Rescuing mountain climbers

[Randall]

I want to see the climbers on Mount Hood rescued, but how much does this cost and who pays for it?

 

When I moved from Seattle there were climbers rescued off Mount Rainier every other week and if they had just checked the weather reports they shouldn't have climbed. Just because the weather is fine under 8000 feet doesn't mean climbing higher will be.

 

One group was rescued by a special chopper with something like 25 foot blades because other choppers couldn't go high enough in the weather at that time. Some of these guys have big egos and do stupid things yet expect us to rescue them. Who pays for it? Insurance? Us? Them?

 

There are safe and sane climbers too of course, but some of these guys just don't think or plan ahead very well.

[twiley]

Ok, so if I have this right, climbing is dangerous because it endangers others. Commercial fishing is dangerous but acceptable because it is a necessity. (I assume that economic value to the commercial fishing company and those that want to spend 50 cents less for their cod at Safeway equates to necessity). Driving endangers others but not rescuers.

 

Now, you say that climbing is a voluntary pastime where accidents always end up with dangerous and costly rescues with many people involved. I'm not sure what your source is but I'll at least add my own anecdotal arguments based on my own experience working with S&R teams in Washington. First of all, a majority of rescues on the mountains are necessary because people simply wear out or have some minor injury. A team of 2-4 people goes up, brings them down. Rarely, do rescues require any more and hardly ever are the rescue teams in any real danger. The majority of rescues of "mountain climbers" are of people that are not necessarily summiting. The majority of rescues of "mountain climbers" occurs from May - September in good weather. Most of the people that I've seen need help should never been on the mountain in the first place. Either they didn't have the proper physical conditioning, didn't do their homework on the mountain, or were just generally unprepared. I don't believe that the three on Mt. Hood fall into that category.

 

The North Bend WA S&R team that I worked with was completely voluntary. The majority of the rescuers involved in the Mt. Hood effort are volunteers. Crag Rats, PMR, etc = all recreational climbers involved in this rescue on a voluntary basis. I was on the mountain Saturday prepared to climb. I knew that the authorities would not allow me to be on a summit team without hitting a peak in the last couple of months but I did expect to climb with the searchers focusing on the lower areas...no such luck. Every person on the mountain has been on the mountain recently. Again, they don't get paid. They climb because of any number of personal reasons. They volunteer for S&R teams because there are no professional organizations more qualified to make these type of rescue attempts. In return, they know that should they ever be in trouble, people would be heading up after them.

 

Now, obviously in this rescue there are national guard and local sheriff personnel as well. They aren't climbing the mountain. They did give the climbers a lift to the top...that was nice...They've also got the PJ teams up there to add assistance from above. The sheriff and national guard are sharing organizational responsibilities from 5000 feet below.

 

If the cost of the military adding helicopter support is disturbing, I have no doubt that the Coast Guard spends much more money in just as dangerous situations performing rescues of boaters and fishermen.

 

I've been on many of NW Cascade peaks at some time in my life including Hood, Adams, Rainier twice, and many smaller peaks. The only unplanned night I ever spent on a mountain was due to weather on Shasta when I was in high school. We were well prepared and never in any danger. To try to get down during the storm would have been dangerous, but preparations ensured that we were warm (well, preparations and a steam vent), well fed and hydrated and out of the elements. (There was no danger of avalanche at that time where we were on the mt).

 

Everyone climbs for their own reasons. Each summit gives me a personal sense of accomplishment. I enjoy putting myself in places where I will see things that relatively few others will ever see. I do a lot of things that are far more dangerous. I view climbing as good for my body and soul

 

I'm hearing several comments like those from whoopazz. People seem ready to condemn the activity without knowing anything about it. Statements like "dangerous to others" get the press's attention despite the facts. The truth usually lacks the same sensation. Climbers can probably evaluate the dangers better than those who have never been out of city and you aren't going to hear many experienced climbers second-guess the decision for these three to climb. An accident happened...they do that. While the family certainly grieves the losses, I doubt that any of the family members now view climbing as inherently dangerous. They may wish that the three didn't make this climb but they won't question their decision to go.

 

[wiegie]

The simple market solution is to make the climbers pay for it through an "extreme sport insurance policy". They have such a thing in the UK.

[Yukon Cornelius]

The simple market solution is to make the climbers pay for it through an "extreme sport insurance policy". They have such a thing in the UK.

 

yup

 

mn and sconny are looking into this kind of stuff and they are looking to charge those that need extraction .

