|
meanandugly
Jan 31, 2012, 5:25 PM
Post #2 of 80
(13047 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 312
|
I have no problem with her actions. Its interesting by the pic that she finds important enough to wear a helmet while climbing, but none for her child...that's the problem.
|
|
|
|
|
Lazlo
Jan 31, 2012, 5:32 PM
Post #3 of 80
(13036 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5079
|
meanandugly wrote: I have no problem with her actions. Its interesting by the pic that she finds important enough to wear a helmet while climbing, but none for her child...that's the problem. Agreed. What made her decide to wear a helmet and yet decide her toddler didn't need one?
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jan 31, 2012, 5:48 PM
Post #4 of 80
(13012 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
meanandugly wrote: I have no problem with her actions. Its interesting by the pic that she finds important enough to wear a helmet while climbing, but none for her child...that's the problem. At first I thought this was about the two parents doing multi-pitch with two kids in a backpack... the thread that was in ladies room last year. But those people decided to remove the story and pictures instead of trying to justify it. Problems: yeah, I do see a lot of problems with it. Below is the rehash of the main points that have been brought up before. -The mother is wearing a helmet, but the kid is not, major WTF, IMO. -the kiddie pack that she is wearing seems nothing more than padded cloth a minimalist baby carrier. Definitely not designed for climbing. Looks to me like there are plenty of ways for the kid to slip out of it, and with climbing, if she is doing high steps, etc, there is plenty of wiggling and weight shifting. -falling (even on a toprope) with the weight behind her back could result in her swinging, spinning, and hitting the rock with her back -- where the kid happens to be tied up. -the kid has no way of anticipating the fall or bracing for it. Whiplash, anyone? There is a reason why little kids have to have their neck supported and why they have to be in car seats... Bottom line-- come ON, was there a specific reason why she needed to toprope with a kid attached to her? I am not advocating restraining kids in general, but if there was nobody to watch the kid, and the kid absolutely couldn't be kept contained in some sort of play tent, I would be more O.K. with then hanging the girl in a kiddie harness from a tree branch and letting her swing back and forth, than I am with this stupid idea.
|
|
|
|
|
Lazlo
Jan 31, 2012, 5:53 PM
Post #5 of 80
(13005 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 14, 2007
Posts: 5079
|
lena_chita wrote: meanandugly wrote: I have no problem with her actions. Its interesting by the pic that she finds important enough to wear a helmet while climbing, but none for her child...that's the problem. At first I thought this was about the two parents doing multi-pitch with two kids in a backpack... the thread that was in ladies room last year. But those people decided to remove the story and pictures instead of trying to justify it. Problems: yeah, I do see a lot of problems with it. Below is the rehash of the main points that have been brought up before. -The mother is wearing a helmet, but the kid is not, major WTF, IMO. -the kiddie pack that she is wearing seems nothing more than padded cloth a minimalist baby carrier. Definitely not designed for climbing. Looks to me like there are plenty of ways for the kid to slip out of it, and with climbing, if she is doing high steps, etc, there is plenty of wiggling and weight shifting. -falling (even on a toprope) with the weight behind her back could result in her swinging, spinning, and hitting the rock with her back -- where the kid happens to be tied up. -the kid has no way of anticipating the fall or bracing for it. Whiplash, anyone? There is a reason why little kids have to have their neck supported and why they have to be in car seats... Bottom line-- come ON, was there a specific reason why she needed to toprope with a kid attached to her? I am not advocating restraining kids in general, but if there was nobody to watch the kid, and the kid absolutely couldn't be kept contained in some sort of play tent, I would be more O.K. with then hanging the girl in a kiddie harness from a tree branch and letting her swing back and forth, than I am with this stupid idea. Pretty valid points, actually. I think you changed my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
njrox
Jan 31, 2012, 6:09 PM
Post #6 of 80
(12990 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251
|
This got me thinking. Today, I was looking at getting one of those bicycle trailer carriages. Does putting my toddler in one of those create a similiar scenario? Where I'm putting my child in harms' way by bringing them along when I do an activity. The bike trailers I'm looking at are rated for saftey by American Society for Testing and Materials. The trailer has been tested for and is designed to protect, to a reasonable degree, in the event of bike accident like a carseat would in a car accident. Show me a baby harness/bjorn that is designed and tested to carry and protect an infant while top-roping. Because I've never seen one. A car accident could be catastrophic. A bike accident could be catastrophic. A climbing fall could be catastrophic. But if you insist on putting your child in harms' way, at least offer them legitimate protection.
|
|
|
|
|
TarHeelEMT
Jan 31, 2012, 6:39 PM
Post #7 of 80
(12947 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 20, 2009
Posts: 724
|
lena_chita wrote: meanandugly wrote: I have no problem with her actions. Its interesting by the pic that she finds important enough to wear a helmet while climbing, but none for her child...that's the problem. At first I thought this was about the two parents doing multi-pitch with two kids in a backpack... the thread that was in ladies room last year. But those people decided to remove the story and pictures instead of trying to justify it. Problems: yeah, I do see a lot of problems with it. Below is the rehash of the main points that have been brought up before. -The mother is wearing a helmet, but the kid is not, major WTF, IMO. -the kiddie pack that she is wearing seems nothing more than padded cloth a minimalist baby carrier. Definitely not designed for climbing. Looks to me like there are plenty of ways for the kid to slip out of it, and with climbing, if she is doing high steps, etc, there is plenty of wiggling and weight shifting. -falling (even on a toprope) with the weight behind her back could result in her swinging, spinning, and hitting the rock with her back -- where the kid happens to be tied up. -the kid has no way of anticipating the fall or bracing for it. Whiplash, anyone? There is a reason why little kids have to have their neck supported and why they have to be in car seats... Bottom line-- come ON, was there a specific reason why she needed to toprope with a kid attached to her? I am not advocating restraining kids in general, but if there was nobody to watch the kid, and the kid absolutely couldn't be kept contained in some sort of play tent, I would be more O.K. with then hanging the girl in a kiddie harness from a tree branch and letting her swing back and forth, than I am with this stupid idea. Changed my mind.
