Jump to content
  • Announcements

    • olyclimber

      WELCOME TO THE CASCADECLIMBERS.COM FORUMS   02/03/18

      We have upgraded to new forum software as of late last year, and it makes everything here so much better!  It is now much easier to do pretty much anything, including write Trip Reports, sell gear, schedule climbing related events, and more. There is a new reputation system that allows for positive contributors to be recognized,  it is possible to tag content with identifiers, drag and drop in images, and it is much easier to embed multimedia content from Youtube, Vimeo, and more.  In all, the site is much more user friendly, bug free, and feature rich!   Whether you're a new user or a grizzled cascadeclimbers.com veteran, we think you'll love the new forums. Enjoy!
Sign in to follow this  
iain

OR Legislation - climbers

Recommended Posts

Enjoy this one:

 

http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/hb2500.dir/hb2509.intro.html

 

Should be some entertaining committee sessions if it makes it there.

 

At least Ted's gone on record opposing such measures. OK, Oregonians, make your voices heard, especially to the legislators not sponsoring this bill so they have some constituency feedback to back them up in opposing this. CBS, hypothetically, if this goes through, would you still be opposed to an initiative seeking to repeal it? Not that it would pass or anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The nice thing about his is that they have no idea what they are talking about. MLU (I think that is what they are talking about) ONLY works on Mt. Hood. This bill seems to or attempts to cover all mountains in oregon. So are we going to give all S&R teams with the ability to track an MLU signal? If we are going to be required to have them are they going to have some one at all hours checking each team for an MLU? Would climbers be able to purchase an MLU so we don't have to pay $5 each time we go out? I know I would pay that sucker off in one season. What about Joe Blow who heads out into the woods and gets lost. They incure more cost for S&R than climbers. Should they have to have one as well? Why only in the "winter" months. People get hurt on hood in the spring. Wouldn't they benifit from having an MLU as well? It is one more piece of gear we have to worry about. I would rather spend that money on pro to keep me out of trouble.

Edited by letsroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

"electronic signaling device"

 

Would my head lamp work? It is electronic and it can be used as a signaling device. What if I want to hike to the top or Mt. bachelar or maybe Tom Dick and Harry from the top of the chair lift? Would I then have to take my electronic signaling device? I hope this quietly disapears.

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

(2) + } A person who guides for compensation an organized group

that includes children under 18 years of age on any mountain

{ + at a point + } above the timberline { - must - }

{ + shall + }carry an altimeter, { + an electronic signaling

device, + } a contour map of the area and a compass.

 

This Bill should be modified - They forgot to include the 11th essential - Toilet Paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enjoy this one:

 

http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/hb2500.dir/hb2509.intro.html

 

Should be some entertaining committee sessions if it makes it there.

 

At least Ted's gone on record opposing such measures. OK, Oregonians, make your voices heard, especially to the legislators not sponsoring this bill so they have some constituency feedback to back them up in opposing this. CBS, hypothetically, if this goes through, would you still be opposed to an initiative seeking to repeal it? Not that it would pass or anything.

Are you talking to me? Did I come out in support of requiring signalling device? I don't think so.

 

As far as what they are referring to, I would assume that either a cell phone, satellite phone or a locator unit would qualify, but an avalanche beacon would not.

Edited by catbirdseat

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I wonder if a cell phone counts as an electronic signaling device :P

 

Here's to hoping this dies a quiet death either on the floor of the house, or as an unfunded unenforceable mandate that area managers conveniently overlook :brew:

 

It might be worth trying to get a respectable expert to come down and testify to the feasibility/responsibility burdens of this, either from the AAC with regards to their report on mountain rescues, or possibly someone who was on the NPS board for the discussion about Denali.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Enjoy this one:

 

http://www.leg.state.or.us/07reg/measures/hb2500.dir/hb2509.intro.html

 

Should be some entertaining committee sessions if it makes it there.

 

At least Ted's gone on record opposing such measures. OK, Oregonians, make your voices heard, especially to the legislators not sponsoring this bill so they have some constituency feedback to back them up in opposing this. CBS, hypothetically, if this goes through, would you still be opposed to an initiative seeking to repeal it? Not that it would pass or anything.

Are you talking to me? Did I come out in support of requiring signalling device? I don't think so.

 

As far as what they are referring to, I would assume that either a cell phone, satellite phone or a locator unit would qualify, but an avalanche beacon would not.

 

Is CBS really the online persona of Tim Eyman?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks for the heads up on this one Iain. Its in the mail today.

 

 

 

Dear Representative Krummel,

 

I was very disappointed to read that you are one of the sponsors of House Bill 2509, to regulate the freedoms that Oregonians enjoy when recreating outdoors. Because of the nationwide attention given to the recent tragedy on Mt Hood, I can understand your desire to help keep users of Oregon’s resources safe. But this type of legislation is not the way it should be done.