 

witch i dont have a problem with .. may keep some of the weetods out of the bwca

[Seattle LawDawg]

I want to see the climbers on Mount Hood rescued, but how much does this cost and who pays for it?

 

When I moved from Seattle there were climbers rescued off Mount Rainier every other week and if they had just checked the weather reports they shouldn't have climbed. Just because the weather is fine under 8000 feet doesn't mean climbing higher will be.

 

One group was rescued by a special chopper with something like 25 foot blades because other choppers couldn't go high enough in the weather at that time. Some of these guys have big egos and do stupid things yet expect us to rescue them. Who pays for it? Insurance? Us? Them?

 

There are safe and sane climbers too of course, but some of these guys just don't think or plan ahead very well.

 

 

Ok...so I've argued that climbing is not inherently dangerous and now I'll change that a little. Climbing does not have to be inherently dangerous if the people are properly prepared. I won't disagree that there are people who should never be on the mountains. In my experience, the unprepared are the overwhelming majority of the people rescued. I still don't think that the three climbers on Mt. Hood fall into that category. They were prepared, did their homework, and if not for an injury would have made it back within their climbing window.

 

As in my post that Twiley re-posted, most of the manpower are volunteers. There are certainly some taxpayer costs when the military sends helicopters. Seems to me that using the national guard to rescue our citizens isn't necessarily a bad thing. Again though, the people on the mountain are volunteers who have chosen climbing for personal recreation. There is no professional organization better equipped to perform these type of rescues.

 

Thats just my take on it as a former S&R volunteer and climber. For a much more knowledgable authority on the topic, you can watch Rosie's rant on the issue. She's such an expert that she doesn't actually have to use real facts and can make up her own.

 

This tragedy is going to bring out the arguments against climbing altogether, for the required use of Personal Locator Beacons (which would have done absolutely NO good with this search), and for forced reimbursement of rescue costs.

 

My take on Rescue Costs:

1.) If reimbursement is required for the rescue costs of Mt Climbers, it should be required for all rescues. Again, in Oregon in the last year 24 of the 730 rescues performed were of Mt. Climbers.

 

2.) If people are charged an increased fee to climb, you'll reduce the number of climbs people make. Many of the people affected by that fee will be those same people who climb for personal recreation and volunteer for search and rescue efforts. Do we want to reduce the number of climbs those people are making? Experience is a big part of preparation.

 

3.) If people are forced to reimburse, they'll be a lot less likely to make an early call for help. That could add to the severity and risk involved in the rescue.

 

4.) "Climbing Insurance" will act as a safety net for people who should never be on the Mountain in the first place. Why prepare properly if you know you can be bailed out.

[wiegie]

4.) "Climbing Insurance" will act as a safety net for people who should never be on the Mountain in the first place. Why prepare properly if you know you can be bailed out.

 

Hell, as it stands now, people already know that they are going to be bailed out for free.

 

But if you put, say, a $5000 deductible on the insurance, it will take care of the moral hazard problem you are talking about.

[whoopazz]

Ok...so I've argued that climbing is not inherently dangerous and now I'll change that a little. Climbing does not have to be inherently dangerous if the people are properly prepared. I won't disagree that there are people who should never be on the mountains. In my experience, the unprepared are the overwhelming majority of the people rescued. I still don't think that the three climbers on Mt. Hood fall into that category. They were prepared, did their homework, and if not for an injury would have made it back within their climbing window.

 

As in my post that Twiley re-posted, most of the manpower are volunteers. There are certainly some taxpayer costs when the military sends helicopters. Seems to me that using the national guard to rescue our citizens isn't necessarily a bad thing. Again though, the people on the mountain are volunteers who have chosen climbing for personal recreation. There is no professional organization better equipped to perform these type of rescues.

 

Thats just my take on it as a former S&R volunteer and climber. For a much more knowledgable authority on the topic, you can watch Rosie's rant on the issue. She's such an expert that she doesn't actually have to use real facts and can make up her own.

 

This tragedy is going to bring out the arguments against climbing altogether, for the required use of Personal Locator Beacons (which would have done absolutely NO good with this search), and for forced reimbursement of rescue costs.

 

My take on Rescue Costs:

1.) If reimbursement is required for the rescue costs of Mt Climbers, it should be required for all rescues. Again, in Oregon in the last year 24 of the 730 rescues performed were of Mt. Climbers.

 

2.) If people are charged an increased fee to climb, you'll reduce the number of climbs people make. Many of the people affected by that fee will be those same people who climb for personal recreation and volunteer for search and rescue efforts. Do we want to reduce the number of climbs those people are making? Experience is a big part of preparation.

