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  
cluck

News poll: require climbers to carry beacons?

Recommended Posts

 

Are there more accidents on Hood than Rainier?

 

could they be proportionally equal?

 

According to wikipedia, Hood had 130 climbing fatalities in 100 years, while Rainier has 3 climbing fatalities per year. So if we believe the preceeding and assuming that the number of summit attempts was similar throughout time, the death rate is ~twice as great on Rainier. Considering the difference in difficulty, the numbers tend to make sense?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Not to get off track, Rocky, but my strategy has always been to take a bearing to the skiers left or right of the Palmer chair, depending on wind direction, then descending until my altimeter reports that I'm about 1/4 to 1/3 below the top of the chair. Then its a simple matter to turn towards the chair lift and maintain elevation until you cross under the cables. Then I just have to follow the Palmer and Magic Mile Chairs to the Lodge.

 

I still disagree with your argument that the USFS, or any land manager, should be following up with permits. The point of the Wilderness Permit is to document user days. The point of the climber's sign-in sheet is to verify the itinerary after a third party has contacted the USFS and reported a climber overdue. Again, the reguirement to be responsible adults should be on the climbers, not on the government. Requiring the USFS to do anything more than gather up these scraps of paper for use studies is simply a step toward fees and regulations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm not sure that St. Helens and South Sister see more hikers than Hood. I've really can't see more people climbing south sister since for a large part of the year it is accessible only by a 4 mile ski. Hood, however, sees ascents in most every month of the year since access is never an issue.

 

during the summer, rj... that's when both see the majority of their traffic. it might not qualify as "technical mountianeering" but they are still ascended. the fact that they are hike-ups make them largely more accessable to those without a mountaineering background, thus, not just climbers will take it for an outing but hikers also. i can understand why someone might say this doesn't count but in the statistics of climbing volcanoes it would just because they are both volocanoes.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

The BEST solution for Mount Hood is to

 

MAKE IT A NATIONAL PARK .

 

As it is right now, the mountain and those who want to climb it in the future are at the mercy of all sorts of crazy "management" whim$.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Chris,

I'm well aware of how to get off the hill. The point I was bringing up is that there is this big sign in the Climber's cave. In essence it says that in the case of a whiteout you need to know the bearing from crater rock to the lodge so that you don't fall into the trap of walking off the miss. head. I have the bearing set in my GPS as do my friends, however I find it odd that there is this huge warning sign telling people to know a bearing so they don't die and then not include the bearing. It's like having a "blind turn ahead" sign on the road and not telling drivers which way the turn will go.

 

I think we'll end up agreeing to disagree, but I still think that it would be worthwhile to have a ranger/ski patroller check the climbing permits once a day and make sure everyone who was supposed to be back is, or at the least sort out all the "out climbing" permits that are weeks old. Simply, all I'm advocating for is that the USFS put a little more effort into keeping climbers informed about the mountain (because yes there are idiots who haven't a clue up there) and that they keep themselves aware of the climbers on the mountain. I'm not looking for regulation or a babysitter, just an eye.

 

DMUJA--that is the worst idea.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Kenny,

 

You're probably right. Thinking about it, the one time I did SS was at the end of the Traverse and since we came off the mountain in the am we saw a bunch of ppl. Could definitely see more ppl than Hood. How many permits are sold annually for MSH?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hood is not protected right now. The ski resort for example could potentially ban climbers (unlikely right now I know but then there is Mt. Bachelor example) and unless Im mistaken its not the job of the forest service to provide climbing rangers. If you want protection - including the protection of your climbing "rights" and sound management - if you want climbing rangers, wx and route condition briefs, permit checks and crowd/impact management you should want Hood to become a national park which would insure climbing access for generations to come.

Edited by dmuja

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Kenny,

 

You're probably right. Thinking about it, the one time I did SS was at the end of the Traverse and since we came off the mountain in the am we saw a bunch of ppl. Could definitely see more ppl than Hood. How many permits are sold annually for MSH?

rj, the times i've done msh i've had to get the permits 6 months in advance - except in the winter. i know during the peak hiking season that there can be many more permits sold than there are campsites at the climbers bivy...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
... Hood to become a national park ...

proposals for this have been shot down before - i'm skeptical about how hood becoming a nat'l park would affect the mountain as far as its climbing is concerned...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
...i'm skeptical about how hood becoming a nat'l park would affect the mountain as far as its climbing is concerned...