|
|
|
|
|
hyhuu
Jan 31, 2012, 6:47 PM
Post #8 of 80
(12934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492
|
njrox wrote: This got me thinking. Today, I was looking at getting one of those bicycle trailer carriages. Does putting my toddler in one of those create a similiar scenario? Where I'm putting my child in harms' way by bringing them along when I do an activity. The bike trailers I'm looking at are rated for saftey by American Society for Testing and Materials. The trailer has been tested for and is designed to protect, to a reasonable degree, in the event of bike accident like a carseat would in a car accident. Show me a baby harness/bjorn that is designed and tested to carry and protect an infant while top-roping. Because I've never seen one. A car accident could be catastrophic. A bike accident could be catastrophic. A climbing fall could be catastrophic. But if you insist on putting your child in harms' way, at least offer them legitimate protection. I would not take the bike trailer on the road. I only use it on the bike trail or multi-use path.
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Jan 31, 2012, 6:48 PM
Post #9 of 80
(12934 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
what everyone else said ... i found it most interesting that the mom and the belayer wore a helmet top roping ... so they thought there would be some hazard ... but the baby none ... also note that, while rare, one can invert on top rope with a pack ... for that very reason on rappel, it is recommended that one clips through an improvised chest harness should yr pack be enough to unbalance you ... there are also the possibility of being spun around in mid air ... it is quite possible that one would hit the wall at an angle that would contact the baby note that the baby does not seem particularly secure either ...
|
|
|
|
|
meanandugly
Jan 31, 2012, 6:49 PM
Post #10 of 80
(12927 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 20, 2004
Posts: 312
|
Very valid points Lina. But if one takes the right precautions there is no reason to not do this with your child. I say that as I stir a pot of boiling sulfur...lol
|
|
|
|
|
njrox
Jan 31, 2012, 6:54 PM
Post #11 of 80
(12917 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 12, 2011
Posts: 251
|
hyhuu wrote: I would not take the bike trailer on the road. I only use it on the bike trail or multi-use path. Where I live I won't even take my bike out on the road unless it's very early on a Sunday morning!
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Jan 31, 2012, 7:07 PM
Post #12 of 80
(12896 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
meanandugly wrote: Very valid points Lina. But if one takes the right precautions there is no reason to not do this with your child. I say that as I stir a pot of boiling sulfur...lol Yes, I am sure, if you put the child in a well-designed sturdy pack, put a helmet on her, and take caution not to climb a route that has a potential of swinging on toprope, you are probably pretty safe. But WHY? The little girl is two yo. At this age, kids usually love to scramble over small rocks, and should be encouraged to do so, with adult spotting. The kids usually love being put in a harness, maybe climbing a few feet off the ground, and then swinging on the rope. The kids usually love being outside in general, enjoying nature, getting dirty, playing with leaves, rocks, sticks, sand, etc. etc. and enjoying a lot of attention from adults around them. Most 2yolds I know usually tolerate being in the pack, because it signifies GOING to someplace enjoyable, or because on long walks the regular rocking motion of the adult walking with the pack on is soothing. But what exactly is so enjoyable about being strapped in a pack while the mother is climbing? What valuable "experience" the child is gaining by being in the pack when the mother is climbing? I am totally for exposing the children to the things you love. I am totally for bringing them along on hikes, or when you go climbing, or when you go grocery shopping, for that matter. Bringing the kid along- -great! Letting her try climbing or swinging on the rope, if she wants to-- wonderful. There is your shared experience, exposure to the outdoors, blah-blah. But if you tell me that there is actually some sort of benefit to the little girl being in the pack while the mother climbs-- I'd call it bullshit. So in my view -- no positive, and plenty of negative (definitely the way it was done by this woman)
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Jan 31, 2012, 7:27 PM
Post #13 of 80
(12871 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
Lena and others hit on my major concerns. That carrier doesn't look particularly safe - even if it was more snug. The kid's right arm is clearly above the strap, and I know my kid could easily free both arms in a similar carrier. Going with a wrap might actually be more secure in this instance, but that just addresses the falling risk. Added weight up top only adds to the chances of inversion. Even though the risk might be small, the consequences could be huge. At least from that picture, it doesn't look like she has any type of chest harness. Even with a chest harness, she could still barn door and wreck that kid. The claim that you can just lower off if a problem develops is ridiculous. As a parent, I have nothing against bringing kids along (with certain caveats). I pick appropriate crags, I bring enough people so that someone is always with the kid(s) on the ground, and I make sure they're properly supervised and away from the base. My older son has a helmet and harness, and both his mother and I are comfortable with him climbing. As Lena said, there's plenty to do from climbing, scrambling, or just playing on a blanket with a few toys we've brought. Neither of us would be okay with this risk.
|
|
|
|
|
nate2006
Jan 31, 2012, 8:30 PM
Post #14 of 80
(12809 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 25, 2009
Posts: 70
|
Helmet or not on the child its a big fat hell no you don't climb with your child on your back. The only situation I can see it being Ok is in a survival situation and that is it.
