lambda

I found it (sorry for not acknowledging the original poster): 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. ---------- One of the risks of such a law is that if you don't have a MLU, sill you now be reluctant to call for a rescue knowing that you will be fined, or worse, asked to cover all the costs. This law will potentially cost lives.

Could somebody please link the old editorial from the Rainier Natl Park superintendent? It summarized many of the reasons not to do this kind of thing from a public policy standpoint. These arguments could be echoed to the state legislature and to the governor's office. We should all write our state senators, asap.

I've been up in late June, late July, and early September. June was fine with good and easy snow to the top of the col (and everywhere). The September trip had lots of stormy weather and snow. I guess it could (typically) be rather unstable in June, but it was rather uncrowded relative to July.

I mostly just lurk here- but... I was also up there on Saturday (on skis, with my dog) - an amazing and beautiful day. Also however, it is difficult to comprehend what "weather" is like up there unless you've crawled down from I-saddle unable to tell up from down. In my opinion, the same was true when the out-of-towners died; storms were lined up waiting to come in. If you get away with it, it's a good story. If not, some wanker mocks you. I also recognized that Saturday was the end of it for a while, and I personally would not have stayed til Sunday (don't particularly like the misery). Nevertheless, if you haven't committed some sort of (serious) error in judgement in the mountains at some point, you probably aren't really a climber, and/or don't have the experience to justify your spray. And I direct this to the critics. Give 'em a break. The truth is that they walked down, and probably didn't need the "rescue".

Found on January 28, '07 (Sunday) on slope midway between Crater Rock and Illumination Saddle. This is an XL Black Diamond "Glissade" (I think; nonremovable insert).

I'm sorry, are we talking about the same Mount Hood? A small group seemed determined to summit at dawn, but the bulk of the pack arrived at the Hogsback at about 10 or 11. No wind (nada) on the summit at 10-ish. Bit of a queue crossing the knife-edge from the top of the west crater rim to the summit. Otherwise a delightful day, and sort of warm for the end of January.