Getting Lost & Found

[erik]

NEWSTIPS said:

klenke said:

Okay, these search and rescuers are getting too commonplace. It's time we made a new "Search and Rescue" forum for them.

 

Out of curiosity (this is not for me to put on the air, I'm just wondering), do you think the search and rescues are too common because people who lack the knowledge and skill to know whether it's safe to go to a particular location go anyway or because those who are "left behind" are reporting their loved ones as "overdue" before there's just cause to do so?

 

Not trying to stir a debate, just not clear on which one is the case.

[iain]

are search and rescues too common? seems to me there has been a downward trend, but an increase in publicity.

[NEWSTIPS]

iain said:

are search and rescues too common? seems to me there has been a downward trend, but an increase in publicity.

 

I suppose I should add a 3rd alternative to my query then....Does the media focus too often on what may be perceived as "not so uncommon"?

 

However, I will qualify that question with the remark that we often spotlight the SARs at the request of the various agencies who are heading up the search.

[iain]

From someone in the Portland area, I think there is often a lot of coverage for relatively minor incidents on Mt. Hood. Whether this is a problem or not is up for debate.

 

It is a quick drive and a short flight by helicopter from portland so stories with dramatic footage are relatively easy to come by. Take the most recent incident here, where 5 climbers were trapped on the summit. A good story, but I think the coverage was a little over the top. I'm more surprised that there is such a market for it rather than upset about it.

[fleblebleb]

There is literature out there that you could refer to, including statistics about the relative frequency of rescues involving the various groups such as hikers, climbers, snowmobilers, kayakers etc. Try a google search. The rescue units also keep logs of all searches that you might find interesting.

 

Here's an entertaining little conundrum: Lost hikers, wandering Alzheimers patients, etc, comprise a much larger fraction of rescue subjects than climbers, and individual rescues also rack up much higher costs than individual climber rescues. Yet climber rescues receive much greater attention in the media.

 

(The reason why hiker rescues can cost more than climber rescues involving helicopters and whatnot is that hiker rescues are much less localized - they can involve large numbers of rescuers covering large areas.)

 

[Figger_Eight]

Especially this time of year, most of us would give someone at home an expected return date but also let them know that it's more or less a guideline. A storm might come in or something else might happen which would force them to stay on the mountain one or two extra days. I wouldn't go so far as to judge who is prepared to go where and do what, but the assumption is (most of the time) if they're doing it in winter, they know what they're getting themselves into.

 

On the same note, the "REI" attitude so prevalant in the Northwest engenders an attitude where people feel all they need to do is drop a few bucks on gear, and whammo: instant climber/skier/snowshoer/mountaineer. This is more common in the summer because most of these people are scared of a little weather.

 

Those are my two sweeping generalizations of the day.

[fleblebleb]

I don't know if the "REI attitude" reaches much beyond volcano slogs and rock clip-ups. Da Toof perhaps?

[iain]

There also seems to be a second profile out there that considers it hip to be all avalanche-aware and roped glacier rescue aware, tibloc this and beacon that, etc, etc but isn't climbing much more than the south side of hood or D.C., for example. Nothing wrong with that, just funny to see how avalanche classes have become some kind of cool thing to do, probably with the trend of increased b.c. boarding and skiing. I attribute it directly to Black Diamond, BCA, etc marketing.

[fleblebleb]

I'd dub that the "Mountie attitude" - rope up before you walk the stairs to the second floor, or cross the street

[mattp]

Newstips-

 

I think you asked whether the high frequency of search and rescue incidents is due to poor judgment on the part of the climbers or the families of the climbers involved. While that may be a good topic for discussion, I am not sure you will ever get a solid answer to the question. Indeed, I think it is arguable whether or not there are too many search and rescue operations at all and, if there are, I don't think you can pin the "blame" on climbers or on their families.