|
|
|
|
|
dynosore
Jan 31, 2012, 9:24 PM
Post #15 of 80
(12773 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 29, 2004
Posts: 1768
|
Ffion. Enough said
|
|
|
|
|
ky2a
Feb 1, 2012, 2:35 AM
Post #16 of 80
(12648 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 30, 2012
Posts: 18
|
lena_chita wrote: meanandugly wrote: I have no problem with her actions. Its interesting by the pic that she finds important enough to wear a helmet while climbing, but none for her child...that's the problem. At first I thought this was about the two parents doing multi-pitch with two kids in a backpack... the thread that was in ladies room last year. But those people decided to remove the story and pictures instead of trying to justify it. Problems: yeah, I do see a lot of problems with it. Below is the rehash of the main points that have been brought up before. -The mother is wearing a helmet, but the kid is not, major WTF, IMO. -the kiddie pack that she is wearing seems nothing more than padded cloth a minimalist baby carrier. Definitely not designed for climbing. Looks to me like there are plenty of ways for the kid to slip out of it, and with climbing, if she is doing high steps, etc, there is plenty of wiggling and weight shifting. -falling (even on a toprope) with the weight behind her back could result in her swinging, spinning, and hitting the rock with her back -- where the kid happens to be tied up. -the kid has no way of anticipating the fall or bracing for it. Whiplash, anyone? There is a reason why little kids have to have their neck supported and why they have to be in car seats... Bottom line-- come ON, was there a specific reason why she needed to toprope with a kid attached to her? I am not advocating restraining kids in general, but if there was nobody to watch the kid, and the kid absolutely couldn't be kept contained in some sort of play tent, I would be more O.K. with then hanging the girl in a kiddie harness from a tree branch and letting her swing back and forth, than I am with this stupid idea. Agreed.. all valid points..
|
|
|
|
|
Juzzme
Feb 1, 2012, 4:29 AM
Post #17 of 80
(12596 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 21, 2011
Posts: 5
|
what if she climbs 5.12 and the pics were on a 5.4 rout? just sayn what no nomination's for the proactive Darwin award removing ones self and your kid at the same time.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Feb 1, 2012, 4:57 AM
Post #18 of 80
(12588 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
njrox wrote: Today, I was looking at getting one of those bicycle trailer carriages. Does putting my toddler in one of those create a similiar scenario? Where I'm putting my child in harms' way by bringing them along when I do an activity. Maybe, perhaps??? I don't think so, others maybe not. In one sense the trailer carriage seems safer then the standard baby-carriage, where you get to push the baby out into traffic ahead of you to run interference.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Feb 1, 2012, 5:02 AM
Post #19 of 80
(12582 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
Regarding the mom wearing a helmet and not the baby that some have mentioned. From the article:
The Daily Mail wrote: She also said that a helmet was not necessary on the route and she wore hers only ‘out of habit’, a decision she now ‘regretted’ because of how it looks. But other climbers said the limestone rock face at Three Cliffs Bay, on the Gower peninsula near Swansea, was notorious for breaking off and falling.
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Feb 1, 2012, 5:08 AM
Post #20 of 80
(12579 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
lena_chita wrote: Yes, I am sure, if you put the child in a well-designed sturdy pack, put a helmet on her, and take caution not to climb a route that has a potential of swinging on toprope, you are probably pretty safe. But WHY? The little girl is two yo. At this age, kids usually love to scramble over small rocks, and should be encouraged to do so, with adult spotting. The kids usually love being put in a harness, maybe climbing a few feet off the ground, and then swinging on the rope. The kids usually love being outside in general, enjoying nature, getting dirty, playing with leaves, rocks, sticks, sand, etc. etc. and enjoying a lot of attention from adults around them. It has nothing to do with the kid - it's all about the mom and her over sized ego.
In reply to: "Hey! Look at me! I'm so rad 'cause I do this extreme rock climbing sport. I'm so damn cool I even take my kid strapped to my back, so she can learn about the outdoors and how to be really extreme like her mom."
|
|
|
|
|
patto
Feb 1, 2012, 6:26 AM
Post #21 of 80
(12550 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 15, 2005
Posts: 1453
|
Is there really anything to suggest that the child is at much more risk that driving in an older model car or sitting in a seat back of a bicycle?? Rockclimbing is NOT dangerous if done sensibly. Cars are NOT dangerous if done sensibly. Remember it is simply one small error on a high speed highway and you are dead. So what makes this so much different?
|
|
|
|
|
irukandji
Feb 1, 2012, 9:10 AM
Post #23 of 80
(12523 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 17, 2010
Posts: 42
|
Now that is so wrong in so many ways...
|
|
|
|
|
jktinst
Feb 1, 2012, 7:17 PM
Post #24 of 80
(12379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 29, 2010
Posts: 89
|
Our kids have been involved in our various outdoor activities from the earliest possible age, provided they could be carried safely during the activity or they could do it themselves safely. We understand that safety is always going to be a compromise based on taking all reasonable precautions and accepting the fact that 0 risk does not exist any more on mountains, ski trails or lakes than it does on sidewalks, in the car or even at home. Anyway, I feel that the only ways a kid can be brought safely to a top-roping area are : 1. (S)he’s old and reliable enough to walk on their own over rough terrain and obey instructions to stay within a well-circumscribed area at ground level (ie with no drop-offs, streams, or in this case, the sea anywhere in sight) and well back from the rock face. Even then, for younger kids accompanied only by 2 adults, one climbing and one belaying, the belayer should do visual checks on the kid and have a ground anchor pre-rigged in case (s)he needs to lock-off the climber to respond to (or prevent) an emergency with the kid. 2. (S)he’s being looked after by a 3rd adult or older babysitting youngster in a spot well back from the face. If the belayer could belay from that spot, I suppose that he could carry the child in a pack 3. (S)he’s climbing with all the standard gear and precautions (including suitable helmet) and the route and anchor have been inspected and are free of loose rocks and pebbles. There is just no way that a child can be safely carried by the climber (or the belayer if he can’t stay way back of the face), regardless of the carrier design, the ability of the climber or the difficulty of the route. Additional precautions may also need to be taken depending on the area and the circumstances; eg wildlife could be an issue with a small kid being left for a length of time at a distance from the only two adults in the vicinity.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 1, 2012, 9:02 PM
Post #25 of 80
(12305 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Lazlo wrote: meanandugly wrote: I have no problem with her actions. Its interesting by the pic that she finds important enough to wear a helmet while climbing, but none for her child...that's the problem. Agreed. What made her decide to wear a helmet and yet decide her toddler didn't need one? From the article: "She also said that a helmet was not necessary on the route and she wore hers only ‘out of habit’, a decision she now ‘regretted’ because of how it looks."
