HappyCat
HappyCat, we are in agreement. The climbers don't seem to have much concern about the risk to their rescuers, do they? They seem to only care about their thrills.
BBB
There is another factor that is not considered. It may sound harsh, but - as a representative of local government - I feel compelled to mention that it costs a whole lot of taxpayer dollars to search for these people. Nearly all these costs are borne by local law enforcement and search and rescue units, which are funded by property taxes. Needless to say, most of these folks are not residents of the area, and therefore pay none of the associated costs. Cold-hearted as it may seem, it doesn't seem fair for the economically disadvantaged people of our area to pay the bills for the folks from the outside who can afford expensive forms of outdoor recreation.
Pretty much in agreement w/CowDoc - In some states, a rescue's costs can be levied against the rescued party, but that's often a moot point, since costs can be recovered only from one who has assets to begin with. Even with a large volunteer component, rescue costs can and do mount rapidly and staggeringly, especially so when the rescue becomes extremely complicated.
I have a great deal of sympathy for the families of those unfortunate but unwise climbers, much less sympathy for the climbers themselves. I've done a bit of hiking and a bit of climbing, and something I've learned it is best to not do is underestimate nature - mountain or meadow, stream or ocean - or overestimate one's own abilities. Whatever might be the nitty-gritty details, what exactly happened up there, that tragedy, falls to the realm of error of judgement. Bad luck was a factor, yeah, no denying that - but being unprepared to deal adequately with that bad luck can be blamed only on those climbers.
Unfortunately when some people pit themselves against Nature, Nature wins.
In an ideal world, you'd be able to legislate common sense.
Meanwhile, couldn't a creative lawyer get some recompense for rescue efforts from a climbers Homeowners Policy?
caught the last few minutes of "the daily show" with jon stewart on friday . he had an experienced climber on his show and asked him how to best stay out of trouble .
he had some very simple answers :
- be well prepared ,
- know your limitations ,
- don't be concerned about having to turn back ; there is always another time ,
- remember that only a ROUNDTRIP with a safe return counts as having achieved the goal - sensible advice !
he said , that climbers that are almost within reach of their goal often have a hard time realizing that the last few hundred feet are the most difficult .
hbg
Wow! You guys are a tough crowd.
The fact is that most of the communities on the mountain wouldn't exist without tourist dollars. Tourist might not pay taxes (Oregon has no sales tax) but they certainly fund the people who do. They do pay rather extensive hotel taxes in addition to the billions of dollars they spend on recreation here.
The fact is - nobody wants to see anybody stranded on the mountain. It breaks your heart every time it happens and it happens more often than the national news comments upon. People VOLUNTEER to help rescue because they can't stand the thought of someone being stranded there.
I think the maximum fine that can be levied against someone's rescue in Oregon is $500 and that is only in cases where someone is so negligent that people are simply baffled by their actions. I can't think of a case where a fine has ever happened.
We want people who go up the mountain to come down the mountain.
As I said previously, there are mountains to be climbed throughout
the world and none would think of closing mountains anywhere.
America (unlike other nations) comes with so many warning labels already, yet it never ceases to amaze me, how far some people want to go.
As I understand it, CJane, many European countries require climbing insuance to cover the cost of rescue -- something very few states in America require.
That's interesting, Boomer.
I'm sort of mixed on this discussion. I used to hang out with climbers at my university, though I wasn't one, and one of them was friends with a then major climber. That friend of mine has since that time done a lot of wilderness exploration and written about it. Many of these people are our adventurers, explorers.
Of course, some are doofuses too.
These three guys - I think I read - were planning to set a climbing training business, so, if so, there was an economic basis for chosing a hard climb as part of their resume.
I read the book Annapurna by Maurcie Herzog when I was younger. That may have formed some part of my dumbfoundment/at the same time appreciation for adventure that I still have... from my arm chair. Again, rather in the way we are said to be related, the six degrees of association, I've known test pilots and others who have done some wild pushing of envelopes.
And yet I see everybody's point about the expense and the danger of the rescue.
And see Boomer's about the training element in that.
Insurance re rescue expense is an interesting concept - though it seems it would be hard to control who needed it when.
I'm against climbing insurance. I think people who buy it would think that they are guaranteed to be resuced. I think the companies that write such policies pretty much give the impression that rescue can always happen given the right resouces. That just isn't true.
boomerang wrote:As I understand it, CJane, many European countries require climbing insuance to cover the cost of rescue -- something very few states in America require.
