Legislating common sense

  • Thread starter BillB1960
  • Start date
  • This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links like Ebay, Amazon, and others.

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,914
Reaction score
21,264
So last Friday about 1:30 AM 3 intrepid mountain climbers started up Mt Hood in Oregon. They were all in their mid to late 20s, and by all accounts experienced and in excellent health. They had checked in at Timberline Lodge and were due back that same afternoon so when they didn't show up a search was launched. Saturday morning the body of one of the climbers was found on the snow pack at about 10,000 feet. Scattered around him was his equipment as well as some items from the other 2 climbers. Since then despite an extensive air & ground search there has been no sign of the other 2 climbers. This isn't too surprising since the current conditions on the mountain are basically white out not to mention the extreme avalanche danger.

It's not all that uncommon for mountain climbers to lose their lives on Mt Hood, there have been more than a dozen deaths in the past 25 years which is why it is highly recommended but not mandatory that all climbers utilize an MLU (Mountain Locator Unit) when climbing Mt Hood. There have been several lives saved by these units but legislation to mandate their use has died in the Oregon State Senate. These units can be rented for $5 not only on the mountain but at most local Portland sporting goods stores.

So now we have dozens of searchers risking their lives looking for what most likely are bodies by now at huge tax payer expense because a small group of "enthusiasts" thinks that wearing an MLU might spoil their communion with nature. It should be noted that these units only broadcast a signal when they are activated by the person wearing them so it's not like their movements can be tracked on a minute by minute basis.

The real kicker here is that the Portland Mountain Rescue Unit which heads up the rescue efforts on Mt Hood has consistently taken the position that MLUs should not be mandated. Their official position can be seen here: Portland Mountain Rescue | Pressroom | Headline Story

Am I the only one who thinks this is just flat out ridiculous?
 

leftyguitarman

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
2,546
The problem with making those things mandatory is that what happens if you don't want to take one? You get a big fat fine? It's just one more bureaucratic, bullshit law IMO. Why should the government regulate what people do or do not do on a mountain?

A friend of mine and I go out into the desert for days on end a few times a year and just live out there. We bring enough food and water (and we know where to get more water) and supplies to last us several days. I don't think the government should get to tell me that I can't go out and do that if I don't take a tracking device.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
18,509
Reaction score
384
I'd sure as hell take one of those things with me. Should they be the law, though? :hmm: I'm not sure. One could argue that creating a nanny state runs counter to the process of evolution.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
I would propose a different law.

All those wanting to climb any dangerous mountain during winter conditions should either 1) put down a refundable deposit covering all potential rescue costs or 2) sign a waiver stating that you are doing this at your own risk and fully understand that you will not be looked for until spring.

This type of risky behaviour is a personal choice and should not endanger others such as first responders or air crews.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,914
Reaction score
21,264
The problem with making those things mandatory is that what happens if you don't want to take one? You get a big fat fine? It's just one more bureaucratic, bullshit law IMO. Why should the government regulate what people do or do not do on a mountain?

No, if you don't take one then you don't climb the mountain...pretty simple really.
 

leftyguitarman

Senior Member
Joined
Apr 27, 2009
Messages
3,934
Reaction score
2,546
No, if you don't take one then you don't climb the mountain...pretty simple really.

You must've failed to read the other part of my post. I don't believe that the government should be able to tell me whether or not I can enjoy the outdoors without a tracking device. If I was to climb Mt. Hood, or St. Helens, or Rainier (I actually got invitied to climb Rainier once...), I would take the device, for my own safety. But I don't think the government should mandate that.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,914
Reaction score
21,264
I would propose a different law.

All those wanting to climb any dangerous mountain during winter conditions should either 1) put down a refundable deposit covering all potential rescue costs or 2) sign a waiver stating that you are doing this at your own risk and fully understand that you will not be looked for until spring.

This type of risky behaviour is a personal choice and should not endanger others such as first responders or air crews.

Not sure how that would be accomplished. The cost of SAR runs between $5000 and $6500 per day so if I put down a deposit of $20K can I expect 3-4 days of searching? I seriously doubt a waiver would be effective. Can you imagine the publicity when relatives get the news that "we're sorry but <insert loved one's name here> signed a waiver so we're not going to search for them"?
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
Not sure how that would be accomplished. The cost of SAR runs between $5000 and $6500 per day so if I put down a deposit of $20K can I expect 3-4 days of searching? I seriously doubt a waiver would be effective. Can you imagine the publicity when relatives get the news that "we're sorry but <insert loved one's name here> signed a waiver so we're not going to search for them"?


It would be like posting a bond. If you show a level of training and competency, I'm sure the insurance companies would be happy to cover your recovery costs for a one time payment.

say $2500 buys you a $40,000 bond for SAR efforts. (I'm sure the risk analysts could work something out. For a few bucks you can buy flight insurance that pays huge.)

As for waivers, that's what it's all about. This is a risky endeavor. Part of being responsible is the ability to understand and assume all the risk. It's only in the last 20 years that this idea has been warped. The Financial Industry is the poster child for this, the whole idea of derivatives and exotic trading instruments is to negate risk.... sorry that's not how the real world works.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,914
Reaction score
21,264
You must've failed to read the other part of my post. I don't believe that the government should be able to tell me whether or not I can enjoy the outdoors without a tracking device. If I was to climb Mt. Hood, or St. Helens, or Rainier (I actually got invitied to climb Rainier once...), I would take the device, for my own safety. But I don't think the government should mandate that.

