MLU's mandatory on Hood!

[John Frieh]

What a load of horseshit! It seems like this law will only allow ignorant family members to sue rescue units or other groups for not successfully rescuing there loved one even though they were following the law by carrying all the necessary gear. The funny thing is that this will make it easier for idiots to lay blame on other people after they fuck themselves by getting in over their head. Oh well, all hail big brother!

 

So put that in a letter and send it

[olyclimber]

well, they are building light rail and a downtown trolly in seattle. a little behind teh times, but some improvement.

 

but tyhe bottom line is this really sucks for everyone who wants to climb hood without a nanny, especially those that count on hood as one of their primary playgrounds (like climbers in the portland area)

[jfs1978]

Why, I live in Washington??

 

OK - for any residents of Oregon then...everyone else can ignore this...

[ryland_moore]

Although it is regulation, it isn't in thesame respect. Since the law has no teeth, then no enforcement and therefore really just a paper exercise, wasting tax-payer dollars. Since we won't have to abide by it, it shouldn't affect us at all.

 

Where it does have a problem is when the bill is revised 10 years from now once they find a pot of gold to manage it and then the regulation begins.

 

 

[Weekend_Climberz]

Although it is regulation, it isn't in thesame respect. Since the law has no teeth, then no enforcement and therefore really just a paper exercise, wasting tax-payer dollars. Since we won't have to abide by it, it shouldn't affect us at all.

 

This was kind of my point. Why would I bother wasting my time on something they are wasting time on? Two wrongs don't make a right.

 

Damn Oly, that hospital stay has really improved your spelling

[John Frieh]

Wasting time compared to what... posting here?

[Weekend_Climberz]

as compared to wasting time on Mt Hood

[olyclimber]

mt hood is one of the cascade jewels, there is great unique climbing up there. this truly sucks, hopefully ryland is right

[rbw1966]

Although it is regulation, it isn't in thesame respect. Since the law has no teeth, then no enforcement and therefore really just a paper exercise, wasting tax-payer dollars. Since we won't have to abide by it, it shouldn't affect us at all.

 

As I understand it, they don't have to impose any enforcement requirements on it right now. The agency responsible for it, i.e. Forest Service, can implement enforcement penalties when it gets to them. That is, if its passed into law, the Forest Service can decide what penalties to impose.

 

Remember, there is currently a law in place requiring climbers to carry EITHER a cell phone or an MLU otherwise they are responsible for up to $500 of any rescue costs. Can anyone name a case where someone was penalized under the current law?

 

That being said, I'm with John. I am against this bill, I have written the legislature complaining about it, and I'd love to see someone thank Matty and crew tonight for his seemingly endless self-promotion at adding fuel to the fire.

[lambda]

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.

[ryland_moore]

What I find interesting is that a group who, whether they meant to or not, helped get the MLU bill passed (Matty and Co.), and they are holding a benefit for a group who openly opposed the MLU bill.

 

 

[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.

 

[scheissami]

The purpose of the fundraiser is to repay the groups that helped rescue them, not for self-aggrandizement nor to advocate for legislature requiring MLUs. The hype revolving around the use of the beacons is a consequence of the media's sensationalism and lack of understanding about climbing; I don't think any of the group would support mandating the MLUs.

 

Coming to the fundraiser will allow you to (politely) voice your opinions and support the groups that oppose the legislation in the way that ultimately matters the most--with your wallet.

[ryland_moore]

Then why didn't Matty and his friends go down to Salem and testify against the MLU regulation in front of the Legislature? I can open my wallet to PMR with a check and envelope and 39 cent stamp without having to go support the feel-good cause and pretend like everything is o.k. since they are doing the fundraiser for PMR......te ype as encouraged and partly Matty and his friends fault. Going on the Ellen D. show? Did they onc say anything about how the MLU legislation was bad or clarify that what they did was stupid, they did not have the skills to be out, and it was their fault they did not get off the mountain under their own power? No.

[scheissami]

If you watched the show then you'll appreciate that they didn't have time to say much of anything, other than to briefly explain what happened and thank the rescue organizations.