 

It is certainly true that many people who might be said insufficiently equipped or perhaps lacking proper skill are likely to throw themselves at Big Four Mountain, because it has drawn a lot of attention recently and it is easy to get to. More or less the same thing could be said for Mount Rainier, though I don't think it has received particular attention recently but, rather, it has always received a lot of attention. I have no idea who the current climbers (in this last incident) were, but if they ran into trouble higher up on the face they should have been able to dig a snow cave and been relatively warm if stuck overnight because the snow itself serves as insulation if the snow cave is properly constructed. However, if they got stuck low down on the face, where there is very little snow, they might not have this option. Anyway, most of the time we travel with sufficient equipment that we could survive one, two, or even three nights out without any additional shelter though that is not always the case.

 

I always tell my wife about these incidents and hope to show her that if I am one day be found "overdue," she should not assume I am in serious trouble (though, in 35 years of climbing, I have only once been seriously overdue and on that occasion I was sitting in a tent reading books while waiting for an Alaskan bush pilot to pick me up but the weather was too poor for him to land). Should the family in this case or in the prior incident on Mount Rainier have worried about them? Of course. Should they call for a rescue? Probably - what would you do if it were a member of your family? But the response of the rangers at Mount Rainier, that was reported to be "they are only overdue-there is not yet cause for alarm and we will wait a day before we launch a search and rescue operation," was probably well founded..

 

Where the comment is made that it is all-too-common, I would have to agree that it is regrettable any time that someone runs into trouble, but I don't think it would be fair to say that, as a rule, the "fault" lies with the climbers or the family members. It is simply a fact that if people are going to be drawn to the woods to go hunting, hiking, snowmobiling, or climbing, some are going to run into trouble and there are going to be search and rescue operations. It is not all that different than a call for help in the city: sometimes your car breaks down and you need a tow truck; sometimes your mother calls the police to go check on you because your phone doesn't work; some times you may actually be missing because you ran away from home or became a victim of some kind of crime or accident. The difference is that the general public thinks it is irresponsible to go mountain climbing in the first place, so there is always this "slant" to any story, whether it is stated by the news media or not.

 

Mattp

[iain]

Nice reply Matt, that's certainly how I feel about it. Here's an article that I think accurately describes the media/climber relationship in the Mt. Hood area and can be interpreted in a broader context of the northwest (sorry in advance for the long post):

 

Jokers On The Mountain:

When Politics & Mountain Rescues Collide

By Lloyd F. Athearn

 

The American Alpine News - January 1997

 

Mountaineering in Oregon changed forever in 1986, when nine students and adult leaders from Oregon Episcopal School perished on Mount Hood during a spring storm. The week-long epic galvanized the public and was a major factor in forever removing the veil of obscurity that for decades had insulated climbers. Practically every climbing accident since, no matter how minor, has attracted reporters and camera crews like a summer barbecue attracts flies. All that was needed was one more major incident before policy-makers began imposing regulations on mountaineers.

 

Foreboding came over me as I read the paper one March morning last year. Three college students who'd attempted to climb Mount Hood over the weekend were lost. Search efforts were complicated by a late winter storm. "This is it," I thought. "This is the one that finally pushes their patience too far."

 

By Wednesday afternoon the climbers were found hiking safely down the mountain. From a climbing perspective they had done everything right. They were properly equipped, dug in when the weather got bad, and hiked out when they felt it was safe. Yet they were roundly criticized by the local media for failing to take a cellular phone or a mountain locator unit, an electronic signaling device that can be tracked by rescuers.

 

In the weeks following the incident, an avalanche of media attention focused on mountain rescues. Practically before the climbers changed out of their wet clothes, the editorial board of Portland's daily Oregonian called for a law requiring all climbers on Mount Hood to use mountain locator units. Then a photo of an Air Force rescue helicopter graced the paper's local section while the headline screamed, "Who gets bill to save hikers? Some say costly search and rescue operations should be paid by climbers rather than the taxpayer." Lost in all the ruckus was an accurate presentation of climbing rescues across the state.