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 1, 2012, 9:04 PM
Post #26 of 80
(5524 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
patto wrote: Is there really anything to suggest that the child is at much more risk that driving in an older model car or sitting in a seat back of a bicycle?? Rockclimbing is NOT dangerous if done sensibly. Cars are NOT dangerous if done sensibly. Remember it is simply one small error on a high speed highway and you are dead. So what makes this so much different? I agree. The only thing amiss in that to me is the lack of a helmet on the kid. I took my 3-year old niece rappelling. She had a fine time.
|
|
|
|
|
redlude97
Feb 1, 2012, 10:05 PM
Post #27 of 80
(5502 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 27, 2008
Posts: 990
|
patto wrote: Is there really anything to suggest that the child is at much more risk that driving in an older model car or sitting in a seat back of a bicycle?? Rockclimbing is NOT dangerous if done sensibly. Cars are NOT dangerous if done sensibly. Remember it is simply one small error on a high speed highway and you are dead. So what makes this so much different? Not really a good argument, both are potentially dangerous, and when you consider the danger as a function of time spent doing the activity climbing is significantly more dangerous.
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Feb 1, 2012, 10:49 PM
Post #28 of 80
(5488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
If someone has to wear the kid on his back, I'd think the belayer would be the better choice.
|
|
|
|
|
onceahardman
Feb 1, 2012, 11:29 PM
Post #29 of 80
(5480 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 3, 2007
Posts: 2493
|
Well written, Lena. I have one point I'd like to bring up, though. When I started my kids out skiing (at age 3 for all of them), the weight of a ski helmet relative to the strength of the neck musculature of a toddler is something i worried about. The extra mass on a kid's head needs to be decelerated in a fall, and often the kid's muscles are just not equal to the task, potentially resulting in increased risk of whiplash or worse. I don't like the idea of really little kids going up on a rope at all, and I question whether a helmet adds or subtracts from the danger. A little easy bouldering with a tight spotter is fine.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 1, 2012, 11:47 PM
Post #30 of 80
(5473 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
It's a sweet looking crag anyway
|
|
|
|
|
Player
Feb 2, 2012, 8:17 AM
Post #32 of 80
(5435 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 30, 2011
Posts: 56
|
shimanilami wrote: If someone has to wear the kid on his back, I'd think the belayer would be the better choice. Not at a crag prone to rock breakage and with no helmet.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 2, 2012, 11:49 AM
Post #33 of 80
(5406 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: It's a sweet looking crag anyway Yep. World-class 5.7 beach toproping. Right up there with Point Dume. Both are fine with me. Maybe I'd get sick of them after a while, but they both seem to be in pretty sweet locations (ok, LA notwithstanding).
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Feb 2, 2012, 2:52 PM
Post #34 of 80
(5380 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
Gmburns2000 wrote: jt512 wrote: Gmburns2000 wrote: It's a sweet looking crag anyway Yep. World-class 5.7 beach toproping. Right up there with Point Dume. Both are fine with me. Maybe I'd get sick of them after a while, but they both seem to be in pretty sweet locations (ok, LA notwithstanding). I'm with Burns on this one. A day at the beach with some climbing thrown in? I don't know that I could find much to complain about. It may not be for SERIOUS CLIMBERS, but I could live with that.
|
|
|
|
|
hyhuu
Feb 2, 2012, 4:00 PM
Post #35 of 80
(5362 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 25, 2001
Posts: 492
|
patto wrote: Is there really anything to suggest that the child is at much more risk that driving in an older model car or sitting in a seat back of a bicycle?? Rockclimbing is NOT dangerous if done sensibly. Cars are NOT dangerous if done sensibly. Remember it is simply one small error on a high speed highway and you are dead. So what makes this so much different? The difference for me is one is by neccesity and the other is just recreation. I don't ever put my kids in a car just for kick.
|
|
|
|
|
akornylak
Feb 4, 2012, 12:51 AM
Post #36 of 80
(5309 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 9, 2003
Posts: 251
|
I take exception to this. She is not climbing, she is on a top rope.
|
|
|
|
|
cliffmama
Feb 4, 2012, 5:10 AM
Post #37 of 80
(5275 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 16, 2003
Posts: 65
|
Lena has brought up many of the same issues that I thought about when I read the article. I won't repeat myself here, but I talked about the various risks in my blog at http://cliffmama.com/...toddler-controversy/ plus there's some excellent and thoughtful comments people posted on my blog. One thing that no one seemed to mention is while she says there's no chance of rock fall, someone was above her to take that photo, so yes, there was the chance of dropping gear or dislodging a rock. Plus she's overconfident. Nothing is 100% safe, and a little practical fear and caution would do her good. She has only been climbing a little more than a year and is already boasting about ideas of writing a book about where to go climbing with kids. She's a bit too confident and too enthusiastic to take a step back and have the patience to learn more about her new found passion before she puts herself out there as a spokesperson.