 

...But youre not AS skeptical about "managers" who's sole motivation may be to make money?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

my concern is that the mountain would be limited to a certain number of climbers per day or a certain number of tents allowed for overnight stays (such as that at Camp Muir or Shurman on rainier - granted, rainier is a completely different mtn with different logistics and problems...), or even closing the mountain during the "off" season, charging to climb, etc... i'm sure you can think of many other things that i'm not mentioning. whatever the issues that would arise i know one thing about regulations and climbing: rarely do they peacefully go hand in hand without problems. making money off the climbers trying to ascend hood doesn't seem like a great source of income - even if it is climbed as often as it seems that's still not that much money in the bigger picture. if their sole motivation was to make money then timberline lodge officials could have charged the climbers years ago to walk up their lift lines - i bet that has come up sometime in the past. Please don't think that i believe that making hood a nat'l park is a bad idea for the mountain - i'm just not too sure about it helping the climbing...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As it stands, youre at the mercy of a private land owner, the Oregon state legislature laugh.gif , a sheriff, and or the US ForestRY Sevice - which isn't necessarily obliged to protect its land.

 

I'll take the NPS over that any day.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think we'll end up agreeing to disagree, but I still think that it would be worthwhile to have a ranger/ski patroller check the climbing permits once a day and make sure everyone who was supposed to be back is, or at the least sort out all the "out climbing" permits that are weeks old. Simply, all I'm advocating for is that the USFS put a little more effort into keeping climbers informed about the mountain (because yes there are idiots who haven't a clue up there) and that they keep themselves aware of the climbers on the mountain. I'm not looking for regulation or a babysitter, just an eye.

 

 

ok, a little idea here - anyone please feel free to critique...

 

the forest service isn't going to put anyone on the mountain to do this kind of stuff - its not one of their priorities as far as their budget goes. the NPS will only have climbing rangers there if the mountain is in fact a national park, and rules and regs come along with that. so how do we have management, permit checks, and that "babysitter" for those who decide to go up there but really have no business doing so? answer: the Mt Hood Volunteer Climber's Association.

 

have a board of climbers who are willing to schedule time to be available to "patrol" the more heavily used starting points for ascents of Hood - so at Timberline and, say, Cloud Cap... i dunno, just brainstorming, here. this organization would make it their charge to monitor the activity on the mountain and who was going up and coming down, though not for money but because THEY LOVE CLIMBING and they want to see as few accidents on the mountain as possible. having people doing this might not prevent all accidents but it might help reduce the deaths... this would mean that climbers attempting the mountain would have to check in directly with a person rather than just filling out that oh so useful and informative checklist that is in the climbers cave presently... is there anyone that can see something like this working? i'm sure there is bound to be spray coming my way, but whatever. reasonable ideas, comments, suggestions or additions to what i've already mentioned? anyone?

Edited by LostCamKenny

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

I think we'll end up agreeing to disagree, but I still think that it would be worthwhile to have a ranger/ski patroller check the climbing permits once a day and make sure everyone who was supposed to be back is, or at the least sort out all the "out climbing" permits that are weeks old. Simply, all I'm advocating for is that the USFS put a little more effort into keeping climbers informed about the mountain (because yes there are idiots who haven't a clue up there) and that they keep themselves aware of the climbers on the mountain. I'm not looking for regulation or a babysitter, just an eye.

 

 

ok, a little idea here - anyone please feel free to critique...

 

the forest service isn't going to put anyone on the mountain to do this kind of stuff - its not one of their priorities as far as their budget goes. the NPS will only have climbing rangers there if the mountain is in fact a national park, and rules and regs come along with that. so how do we have management, permit checks, and that "babysitter" for those who decide to go up there but really have no business doing so? answer: the Mt Hood Volunteer Climber's Association.

 

have a board of climbers who are willing to schedule time to be available to "patrol" the more heavily used starting points for ascents of Hood - so at Timberline and, say, Cloud Cap... i dunno, just brainstorming, here. this organization would make it their charge to monitor the activity on the mountain and who was going up and coming down, though not for money but because THEY LOVE CLIMBING and they want to see as few accidents on the mountain as possible. having people doing this might not prevent all accidents but it might help reduce the deaths... this would mean that climbers attempting the mountain would have to check in directly with a person rather than just filling out that oh so useful and informative checklist that is in the climbers cave presently... is there anyone that can see something like this working? i'm sure there is bound to be spray coming my way, but whatever. reasonable ideas, comments, suggestions or additions to what i've already mentioned? anyone?