It is not mandatory, boomer, but climbers have to register with the local authorities before climbing within a certain region and the exact route plan
has to be submitted. Hiking gear and provisions will be checked as well
and most stations offer insurance to cover the basics. Regular health insurances offer travel coverage as well and it is used quite frequently.
Yet, climbers will be charged for any rescues if there is proof that they acted negligent and/or went off the dedicated route.
I guess it's easy for me to criticize something that I don't fully understand. Not a quality that I'm proud to admit and attempting to summit a mountain in the middle of winter is something that I don't fully get
Here is a good article from our newspaper from a few days ago. I think it sums things up very well:
Quote:As the search for three missing climbers on Mount Hood played across America's television screens, the inevitable questions were raised.
Should people be allowed to climb Mount Hood in the winter? Should tax money be spent rescuing them? Should they or their families foot the bill?
According to the state's annual search and rescue report, 730 people needed rescuing in 2005, 24 of them mountain climbers, said Georges Kleinbaum, Oregon's search and rescue coordinator and author of the report. Search subjects included hikers, swimmers, mushroom pickers and hunters.
Intense media coverage, such as in the case of Kelly James, Brian Hall and Jerry "Nikko" Cooke, may have helped spark the questions. On "The View," talk show personality Rosie O'Donnell decried the "$2.5 million" cost of the rescue and the use of "27 helicopters and 1,000 people," figures that were gross exaggerations of the actual numbers.
The truth, according to experts, is that the costs, although hard to pin down, are generally minimal because most searches end quickly and are largely done by volunteers.
However, people have criticized the group's summit attempt and called for greater regulation in the mountains. Some suggested closing Mount Hood's wilderness to winter climbing. Some said climbers should buy insurance or pay into a fund that would offset rescue costs. And others say climbers should be required to carry locator beacons or get certified by officials before heading out.
But climbers say any of those solutions go against the spirit of what climbing and the American wilderness are all about -- pushing personal limits and finding the best in oneself.
They also say high-profile rescues get more attention than they deserve. One writer on the CascadeClimbers.com forum noted that smoking and junk food kill more people and cost society exponentially more than any search and rescue attempt.
Most searches successful
If you are the subject of a search and rescue, you have a pretty good chance of getting home safely. From 1997 to 2005, 90 percent of those being looked for by Oregon's search and rescue professionals were found alive.
"Oregon loses about 50 to 60 people a year -- one a week on average," Kleinbaum said.
Kleinbaum said large operations like the recent one on Mount Hood are an anomaly. The Hood River County Sheriff's Office has estimated the search cost the county about $4,000 a day. Clackamas County also spent money, though officials said a tally of costs from both counties might not be available for months.
The Oregon National Guard flew helicopters in the searches for the climbers and James Kim and his family, lost in the Southern Oregon mountains after Thanksgiving. Brig. Gen. Mike Caldwell said it costs $2,890 an hour to fly a UH-60 Black Hawk, including fuel and maintenance, and $7,500 to fly the larger CH-47 Chinook. On Mount Hood, the Black Hawks flew 37 hours and the Chinooks flew 15. But nobody gets billed for that, Caldwell said.
"From a practical standpoint, we're budgeted for those hours," he said. "Those flight hours would have been flown anyway in training. Instead we are able to get our people in a real-world environment."
Mostly, search and rescue operations are not expensive, Kleinbaum said.
"Law enforcement are in charge but volunteers do the grunt work. You usually don't have aircraft in your run-of-the-mill rescue."
Sgt. Sean Collinson, Clackamas County Sheriff's Office search and rescue coordinator, said there are about 50 searches a year on Mount Hood. The injured climber who is rescued quickly is far more common than one lost for days.
Charging for rescues
In Oregon, as in most Western states, county sheriffs are responsible for conducting search and rescue operations. Their abilities to do so vary depending on terrain and the size of their departments.
The Oregon Legislature passed a law in 1995 allowing counties to recover up to $500 of the cost of a search. But few ever have demanded payment, Kleinbaum said.
This is part of the business of being a law enforcement officer," he said. "There is not a fee for helping people."
Collinson said charging people to be rescued is a double-edged sword. "If you tell people they are going to be charged they are going to stop calling for help," he said. "That increases the potential that they are going to get into trouble because they won't call until the situation is much worse."
Rocky Henderson of the volunteer Portland Mountain Rescue said the mountain rescue community is strongly against charging people or establishing a fund that would pay for rescues.
"It has some cause and effect of people expecting rescue," he said. "They put themselves in a dangerous position then call us on a cell phone. You don't want to create an expectation that we're obligated to rescue you."
