Alpine divorce

Have you ever been on an outdoor adventure and been abandoned by your travel partner? Perhaps you were too slow for your companion or perhaps you wanted to take different routes. Whatever the reason, it should never happen.

Splitting up causes all sorts of problems. I sat down recently and within minutes came up with over fifty reasons why groups shouldn’t split up. For example, there’s the group that splits up, but only one of the parties had a flashlight. Imagine the chaos when the other group gets caught in the dark. Then there’s the group that split up and agrees to meet at a trail intersection at a certain time. But missed each other and continued in opposite directions — much to their chagrin. Or imagine being the slow hiker abandoned by the faster and more experienced ones. It doesn’t matter why groups split up, when they do, they’re flirting with disaster. Splitting up all too often ends in wilderness emergencies.

The most common reason groups split up is pace. One person hikes at a comfortable speed; the other is chasing an invisible deadline. Abandoning your travel partner because they are slower is inconsiderate and unsafe. It sends a clear message: "I'd rather shave twenty minutes off my day than spend it with the people I came here with." In wilderness leadership circles, this is considered poor judgment. In the rest of society, it's known as being a jerk.

There’s a relatively new term for this behavior: “Alpine Divorce” — the moment one hiking partner decides that “for better or worse” didn’t include bad weather, slow pace, or challenging terrain. This term describes cases in which one person abandons another during a hike or wilderness trip. While it can happen between friends or expedition partners, romantic cases generate the most attention.

The phrase alpine divorce comes from an 1893 short story by Canadian author Robert Barr about an extremely unhappily married couple who spend a holiday in the Alps. The husband had planned to push his wife off the mountain during a hike, but in an Alfred Hitchcock-like twist, the wife informs him that she has framed him for murder before jumping off the ledge just before the police show up.

A January 2025 case in Austria is a textbook example. Thomas Plamberger and Kerstin Gurtner attempted to summit the 12,460-foot Grossglockner. Plamberger left her near the summit unprotected, rapidly deteriorating, and in the middle of a winter storm. He did it to get help, but it was too little, too late: When rescuers finally reached the scene Gurtner was found dead of hypothermia. Plamberger was charged with grossly negligent homicide.

According to Austrian prosecutors, Plamberger made nine major errors during the climb that contributed to Gurtner's death. The prosecution argued that Plamberger should never have brought Gurtner on their trip in the first place. She lacked experience and had never undertaken an adventure of this length, difficulty and altitude in winter conditions. In addition, they started late. This error was compounded by their failure to turn around after it was clear they were moving too slowly. Finally, the prosecution said they didn't have the proper clothing and equipment and were unprepared for an emergency. This wasn’t just a recipe for disaster, it was the perfect recipe for disaster.

The case became deeply divisive in the mountaineering world. Some saw Plamberger as a climber who made a series of unfortunate decisions under extreme circumstances; others saw a man whose choices crossed the line from poor judgment into negligence. In the end, the court found him guilty, though a sympathetic judge gave him a five-month suspended sentence.

See the Outside article by clicking on the picture

To me, there is no controversy. Plamberger committed what legendary wilderness educator Paul Petzoldt considered the cardinal sin of outdoor leadership: selfishness. Selfishness has probably caused more wilderness victims than avalanches, lightning, and the cold combined. When the summit, your schedule, and your needs become more important than the people depending on you. You're no longer leading a wilderness trip — you're abandoning the very responsibility that leadership requires.

The ultimate question is: When does a bad decision in the mountains become a criminal one? In my view it is when the warning signs are visible, the risks are known, and someone chooses to press on anyway…Plamberger got off easy.

I’ve hiked, paddled, skied, and snowshoed for nearly sixty years and the number of times I’ve let a group split up, I can count on one hand. And I did that only after careful consideration, and unanimous agreement.

So, what should you do if you are on a trip and your hiking companion leaves you in the lurch? It depends on the conditions. On Baker Mountain it probably will make no difference, and you can continue on without your companion. But on Mount Marcy it could make the difference between life and death and so you may want to head home.

Better yet, have the issue discussed and resolved before you leave the trailhead.

And if your travel partner doesn’t agree with it? — Look for a new partner.