In all, Yates got more out of the weekend than he'd bargained for. He originally climbed the mountain to surpass former experiences--Mt. Rainier, Mt. Anderson in the Olympics and extensive winter camping--and prepare himself for future climbs--Mt. McKinley this summer.
Despite all his previous experiences, Yates had never slept through a windstorm in such an exposed position not bivouaced on a rock. He had set off "anticipating part of a Mission Impossible chase scene with rangers hot on my trail. That aspect of the chase was all just a game. I would play fair if they caught me," he said, but added he didn't expect the plane, the helicopter, or the searchers.
According to Lee Tibbs, the park director, the park supervisor made the decision to send out the plane when he realized someone was climbing alone. Though Yates claims he was in full view and can't understand how the plane missed him, it did. Since there were no tracks leading down the mountain and since they couldn't spot him from the air, park authorities assumed that Yates was injured. It was then that they decided to call in the helicopter.
The decision the supervisor made is a routine decision taken "in cases when we know someone is on the mountain. They're not supposed to be there alone. The weather was severe--a 70 to 82 degree below zero wind-chill factor on top of the mountain. We had a moral and legal obligation to get Mr. Yates," explained Tibbs.
In the park administrator's view, "No one is competent to do the hike alone. It only takes one slip. Mr. Yates had good equipment and seemed a capable individual but he shouldn't have done it by himself," continued Tibbs.
The authorities may have taken such extreme measures to find Yates because of an accident last year, when a pair of climbers illegally attempted to scale the mountain. One of the climbers fell and broke his arm. If it hadn't been for a ranger who spotted them--much as Yates was spotted--no one would have found the two men.
Yates is sorry that he put a lot of rangers and the pilots of the helicopter and plane in a dangerous situation, and he regrets that he underestimated the scale of the operation. However, he still feels that the park officials never should have had to do what they did in the first place--namely initiate the search.
Yates feels that "no one else was affected by my actions including the wilderness itself. You should have the right to make decisions about yourself."
The incident raised what Yates calls a "fundamental issue in democracy. How much can people be responsible for themselves? When are you competent enough to judge your own competence?"
In his letter to the Central Maine Morning Sentinel, Yates wrote "It is my belief that every person should have the fundamental right to make decisions regarding his or her own fate and to be able to accept the consequences of those decisions. The government should not have to be responsible for protecting me from myself. As long as I am the only one affected by my actions, there should be no need for the government to interfere. I judged myself capable of completing the climb and willing to accept the risk of injury or failure. Who else is as familiar as I with my own competence, and why should I have to defer to someone else's definition of acceptable risk?"
He points out that the plane, helicopter and ranger hours were already paid for by taxpayer money. And although the park authorities feel that four is the minimal number of people needed to deal with an accident in severe weather conditions, Yates thinks that one can be just as safe. At least an injured solo hiker isn't endangering the lives of anyone else.
Yates would like to see park systems institute a legal waiver system which would free the government from any responsibility for camper safety. Signing a waiver would also make the hiker more aware of the seriousness of undertaking a hike in the wilderness. However, at the present time, most waivers do not hold up in court.
Friends, hikers and fellow climbers at Harvard are proud of Yates. No one doubted his ability from the outset. Not only did he bluff the system, but the climb was a success. However, they are not so clear on the answers to the questions he has raised about who should take responsibility and how. For instance, the places in the U.S. where one can climb and no one would know or care greatly outnumber the regulated areas. Someone wanting to climb unimpeded could in any one of countless mountain ranges. At the same time, though, as Yates' case illustrates, it isn't fair that one can't climb solo in a particular area just because it happens to be nationally- or state-owned. Park land is land that the people have bought; they should be entitled to use it however they please provided they don't abuse it or anyone else.
Up to a point, Yates' arguments make sense: everyone should have the right to determine his or her own competence. As long as people are made to realize that the alternative to a successful trip may be death or injury, then their decision to go should not be subject to government intervention.
On the other hand, not everyone is able to judge his own competence realistically. Mountains, rivers and deserts witness many deaths annually--because people err in their self-evaluations, because they don't know what to expect and because neither they nor the wilderness act predictably.
By allowing everyone to do anything, by allowing people to judge their own levels of competence, one would be sanctioning those deaths. By assuming that each person is his own best judge, one would be placing implicit faith in man's self-perception. While this might benefit the expert or the lucky hiker, it might also sacrifice those who are ignorant, overly ambitious, or unlucky. According to one friend, Yates came back "the conquering hero." But suppose he had slipped and twisted an ankle, suppose he hadn't come back? What then?