take risks and make mistakes - even if it costs them their lives. Sadly misplaced in the debate is - to paraphrase John Stuart Mill - the sovereign right of the individual to take risks.
Equally forgotten is that Canada was founded by a Company of Adventurers and its spirit of exploration is at risk of being eviscerated and replaced by a namby-pamby state. The concern for out-of-bounds skiers and boarders and backcountry recreationists seems motivated by the cost of search and rescue and the safety of searchers. We must be mindful that the costs are infinitesimally small relative to other government expenditures.
The editorial properly suggests that such recreationists take responsibility for their safety, warns would-be adventurers of the potential price tag of irresponsible behaviour and ends with the suggestion that dying in the mountains would prove that they have not taken such responsibility.
The conversation about out-of-bounds skiers and boarders would benefit from a little balance and perspective. Seven people die daily in car accidents in Canada. There are approximately 400 drowning deaths a year in the country. Let's not forget that smoking contributes to more than 37,000 deaths a year in Canada. On average, 14 people die per year in Canada due to avalanches. In this light, the public's shrill opposition and moral outrage seems disproportionate to the offence of skiing out-of-bounds.
Those who go out-of-bounds or recreate in dangerous backcountry conditions are often called stupid or labelled as misfits. Even further, there is a cruel undercurrent out there saying that those who die while skiing out-of-bounds "had it coming" and "got what they deserved." It behooves us to re-examine the risk-reward calculus.
There is value in adventure and exploration. There is worth in climbing a mountain "because it's there." This same attitude drives those who backcountry ski or duck under the ropes. If we as a society value adventure - and I think we do (witness the reverence attached to Sir Edmund Hillary, Amelia Earhart and Sarah Burke) - then we should be prepared to accept that it comes with a cost.
While I am sad when someone is hurt or killed in the mountains, I am not surprised when it happens. Many people are too quick to pound the square peg of adventure into the round hole of socially acceptable behaviour and judge the reasonableness of risk-taking actions against such conventions. Those who participate in adventure - whether it be snowmobilers, climbers or backcountry skiers - are (or should be) willing to accept responsibility for their actions.
Some argue that the answer lies in the regulation, legislation and criminalization of the behaviour (i.e. reckless skiing, boarding or sledding) which gives rise to these deaths. I believe that many people who pursue such activities balance the risks and make informed decisions but I also acknowledge that some go in blind with little real skill and are essentially playing Russian roulette.
The inconvenient truth is that recreationists have the right to take risks and make mistakes - even if it costs them their lives. Sadly misplaced in the debate is - to paraphrase John Stuart Mill - the sovereign right of the individual to take risks.
Equally forgotten is that Canada was founded by a Company of Adventurers and its spirit of exploration is at risk of being eviscerated and replaced by a namby-pamby state. The concern for out-of-bounds skiers and boarders and backcountry recreationists seems motivated by the cost of search and rescue and the safety of searchers. We must be mindful that the costs are infinitesimally small relative to other government expenditures.
According to Emergency Management BC, the operational costs of search and rescue in B.C. have averaged $1.2 million per year over the last decade. This is in contrast, for example, to the estimated economic burden of obesity in Canada ranging from $4.6 billion to $7.1 billion annually. By comparison, SAR seems a pretty good investment.
Searcher safety is a valid consideration but must also be placed in perspective - no search and rescuer in B.C. has died looking for a skier or snowboarder who has gone out-of-bounds at a ski hill. The climbing instruction 'bible' is aptly entitled Freedom of the Hills. Implicit in its title is that backcountry recreationists have the right to take risks that may unfortunately include decisions that result in their deaths.
It is troubling that there are those who paternalistically believe that government has the right to protect - skiers, boarders and sledders in this instance - those who do not wish their protection by closing areas that might hurt them or fining them if those areas are entered. If this happens, I fear that it will be the thin tip of the wedge representing just the beginning of a process that will gut risk from adventure. Risks are inherent and integral to adventure. Without risk, it wouldn't be adventure. It would be a video game. If people want to be safe, they can stay indoors in a padded room wired for virtual reality.
The Sun's editorial has as a noble but unrealistic goal that nobody die in the mountains this winter. We ought to brace ourselves, however, for the sorrow which will follow the next inevitable avalanche fatality. It is sad when people die in the backcountry. Indeed, it is sad when people die - period.
The solution (assuming there is a problem) doesn't lie in the state posting signs in the wilderness telling people how and where they should recreate or fining those who push the envelope. The answer resides in educating recreationists about the risks they take and hoping they make the right decision.
Jon Heshka is associate professor in the adventure studies department and faculty of law at Thompson Rivers University.
Searcher safety is a valid consideration but must also be placed in perspective - no search and rescuer in B.C. has died looking for a skier or snowboarder who has gone out-of-bounds at a ski hill. The climbing instruction 'bible' is aptly entitled Freedom of the Hills. Implicit in its title is that backcountry recreationists have the right to take risks that may unfortunately include decisions that result in their deaths.
It is troubling that there are those who paternalistically believe that government has the right to protect - skiers, boarders and sledders in this instance - those who do not wish their protection by closing areas that might hurt them or fining them if those areas are entered. If this happens, I fear that it will be the thin tip of the wedge representing just the beginning of a process that will gut risk from adventure. Risks are inherent and integral to adventure. Without risk, it wouldn't be adventure. It would be a video game. If people want to be safe, they can stay indoors in a padded room wired for virtual reality.
The Sun's editorial has as a noble but unrealistic goal that nobody die in the mountains this winter. We ought to brace ourselves, however, for the sorrow which will follow the next inevitable avalanche fatality. It is sad when people die in the backcountry. Indeed, it is sad when people die - period.
The solution (assuming there is a problem) doesn't lie in the state posting signs in the wilderness telling people how and where they should recreate or fining those who push the envelope. The answer resides in educating recreationists about the risks they take and hoping they make the right decision.
Jon Heshka is associate professor in the adventure studies department and faculty of law at Thompson Rivers University.
Read more: http://www.vancouversun.com/sports/Risk+part+adventure+experience/7783166/story.html#ixzz2HOkgIRoJ
- Get link
- Other Apps