Media glorification of mountaineering accidents

[dmuja]

Denver is 7,000 feet? Didnt know that

[wfinley]

Perhaps you should take time to read some of the studies the AAC has put out. The whole point of arguing against government regulation is that regulation unfairly targets a specific user group that in all actuality is a small percentage of rescues. Furthermore the fact that most of these rescues take place on public lands further complicates the possibility of rescue by private companies.

[dmuja]

Im well aware of break down wfinley, of coarse I didn't really mean private "companies" but rather mountain rescue volunteers. The only grounds people have for complaining about mountain rescues is "I don't want my tax dollars etc..." Read the P-I poll comment page in spray to see an example. As it is now, we're about to be told what gear we have to bring and maybe eventually a lot more by people who barely climb out of bed in the morning much less have a clue about mountaineering. This latest incident has brought the spotlight back (no thanks to the rescuees) on this perennial stupid question of "rescue costs to the tax payer" and Im just looking for a solution. What ever works. Without rescue expectaions and guarentees, people would be more careful, more studied, OR less able to claim fault when they fuck up.

[Tanner]

I should check my facts!! Denver is only 5000ish feet elevation.

 

 

 

[Tanner]

leadville Colorado elev. 10,430' Is the place not to get hurt in. now I feel special Again.

[dmuja]

Better not be a wanker or a gumby living in leadville

[Tanner]

I'm sure they have all sorts of self help groups up there anyway.

They should be fine.

[dmuja]

You mean like the LRWASFR "lonely rich widows at altitude support and first responders society"?

[Pedroslog]

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.

[kevbone]

This thread his the toilet 2 pages ago.

[robk]

Heres the legeslation I would like to see pass-->

 

"No publicly funded agency of any level of government, be it township, city, county, state or federal, shall expend or devote any resources what so ever, be it time, monies, transportation, equipment, or personnel, of any and all kind, to any emergency rescue request, or request for assistance of whatever nature, by any persons what so ever, which occurs higher than 7,000 feet above sea level. Nor will there be any responsibility of, or liability on the part of, said agencies for fulfilling and conforming to this regulation."

 

Climbers should rescue themselves, period. No public money, no grounds for whining and bitching. You could call it the "Freedom" bill, kinda like the "patriot act" of 2007.

 

This is a GREAT idea! Think how much money could be saved in places like Colorado where significant portions of the state are above 7,000 feet. No law enforcement, EMS, fire, SAR, USFS, NPS.... Think of the taxpayer savings!

 

dmuja - you 'da man!