Mountain Climbing is an inherently dangerous activity, and those who engage in it accept this as the dominating force governing its practice. Every action that a Mountaineer engages in is calculated against his/her objective, and the safety concerns surrounding that action. An electronic signaling device (ESD) will not make the mountaineer’s judgment keener. In fact it could have the opposite effect. By requiring the use of an ESD there is now the expectation of a timely rescue in case of an emergency. People are more likely to make rash decisions knowing that if they are incorrect, help is a few hours away.

The definition of an ESD in the act is confusingly vague. I carry a headlamp on all climbs. It is electronic, and can signal to rescuers with it. I also carry a cell phone, which meets the definition. But I hardly think that a headlamp or cell phone is what you or the other sponsors of this bill had in mind when writing this legislation. The climbers in the Mt Hood tragedy had both of those tools. Most climbers I know always carry something that would meet the definition in the bill. If your intention was that people carry a device similar to a Mountain Locater Unit (MLU), then that should be spelled out in the bill.

An MLU, unfortunately, would not have stopped the tragedy on Mt Hood. Even if rescuers knew their precise location, the weather was so bad as to prevent any rescue attempt. Requiring an MLU to be carried would require a large expansion of the current system, which only covers Mt. Hood. There are many more mountains whose summit is above the tree line in Oregon, and if the government is going to require the use of an MLU, then they need to also provide for the infrastructure to make use of MLU signals in a distress situation. I think your constituency would not look too fondly at State dollars being spent on communications equipment in the wilderness of southern Oregon when they would rather see it going to their children’s classroom.

If cost for rescue operations is a concern, then I have a novel solution: bill those lost, or their survivors. But if the current legislation goes through, the result will not be a safer Oregon, but a larger edition of the Oregon Revised Statutes.

 

 

Regards,

 

 

 

Troy Sexton

Sherwood Oregon

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Thanks for the heads up on this one Iain. Its in the mail today.

 

 

 

Dear Representative Krummel,

 

 

Regards,

 

Troy Sexton

Sherwood Oregon

 

Sweet! Well done. :tup: :tup:

 

I don't like the idea of charging the rescuee(s) for a rescue, for reasons amply pointed out in this post.

 

That said, I'm going to believe the hint that Troy aims at Rep. Krummel is written with tongue firmly planted in cheek and is meant to alert Mr. Krummel to the falacy of his "logic" in promoting this sort of knee-jerk, off-the-wall legislation.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(2) + } A person who guides for compensation an organized group

that includes children under 18 years of age on any mountain

{ + at a point + } above the timberline { - must - }

{ + shall + }carry an altimeter, { + an electronic signaling

device, + } a contour map of the area and a compass.

 

This Bill should be modified - They forgot to include the 11th essential - Toilet Paper.

 

also "must wear shorts over polypro and have at least one party member experienced in slab bouldering and dirt rappelling"

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I recommend reviewing the current Oregon Revised Statutes (chapter 401) before confronting the current proposed bill (remember, this is already law under which you as climbers must comply). Otherwise, your opinion will be discounted.

 

(1) "Electronic signaling device" includes, but is not limited to, a system consisting of an instrument which emits a radio signal, designed to be carried on the person, an instrument for locating the source of such signal, designed to be utilized by searchers and such instruments as may be employed for testing and maintaining the same.

 

(2) The Legislative Assembly recognizes that the use of electronic signaling devices can aid in locating wilderness travelers or mountain climbers who require search and rescue, but that the use of such devices may be required in unpredictable circumstances which may not result in successful function of such devices. [1987 c.915 §2]

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

this is the first step. next they'll be telling you what gear to take up Outerspace.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

OK, so not a techie, but would an avvy beacon qualify? I don't know exactly what the definition of "radio signal" is

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iain. Given your last post is already on the books. I don't see what the difference in the bills (current proposal vs. what is on the books) other than time frame will be. Am I missing something? And given the language an avi beacon would seem to qualify if the S&R people have avi beacons as well.

Edited by letsroll

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It does seem similar to current ORS law, but this specifically targets winter climbers, and apparently, guides are getting lost up there too (news to me).

 

What I meant to say was, a "signaling device" was already defined in the ORS back in 1987, so suggesting that the definition is too vague in what is only a summary of a proposed bill would diminish the effectiveness of a letter to congress.

 

But perhaps the current ORS is too vague to begin with.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Are you talking to me? Did I come out in support of requiring signalling device? I don't think so.

 

I was referring to your distaste for initiatives, while I think they're sometimes necessary to reign in legislators who are WAY off route or had one too many :brew:'s

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
is meant to alert Mr. Krummel to the falacy of his "logic" in promoting this sort of knee-jerk, off-the-wall legislation.

 

Exactly. I just wanted to point out the fact that they will create an expectation that will cost lots of money. This can easily be spun into a "look at this government boondogel-they are putting up communications equipment in the middle of the woods, and for what? My kids have XX kids in their class, and this costs what?"

 

Iain: You're totally right, I should have read the relevant statutes already on the books before writting. I'm sure though, that all the other letters that you guys are writting will not make my little mistake.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Or you can look at the practical side of this law. Short of me admitting that I don't have one, how are they going to prove that I don't have one with me? Are they going to overrule the fed constitution and allow park officials to search me at will? Ranger asks if you have one, you just smile and don't answer. Prove I don't.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Iain I don't think you meant to say letter to Congress. but the federal - state thing is an interesting jurisdiction question.

