[Media glorification of mountaineering accidents]

Oh man, I'm screwed! My house is at 7,018 feet! I just hope I can rap that 18 feet safely for help. Or maybe somebody will roll me down into the arroyo and I can activate my MLU there.

 

Posting this again since it seems to be relevant here as well:

 

One of the best essays I've ever read regarding the issue of requiring climbers to pay for rescues was an editorial (I believe in the Tacoma paper) several years ago by then Superintendent of MRNP, Jon Jarvis. I couldn't find this article hosted online anywhere, so I hope that Mr. Jarvis doesn't mind me posting it here.

 

Managing Risk on Mount Rainier

Guest Editorial by Jon Jarvis

Superintendent, Mount Rainier National Park

 

 

The most recent tragedies on Mount Rainier and Mount Hood remind us that climbing season is here and with it comes risk. Also come the questions of "how could this have been prevented, who let those people climb to their deaths, and why should the tax payer foot the bill for the rescue?" As the Superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park, I respond to these questions each time we activate our highly trained teams to either rescue or recover those who get into trouble on this great mountain. These good questions deserve thoughtful answers.

 

First, let me speak to prevention. We expend a great deal of effort in educating the prospective climber about the inherent risks of mountaineering. We talk with them during their permit registration, we gain some understanding of their experience, their plans and their chosen route. We inform them of specific risks of the route, of current snow and weather conditions, of proper equipment, and the skills they need. If we sense they may be attempting a route well beyond their skill, we will recommend a different route. If they are a true novice, then we steer them to one of our concessioner guided trips or training days with groups such as the Mountaineers. But ultimately, it is their decision, and we will not deny them the right to climb, for the mountain is public land and we believe our responsibility is to educate them about the risk but not deny access.

 

The second part of the question often posed is something like "if the mountain is so risky, why don't you just close it, particularly during big storms?" As a 14,410 foot glaciated peak, Mount Rainier is always dangerous regardless of the weather. Mount Rainier even creates its own weather. If we did "close it" (which would be practically impossible) for some set of safety considerations, under what circumstances would we reopen it, since it is always dangerous? By the act of "reopening" the mountain that has been closed, we would be implying to the public that it is now "safe" to climb.

 

The last question, and perhaps the most frequently asked is "why the taxpayer should foot the bill for rescuing those people who, by choice, subject themselves to a known risk?" The first part of the answer is to examine for whom we, as public land managers, spend most of the taxpayers' money searching. Statistically, on a national scale, and even here at Mount Rainier, we spend more money searching for the lost hiker in the forest, or the child who walks away from a drive-in campground, than we do for the mountaineer. The most expensive search in Mount Rainier's recent history was for Joe Wood, Jr., the writer who disappeared in the lower forests of the park in 1999 (and was not found). The risk mountaineers face is often one they have calculated, trained for, experienced in the past, and have brought along a lot of equipment to specifically help them survive. A visitor who heads off into the forest without even a jacket, food, water or any of the other ten essentials is actually taking on a higher risk than the risk faced by the mountaineer. Poorly equipped to survive a dramatic change in weather, subject to hypothermia, this hiker is also facing a risk by choice. We cannot single out any one group, such as the climbers, and say that they should pay for their rescue and not apply the standard to everyone who is lost.

 

The second part of the answer, is that as the responsible officials for initiating the rescue and also for making the very tough decision to stop a search before a person has been found, we do not want "ability to pay" to be a factor in those decisions. Nor do we want "ability to pay" to be a factor in the visitor's decision to ask for our teams to rescue them. Imagine the scenario of a visitor in the forest, out of food, cold, wet and lost, with a cell phone, worried that they may be facing a bill for tens of thousands of dollars, reluctant to call for help, waiting perhaps until it is too late. Imagine too the climbers in trouble, worried about the bill for a rescue, waiting until their physical condition and the weather get horrendous to call for help, forcing our teams to respond in the worst possible situation. We use many factors to both launch and to suspend a search, and they are all about risk, probability of survival, probability of success, our teams' capabilities and fatigue, and the capabilities of our cooperators like the military helicopters. But not cost. To put cost into the formula would require that our teams search harder and longer for those that have the money than those who do not. Mount Rainier is a great equalizer, the risks are shared by everyone, regardless of their financial status.