(This post was edited by cliffmama on Feb 4, 2012, 5:11 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
rcmoose
Feb 4, 2012, 9:49 PM
Post #38 of 80
(5233 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Sep 10, 2005
Posts: 19
|
I am the father of 19y/o & 26y/o daughters. If the mother in this post doesn't understand what is wrong with climbing with her daughter on her back, don't bother trying to explain it to her. This is natural selection at work.
|
|
|
|
|
JasonsDrivingForce
Feb 6, 2012, 1:36 AM
Post #39 of 80
(5199 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 3, 2009
Posts: 687
|
This is the same thing as parents letting their kids ride around in the car without a seat belt. Or parents that leave loaded guns lying around the house. Or parents that leave their 5 year old home alone to look after their younger siblings. The child didn't get hurt this time but if she continues to climb like this something will eventually happen. When it does happen I won't have any sympathy for her. I will feel sorry for the child that was put into a dangerous situation that she couldn't comprehend. Hopefully, the lady sees these posts and rethinks what she is doing. It would be a lot safer if she just put the kid in a full body harness(with a helmet) and drug her up the cliff. At least then the kid could learn to climb on her own.
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
Feb 6, 2012, 2:02 AM
Post #40 of 80
(5193 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
akornylak wrote: I take exception to this. She is not climbing, she is on a top rope. What do you take exception to in a situation where a toddler is brought up the side of a cliff in a device that looks like it could fall out of?
(This post was edited by sp115 on Feb 6, 2012, 2:04 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
Rkenney
Feb 10, 2012, 5:15 PM
Post #41 of 80
(5129 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 17, 2008
Posts: 8
|
Climbing is a dangerous activity. This toddler does not yet understand the risk that is being taken and is not even actively climbing. I climb, not riding on someone's back, because the excitement outweighs the risk in my opinion. However, this toddler is not making this decision for herself. While I do believe that riding in a car can be more dangerous than certain climbs, there is a social necessity to drive/ride in a car. My main problem with this scenario is that the toddler can not make this decision for herself and is therefore being put at undue risk without the potential for the rewarding experience.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 10, 2012, 7:51 PM
Post #42 of 80
(5099 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
Rkenney wrote: Climbing is a dangerous activity. This toddler does not yet understand the risk that is being taken and is not even actively climbing. I climb, not riding on someone's back, because the excitement outweighs the risk in my opinion. However, this toddler is not making this decision for herself. While I do believe that riding in a car can be more dangerous than certain climbs, there is a social necessity to drive/ride in a car. My main problem with this scenario is that the toddler can not make this decision for herself and is therefore being put at undue risk without the potential for the rewarding experience. To what age do we need to extend that logic?
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 10, 2012, 7:53 PM
Post #43 of 80
(5097 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
I'm just going to say one thing, and then I'm out. In a world where many mothers smoke while pregnant, birth drug-addicted babies and take part in all sorts of activities that are 100% definitely bad for their children, is this really all that bad?
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Feb 10, 2012, 8:18 PM
Post #44 of 80
(5091 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
j_ung wrote: I'm just going to say one thing, and then I'm out. In a world where many mothers smoke while pregnant, birth drug-addicted babies and take part in all sorts of activities that are 100% definitely bad for their children, is this really all that bad? No. But it is dumb and unnecessary. Would you jump out of the plane with L. in a Snugli carrier? Why not? It is pretty safe, and I bet he would have a good time... My take on the situation is that this woman did something dumb, because she didn't think it though, and didn't come up with a better plan of how to have a kid and go climbing, too. And now she is attempting to justify it by bullshit talk about exposing your child to things you love, and shared experiences, and the like.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 10, 2012, 8:23 PM
Post #45 of 80
(5089 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
lena_chita wrote: j_ung wrote: I'm just going to say one thing, and then I'm out. In a world where many mothers smoke while pregnant, birth drug-addicted babies and take part in all sorts of activities that are 100% definitely bad for their children, is this really all that bad? No. But it is dumb and unnecessary. Would you jump out of the plane with L. in a Snugli carrier? Why not? It is pretty safe, and I bet he would have a good time... My take on the situation is that this woman did something dumb, because she didn't think it though, and didn't come up with a better plan of how to have a kid and go climbing, too. And now she is attempting to justify it by bullshit talk about exposing your child to things you love, and shared experiences, and the like. No, and I also wouldn't climb with him in an infant carrier. I just don't think it's bad enough to warrant the ridiculous amount attention it's getting all over the climbing web. Frankly, I'm more disgusted that there are so many people ready judge something that isn't their business and obviously ended up AOK in the end. I keep wanting to put my son in the oven with a bunch of vegetables and take pics, but Wendy's afraid we'll get a visit from CPS. Even though I'm reasonably certain I could later produce a live and uncooked Lincoln, she's probably right. It's probably not worth the potential hassle. I have little doubt that there would be no shortage of people ready tell me I'm a terrible person. Hell, just for posting that, somebody here will probably chime in.
(This post was edited by j_ung on Feb 10, 2012, 8:27 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
bearbreeder
Feb 10, 2012, 8:37 PM
Post #46 of 80
(5074 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 2, 2009
Posts: 1960
|
theres a difference between doing something stupid and getting away with it ... and trying to justify that its perfectly fine ... and end up doing it over and over again and doing it, realizing its dumb, and not doing it again ive stopped climbing with some people who try to make excuses about how its all right because no one got hurt ... and then do the same thing over and over again ... the natural instinct of some people is simply deny or ignore anything they do wrong ... i pointed out quietly to someone who was belaying that his belay device was upside down ... he ignored me and kept hooking up that way, likely because he didnt want his partner to realize he didnt know what he was doing ... i tend to avoid those people in climbing and in life ....