For the whole section of Oregon Revised Statutes see http://www.leg.state.or.us/ors/401.html .

the current requirement looks to deal with people who guide children above timberline- I suspect written after the OES disaster.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Whenever anything bad happens, people look to make it so it never happens. Often law is used. I think that this is a poor way to regulate people, and lessen bad things. The only way to do that is to educate. I would rather see the money wasted on law designated for education.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

And.... this would have resulted in saving the 3 climbers how exactly?

 

When are the most newbs on the mountain, winter or summer?

 

Whats the logic for picking on climbers anyway? Maybe we all should have locator chips imbedded in our bodies as well as our DNA profiles on tap with the feds.

 

If the Access Fund was worth anything beyond "keeping bolted sport crags open for climbing" they would be all over this.

 

We should all flood the OR State legislature with opposition or its only the first step to this:

 

--

 

Re Mt Katahdin

 

"17. CLIMBING OR MOUNTAIN HIKING: Climbing or mountain hiking may be restricted at the discretion of the Director. Park users must be reasonably prepared and equipped, and must take reasonable precautions against endangering themselves or others. Hikers must wear appropriate footwear and clothing, and must carry a working flashlight. No children under the age of 6 years are allowed above timberline..."

 

--

 

1-You must carry a windchill chart, however, you are not required to carry anything that measures the wind. (what's the point? who knows?)

 

2-Minimum 4 persons per party required. Groups with less will not be permitted to stay overnight in Baxter State Park. They recommend you plan for 6 members in case one or two people back out.

 

3-Trip itinerary, climbing resume, listing the leader and 2 assistant co-leaders, and certification that you and your party are fit to climb is required.

 

4-Mountain is closed down by rangers if the windchill reaches

-50 degrees F. or standing temp reaches -30 degrees F.

 

5-Rangers will physically go over your gear and if they feel it is not appropriate, you will not be allowed to climb.

 

6-All winter campers going to Chimney Pond will be required to stay at Roaring Brook Campground the first night. (although it's 12 miles of hiking to reach Roaring Brook, you probably are going to want to do this anyway)

 

7-All parties shall be on trail in time to get to their camping areas before dark.

 

8-Climbing parties must have at least 2 persons on a team. Solo climbs are NOT permitted. All persons will register with the Ranger/Park Volunteer at Chimney Pond before any climb/hike. All technical climbers must leave Chimney Pond by 8 am on the day of the technical climb. All winter climbers utilizing known trails to climb Mt. Katahdin must leave Chimney Pond by 9 am. Flashlight or headlamp is required for technical climbing.

 

9-All Katahdin climbing parties are expected to return to Chimney Pond by 8 pm. After 8 pm, search and rescue procedures may be initiated. Negligent parties may be held responsible for the costs of search and rescue efforts. (curfew time!?!?)

 

10-The leader of each winter party must request a special use permit a minimum of 2 weeks in advance form the Park Director by writing the reservation clerk at Park Headquarters in Millinocket, Maine. (four weeks is recommended for processing time to avoid time conflicts with other parties). (they are very slow, allow at least 2 months)

 

Irving C Caverly, Jr

Director, Baxter State Park

http://www.summitpost.org/mountain/rock/150219/katahdin.html

--

 

This may be where our "sport" is headed, unfortunately, this is where our society is headed too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

SECTION 1. ORS 401.625 is amended to read:

401.625. { + (1) A person who engages in mountain climbing

during the months of November, December, January, February and

March shall use an electronic signaling device when climbing a

mountain at a point above the timberline.

 

I am bored, here are some Questions:

 

1 What is the definition of "mountain Climbing"? Does hiking count? Only if you intend to summit? Would going to Muir count as mountain climbing, or sightseeing? Going to Illumination Ridge count? What about hiking up the ski runs at Hood?

 

2 What does the language “shall use” mean? If you carry a device but do not use it, are you in violation?

 

3 Many have already asked what would constitute an electronic signaling device; but what about a lighted (electronic) Mirror (signaling device)? A battery operated whistle? Hand held two-mile radios? My Capt’n Crunch battery powered decoder spy ring?

 

4 Who has the burden of proof, do you have to prove you have one, or do they have to prove you don’t? Short of finding my dead body and searching it, they are going to have no way of proving I don’t have one, but I guess they could prove you don’t “use” one.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
(2) + } A person who guides for compensation an organized group that includes children under 18 years of age on any mountain { + at a point + } above the timberline { - must - } { + shall + } carry an altimeter, { + an electronic signaling device, + } a contour map of the area and a compass.

Emphasized text by me.

 

If I read this correctly, an altimeter, "electronic signaling device," contour map and compass shall be carried by the guide only if someone under 18 is a guest. So if all of the guests on a given day are over 18, I don't need to carry a thing!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

Sign in to follow this  

×