 

Mount Rainier National Park is a gift to us all, set aside for our preservation and enjoyment over 100 years ago, still wild today, offering a range of risks for each of us to experience. It is your responsibility to learn about those risks, whether they come from a day hike to Comet Falls or an independent summit bid, and it is our responsibility to help you learn how to experience the park with an appreciation of those risks. But also, should you get in trouble, whether by your own fault or the tricks of nature, one of the finest rescue teams in North America will be gearing up and we won't be asking for your credit card number.

[Another accident on Hood]

One of the best essays I've ever read regarding the issue of requiring climbers to pay for rescues was an editorial (I believe in the Tacoma paper) several years ago by then Superintendent of MRNP, Jon Jarvis. I couldn't find this article hosted online anywhere, so I hope that Mr. Jarvis doesn't mind me posting it here.

 

Managing Risk on Mount Rainier

Guest Editorial by Jon Jarvis

Superintendent, Mount Rainier National Park

 

 

The most recent tragedies on Mount Rainier and Mount Hood remind us that climbing season is here and with it comes risk. Also come the questions of "how could this have been prevented, who let those people climb to their deaths, and why should the tax payer foot the bill for the rescue?" As the Superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park, I respond to these questions each time we activate our highly trained teams to either rescue or recover those who get into trouble on this great mountain. These good questions deserve thoughtful answers.

 

First, let me speak to prevention. We expend a great deal of effort in educating the prospective climber about the inherent risks of mountaineering. We talk with them during their permit registration, we gain some understanding of their experience, their plans and their chosen route. We inform them of specific risks of the route, of current snow and weather conditions, of proper equipment, and the skills they need. If we sense they may be attempting a route well beyond their skill, we will recommend a different route. If they are a true novice, then we steer them to one of our concessioner guided trips or training days with groups such as the Mountaineers. But ultimately, it is their decision, and we will not deny them the right to climb, for the mountain is public land and we believe our responsibility is to educate them about the risk but not deny access.

 

The second part of the question often posed is something like "if the mountain is so risky, why don't you just close it, particularly during big storms?" As a 14,410 foot glaciated peak, Mount Rainier is always dangerous regardless of the weather. Mount Rainier even creates its own weather. If we did "close it" (which would be practically impossible) for some set of safety considerations, under what circumstances would we reopen it, since it is always dangerous? By the act of "reopening" the mountain that has been closed, we would be implying to the public that it is now "safe" to climb.

 

The last question, and perhaps the most frequently asked is "why the taxpayer should foot the bill for rescuing those people who, by choice, subject themselves to a known risk?" The first part of the answer is to examine for whom we, as public land managers, spend most of the taxpayers' money searching. Statistically, on a national scale, and even here at Mount Rainier, we spend more money searching for the lost hiker in the forest, or the child who walks away from a drive-in campground, than we do for the mountaineer. The most expensive search in Mount Rainier's recent history was for Joe Wood, Jr., the writer who disappeared in the lower forests of the park in 1999 (and was not found). The risk mountaineers face is often one they have calculated, trained for, experienced in the past, and have brought along a lot of equipment to specifically help them survive. A visitor who heads off into the forest without even a jacket, food, water or any of the other ten essentials is actually taking on a higher risk than the risk faced by the mountaineer. Poorly equipped to survive a dramatic change in weather, subject to hypothermia, this hiker is also facing a risk by choice. We cannot single out any one group, such as the climbers, and say that they should pay for their rescue and not apply the standard to everyone who is lost.