 

It is an undeniable fact that the media attention has added impetus to passing the measure. However, I do feel they're doing the best they can to repay the groups that helped them. I suppose they could have just said "thanks" and left it at that; they're trying to do more, which has unfortunately equated with more media attention. If I remember correctly, most of this legislative talk began with the 3 climbers lost on the NF this winter--while it has certainly gained momentum, it is unjust to place all of the blame on the recent group.

 

Ultimately, it's the lawmakers who are trying to pass this measure--people who don't understand the pursuit for which they're passing legislation. You're correct; you can give your support without attending the fundraiser in the form of donations to the rescue organizations and by writing your legal representatives. Of course, you can also show your support by physically showing up and thanking PMR, as well as fostering a sense of unity within the community--even (and especially!) if you have a dispute with some of the individuals or how things have panned out.

 

I understand the comment about the "feel-good" cause and the negative connotations that the label has; however, I think it will "feel-good" to show my support, meet some local climbers, and have a beer. I'll even buy you a beer and chat about this kinda stuff--maybe we can come up with a constructive way to fight all the BS legislation.

 

-erik

[kevbone]

Ill buy you a beer also. That's two free beers. How can you turn that down.

[ClimbingPanther]

Sorry if this has already been said, but the more recent situation with the 3 lost people who HAD GPS AND DIDN'T USE IT kinda illustrates exactly why MLU's are stupid. Any idiot can now go to the mountains without any preparation and someone will come hold their hand to get them out of trouble. This should be more of a reason for lawmakers NOT to pass this stupid law, instead of the other way around. Good grief. If anything, rescue costs will go up because more people will use MLU's as a safety net for their own stupidity.

[ryland_moore]

Ill buy you a beer also. That's two free beers. How can you turn that down.

 

I'll hold you to it!

 

Thanks Scheissami. Well said. I am sure a lot of this frustration is stemming from the regulation. I have "attacked" Matty and his group out of frustration that the two groups (December and March) were not understood by the media to be two totally different events and that Matty's group brought additional attention, when it could have been prtevented, in a time that could not have been worse. And I am sure that Matty's group is getting the brunt of this frustration because they are a pretty easy target. Thanks for the great insight. I will see if I can move some things around tonight to make it.

 

Ryland

[kevbone]

I'll hold you to it!

 

 

Not a problem. See you there. I don’t know what you look like but it sounds like you know who or what I look like, just come on over and introduce your self. Cant wait.!

Edited March 29, 2007 by kevbone

[StevenSeagal]

What's really amazing is that there's still people out there who think that if the NF trio in December had simply brought an MLU that the end result would've been different.

[kevbone]

What's really amazing is that there's still people out there who think that if the NF trio in December had simply brought an MLU that the end result would've been different.

 

 

Amazing....just like you

 

[Gary_Yngve]

According to an article on the web from a Salem paper: The measure calls for people climbing the 11,239-foot mountain above 10,000 feet to carry a two-way communications device such as a cell phone, satellite phone or radio, and one of the following: a global positioning system receiver, mountain locator unit, personal locator beacon or other comparable technology.

 

Do people need to carry batteries too?

[cluck]

I've met the "Mount Hood 8" and they seem to be nice well-intentioned folks who are honestly trying to give back to the volunteers who helped them. It's unfair to blame them for this legislative mess. Still, they are in a unique position to help us get our message out to the masses and it would be great if the were willing to help out. Perhaps someone can politely ask them for their help tonight.

 

As far as getting this bill stopped goes, the legislators have made it quite clear that they are passing this law because they think that's what the public wants. If we can convince the public that this law is a bad idea, maybe the lawmakers will come around. Alternatively, maybe we can convince the lawmakers that the public really only cared for about 5 minutes and now that they've made their point, it's time to let this bill fade away before it does any harm.

 

 

Hope to see some of you sprayers at the party tonight. Cruise by and have a beer with me if you can figure out who I am

 

:brew:

[EWolfe]

Because of this precedent, those Nazi Home-Owners Associate Fucks are going to require MLU's in my 'hood.

[kevbone]

Chill Mr E. These guys turned a bad thing into a good thing. I just got back from the party and is was an huge hit. Thumbs up for matty and company. There was like 300 people there. Everybody was really cool and nice. Good frickin beer. PMG was there.