[nraynaud]

I don't agree with this line of reasoning. Every time you take your car, you put pedestrians and bikes in danger, and when a car hurt them it take EMTs away from the heart attacks at home (which I guess it the societal goal). Truth is, accidents individually happen so rarely that we just think that it's ok to drive a car. Here is the deal: as seen from the EMTs point of view, there are freaking people hurt every single day and it's a nightmare out there.

Same with hiking in remote places, it's a bit more dangerous, but still most of the time you don't die (I'd venture to argue that the average number of death per person is only one), so the averaged risk is quite low still, but every time you slip on a rock, cross a sketchy river, etc. You gain experience that will further reduce the risk.

[jdietrich]

When people drive, we expect them to have a certain level of competence and for their car to be in good working order - there are unavoidable risks to driving, but society expects people to take reasonable steps to mitigate those risks. It's the same principle if you're going into the wilderness. Going into the back country without the right training and equipment is just stupid and selfish.

[arethuza]

"Going into the back country without the right training and equipment is just stupid and selfish"

I agree - don't think making it illegal would help though (e.g. requiring an "outdoors license").

[hef19898]

Well, there is risk taking and risk taking. If you take a calculated risk taking into account weather, skills, environment etc.. and then something happens that's what you have first responders for.

If, on the other hand, you take risks you are not equipped to handle and judge due a lack of skill and ability and you need than first responders you are acting irresponsible. You might also end up in much more dangerous situations then the above mentioned group of people again increasing risk for first responders. You always hear about people unable to judge risks in the Alps.

[nraynaud]

Here is the deal: when people die in the back country, they will always be judged by wether they lived there or not. If they were from somewhere else, they will be insulted in death as careless tourists, and if they were local, it will be deemed a terrible act of god. Nobody is able to access the skill level and preparedness of dead people across a news article. It's a buffet of prejudice. They will tell you of careless tourists walking somewhere they shouldn't in sneakers, but a local climbing in sneakers will deemed skilled.

I have seen mountaineering guides going solo in ice climbing higher than their clients, going in the mountains in sneakers (which I'm not sure is stupid in the circumstances, but imagine a news article describing a dead tourist with sneakers on their feet).

And you can be criticized in many ways: calling for help to early (that was not very dangerous), too late (you didn't recognize the subtle beginning of a crisis and you let it unfold), too much, not enough. It's all about the identity of the dead and the "angle" journalists will have chosen.

[hef19898]

Your second paragraph is describing exactly what I meant. Mountaineering guide =\= tourist. One has the experience the other doesn't.

And journalists usually get it wrong anyway because they cannot judge the risks themselves properly. And those few that do, locals or not doesn't matter, write different articles.

And just by the way. Assuming all locals have experience in their wilds is such a fallacy. Generally speaking the average level of knowledge might be higher, on an individual level you will always have your locals, e.g. the Alps, who are unable to climb, judge avalanche risks or even just zhe weather.