(This post was edited by bearbreeder on Feb 10, 2012, 8:38 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Feb 10, 2012, 8:38 PM
Post #47 of 80
(5072 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
j_ung wrote: lena_chita wrote: j_ung wrote: I'm just going to say one thing, and then I'm out. In a world where many mothers smoke while pregnant, birth drug-addicted babies and take part in all sorts of activities that are 100% definitely bad for their children, is this really all that bad? No. But it is dumb and unnecessary. Would you jump out of the plane with L. in a Snugli carrier? Why not? It is pretty safe, and I bet he would have a good time... My take on the situation is that this woman did something dumb, because she didn't think it though, and didn't come up with a better plan of how to have a kid and go climbing, too. And now she is attempting to justify it by bullshit talk about exposing your child to things you love, and shared experiences, and the like. No, and I also wouldn't climb with him in an infant carrier. I just don't think it's bad enough to warrant the ridiculous amount attention it's getting all over the climbing web. Frankly, I'm more disgusted that there are so many people ready judge something that isn't their business and obviously ended up AOK in the end. When someone inexperienced does something that ended O.K., but had a potential not to, and then instead of saying, oh, yeah, I see now, that was not the best thing to do, they defend their actions, it gets people riled up. It is not my business when some gumby ties in to a swinging/traversing/overhanging TR without directionals and a potential to break an ankle. But to say that just because they didn't fall and break their ankle that time, they should continue to do so, would be silly. And if they defend their actions instead of saying, yeah, O.K., maybe it wasn't the smartest thing to do, I will not think that it is O.K. That quote from the woman, saying that she was wearing a helmet " just out of habit" but didn't think of how it would look, doesn't make me feel, oh, O.K. then, she is smart and knows what she is doing. If anything, it points at other things she is not thinking.
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
Feb 10, 2012, 8:39 PM
Post #48 of 80
(5069 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
j_ung wrote: lena_chita wrote: j_ung wrote: I'm just going to say one thing, and then I'm out. In a world where many mothers smoke while pregnant, birth drug-addicted babies and take part in all sorts of activities that are 100% definitely bad for their children, is this really all that bad? No. But it is dumb and unnecessary. Would you jump out of the plane with L. in a Snugli carrier? Why not? It is pretty safe, and I bet he would have a good time... My take on the situation is that this woman did something dumb, because she didn't think it though, and didn't come up with a better plan of how to have a kid and go climbing, too. And now she is attempting to justify it by bullshit talk about exposing your child to things you love, and shared experiences, and the like. No, and I also wouldn't climb with him in an infant carrier. I just don't think it's bad enough to warrant the ridiculous amount attention it's getting all over the climbing web. Frankly, I'm more disgusted that there are so many people ready judge something that isn't their business and obviously ended up AOK in the end. I keep wanting to put my son in the oven with a bunch of vegetables and take pics, but Wendy's afraid we'll get a visit from CPS. Even though I'm reasonably certain I could later produce a live and uncooked Lincoln, she's probably right. It's probably not worth the potential hassle. I have little doubt that there would be no shortage of people ready tell me I'm a terrible person. Hell, just for posting that, somebody here will probably chime in. "Your search for posts made by j_ung returned 16490 (judgment free) results"
(This post was edited by sp115 on Feb 10, 2012, 8:41 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 10, 2012, 8:47 PM
Post #49 of 80
(5063 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
sp115 wrote: j_ung wrote: lena_chita wrote: j_ung wrote: I'm just going to say one thing, and then I'm out. In a world where many mothers smoke while pregnant, birth drug-addicted babies and take part in all sorts of activities that are 100% definitely bad for their children, is this really all that bad? No. But it is dumb and unnecessary. Would you jump out of the plane with L. in a Snugli carrier? Why not? It is pretty safe, and I bet he would have a good time... My take on the situation is that this woman did something dumb, because she didn't think it though, and didn't come up with a better plan of how to have a kid and go climbing, too. And now she is attempting to justify it by bullshit talk about exposing your child to things you love, and shared experiences, and the like. No, and I also wouldn't climb with him in an infant carrier. I just don't think it's bad enough to warrant the ridiculous amount attention it's getting all over the climbing web. Frankly, I'm more disgusted that there are so many people ready judge something that isn't their business and obviously ended up AOK in the end. I keep wanting to put my son in the oven with a bunch of vegetables and take pics, but Wendy's afraid we'll get a visit from CPS. Even though I'm reasonably certain I could later produce a live and uncooked Lincoln, she's probably right. It's probably not worth the potential hassle. I have little doubt that there would be no shortage of people ready tell me I'm a terrible person. Hell, just for posting that, somebody here will probably chime in. "Your search for posts made by j_ung returned 16490 (judgment free) results" Point taken. And well made.
|
|
|
|
|
markc
Feb 10, 2012, 9:52 PM
Post #50 of 80
(5048 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 21, 2003
Posts: 2481
|
j_ung wrote: Rkenney wrote: Climbing is a dangerous activity. This toddler does not yet understand the risk that is being taken and is not even actively climbing. I climb, not riding on someone's back, because the excitement outweighs the risk in my opinion. However, this toddler is not making this decision for herself. While I do believe that riding in a car can be more dangerous than certain climbs, there is a social necessity to drive/ride in a car. My main problem with this scenario is that the toddler can not make this decision for herself and is therefore being put at undue risk without the potential for the rewarding experience. To what age do we need to extend that logic? That's a fair question. My son is 5, and he's gone climbing on several occasions. The first time was just before his third birthday, and he's just as incapable of making an informed decision now as he was then.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 11, 2012, 2:56 PM
Post #53 of 80
(9541 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
jt512 wrote: j_ung wrote: I'm just going to say one thing, and then I'm out. In a world where many mothers smoke while pregnant, birth drug-addicted babies and take part in all sorts of activities that are 100% definitely bad for their children, is this really all that bad? It's probably a 5 on a 1-to-10 scale of stupid things rock climbing parents do. The following has got to be at least an 8: If it were real.
