sobo

OK, then... Happy Ramahannukwanzdrumas to you and yours! (we know who's gonna chime in here soon, now don't we... Is he still there, or are you two done being frisky for now? )

Hey, TuffGirl! Happy Ramahannukwanzmas to you and yours, too! (I think I've included most everyone, right...? Wouldn't want to come across as un-PC, now would I? )

My toughest climb hasn't happened yet. It's coming up this Monday morning, when I'm gonna have to haul my sorry ass out of bed and go to work (after doing the presents thing with the kiddies) to make up for all the time I've wasted on this board over the past two weeks on the Hood thing. Edit: Are we still doing :pagetop:s here, or is that passe' now?

Excellent writing and portrayal of the facts in that statement and the linked headline article, iain. :tup: And weighty thanks for you and your crew getting it on up there these past two weeks. :tup: Now, take a break!

Point taken. Whenever we, as members of Central Washington Mountain Rescue, make a pitch at a public education venue, we always try to throw in a little bit of what the AAC report concludes (a lot of folks had already come to the same conclusion, it was just never put in print so clearly and for public consumption). And I always find a way to inform the audience that they aren't paying for anything "extra" that they wouldn't have already paid for in their taxes before I hit them up for a donation. Of course, I'm only reaching a small segment of the population... On the other hand, a lot of people (~1M) came to this site recently not knowing a lot about climbing or SAR/mountain rescue. I'll be the first to admit that now that the rescue has been called off and the effort has shifted to recovery, a lot of these people will just go away. The opportunity to educate those people is now lost. However, I made the post in my other thread (with the AAC report link) in the hopes that at least some of these newcomers (and non-climbers) would see that thread, read the report, and become educated. Perhaps they may even help to spread the word around the office coffee pot and higher up the food chain of public consciousness. And that's why I used the subject line that I did - to grab their collective attention while the incident is still fresh in everyone's mind.

Jeepers, peeps! Who rated this thread 5 stars?? wfinley: That Oregon SAR annual report looks incredibly well done. I just scanned through the whole 114 pages. Requires printing and further study over the holidays...

wfinley: I think you're quite right. The mods can delete all my ranting and just leave the link, if they feel so inclined. I will not be offended, as my hide was tanned long ago. michael: What you've been told is also correct. It's money we as taxpayers have already spent by the time we file our returns, and the military would spend it on training for rescues anyway if it weren't for real rescue operations. And they really do like doing the "real thing" as opposed to training for it. That's been my experience for as long as I've been in SAR/MR.

Redirect those assholes to this thread.

This question always comes up by some ignorant, self-professed mountaineering "expert" after a high-profile, dramatized, media circus event like the recent Hood operation. It happened after all the falderal on Liberty Ridge a couple of years back, and on Hood before that. Maybe it's ignorance of reality, maybe it's just the "armchair mountaineers" out there wanting to hear their own voice, I don't know, and frankly I don't even care. What I do care about is that the real information gets out there. I've been chasing around this board over the past few days posting a link in almost every thread where the subject question gets asked. The link re-directs to the AAC's detailed report about the real cost of rescues and who are the rescuee groups most often requiring search and rescue, and I got news for you armchair climbers out there: It ain't us! So, for the record and to any BarcaLounger mountaineer who asks this question, or to those of us of whom this question gets asked and you want to know what to tell these "experts", I give you the link to the report. Climbing Rescues in America: Reality Does Not Support "High-Risk, High-Cost" Perception Please, people... let's end this sort of stupid opining now. You know who you are.

Of course, Jackson's got it right. He read the report.

It's all here in the AAC report. If the 8 pages of reading might cause you armchair mountaineers out there to miss the lead-in of the next installment of Rosie's show, just skip to the Executive Summary.

nodder Hey! It ain't werkin' no mo'!

Oh Crikey! Here we go again! I get so phuhkin' tired of saying this over and over and over and over and over ad nauseum. I'm just going to link to this other thread. Sixth post on Page 2. Now STFU, asshat!

Too late, it was already in Bill O'Reilly's talking points this evening. Was it really barbeque sauce? Or was it... s * t * e * a * k * s * a * u * c * e ...???

Ditto ericb's question: Which company? Help me narrow the search.

You tell them they're full of shit, then direct them to this webpage. It's the report from the AAC that someone mentioned over in the original Mt. Hood rescue thread several days ago. I don't have the time to go back through all 53-odd pages to find the guy's name and give him credit for originally pointing this report out to folks. Oh, and if 8 pages of reading will cause you armchair mountaineers out there to miss the next episode of Dancing with the Stars, then see if you can get through just the Executive Summary. This report came out in May of 2005, and I referenced it in the thread that is linked in the next paragraph (from July, 2005), but I don't think anyone outside of the climbing/mountain rescue community has ever read it. I keep a few copies printed off and stashed in my rig for distribution whenever I hear this kinda bullshit about "crazy, risk-taking, irresponsible, selfish, adrenaline-junkie climbers ought to be getting charged for the taxpayer's costs of rescuing their sorry asses." I pull out a copy, hand it to them, and kindly suggest that they read it, then ask them to consider making a tax-deductable donation to their local Mountain Rescue unit. It shuts up quite a few, but not all. Some people just don't want to become informed. And I write letters to the editor, like the one here from last year. Alisdair and Kellie got published, but I was apparently too verbose for the likes of the P-I editorial staff. It's the seventh post on Page 5, if you care to read it.