 

The second part of the answer, is that as the responsible officials for initiating the rescue and also for making the very tough decision to stop a search before a person has been found, we do not want "ability to pay" to be a factor in those decisions. Nor do we want "ability to pay" to be a factor in the visitor's decision to ask for our teams to rescue them. Imagine the scenario of a visitor in the forest, out of food, cold, wet and lost, with a cell phone, worried that they may be facing a bill for tens of thousands of dollars, reluctant to call for help, waiting perhaps until it is too late. Imagine too the climbers in trouble, worried about the bill for a rescue, waiting until their physical condition and the weather get horrendous to call for help, forcing our teams to respond in the worst possible situation. We use many factors to both launch and to suspend a search, and they are all about risk, probability of survival, probability of success, our teams' capabilities and fatigue, and the capabilities of our cooperators like the military helicopters. But not cost. To put cost into the formula would require that our teams search harder and longer for those that have the money than those who do not. Mount Rainier is a great equalizer, the risks are shared by everyone, regardless of their financial status.

 

Mount Rainier National Park is a gift to us all, set aside for our preservation and enjoyment over 100 years ago, still wild today, offering a range of risks for each of us to experience. It is your responsibility to learn about those risks, whether they come from a day hike to Comet Falls or an independent summit bid, and it is our responsibility to help you learn how to experience the park with an appreciation of those risks. But also, should you get in trouble, whether by your own fault or the tricks of nature, one of the finest rescue teams in North America will be gearing up and we won't be asking for your credit card number.

[MT Hood Continued]

My opinion on the speculation is this. There have been people who were on the mountain, or who know the mountain, or who are seasoned climbers, who have speculated on what happened based on the known facts. This speculation has been useful and informative.

 

Then there are people who have no idea what they are talking about, no background knowledge, and no connection to anyone involved, who are speculating and cluttering up this thread with inane questions. This is not useful. Their questions can be answered elsewhere if they would put just a little more effort into it. Their noise here has made it extremely difficult to extract useful information out of this thread, and to top it off they make snide remarks when requested to desist. This demonstrates a lack of consideration for a community that has lost at least one of their own.

 

I don't know these climbers, but I know people who know them. Some of them asked me to try to piece this together the best I could and explain to them to the best of my knowledge what happened. That has been a difficult and frustrating task, in no small part because of the rubberneckers posting here. If the discussion in this thread had been left to people who have a reasonable idea of what they are talking about, and to family and friends seeking sound information, then this thread would have been a great resource, and going forward it might have been a great resource for family and friends seeking to find some explanation and closure. Alas, this is not the case, and it's a shame.

 

As I suggested earlier, and some others have suggested, perhaps there are some lessons to be learned here (for the managers of this site) about how to better manage this circus when it happens again.

 

[MT Hood Continued]

Just an idea, which may get shot down as speculation, cause it is, but I haven't heard anyone suggest it. Everyone is assuming there were two accidents...one that dislocated Kelly's shoulder, and another that the other two experienced. Since we know that Kelly had a false sense of reality when he made the phone call as evidence of sounding 'delirious' and stating that one of the other climbers was 'on an airplane,' that tells me he didn't have a clue what was going on. That's as absurd as saying the climber was in a movie theatre watching Santa Clause 3 and munching popcorn. Or, maybe a head injury causing amnesia or something else making him hallucinate and forget the past. Which means he could have been the only one of the three to come out of a bad accident and make it to the top...ONE accident.