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 11, 2012, 3:47 PM
Post #55 of 80
(9533 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
I don't remember where I've seen the other photos, but having seen the other photos it seems apparent that it is photo-shopped. Well, maybe this one is real, but from what I've seen it is just as easily not.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Gmburns2000
Feb 11, 2012, 6:56 PM
Post #59 of 80
(9497 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2007
Posts: 15266
|
camhead wrote: j_ung wrote: I keep wanting to put my son in the oven with a bunch of vegetables and take pics, but Wendy's afraid we'll get a visit from CPS. Even though I'm reasonably certain I could later produce a live and uncooked Lincoln, she's probably right. It's probably not worth the potential hassle. I have little doubt that there would be no shortage of people ready tell me I'm a terrible person. Hell, just for posting that, somebody here will probably chime in. My God, that would be awesome. Like this, but better: Being from Maine, I've seen that photo before AND I think it's awesome.
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 11, 2012, 8:30 PM
Post #60 of 80
(9490 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
happiegrrrl wrote: j_ung wrote: I keep wanting to put my son in the oven with a bunch of vegetables and take pics... OMG!!! You're KIDDING, right? How can you even THINK such a thought? Who do you think you are, anyway? AWilliam Wegman protege but since Weimeriners are already taken as models being put in strange tableaus, a baby might do the trick? What - are you going to have a BUNCH of babies so you can make group scenes like Wegman does??? Would this image of Wegmans: [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/happiegrrrl/JayBaby.jpg[/IMG] Inspire you to do THIS to your baby, all in the name of fame??? [IMG]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v408/happiegrrrl/Jay-Baby.jpg[/IMG] You are a BAD man, J-ung! Very bad - to even THINK about putting your baby in the oven. WHat are you - some sort of HITLER!!!??? (I assume you know this is a joke) My God! You're right! I should put him in a cage with dogs instead. (And yes, I knew. )
|
|
|
|
|
lena_chita
Moderator
Feb 12, 2012, 2:43 AM
Post #61 of 80
(9461 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 27, 2006
Posts: 6087
|
camhead wrote: j_ung wrote: I keep wanting to put my son in the oven with a bunch of vegetables and take pics, but Wendy's afraid we'll get a visit from CPS. Even though I'm reasonably certain I could later produce a live and uncooked Lincoln, she's probably right. It's probably not worth the potential hassle. I have little doubt that there would be no shortage of people ready tell me I'm a terrible person. Hell, just for posting that, somebody here will probably chime in. My God, that would be awesome. Like this, but better: I have a picture of baby A. in a fruit basket
|
|
|
|
|
jt512
Feb 12, 2012, 4:11 AM
Post #62 of 80
(9455 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 12, 2001
Posts: 21904
|
camhead wrote: jt512 wrote: [img]http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/stupid-rock-climbing-parent-stunt.jpg[/img] Come on Jay, I thought you were skeptical enough and had spent enough time on message boards to know that this is a photoshop job troll. (though, if your post was itself a troll, brah-vo my good sir) Since it is an Epperson photo, I assumed it was real. I still see no reason to presume it isn't. Jay
|
|
|
|
|
j_ung
Feb 13, 2012, 1:22 PM
Post #63 of 80
(9403 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 21, 2003
Posts: 18690
|
jt512 wrote: camhead wrote: jt512 wrote: [img]http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/stupid-rock-climbing-parent-stunt.jpg[/img] Come on Jay, I thought you were skeptical enough and had spent enough time on message boards to know that this is a photoshop job troll. (though, if your post was itself a troll, brah-vo my good sir) Since it is an Epperson photo, I assumed it was real. I still see no reason to presume it isn't. Jay It's entirely possible the rope-bag version is the Photoshop and the baby version is real. http://semi-rad.com/...g-baby-real-or-fake/
|
|
|
|
|
bill413
Feb 13, 2012, 2:52 PM
Post #64 of 80
(9390 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 19, 2004
Posts: 5674
|
Pointless endangerment! The kid's hands aren't free to break his fall.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Feb 13, 2012, 7:53 PM
Post #65 of 80
(9356 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
jt512 wrote: camhead wrote: jt512 wrote: [img]http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/stupid-rock-climbing-parent-stunt.jpg[/img] Come on Jay, I thought you were skeptical enough and had spent enough time on message boards to know that this is a photoshop job troll. (though, if your post was itself a troll, brah-vo my good sir) Since it is an Epperson photo, I assumed it was real. I still see no reason to presume it isn't. Jay Agreed. It would be odd(understatement) for a pro photographer to include a work with that type of photoshop effect on their website. With or without a disclaimer identifying the modification.
|
|
|
|
|
matterunomama
Feb 14, 2012, 12:20 AM
Post #66 of 80
(9324 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 419
|
In reply to: It's probably a 5 on a 1-to-10 scale of stupid things rock climbing parents do. The following has got to be at least an 8: [img]http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/stupid-rock-climbing-parent-stunt.jpg[/img] Please reassure me that that picture is not real
|
|
|
|
|
cacalderon
Feb 14, 2012, 12:22 AM
Post #67 of 80
(9323 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 10, 2006
Posts: 150
|
totally reckless -- she could fall and spin and the kid could get really hurt.
|
|
|
|
|
matterunomama
Feb 14, 2012, 4:29 PM
Post #69 of 80
(9265 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 11, 2005
Posts: 419
|
OK. I read it. It didn't answer the question, did it?
|
|
|
|
|
marc801
Feb 14, 2012, 5:28 PM
Post #70 of 80
(9254 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 1, 2005
Posts: 2806
|
matterunomama wrote: OK. I read it. It didn't answer the question, did it? Nope! Since even Epperson won't fess up, it remains open to conjecture. Frankly, both versions, baby and rope bag, appear Photoshopped, IMHO.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
shimanilami
Feb 14, 2012, 10:24 PM
Post #72 of 80
(9204 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 24, 2006
Posts: 2043
|
Player wrote: shimanilami wrote: If someone has to wear the kid on his back, I'd think the belayer would be the better choice. Not at a crag prone to rock breakage and with no helmet. So if the rock is bad and you don't have a extra helmet, then for sure the climber should wear the kid?! Call me crazy, but I think I'll belay with the kid on my back instead. And I'll just take a few steps back from the wall in case something pops off.