Even if you have an expired passport, I'd bring it with you, along with an UNexpired driver's license. You'll get into Canada (after a bit of thrashing around with the border guard) with the expired PP, but you'll probably have to go inside the office at the gate to iron it all out. But you'll get in. Trust me, my M-I-L fucked up like this on our vacation to Mayne Island this past summer. Bottom line is you should get a new PP anyway, if you plan to travel out of country on even a semi-regular basis.

Dead Or Alive says Raindawg's right, at least about the "alive" part...

Yeah, my dad always reminded me with that line...

Weekend Climberz second post is spot on. There is no "one size fits all" response. One has to consider several things: 1. Who went in, an end person or the middle one? Your response will be slightly different depending upon your answer to this question. For instance, with an uninjured middle person in, just have the two end guys reef on the rope simultaneously while the middle person employs ice axe/crampons to help climb out on his/her own. For an end person, tie a loop into the other end of the rope, lower the loop to him/her, have them clip it into their harness, and proceed as above. Remember to protect the edge of the crevasse lip BEFORE extraction of the fallen climber to prevent the rope burying itself into the snow. Out in a jiffy, without a lot of fuss and downtime. This is essentially a 2:1 mechanical advantage system. 2. Is he/she conscious and uninjured? See above, or have him/her prussik him/herself out, or have him/her walk out one end if it's shallow enough to be lowered to a traversable ledge/shelf. This is essentially a 0 mech. adv. system. 3. Unconscious and/or seriously injured? Last resort - employ WC's first post (see diagram). Pad crevasse lip with handy objects while belaying yourself with your own prussik tied onto one of the free strands of rope that an end person carries coiled on their shoulder (this can also be done with the "interior" strands of rope that are on either side of the middle person, but no matter). Set the other "end" of this free strand back from the lip somewhere as your belay anchor. This is the classic 3:1 MA system with which we are all familiar. You can find all of this kinda stuff in FOTH, and books like jon linked above.

seems to me that this should change in the future. I totally agree, Dave. It's my understanding that OR units can come to WA to help us, and they are covered, but not the other way around. Mystifying... Whats up with that? During a rescue recently on mount Baker BMRC got some help from accross the boarder. Seems if Canada can help us, then we should be able to help other states! I cannot know the answer to that. It's a bureaucratic thing peculiar to this state. As I said before, it's mystifying.

seems to me that this should change in the future. I totally agree, Dave. It's my understanding that OR units can come to WA to help us, and they are covered, but not the other way around. Mystifying...

We'll take ya. Age not a factor. Join up! :tup:

Several peeps have wondered if they could show up and help search. Those of us in SAR and Mountain Rescue have responded to you all that others in places of power will pretty much say, "We won't let you, it's an insurance thing." To that end, I provide this message for your general consumption: Due to the ongoing SAR incident on Mt. Hood I thought I'd remind everyone of the policy on resource requests from Oregon. There is no interstate mutual aid agreement in effect with Oregon. Therefore, we can not issue a Washington State mission number in support of such requests and any volunteers responding will not be covered under the Emergency Worker Program. If we do receive a request for resources from Oregon (usually from an Oregon based LE agency or state emergency management) we always make this clear to them and ask for a point of contact. We will then advise those Washington State jurisdictions with the appropriate type units of the request from Oregon and emphasize that no Washington State mission number will be issued and that any volunteers interested in responding may contact the Oregon jurisdiction conducting the operation to determine what coverage, if any, there is. Of course, the same policy is in effect if the request comes directly to the your agencies or volunteer units from Oregon counterparts. The above message is from the WA State SAR Coordinator at the Emergency Management Division in Olympia. It's as high as it gets. What does it mean? It means that if you are in SAR/MR in Washington, and you show up at Mt. Hood to help, you will not be covered by any insurance that WA State would normally provide if you repsonded to a mission in your home state. Essentially, you're on your own if you get hurt/killed/lose gear. If you're NOT in SAR/MR, they won't even entertain your joining in the search. To put it succinctly, "they don't know you." As mentioned before, join up with Mountain Rescue before an emergency arises, so that you are trained in mountain search and rescue techniques (which are rather different than self-rescue techniques you may already know) and prepared when another episode like this comes around again. As a Mountain Rescue member for over three years now, I would dearly love to go and help, but I cannot in good conscience put my family at risk without the coverage that WA State would provide if the scene were north of that big creek. Here's sending out massive quantums of positive energy to those that have, can, and will respond to the search call. And to the three they're looking for.

If that is true, then please provide a link to this oasis in the desert. Remember, though, that I do engage in what LI underwriters would consider "risky" recreational activities - check my bio. Of that, I cannot lie or hide, nor do I wish to. If I really can get another half-million in coverage for an additional Jackson per month, I'd be all over it. Unless, of course, they don't pay when I get killed doing something "risky", which my current insurance would cover. And your statement above makes no sense whatsoever in light of your statement below, which is cross-posted from your very own Life Insurance for Climbers thread: This is exactly what I ran into (although mine went from ~$50/month with no "risky" activities into the low $300's per month once I 'fessed up to climbing, sailing, and diving) with State Farm. They are my company of choice for all of my other insurances (auto, home, personal articles, etc.), except for life insurance and supplemental long-term disability. Those are New York Life and NW Mutual Life, respectively. As stated above, the NYL policy is though a group policy through ym profession. I don't think I'd get such a good deal if I went it alone.