 

To inject some reality into the debate, I wrote an opinion article on mountaineering rescues that the Oregonian published. The article cautioned policy-makers to look carefully at search and rescue facts before rushing to impose fines and regulations on climbers. Included were national statistics showing that climbing rescues, while highly visible, are quite infrequent relative to rescues of other outdoor user groups. I hoped the article would get the attention of key state legislators before anyone introduced mountain-rescue legislation.

 

Though I was looking for support for climbers, several lobbyists who read the article felt I was making excuses for people who exercised poor judgment. One, who worked in the House Democratic caucus office, said he thought the facts were compelling, but still saw no problem mandating the use of locator units or making climbers pay for rescues. Even my mother was immune to my arguments.

 

Sure enough, a few weeks later a bill was introduced in the state legislature. House Bill 3434 made a climber liable for search and rescue costs of up to $5000 if he or she did not carry a mountain locator unit, a cellular phone or a two-way radio. While I knew we, as climbers, faced an uphill battle to convince the public these policies were both unneeded and unfair, I was unprepared for the events that occurred next.

 

"This bill is about those jokers up on the mountain," announced Representative Bob Tiernan, the House General Government Committee chairman, at the first meeting. I winced. Greg Fritz, the vice president of Portland Mountain Rescue, turned to look at me with an expression somewhere between panic and bewilderment. I hadn't expected an overly sympathetic audience, but neither had I imagined that we would be getting insulted by the committee chair.

 

Fritz testified about the number of rescues performed by Portland Mountain Rescue (PMR), the relatively small number of rescues involving climbers, and the countless hours of volunteer time contributed by PMR members in rescuing hikers, hunters and other wilderness users.

 

I was given one minute to outline objections the Mazamas, a 3000-member climbing club in Portland, had about the bill.

 

Our testimony brought a slightly incoherent, but in any case stinging, response from Representative Bob Montgomery, the bill's sponsor. "I'm a little disappointed that these gentlemen who I've never met before do not support trying [to help] these local governments who don't have much money and are continually closing their jails to recoup some of their money from people who go up there and act like a bunch of fools."

 

A member of the committee claimed that locator devices were rejected by climbers because they weren't macho. "I mean, how can you go out and wrestle with the wilderness . . . and enjoy it if you're carrying something that is supposed to protect you?" said Representative Jerry Grisham facetiously.

 

What didn't seem to matter was that even in the county containing the most heavily climbed routes on Mount Hood-regarded by many as among the most climbed mountains in world- only four of the 50 search and rescue cases conducted in 1994 involved mountain climbers. Between 1990 and 1994, only six people died in climbing accidents on Oregon mountains.

 

The perception that climbing rescues are a financial drain to local governments also is wildly inaccurate. Volunteer organizations such as Portland Mountain Rescue provide the bulk of on-mountain staff at no cost, while helicopter evacuations provided by the Air Force's 304th Rescue Squadron are written off as training missions. As evidence, only one climbing rescue was included on the county's list of its 10 most expensive rescues in 1993, and it was ranked eighth. Meanwhile, far more frequent and costly rescues of hikers, hunters, skiers, swimmers and other outdoor users were not seen by legislators as deserving attention.

 

Mandating the use of mountain locator units, cellular phones and other technological devices also caused us concern. Both PMR and the Mazamas strongly recommend climbing Mount Hood with the locator units, and I know first-hand the value of cellular phones in mountain rescues. However, technology will never take the place of good judgment.

 

That day Greg Fritz and I staggered out of the hearing room, dazed. I wracked my brain for answers and came up empty. Gradually, it dawned on me what the problem was: perception.

 

In politics, it is often said that perception is reality. The years of media-induced drama surrounding mountain rescues had so blinded these legislators that they did not view the issue on its merits. Mountaineering was perceived to be so inherently unsafe that participants, by definition, were irresponsible. Therefore, the participants should be expected to shoulder the financial burden when things went wrong.

