Hope they were allowed that would suck to make it that far only to be harassed by a ranger.
Sorry - "harassed" ?? If it's illegal for kids under a certain age to do an activity, why is it "harassed" if the Ranger is doing his/her job?Originally Posted by BionicAnkle
Dogs aren't allowed - if I try to bring one of my three and the Ranger stops me, am I "harassed" ?
Old Hiker
AT Hike 2012 - 497 Miles of 2184
AT Thru Hiker - 29 FEB - 03 OCT 2016 2189.1 miles
Just because my teeth are showing, does NOT mean I'm smiling.
Hányszor lennél inkább máshol?
No. Children under 6 are not allowed above tree line, so the baby will miss a few miles of the AT
And good thing. I can't imagine doing that rock scramble with a baby carrier. Now that it seems summer has finally arrived the Black Flies are really starting to swarm and the fords in the HMW are probably still waist deep, so getting through there should be a challenge.
Last edited by Slo-go'en; 06-08-2017 at 13:56.
Follow slogoen on Instagram.
They got a bug net that fits over the entire backpack the baby rides in, so they have the black fly situation handled.
Now, to get that fording rushing rivers thing down.
I cannot imagine how one would make a go/no-go decision to ford any given stream in June with an infant.
Surely, even you if pegged your chances of crossing without issue at 99.9% that would not be good enough, right?
How are the streams this year, anyway?
are our chances of successfully navigating any obstacle, hiking or otherwise, ever 100%? should i not walk down the stairs to leave work later because the chance is too great? surely the elevator is no safer?
sure, i get the "with a baby you're going to be more careful" part of what you are saying, but again, is there anything you can do with a baby in tow that is 100% safe? even with proper use of an approved car seat yada yada is there no chance of the child dying in a fiery car wreck? is that baby not just another human like ourselves who is going to live a life of some undetermined length at some degree of risk of imminent death or injury?
don't be so afraid, its crippling.
Don't confuse common sense with fear.
You and your coworkers have a voice in determining who wants to risk life and limb on your employers staircase or elevator. The infant does not have a voice and is completely dependent on those who are charged with its care to make appropriate decisions in the best interest of the child. Crossing rain swollen rivers on an extended vacation may not be in the best interests of the child.
i really was just responding to the "even if you were 99.9% sure..." statement. we are never 99.9% sure of the safety of anything in life. ever. if you think you are you're fooling yourself. all parents everywhere, out of the necessity of living, put their babies at a greater than .1% chance of death or grave injury every single day. life wouldnt be possible otherwise.
Knowing basically nothing about the parents, why assume they will make dangerous river crossings? Why not assume they are typical parents that love their child, and if they came to a rain swollen river that was dangerous to cross they would simply wait for it to recede, or turn around?
My choice of 99.9% in that post was not entirely arbitrary.
Mathematicaly that means 1 out of 1000 times, you would suffer a totally unacceptable outcome.
Is choosing to subject a baby to that level of risk acceptable in everyday life?
Of course not. Not once a year, much less several times in a single week.
It may well be that the real risk is less than .1% -- how could anyone really know?
Which was exactly my point pondering the process by which a parent would make their go/no-go decision each and every time they reach a stream in the HMW.
Well by the 99.9 logic parents should stop driving with kids in the car, letting kids swim, letting kids play on the playground or participate in sports.
Because that wait could be weeks - these rivers are still being feed by snow melt in addition to the rain, of which there has been a lot of recently. To turn around is to go a long, long way back.
Last edited by Slo-go'en; 06-09-2017 at 21:58.
Follow slogoen on Instagram.
Then maybe they will jump down and do another section, and come back to this part later. We don't know, and shouldn't criticize them for something they haven't done.
In my estimation, having thru-hiked, they are putting a very small child in a unnessary danger. Sounds more like a eago trip by the parents. During my thru I took several falls, can't imagine falling with a small child on my back.
Grampie-N->2001
I get your larger point -- which I think is that life is full of risks and a we don't do kids any favors by keeping them in a bubble.
My post was to ponder how a parent evaluates risk/reward in the specific instance of a stream crossing in the HMW.
If the perceived chance of tragedy is one in ten the decision is easy -- everyone would turn around. THat is a no-brainer. Likewise, if the chance of a horrible outcome is 1 in a million I think it would be easy to justify going forward.
But seriously, how and where does a parent draw the line?
I just assumed than no one in thier right mind would take a 1 in a thousand chance (.1 %) with their baby just to cross a river.
But those odds were just for purposes of discussion -- the actual odds assessed by the parents may will be less. Perhaps even on par the activities you listed (the risk of a child dying in a year from any kind of accident or from anything at all is much less than .1%)
But as for where to draw the line, I would ask you this:
Would you let your kid go on a roller coaster if you thought there was a 1 in 1000 chance of a terrible outcome?
Last edited by rickb; 06-10-2017 at 05:33.
I am only speaking for myself. If it were my children or one of my grandchildren, I would not have taken them with me. I have been out on too many occasions when the weather turned to crap, to take a chance of something happening to them. My children are grown now and have produced a handful of grandchildren. When they were old enough they joined me on overnight/weekend trips that did not involve much hiking. I still have two more grand kids too young to go, but they, like their sisters and brothers will go if they want. The older grandchildren are into several other activities now, but they still join me 2-3 times each summer. My oldest grandson would rather be with me when we are working on his 1950 Ford F1 pickup, which we hope to have finished by the time he turns 16.
The only advice I would give the parties in question since they are already out would be, go as far as you can safely. Then wait until the child got older to finish the trek. As someone said up above, no one under six may be above the timber line. Other than a great bounding opportunity for the family, a 1 year old child is not going to remember much if anything about the trip.
To RickB: When they got tall enough to ride a roller coaster, even the kiddie coaster, I was there to ride with them.
Blackheart
They have now done 900 miles, 708 from somewhere in Va to Springer, and the rest from Katahdin headed south.
They have now done 1000 miles on their flip flop, and are out of Maine heading south.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