So then would you be OK with not expecting any rescue if you fell and broke your leg while climbing Rainier?
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,914
Reaction score
21,264
It would be like posting a bond. If you show a level of training and competency, I'm sure the insurance companies would be happy to cover your recovery costs for a one time payment.

say $2500 buys you a $40,000 bond for SAR efforts. (I'm sure the risk analysts could work something out. For a few bucks you can buy flight insurance that pays huge.)

As for waivers, that's what it's all about. This is a risky endeavor. Part of being responsible is the ability to understand and assume all the risk. It's only in the last 20 years that this idea has been warped. The Financial Industry is the poster child for this, the whole idea of derivatives and exotic trading instruments is to negate risk.... sorry that's not how the real world works.

Hmm...I kinda like the idea of the bond...it could even be seasonal but it would take some time to set up. It would need to be underwritten by some entity and then of course there's the bureaucracy to deal with if it gets used. Interesting concept tho'.
 

Jason

Senior Member
Joined
Sep 7, 2008
Messages
18,509
Reaction score
384
Maybe a choice between taking the device or being held 100% responsible for all expenses should S&R be needed.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,914
Reaction score
21,264
What does expecting rescue have to do with anything?

There's got to be a trade off. If you don't want to be told where you can or can't go with specific equipment then what are you willing to give up? There's no free lunch...unless of course you can get someone else to pay for it. Frankly as a taxpayer I'm tired of paying for everyone else's lunch.
 

BillB1960

Senior Member
Joined
Jun 1, 2008
Messages
15,914
Reaction score
21,264
Maybe a choice between taking the device or being held 100% responsible for all expenses should S&R be needed.

Several states currently have that model in place. Don't know how effective it is and it's usually mitigated by some sort of "failure to follow precautions" clause.
 

John Vasco

I was with the band
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
17,554
Reaction score
28,665
This, from Geo, is spot on: "...This type of risky behaviour is a personal choice and should not endanger others such as first responders or air crews..."

What other posters are saying, in so many words, is, 'let's jump to the defence of these wankers who go out into serious risk conditions in the middle of winter without ANY thought for the consequences to others.' Nanny State? No fuckin' way! Common sense more like it. I'm with you on this one, Geo.
 

geochem1st

V.I.P. Member
Joined
Mar 21, 2008
Messages
27,748
Reaction score
40,941
Hmm...I kinda like the idea of the bond...it could even be seasonal but it would take some time to set up. It would need to be underwritten by some entity and then of course there's the bureaucracy to deal with if it gets used. Interesting concept tho'.


I'm not sure what you mean by this. If there is an emergency where SAR is needed, beauracracy is already in motion anyway and the meter is ticking. The final tab would then be submitted to the issuer of the bond for redemption, or whatever 3rd party agency would hold the bond, say the Parks Dept.

For simplicity sake you could make the underwriter of the bond deposit the face value of the bond in cash in an escrow account to ensure that payment will be made (incase anyone goes out of business). Upon expiration of the bond, the money gets refunded back to the underwriter.
 

Deus Vult

Banned
Joined
Feb 21, 2008
Messages
18,966
Reaction score
33,909
I would propose a different law.

All those wanting to climb any dangerous mountain during winter conditions should either 1) put down a refundable deposit covering all potential rescue costs or 2) sign a waiver stating that you are doing this at your own risk and fully understand that you will not be looked for until spring.

This type of risky behaviour is a personal choice and should not endanger others such as first responders or air crews.

you beat me to it. by engaging in this behavior, you should be required to have some sort of insurance policy that will cover the cost of a SAR. that would be a good law.
 
Joined
Nov 26, 2008
Messages
21,430
Reaction score
12,416
You take your chances and sometimes you pay the price. The climbers thought it was worth the risk, who am I to disagree with them? They had to pay the price this time. If their families want to search for them, fine.

I am all for search and rescue when there are accidents, but not when someone WILLINGLY puts their own lives at risk. I am not responsible for YOUR adrenaline addiction.
 

John Vasco

I was with the band
V.I.P. Member
Joined
Dec 11, 2008
Messages
17,554
Reaction score
28,665
You take your chances and sometimes you pay the price. The climbers thought it was worth the risk, who am I to disagree with them? They had to pay the price this time. If their families want to search for them, fine.

I am all for search and rescue when there are accidents, but not when someone WILLINGLY puts their own lives at risk. I am not responsible for YOUR adrenaline addiction.

Agree 100% Skatter. I'm all for pushing yourself (and your talents) to the limit. But no one should cross the line between a challenge and stupidity. And stupidity was what it was, when the scenario is put into stark relief.
 

Scooter2112

Senior Member
Joined
Feb 15, 2008
Messages
25,156
Reaction score
38,798
You take your chances and sometimes you pay the price. The climbers thought it was worth the risk, who am I to disagree with them? They had to pay the price this time. If their families want to search for them, fine.

I am all for search and rescue when there are accidents, but not when someone WILLINGLY puts their own lives at risk. I am not responsible for YOUR adrenaline addiction.

Amen. Scuba divers can buy supplemental (DAN) insurance that covers catastrophic treatment, transport, rescue, etc. for about $35/ year. I don't see why climbing should be any different.

Interesting to ponder what their options would be under an NHS system though.... :hmm: Would they be denied, banned from the activity, refused rescue, or would everyone and their mother be covered should this happen?????
 

Latest Threads



Top
')