 

This committee hearing clearly was the darkest hour in the fight against HB 3434, but the next three months were also a tour through lobbyist hell as the bill careened through the legislative process, effortlessly bypassing numerous procedural and political roadblocks placed in its way. Just as it looked like we had killed the bill in committee, one of the members most sympathetic to climbers developed a more palatable compromise. The bill expanded user groups liable to pay rescue costs, developed a "reasonable care" standard to determine if rescue costs would be billed, and lowered the maximum fine to $500 per person. Toned down, the bill sailed out of committee, through the House and Senate, and was signed into law by the Governor.

 

It would be easy to dismiss HB 3434 as a knee-jerk response to one unfortunate mountain rescue incident in Oregon. Combine three overdue and seemingly ungrateful climbers, news organizations ill-informed on outdoor issues, and elected officials intent on making a political statement, and it is easy to see how such a situation developed. At a deeper level, however, the law represents the chasm that separates climbers from our less adventuresome friends and neighbors in the way we view risk. It is a chasm climbers throughout the country must recognize and seek to overcome or we will continue to bear the brunt of regulatory actions.

 

When assessing risks, people weigh a variety of factors. Is the risk voluntary or involuntary? Is the risk natural or manmade? Is the risk familiar or exotic? The more involuntary, unnatural or exotic the risk, the more we fear it. That is why most people are more afraid of an airplane flight than the drive to the airport, despite volumes of evidence showing driving to be exponentially more dangerous than flying. The same phenomenon holds true for climbing.

 

As climbers we come to know that mountains are very predictable. We learn that avalanche hazards are a factor of slope topography, snow deposition and temperature, and that mountain weather often follows observable patterns. We take courses and read books to understand and reduce the hazards we face. We spend time out in the mountains, become familiar with them, and do not perceive them to be foreign and inhospitable.

 

Certainly we are well aware of the risks. No other sport features obituaries of its participants so prominently in its periodicals. But most climbers know that proper skill, equipment and judgment can minimize the risk to such a degree that the possibility of injury or death is far outweighed by the joy and personal growth the sport generates.

 

Most Americans don't know this, however. They spend little time in the mountains, and consequently have no understanding of them.

 

The chasm of misunderstanding that separates climbers from the rest of society is wide, but not insurmountable. Through education and political action we can bridge the gap. Get involved. Join a local or national climbing club. Write an opinion article for your local newspaper about a current climbing-related topic in your area. Write to local, state or national elected officials about local climbing access or policy issues. Organize a clean-up effort at a local crag. The more you can do at an individual or group level to show that climbers are a positive force in your community, the harder it will be for policy-makers to treat us as jokers.

[fleblebleb]

 

One argument claims that rescue fees or rescue insurance would lead to SAR unit liability and vulnerability to lawsuits, which again would lead to rescuer insurance (kind of like medical malpractice insurance) and likely kill off the voluntary rescue squads.

[NEWSTIPS]

iain said:

Jokers On The Mountain:

When Politics & Mountain Rescues Collide

By Lloyd F. Athearn

 

The American Alpine News - January 1997

 

Practically before the climbers changed out of their wet clothes, the editorial board of Portland's daily Oregonian called for a law requiring all climbers on Mount Hood to use mountain locator units.

 

That article was a fascinating and educational read. Being a non-climber, I learned a few things. But I do have a question. Are climbers opposed to being forced to PURCHASE electronic locators or are they opposed to being forced to CARRY them?

 

I guess I'm asking because it seems to me that an electronic locator is seen as an additional safety measure. And while no one should be FORCED to carry one, if the parks system required them and provided them to climbers at no cost or made them available for rental as an "accessory", would that make it a more appealing option for climbers?

 

How much does a decent locator cost, anyway? Does anyone in the forum have experience using one where it actually made a difference? Or is it like the duct tape that sits in the back of your closet for a rainy day terrorist attack?

