While I’m not familiar with how Oregon runs their state, part of the climbing fees probably go to search and rescue. No, it doesn’t “cover” their expenses.
Above posts correctly note that Air Guard, National Guard, and active duty units are allocated so many flight hours a year, and no more. They are going to fly those hours no matter what, and so search and rescue is a valid use of those flight hours.
Now, it can be argued that backcountry enthusiasts should be liable for costs incurred as a part of their rescue, but in practice this isn’t done, probably for PR reasons. All sorts of problems could result “What!?? We don’t need to be rescued, get outta hear, I don’t care what my wife says…” etc etc.
However, I think the case could be made that for designated “Wilderness” areas, so beloved by so many, could be designated “Fee Rescue” areas, since they are supposed to be primitive and wild and free. People want to go there for an authentic wilderness experience so let’s give it to them.
It is quite an accomplishment to have done what you have, and please don’t let my argument be seen as one against climbing, or other risk taking, in any way. That is not my point here.
I’m not angry that the good Samaritans get killed. It makes me sad, but not angry. What makes me angry is that I live in a society with people who would ask the Samaritans to risk themselves. The adventurer should expect the people to shrug. What kind of adventure is it otherwise?
Not only that, but as sure as the sun will appear in the east tomorrow, if they had scratched the flight and all the climbers had died, the families would have sued for negligence.
Um, yes, I do feel that good government has an obligation to try to help people whose lives are in danger. Or rather, I would prefer to live under such a social contract.
But I also believe that responsibility should be 2-way. And that those who take undue risks should pay. So the government should rescue them, then send them the bill. I admit I would only charge them a share of the total expense, as the taxpayers receive benefits by giving the armed forces valuable training experience. (And somehow, I consider S&R people to be professionals more than Samaritans.)
I would also encourage climbers and remote hikers to take out “rescue insurance” if they cannot afford to be handed the associated bill by the government.
Then again, I have a general sympathy for charging people who use a disprortionate share of governmental services that are not means-tested.
In the US there are a patchwork of organizations and structures in place for S&R. Some charge a fee, some assess a fine, some charge nothing. For example, you need a chopper rescue in the Grand Canyon, you will pay. You need a rescue in the White Mountains of NH, it’s free unless NH Fish and Game determine that you were reckless, and that’s a new wrinkle.
In Europe (this is a generalization) you will be charged for any rescue. Which is why many (most?) climbers get rescue insurance, something that is becoming available in the States.
Should the Coast Guard charge for rescuing recreational boaters? How about fishing vessels? Charter boats? What if a hiker is injured through no fault of his own (shot by a hunter? just an example, let’s not hijack this) is he out of luck?
It is human nature to go rescue people and worry about blame after the fact. Talk to people who do search and rescue, many worry about charging because they are afraid people will wait too long to call for a rescue if they are worried about the fee.
As a case in point, helicopter medivac crews are given wide latitude as to whether they choose to rescue a victim–if they think attempting to do so might imperil their own lives, or those of other persons. Same with firefighters and other rescue personnel. Every day, they make decisions based on perceived objective risks.
The motto of Air Force S&R forces is “So that others may live.” I think that pretty much sums up why all rescue forces attempt to save people, even when those people did something stupid to put themselves in the predicament.
And it actually is good training for the military crews, who don’t do as many rescues these days since the military tends to lose few planes in combat. Difficult conditions, people in need of medical assistance… as close to their real mission as they are going to get without being in a war.
According to local reports, the current theory is the helicopter suffered from ground flare, possibly caused by a sudden breeze and caused it to go out of control.
I’m not so sure a comment about exercising bad judgment is called for. They run SAR training missions all the time, quite a bit up on Mount Hood. Yet despite all the training, anything is possible, good or bad.
Mount Hood is within Mount Hood National Forest under the jurisdiction of the US Forest Service. There are no required permits or climbing fees to climb Mount Hood. It is a wide open free-for-all when it comes to climbing the mountain. Whether this might change as a result of this incident remains to be seen. Despite previous calls for permits after other accidents, no permit program has been instituted.
Finally, the initial accident victims were part of a local volunteer fire department, their family members and friends. They knew what they were doing. They knew the risks. Apparently one or two members slipped, hit other members of the climbing party and brought them all down before they slid into the crevasse. This is a far cry from other rescues occuring on Cascade Range mountains every year which never make the news outside of the local area. Many times the “climbers” are tourists wearing tennis shoes, using cotton clothes lines for ropes and packing picnic lunches!
Nobody plans to get stranded or injured, so I don’t think you can say that they “expect” to get rescued. Accidents happen.
There is a big difference in undertaking challenging activities and having something go wrong, and being just plain stupid. I’d put your climbers in the first category, and the motorists in Phoenix who try and fail to drive through floodwaters in the second (hence the enactment of the “Stupid Motorist Law” there, which makes the rescued parties pay for the rescue).
What kind of people are we if we can just say, “Oh, you’re injured and in danger of dying. Tough cookies.”?
Saying this is probably one of the most offensive things a rescue worker could ever hear.