Call for regulations
But others say mountain climbers put themselves in precarious positions unnecessarily and the result is that rescuers must risk their lives.
Bob Dye, 72, a native Oregonian who lives in Portland, said he has seen the same drama unfold year after year. Like many who contacted the newspaper, he expressed sympathy for the pain the families are going through and the struggle of searchers.
Dye suggested the creation of a climbing season that excludes winter. He also favors making it mandatory for climbers to carry the readily available mountain locator units that rent for $5 a day at sporting goods stores and allow rescuers to pinpoint a climber's location. Most rescuers say their jobs would be easier if climbers embraced the devices.
"There has to be some new parameters established and enforced," Dye said. "I don't know what the answer is, but we have to do something. There has to be a discussion."
But search and rescue officials say regulation would be impossible to enforce.
"The vast majority of the time people come through their experiences in the wilderness just fine," said Kleinbaum, the state search and rescue coordinator. "Even the properly prepared ones can get into trouble, but I think that's OK. Closing the wilderness is not a reasonable answer."
Randy Knapp of Medford, who survived 13 days in a Mount Hood snow cave with two friends in January 1976, said the arguments about the cost of rescues are missing the point.
"What would have happened if we had taken that kind of attitude with the people who so stupidly lived below sea level in New Orleans?" he said. "When they were in trouble a whole nation rallied behind them. The best part about our country is that when anyone's in trouble we leap to help."
Henderson, the Portland Mountain rescue member, agrees.
"We have to have room to explore and to risk," he said. "If we close up any dangerous places we wouldn't find what's living on Mars. That's the hyperbole, but this is about that freedom to go out and explore. To make rules to say you can't do it because you might get hurt or you might die -- if you go down that road you have to take the argument to all other parts of society."
Great article, boomer .Thank you for sharing that.
Quote:According to the state's annual search and rescue report, 730 people needed rescuing in 2005, 24 of them mountain climbers, said Georges Kleinbaum, Oregon's search and rescue coordinator and author of the report. Search subjects included hikers, swimmers, mushroom pickers and hunters.
Out of 730 people rescued only 24 were mountain climbers. So I say,
let's get those bloody mushroom pickers
From Boomer's excellent article:
Quote:However, people have criticized the group's summit attempt and called for greater regulation in the mountains. Some suggested closing Mount Hood's wilderness to winter climbing. Some said climbers should buy insurance or pay into a fund that would offset rescue costs. And others say climbers should be required to carry locator beacons or get certified by officials before heading out.
But climbers say any of those solutions go against the spirit of what climbing and the American wilderness are all about -- pushing personal limits and finding the best in oneself.
Put the nasty, unromantic, soul-deadening GPD's in plain brown wrappers.
No one in the fantasy world will notice. No one in the Real World will criticize.
as far as i am concerned , people are allowed to do what they want :
mountain climbing , sailing in bad weather , marching across the desert . ..
but what gets me (at least occasionally) is when people (often relatives) start to complain that not enough of an effort is being made to rescue those in distress .
i'm not suggesting that people be "set adrift" - but complaining about rescue efforts goes a little far imo.
hbg
I'm sure some of you remember a few years ago when some fookin' idiot hiked into the Canyonlands in Utah for a bit of a hike. He parked at the ranger station near the sign that said all hikers must register their hiking plans. He didn't bother and off he went. He ended up with his arm under a boulder that rolled down on top of him and ended up, after several days, using a pocket knife to cut off the pinned arm and gradually made it back to civilization only to appear on many network news interviews as a "brave and rugged outdoorsman. He should have been an example, in the media, as an idiot. (he was free to be an idiot but the media had the opportunity to educated the public on potentially dangerous hiking and the need to register your plans with the park rangers.
anything to fill the "news hour" - no matter how foolish the behaviour !
and we are surprised when young people do foolish things !
i like those car ads where someone drives a car at top speed through some impassable terrain and we see a tiny script :
"do not attempt to duplicate " - so why show it in the first place ?
hbg
Gotta say I find arguments against holding folks responsible for carelessly, recklessly getting themselves into trouble, thereby causing the public to incur expense and exposing volunteers and public safety personnel and assets to risk, pretty much amount to arguing to reward idiocy. Such goofs as stupidly require rescuing are not victims but rather are perpetrators. In agreement with Dys, I find reprehensible - even dangerous - Media's proclivity toward making heroes of fools.
Arguments not materially dissimilar from those posed by opponents of regulations as quoted in the article boomer cited could be - in fact have been and are - made against automoblile seatbelt, motorcycle helmet, and anti-smoking legislation.