 

(I hope I'm not asking stupid questions here, but I have a genuine curiosity and actually finding myself wanting to trek outdoors!)

[Distel32]

avy beacons cost 300! and it's pretty tought to find them for cheaper. I think cost is the biggest factor, maybe I'm crazy but most climbers wouldn't mind carrying one if they gave it to you for free to use or included it in the climbing fee at rainer, but requiring people to purchase them is a terrible idea.

[snoboy]

Distel- If you read closer I think you will see that they are not talking about avy beacons, but rather EPIRBS or something like that.

[fleblebleb]

NEWSTIPS said:

Are climbers opposed to being forced to PURCHASE electronic locators or are they opposed to being forced to CARRY them?

 

Both. But nobody proposed that climbers would have to buy the units, or at least I don't think so. Instead the proposed model was probably something like checking out a locator unit during opening hours at Timberline

 

There is a bit of a "gadgets are cheating" ethic.

[Distel32]

sno-

good call, that's what I get for not paying attention!

[micajones]

The more you can do at an individual or group level to show that climbers are a positive force in your community, the harder it will be for policy-makers to treat us as jokers.

 

I'll do my part on an individual level with my Joe Sixpack drinkin' buddies, who consider anyone, including me, a supreme jackass for wandering around in the mountains when it "ain't even huntin' season."

 

The way they figger, the shit-fer-brains got what wuz comin' to 'em.

 

It might pan out like this:

Me: "Hey Bill (name changed to protect the ignorant), did you hear about those two fellas missing on the north face of Big Four?"

Bill: "Four fellas missin' on big who?"

Me: "No Bill, climbers like me. Missing in action on a dangerous mountain face."

Bill: "Why don't you gimme some action on your dangerous face an' shut the f**k up."

Me: "Billy, you just don't understand. I'm trying to be a positive force in the community."

Bill: "How's about I positively force sum action on yer dangerous face? "

[catbirdseat]

I understand that in Oregon you can rent the locator units at many retail stores that cater to skiers and climbers. The unit is activated by the climber when he knows he is overdue and a search party is expected. It allows rescuers who have the appropriate receiver to locate the climber. I'd rather have a cell phone so I could say, "All is well. I'll be a day late."

[iain]

That's correct, it is a modified bear collar which can be used to track people over very large areas. it is only functional on mt hood (no other units besides those who respond to mt hood use it). fewer people use them these days, but it was actually used with effectiveness just last month when searching for 5 climbers near the summit of hood. many climbers would rather get themselves out of the mess they've put themselves in, however, and choose not to carry them. it is not a requirement by law by any stretch but one could technically be called negligent for not bringing a cell phone or mlu. this would be terribly difficult to hold up in court, and was a knee-jerk reaction in the legislature, as you saw in that article. this discussion is well away from what you originally asked.

[mattp]

Newstips-

Locator units would shorten or facilitate a search and rescue operation in lots of cases, so it is hard for me argue against their use except to say that it is possible some people might be MORE likely to get themselves in trouble if they were carrying a locator unit and thought, somewhere in the back of their mind, that they could call help by simply activating the device. I believe this in fact HAS happened with the use of cell phones, though I am not aware of any statistics.

[Beck]

Following this thread has raised some very reaching looks at the way mountain rescues are perceived in the Northwest.

 

Some points, in no particular order.

It is correct, most SAR actions in the northwest involve nonclimbers. Even Mountian Rescue units get called up for a lot of non technical searches, looking for grandpa alzhimer out in the woods.

the public greatly enjoys tales of high adventure and drama in the news, and seeing tales of "emergency" situations. This "thrill by proxy" is not an uncommon emotion, whether it is about mountain rescues, or big boat sailboat racing, or the BAM race, so news groups are not wrong in running these stories big- they are big crowd pleasers in the sense of thrilling newsworthiness.