 

3.) If people are forced to reimburse, they'll be a lot less likely to make an early call for help. That could add to the severity and risk involved in the rescue.

 

4.) "Climbing Insurance" will act as a safety net for people who should never be on the Mountain in the first place. Why prepare properly if you know you can be bailed out.

 

 

Geez, first you rake me over the coals regarding the dangers (or lack thereof) of mountain climbing, now you lump me in with Rosie

[Savage Beatings]

yup

 

mn and sconny are looking into this kind of stuff and they are looking to charge those that need extraction .

 

witch i dont have a problem with .. may keep some of the weetods out of the bwca

 

 

Oh Yukie!

[Yukon Cornelius]

Hell, as it stands now, people already know that they are going to be bailed out for free.

 

But if you put, say, a $5000 deductible on the insurance, it will take care of the moral hazard problem you are talking about.

 

 

sorry lawdog but i have to agree with weigie on this. as a person who does some extreem stuff and i see some people that should never be out there... they know that people will come and it will cost them nuthing...

Oh Yukie!

 

u like that one

 

hell i switch words all the time and get bummed when knowone points them out

 

i need to change my shtick i guess

[HowboutthemCowboys]

looks like it's over...

 

http://www.suscom.net/news/read.php?id=146...=&cps=0〈=en

[wiegie]

hell i switch words all the time

 

in this particular case, it would have been funnier if you had written:

 

"hell i swhich words all the time"

[Seattle LawDawg]

MOUNT HOOD, Ore. - As the rescue effort continues on Mount Hood, so do the costs, which some critics are saying is way too much.

 

Sheriff Joe Wampler with the Hood River County Sheriff's Office has said all along that he is not looking at the cost of the rescue, he is looking for the men. One of them, 48-year-old Kelly James, was found dead in a snow cave over the weekend. The two others, 37-year-old Brian Hall and 36-year-old Jerry Cooke, remain missing.

 

Rosie O'Donnell and her co-hosts kicked off 'The View' Tuesday with the hot topic of the missing climbers on Mount Hood.

 

Rosie O'Donnell: "I read in the papers that over $2.5 million the search has cost so far to find these three men."

 

Jacque Reid, Guest Co-Host: "Here they are, they knew the storm was coming and they still opted to go out and who should pay the cost?"

 

Rosie O'Donnell: "What warrants 27 helicopters and 1,000 people looking? I just don't understand."

 

Joy Behar: "Send this team over to New Orleans and fix that situation."

 

Wampler has poured his heart, soul and county's manpower into finding the three climbers and resents the implications that the money would be better spent helping Katrina victims.

 

"I just want to reach out and grab her neck," he said. "I mean, literally. This is not stupid money. This is important money. This is about people's lives."

 

At $6,500 a day, many may question the cost of the elaborate rescue effort, but Wampler said the bill is misleading. His crews would be working anyway and 90 percent of the rescuers are volunteers. It is not even costing the military extra money because the mission is being tagged as training.

 

"We can either spend our time in a simulator or a simulated environment or we can get the best experience in a real world situation like this," said Capt. Mike Braibish with the Oregon National Guard.

 

"As long as people are climbing mountains, there needs to be people to help them," said Darren Stone, owner of Climb Max.

 

Stone said that as long as climbers keep coming to Oregon, the state should keep catering to them.

 

"Kilamanjaro is the most climbed mountain, but more people get on top of Mount Hood," he said.

 

Economic numbers do not pinpoint how much climbers spend while visiting the mountain, but in general $800 million is spent in our forests every year.

 

On a side note, Oregon is one of just a few states that can make you pay for your own rescue if you are reckless, and even then it is only $500. The law is the result of three college students who got lost on Mount Hood in 1995, only to be found safe in a tent after $10,000 was spent to search for them. It has only been enforced one time - for a boater. We are told this case would not apply because the men were prepared.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Seattle LawDawg

[Seattle LawDawg]

One of the climbers on the rescue teams had a camera along and took some great shots last week:

 

http://flickr.com/photos/nickpope/sets/72157594427278113/

 

If you've heard mention of the "Pearly Gates", they are visible in the pictures looking up at the Chinook.

[jackshi17]

"This tragedy is going to bring out the arguments against climbing altogether, for the required use of Personal Locator Beacons (which would have done absolutely NO good with this search), and for forced reimbursement of rescue costs. "

 

http://www.equipped.com/plb_legal.htm

 

Could you please elaborate on why these wouldn't work?