Many mountain rescue folks ARE recreational climbers. The same skills they learned over years, on their own time, at their own expense, are now being used to help others in trouble. We don’t traditionally train people who don’t want to, things like advanced high angle rescue or SCUBA. Operations like that are usually carried out by specialized teams, who participate in these types of activities on thier own outside of work. Having had simple high angle rescue training I would not want to do it on a daily basis. I would much rather take my chances on the ground in many ugly scenarios than try to free a bunch of shock loaded knots, hanging by a rope hundreds if feet up a cliff trying to untangle someone, when I have little understanding of how they got into the predicament in the first place.
So in a nutshell, the people best able to help are the ones doing it, and in many (but not all) cases, they are VOLUNTEERS!
I agree that what I said sounds harsh. I finally saw the video footage this a.m., was appalled, and wish to retract my remark.
That said, helicopters and high altitude don’t mix. At high altitude, helicopters get really flaky. That, mixed with a burst in changed wind direction can trigger a calamitous wreck. The pilot knew the parameters of his craft, but decided to push it to the very edge–and he paid a big price.
Any climber/rescuer worth his/her salt knows how squirrely the winds can be on Hood, Rainier, Denali, etc. The rescue crew thought they had things under control, which was a big mistake.
People who underestimate Hood–and it happens all the time–often end up dead. Not giving it the respect it deserves is the mark of inexperience or arrogance. My advice to the crew would have been to drop off a rescue team and have them try to bring the climbers down a couple thousand feet for rescue there. If that weren’t possible, I would have recommended they not land or otherwise approach the mountain.
My cousin’s son is a rescue swimmer in the US Coast Guard. It is a dangerous profession, and I admire the kid for his selfless sense of sacrifice. Knowing that young people like him are out there , rescuing people makes me feel good about humanity. What makes my blood boil though, is the fact that he might be called upon (with his crew) to rescue some rich idiot that decided to risk (his) life, diving down to the wreck of the ANDREA DORIA! Every year, a few of these idiots drown, or reach the surface without adequate decompression. This means that the Coast Guard has to scramble a helicopter, risking the lives of all aboard, to fly out and take the victim (idiot) to a hospital. Why do these divers do it? So they can bring up a glass or piece of china from the wreck! THIS MAKES NO SENSE-why should the taxpayers fund the recue of such morons as these? I say, let God’s will be done!
Open question to the folks that feel that we should not mount these rescue efforts: Do you want to be a part of a society that calmly watches its citizens die, even though it could do something about it?
I know that at some point the math gets pretty bad
but in reality, if we do nothing to help other humans in distress, I think that we become less human ourselves.
Not to turn this into a personal attack or anything, but I’m curious – Rhum Runner, what religious faith do you believe in? Because I’m wondering how your views would jive with your religion’s teachings about charity and kindness and loving your fellow man and somesuch.
(And on the off-chance you’re an atheist, I’ll take the pre-emptive strike and say that not all athiests are like this, folks. )
RR:The adventurer should expect the people to shrug. What kind of adventure is it otherwise?
Do you imagine that the thrill of adventure ultimately comes from believing your fellow human beings to be indifferent to your fate? I’ve been participating in various outdoor adventure activities (although none as challenging or risky as tsunamisurfer’s impressive feats) all my life, and belieeeeeeeeeeeeve me, absolutely none of my enjoyment was related to thinking that if I got into trouble, nobody else would bother to do anything about it. (In fact, like most outdoor-sports types, I’m quite conscientious about watching out for and offering help to fellow adventurers in trouble or who I think may be in trouble, because I don’t think anyone else gets their kicks that way either.)
When there’s story about a baby stuck in a well, I think “All this fuss over one little baby when there are so many children dying of malnutrition and preventable diseases?” I’m not going to advocate the position that we should leave the baby there, but I think we should give more serious thought to how our society allocates its resources.
The Andrea Doria? Isn’t that supposed to be one of the most dangerous shipwrecks to dive on? I have the book Lost Liners by Robert Ballard (the guy who found the Titanic), and from what I understand, not only is the ship itself very easy to get lost in, but there are also sharks in the area.
**In the final analysis, however, climbing IS about risk. But so is skateboarding, motorcycling, biking, swimming, SCUBA, sailing, surfing, marathoning, NASCAR watching, boxing, skiing, commuting on two-lane highways, drinking alcohol, eating red meat, having multiple sex partners, and perhaps a hundred other activities. Where should the line be drawn? **
All right I have heard this argument ad nauseum. With the exception of SCUBA diver, ALL of these activites are ones in which the resuers life is at MINIMUM danger when making the attempt. Someone brought up these losers that dive into shipwrecks. Hey guess what? Swin at your own risk!
The driving argument is ridiculous. First off, driving, despite the risk, is a neccessity. Mountian climbing is a life-threatening waste of time.
The sex argument is even more off the topic. We are talking about resuing here, not abstinence.
)
Do you imagine that the thrill of adventure ultimately comes from believing your fellow human beings to be indifferent to your fate? I’ve been participating in various outdoor adventure activities (although none as challenging or risky as tsunamisurfer’s impressive feats) all my life, and belieeeeeeeeeeeeve me, absolutely none of my enjoyment was related to thinking that if I got into trouble, nobody else would bother to do anything about it. (In fact, like most outdoor-sports types, I’m quite conscientious about watching out for and offering help to fellow adventurers in trouble or who I think may be in trouble, because I don’t think anyone else gets their kicks that way either.)