 

Matt P's last post is correct. The prevelance of cell phones in the wilderness (and on mountains in particular) does lead to some peoples' idea they are their safety net if the shizzy hits the fan.

In being involved in the periphery of Mount Rainier the last five-six years, I've seen this to be the case. I recall being at the mountain and getting beta on climbing parties that were okay, with no injuries or even off route, calling up to request a rescue because they "didn't want to climb in this weather anymore." and could the rescuers come get them?

instead of waiting out the weather.

This has happenned more than once. Also, some solo hiker/climbers seem to think Family Radio Service radios are a safety net. (who would carry a two- way radio on a solo trip?) but these have led to the rescue of two mountian travellers in the last two-three years. One soloist on mount Stuart that who pleas for help were picked up by a girl in her backyard in Wenatchee, and the hiker lost above the lunch counter on Mount Adams in bad weather who got some hunters to rally a search for him.

 

There are more and more wilderness travellers out there.

People live vicariously through what they see on TV.

TV News knows the importance of an impactful broadcast.

Most people searched for in the Northwest are not climbers.

Climbers get perceived blame for costs of rescues, whether at Hood, or at Rainier, when it is the nonclimbers searches that waste more of the counties (or Parks') budget.

 

Oh, and one time as a teenager, me and a buddy went winter camping. We left friday, had a pickup time of noon sunday. Canadian clipper moves in over the weekend, 2 feet of snow and fifty mile an hour winds. Me and buddy snug as a bug on top, in VE-24, drinking whiskey and smoking the greens.

We come out 11:30 AM Sunday to find a SAR in force at the lot. We go up and offer our assistance. It seems two campers were out, unprepared, and the sherrifs were out at the request of one of the family members to search for the two obviously frozen youth. We state we didn't see anyone, but would be happy to go back the way we came and help with the search.

Sounds good, the sherrifs say, lets get you boys signed up for the search.

Okay, and we go to sign up on the roster, only to discover-

we were gettign ready to search for ourselves.

 

The sherrifs office screwed the pooch on that rescue, we were a half an hour early to the pickup time.

 

 

 

[Rodchester]

Are climbers opposed to being forced to PURCHASE electronic locators or are they opposed to being forced to CARRY them?

 

I'm opposed to carying one for myself...but I don't care what others do. Too many issues with these types of things to be efective, at least in my mind.

[iain]

cell phones have been very valuable for searchers, one in which a guy called up and was talked down through low visability w/o anyone even needing to respond. pretty ridiculous scenario but it happened and it was nice to not need to go up in the weather. newer ones have an integrated gps as well, so location is automatic. also, plb's are approved in the northwest now (and have been in alaska for some time). Though they are quite expensive at this point, that cost will drop. Takes all the fun out of searching!

[MounTAIN_Woman]

Let me add another twist to this thread. Last year, my partner Jim and some others climbed the West Ridge of Forbidden. They signed out at the ranger station, and planned to take two days to climb. One day to get in and establish camp, and then the second to climb and hike out. We talked about a probable late finish, and I mentioned to Jim that rather than have him risk injury hiking out through that tangled climber's path in the dark, it might be better to spend another night, and I wouldn't worry until he wasn't home by Monday afternoon. So imagine my instant panic when the rangers called me at 9:00 Monday morning to say that they hadn't made it out yet, and they sent someone up to see if their car was still parked near their entry point. It was still there. I mentioned to the ranger that they might have decided to spend another night if they got off the climb late. They would wait a few hours before sending a climbing ranger up the trail to see if there was any sign of them. About 11:00, I got a call from the ranger that they just signed out, and then not long after that, I received a call from Jim that they were on their way. They didn't know that the rangers had started the phone calls. Apparently after a successful climb and descent, they got to the basin at dusk, too tired to hike out safely. So they did just what Jim and I talked about, but when signing out Friday, they failed to sign out to possibly come out Monday morning. I wasn't worried about him until I got the call from the rangers!