|
|
|
|
|
smallclimber
Feb 15, 2012, 2:24 AM
Post #73 of 80
(9175 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 11, 2003
Posts: 301
|
shimanilami wrote: Player wrote: shimanilami wrote: If someone has to wear the kid on his back, I'd think the belayer would be the better choice. Not at a crag prone to rock breakage and with no helmet. So if the rock is bad and you don't have a extra helmet, then for sure the climber should wear the kid?! Call me crazy, but I think I'll belay with the kid on my back instead. And I'll just take a few steps back from the wall in case something pops off. If for some reason (and it would have to be a very very good reason) there was no option but for one of them to have the baby I'd also go for the belayer. The child's head is below the level of the adult so if a rock fell there is a chance that the belayer (with helmet!) would cop it instead of the kid, and as the climber looks lighter than the belayer and is on top rope, the belayer should not get pulled around even if she fell, whereas the climber could easily swing and have the child hit the wall. Neither is a good idea, but in an emergency I'd keep the child on the ground.
|
|
|
|
|
shockabuku
Feb 15, 2012, 2:26 AM
Post #74 of 80
(9174 views)
Shortcut
Registered: May 20, 2006
Posts: 4868
|
happiegrrrl wrote: jt512 wrote: camhead wrote: jt512 wrote: [img]http://jt512.dyndns.org/images/stupid-rock-climbing-parent-stunt.jpg[/img] Come on Jay, I thought you were skeptical enough and had spent enough time on message boards to know that this is a photoshop job troll. (though, if your post was itself a troll, brah-vo my good sir) Since it is an Epperson photo, I assumed it was real. I still see no reason to presume it isn't. Jay Agreed. It would be odd(understatement) for a pro photographer to include a work with that type of photoshop effect on their website. With or without a disclaimer identifying the modification. Yep, and that's really a shame. If an artist can't make jokes who can? Maybe a comedian, I suppose.
|
|
|
|
|
sp115
Feb 15, 2012, 4:31 AM
Post #75 of 80
(9158 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 17, 2007
Posts: 515
|
marc801 wrote: matterunomama wrote: OK. I read it. It didn't answer the question, did it? Nope! Since even Epperson won't fess up, it remains open to conjecture. Frankly, both versions, baby and rope bag, appear Photoshopped, IMHO. And why on earth would he admit anything? The image is for sale and every time it's brought up it drives people to his site.
|
|
|
|
|
miles1776
Feb 15, 2012, 11:01 AM
Post #76 of 80
(1488 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 11
|
I have a good story about how people can overreact to things. I took my son of 4 to RRG for a weekend and we were doing some easy climbing and rapping. I put him in a full bod harness and anchored him to a tree with about 30 ft of rope. He could just get to the edge to watch. I got a phone call from his mother's attorney a couple days later (we're divorced) telling me they were taking me to court to get supervised visitation. Seems he told her I tied him to a tree but left out the rope and harness part. I tried to explain it to her but she was convinced that I tied him to a tree while I climbed. fortunately the judge was more intelligent and the pictures I had helped.
|
|
|
|
|
happiegrrrl
Feb 16, 2012, 1:33 AM
Post #77 of 80
(1456 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2004
Posts: 4660
|
HAHA - but you did, in actuality, tie him to a tree. So you could go climbing without worry of his wandering off...
|
|
|
|
|
clee03m
Feb 24, 2012, 3:50 PM
Post #78 of 80
(1389 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 29, 2004
Posts: 785
|
miles1776 wrote: I have a good story about how people can overreact to things. I took my son of 4 to RRG for a weekend and we were doing some easy climbing and rapping. I put him in a full bod harness and anchored him to a tree with about 30 ft of rope. He could just get to the edge to watch. I got a phone call from his mother's attorney a couple days later (we're divorced) telling me they were taking me to court to get supervised visitation. Seems he told her I tied him to a tree but left out the rope and harness part. I tried to explain it to her but she was convinced that I tied him to a tree while I climbed. fortunately the judge was more intelligent and the pictures I had helped. Personally, I would not be OK with my husband tying my son to a tree--full body harness or not--and climbing. Don't get me wrong. I've been tempted to do something like that. But in the end, I seem to be comfortable only if there is an extra person to watch my son.
|
|
|
|
|
miles1776
Feb 24, 2012, 4:24 PM
Post #79 of 80
(1377 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 29, 2008
Posts: 11
|
See you make it sound like it's a horrible thing. He was not "TIED" to a tree. He was anchored to a tree a few feet away from me. There was no way he could go anywhere and get hurt. He was more intent on stacking up small rocks than getting in trouble. So I guess if people are that uptight then they should keep their kid at home in the play-pen. My kid is now 16 years old and a safe climber. Both of my boys saftey has always been the most important thing. There is a line between kids experiencing life and being sheltered.
(This post was edited by miles1776 on Feb 24, 2012, 8:18 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
Rmsyll2
Feb 26, 2012, 1:10 AM
Post #80 of 80
(1319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 6, 2010
Posts: 266
|
There is also: http://cragmama.com/photo-gallery/ They call "cragbaby" C. Because he is now learning to talk, and still attracted to shiny things, when he was going through her gear recently, she was coaching "Can you say 'number one, red? Can you say 'number two, blue?'" [or whatever the code is for her gear] The youngest put on a wall, that I know, was 3 1/2: http://climbpilotnc.us/...ks%20childC%20sm.jpg Children five are not unique, and a few are way past playing at it or being hauled up: http://climbpilotnc.us/...%20climbC3c%20sm.jpg .
|
|
|
|
|
|