[Randall]

The simple market solution is to make the climbers pay for it through an "extreme sport insurance policy". They have such a thing in the UK.

 

 

 

That makes sense.

 

"This tragedy is going to bring out the arguments against climbing altogether, for the required use of Personal Locator Beacons (which would have done absolutely NO good with this search), and for forced reimbursement of rescue costs. "

 

http://www.equipped.com/plb_legal.htm

 

Could you please elaborate on why these wouldn't work?

 

 

 

That makes sense too.

 

Many animal owners have implants to find their pets. Climbers could have something imbedded in their gear.

 

In extreme cases perhaps supplies could then be dropped they could get to(unless they trigger avalanches).

 

I'm all for people doing what they want but perhaps getting a permit to peaks (above 8-10,00 feet for example)would be a good idea. Then you would have to submit a plan similar to a flight plan. Then they could check the weather at extreme heights.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Randall

[Yukon Cornelius]

"This tragedy is going to bring out the arguments against climbing altogether, for the required use of Personal Locator Beacons (which would have done absolutely NO good with this search), and for forced reimbursement of rescue costs. "

 

http://www.equipped.com/plb_legal.htm

 

Could you please elaborate on why these wouldn't work?

 

we always had to were sunfin like that when skiing out in the bush???

[Seattle LawDawg]

"This tragedy is going to bring out the arguments against climbing altogether, for the required use of Personal Locator Beacons (which would have done absolutely NO good with this search), and for forced reimbursement of rescue costs. "

 

http://www.equipped.com/plb_legal.htm

 

Could you please elaborate on why these wouldn't work?

 

 

Let me be clear on this: I'm certainly not adamantly opposed to these devices. I'm saying that in this case, the only thing these would have helped would have been finding the bodies sooner. Kelly James could not have been rescued in the weather at 300 feet below the summit. If the other two did fall, a PLB would not have cushioned their landing. If the other two held up in a snow cave, the PLB would not have helped a rescue time reach them before the storm. Unless the other two made it way down the Mountain when they left to get help, a PLB would have done nothing to help rescue efforts.

[twiley]

Let me be clear on this: I'm certainly not adamantly opposed to these devices. I'm saying that in this case, the only thing these would have helped would have been finding the bodies sooner. Kelly James could not have been rescued in the weather at 300 feet below the summit. If the other two did fall, a PLB would not have cushioned their landing. If the other two held up in a snow cave, the PLB would not have helped a rescue time reach them before the storm. Unless the other two made it way down the Mountain when they left to get help, a PLB would have done nothing to help rescue efforts.

 

I don't think they realized you were talking about this particular case and that because of the severe weather a PLB is pretty much useless. I guess a good analogy would be that you have a GPS but you're stuck in a canyon with no way out even though according to the GPS you know help is just on the other side.

[Seattle LawDawg]

That makes sense.

That makes sense too.

 

Many animal owners have implants to find their pets. Climbers could have something imbedded in their gear.

 

In extreme cases perhaps supplies could then be dropped they could get to(unless they trigger avalanches).

 

I'm all for people doing what they want but perhaps getting a permit to peaks (above 8-10,00 feet for example)would be a good idea. Then you would have to submit a plan similar to a flight plan. Then they could check the weather at extreme heights.

 

 

The typical microchip placed in animals (i.e., Avid ...which is in my dog) is not a locator, but an identifier when found.

 

Using the 8-10,000 foot peak example to illustrate one of the problems: In my opinion, summiting many of are higher Cascade peaks is nothing more than a long hard walk if the easiest routes are taken. There are many smaller peaks, well under 8000 feet, that are technically more demanding. Where do you draw the line? I'd be more supportive of an insurance plan for mountaineers to climb at all than trying to make distinctions. Of course, once you start charging there's a requirement to rescue and the door is open for all kinds of litigation.

[Seattle LawDawg]

I don't think they realized you were talking about this particular case and that because of the severe weather a PLB is pretty much useless. I guess a good analogy would be that you have a GPS but you're stuck in a canyon with no way out even though according to the GPS you know help is just on the other side.

 

 

Right...I was speaking of this specific rescue operation. I have no doubt that PLBs will be common equipment in the near future but there are definitely situations where they will do no good and once again, people will go up less than prepared, knowing they have that safety net.

 

These will not help in Avalanche situations either. I believe the information is transmitted to Virginia where it is then forwarded on to local SAR. Even if it was straight to local SAR though, too much time will have passed to save someone hit by an avalanche. Those people need to be dug out right now, not in an hour.

Edited December 21, 2006 by Seattle LawDawg