 

There was some debate here as to whether the tracks shown in the photos are one person or two...two axes or one, etc. I don't know how two people are trained to go up together, but if it's two that went, it looks like they used a technique of the lower man deliberately putting his feet where the others guys feet were NOT, staggering the foot placement. Else, eventually, the lower guy would step in the exact same spot. Or if it's one person, his steps were short and axe work as well. It's hard to tell without some scale to the photo. Those tracks could each be two feet apart or more for all I know. The report was that the tracks lead from a snow cave, straight upward, then faded out near the top. If such tracks would only be left in a climb, and not a decent, and there are only two people at most, then the sherrif's story is contradictory. Why do I need to 'buy' his story? The same reason anyone needs to buy the story of law enforcement or a lawyer in a courtroom. We want to know what happened. I can accept not ever knowing for sure. What I can't accept are contradictions from the same authoritative sources, and claims that a Y shaped rope used to support a shack that has long been torn down belonged to these climbers. This is crazy. The public may not deserve answers, but if I were a family member, I'd be asking more than a few questions, not to challenge anyone's ability or integrity, but to learn the truth. This 'case' can't end like this. No way. Yes, it's a case. A law enforcement officer is running the show and collecting evidence. That's his job, as it should be, but he shouldn't get away with announcing facts that are hogwash and/or later contradict his own facts. Where are the pictures of the rope, foam pad, axes, strewn on the side of the mountain?

 

Man, I really wish you would stop posting your groundless speculations. The above is so full of errors it's beyond salvage. You are not a detective trying to solve a mystery, you are someome who has no idea what they are talking about, and no background knowledge to even understand what knowledgeable people have posted, spewing worthless crap into a thread that is about MEMBERS OF OUR COMMUNITY LOST AND DYING!!! You, and others like you, have turned this thread into junk. Have some freakin' respect for this situation and for the people who are involved in it. What facts are possible to be known will come out with time. I'll post again part of what I posted a few pages back:

 

I came here looking for information after only getting back to the internet yesterday evening. It has taken hours of slogging through worthless posts in this thread to try and glean a few useful nuggets of information. It has been an extremely time consuming and frustrating effort.

 

People, I beseech you, please exercise some judgment when you consider whether to post on a thread such as this one, and unless you are absolutely certain that you have something useful to add I'd encourage you to refrain, especially the non-climbers. This thread (and future threads of the same nature) would be much more useful if you would spend more time reading and left the posting to those who know what they are talking about. If any family or friends of the climbers are still reading this thread, or if they come back to read it later, then the useless posts are only cluttering what useful information they might find here, and even quite possibly confusing their understanding of this event.

 

So I'm asking you and others, again, PLEASE, have some consideration for the people involved in this situation, and some awareness of where you are posting. This isn't some random news story about strangers to us, this is a tragedy that hits very close to home for many of us, some more personal than others. Please, please, stop your pointless posting.

 

[MT Hood Continued]

I haven't logged on to cc.com in years, couldn't even remember my old logonid. Anyway . . .

 

I came here looking for information after only getting back to the internet yesterday evening. It has taken hours of slogging through worthless posts in this thread to try and glean a few useful nuggets of information. It has been an extremely time consuming and frustrating effort.

 

People, I beseech you, please exercise some judgment when you consider whether to post on a thread such as this one, and unless you are absolutely certain that you have something useful to add I'd encourage you to refrain, especially the non-climbers. This thread (and future threads of the same nature) would be much more useful if you would spend more time reading and left the posting to those who know what they are talking about. If any family or friends of the climbers are still reading this thread, or if they come back to read it later, then the useless posts are only cluttering what useful information they might find here, and even quite possibly confusing their understanding of this event.

 

A suggestion for the mods and managers of this site: in the future when an event like this occurs it might be a good idea to call "all hands on deck" and turn up your moderation level a bit more. I would suggest you try to maintain one thread for useful information only and other threads for other purposes, such as for the non-climbing public to get their questions answered. As an "expert" source your site has a role serving both the climbing community and the general public that lies somewhere between the officials and the traditional media, and so it would behoove you (and it would provide a much more valuable service to all of your audiences) to take more of a PR management approach when high profile incidents like this occur. Just a suggestion. The circus is only going to get worse with future incidents.

 

My thoughts are with the loved ones of these climbers, there but for the grace of God go I. And many thanks to the SAR people for all that you do.