 

Some sort of voluntary system might be helpful, but raises the same liability questions that the mandatory MLU would. If there were someone hanging out at the cave, dispensing advice, trumpeting the weather report or recording who is on the mountain, would it perhaps divert the uneducated and reduce incidents? Doubtful, especially as it is frequently objective hazards at the root of most fatal accidents.

 

Nonetheless, I believe that many times I've been high on the mountain (at least on the south side) there have been PMR personnel hanging around, watching. Several times I've seen them hanging out at the Hogback, watching the queue snaking up and down. I don't know if they are there officially, but it could be that we already have some form of 'voluntary' presence, at least where the most number of newbs is likely to be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Some sort of voluntary system might be helpful, but raises the same liability questions that the mandatory MLU would. If there were someone hanging out at the cave, dispensing advice, trumpeting the weather report or recording who is on the mountain, would it perhaps divert the uneducated and reduce incidents? Doubtful, especially as it is frequently objective hazards at the root of most fatal accidents.

 

Nonetheless, I believe that many times I've been high on the mountain (at least on the south side) there have been PMR personnel hanging around, watching. Several times I've seen them hanging out at the Hogback, watching the queue snaking up and down. I don't know if they are there officially, but it could be that we already have some form of 'voluntary' presence, at least where the most number of newbs is likely to be.

 

perhaps, then a more beefed up voluntary presence - i'm not talking 24/7 (though that would be best case scenario) but for at least the 18 hours of the day when climbers are LIKELY to be on the mountain (experienced climbers - climbers who know when to be and when not to be on the mountain). if a person such as what i am suggesting climbs the southside up to hogsback and hangs out (like you said the PMR boys were doin) or works his/her way toward the saddle to look out over the reid then there is a presence on the mountain that can be there solely for the purpose of emergencies. have another climber back at the cave with a radio (they both have radios - and both work in pairs) and there is a line of communication to rescue personnel faster then what has been the system to date.

 

A system such as what i'm suggesting is not without its hurdles and it would take a lot of organization to put together such a unit of climbers willing to donate their time. but when a rescue is mounted it is done so after the climbers have been reported "late to return" and i think (but am not sure - maybe someone from PMR could chime in here) someone has to report you missing before a search is started - they don't just check the "out climbing" forms at this time to see if everyone is back... if a rescue could be started earlier than they already are then that would give those in trouble a much higher chance of surviving whatever it is that got them in troubel in the first place. of course, this system couldn't hope to prevent all the accidents...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

kenny if you post any more in this thread i'm gonna hafta pistol-wip you w/ a baby seal :)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
kenny if you post any more in this thread i'm gonna hafta pistol-wip you w/ a baby seal :)

 

Whoh !

baby-seal-man.jpg

 

Even so, thats not as bad as stuffing a dog doo snow cone in his eye....Jus' sayin'

________________________________________________________________--

 

BTW, I'm issuing a "Climbers Fatwa" and advisory right now that no one can go climbing this weekend in the Pac NW due to marginal weather. I may get out myself, however, but it is only to check on the conditions for the rest of you.....so you slackers stay home and catch the ball game on the tube. Take a break, it's dangerous out there.

 

ps, I may be holed up in a snow cave behind Illumination saddle with Ivans Seal up there and a large bottle of Bernheim Bourbon. Please, don't come looking for at least a week.

 

I'm not making light of any accident's here. I think that's damn sad and unfortunate. I'm only talking about this weekend so don't read anything into it and don't start all insulting the seal or nothin'.

Edited by billcoe

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Personally, I am in favor of the euro system - everyone gets charged for rescues just like everyone get charged for an ambulance ride. In my book it is called personal responsibility. (BTW I do have it through several sources, my only gripe is that they have to arrange any services).

 

Here Here!!!!!!!!!!

 

On a serious note: I totally agree with that Allen: however, I've been an unpaid SAR and loved it despite some of the usual issues. I totally think that unpaid pros like Portland Mt Rescue should get free rein and full involvement as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What if you were already wearing a beacon of a different sort? It occurs to me that it 'might' just be brilliant to use this tool to scan a route with a helicopter. Barryvox

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  

×