Most experienced climbers and mountaineers have a strong ethic of self-rescue. They know not to rely on rescuers, but it’s good to have them as a backup. They also go out of their way to change their own plans and rescue/assist anyone in trouble. It’s not like they are expecting to be bailed out at the drop of a cell phone call. Sure, you’ll find some folks like that but not most.
In our society we have a safety net of rescue/emergency personal for most situations. We have the Coast Guard for recreational sailors and commercial fishermen alike. Do we ever say that they are engaging in risky behavior and decide that we won’t rescue them? As a society, we generally don’t put value judgments on behavior unless it rises to a level that is reckless and capricious. I would contend that winter mountaineering is neither. The number of incidents is extremely small compared to the number of people who participate in the activity, and in general, people self-rescue when needed.
No one needs to go out and drive in a blizzard but people do all the time. I would say that’s more risky behavior than winter mountaineering, and leads to far more rescues, medical costs, etc. People have lots of control over car accidents; they don’t need to be on the road in bad conditions, they can buy snow tires or 4WD, they can simply slow down. Most people don’t do any of those things and yet we would never stop the emergency services for them.
Since when? People absolutely have control over getting into car crashes. The way you drive and even when you do or don’t drive will drastically impact your likelihood of being involved in a crash. It’s just such a prevalent part of our culture that we’ve internalized the risk-reward question so we don’t consider it very often when we make the decisions.
And in other respects it’s a very valid comparison. Why should I have to pay for first responders and other costs just because some idiot decided to go out in an ice storm because he wanted to go to the store? Our society has decided to make these services available, and yes they will try to pass some of the costs onto the person needing the assistance, but not every dollar. Why shouldn’t the same be true in the case of people making other decisions – like going hiking in winter?
Hiking is purely recreational. Winter driving isn’t necessarily recreational. People have to go to work/school, medical appointments, obtain food, etc.
Stranded drivers are generally going to be on or near a road. Hikers could be anywhere.
Whens it volunteer rescuers rescueing others, the probability of them getting hurt/injured is pretty darn low.
When cavers rescue other cavers, or mountain climbers rescues other climbers, or white water folks rescue other white water folks, or cave divers recover other cave divers …blah blah blah…its pretty uncommon for the rescuers to die.
Now, when its your standard Fire Department kinda rescue (fortunately dieing out) the odds are much higher.
Amen, sir. Amen.
And let’s get rid of those click it or ticket laws for the ezzak same reason. We should all own our personal lives. If CP wants to bungee Verzasca, let him bungee (that was safe, of course, but just sayin’ we all get to decide what level of elective risk we want to take…)
I am mostly libertarian as far as I can tell, and am pretty much opposed to Nanny government.
Not gonna happen though. Too many earnest, interfering do-gooders who love to pass (totally inconsistent) laws Protecting the Polloi.
Do you have any particular knowledge or experience with mountaineering that lets you make this judgement? Again, every time something like this happens (outdoorsman gets hurt) there are the inevitable questions of “Why am I paying for S&R” and “Should this be allowed” and the discussion always seems to degenerate into an argument about how stupid, reckless, crazy, careless and so on “those people” are.
And the people making those pronouncements (like DTC) never seem to have any actual experience with the activities they are passing judgement on.
So is backpacking dangerous? How about winter backpacking? How about winter backpacking when you know it’s going to snow hard? How about in -40C? Does it matter if the participants are experienced in snow camping and well equipped? How about SCUBA diving, rock climbing, ice climbing and skydiving? The ultrarunners who go 135 miles through Death Valley in the summer, are they reckless or are they incredibly conditioned, highly motivated and well-supported athletes?
I seem to recall hearing that the three people in this latest incident were all experienced mountaineers, so perhaps they made a rational judgement call that they could handle the conditions they were heading into - that doesn’t mean they are perfectly safe, just that they made an informed decision and took a calculated risk. That would obviously be different than a couple of people with no experience in that environment deciding on a whim to try climbing Mount Hood in bad weather wearing jeans and sneakers. The S&R folks would still come looking for either group but obviously one of them is in way over their heads.
I favor keeping the outdoors open and letting people explore, but letting them know that they assume responsibility for their own safety and making sure that the training and so forth needed to be safe is readily available. You can’t protect everyone from themselves but most people have a pretty good feedback mechanism for telling them when they are going beyond what they are personally safe doing - it’s called getting scared. Your brain tends to start ringing the alarm when you are going into an environment that you aren’t comfortable in. Sure there are going to be people who ignore that feeling and people who never have it in the first place but that’s the minority.
I know the three of them died on the mountain. I know bad weather was apparently forecast. Thus they were taking a greater than usual risk.
I snow ski and scuba dive (among other things). I do not ski off trail. I do not ski if they think there is an avalanche risk (or areas they mark as off limits). I do not scuba dive when a storm is threatening.
I am all for letting people go hike a mountain. I would even say in good weather S&R should be free if a mishap occurs (S&R are there for a reason). However, if you choose to ignore warnings that circumstances make the adventure more dangerous than usual then I am not opposed to S&R handing you a bill (if you are still alive) when it is done. Partly because you put S&R at greater risk in those situations and partly because the people in question chose to take a greater than normal risk just to go hiking (or whatever).
I think that’s a bit simplistic an answer. For example, in avalanche safety there is a great deal of research that goes into why groups ignore or choose to downplay information they know about conditions. The group dynamics are complex and confusing, and studying them can go a long way towards making backcountry travel safer for all. There are a lot of factors that go into these decisions, and it’s not clear that mountaineers are using all their available information.
But the idea that mountaineering in bad weather is inherently reckless is, IMO, not supported. There are conditions that make certain types of travel extremely difficult, but folks who have the right gear, conditioning, and experience are quite capable of venturing out in them. I have friends here in the northeast that will purposely go out in the worst weather they can find to prepare themselves for high altitude mountaineering. They are exploring their limits while setting expectations and reducing their goals until they are comfortable in conditions. They don’t expect rescuers to come after them by calling 911; they are prepared for self-rescue as best as one can and understand that in those conditions S&R may not be safe. But if the conditions warrant it, a rescue operation should be an option. They wouldn’t be volunteers for the local S&R organizations otherwise.
If the hikers are explicitly geared and prepared to face the harsh conditions that is one thing. Further, as you note, they limit how far they push themselves till they are prepared to take it a step further.
Were these hikers prepared especially for harsh weather? It seems they wanted to make the summit and come back (a 13 hour trip). Did they have overnight gear if the weather forced them to stay on the mountain? Did they have sufficient food packed with them? A locator beacon? A radio? Whatever other things are needed?
I honestly do not know the answers to those questions but I suspect not. I agree you do not want to rely on S&R but it makes sense to have a means to get S&R if something happens. Particularly if you are going out in bad weather and conditions are more dangerous than usual (e.g. as opposed to a hike up in clear weather).
If people are specifically trained and appropriately equipped then perhaps going out in bad weather is not inherently reckless. But going out in bad weather ill-prepared can be.
If we’re talking about a national park where travel is regulated then it should be treated as such just as we would regulate a public beach. We close them when conditions appear to be dangerous. It can be as simple as a an internet posting.
If you ignore the approved days of operation then you pay the rescue bill.
Mt. Hood is an unregulated mountain. Anyone can climb it, whenever they feel like it. It’s also a heavily used mountain with several ski resorts on its slopes. It really is an accident waiting to happen. An ironic twist seems to be when some dufus visiting Timberline Lodge decides then and then to climb the mountain, there is an eventual successful rescue and the dufus is paraded in front of the TV cameras. Yet, there also appears to be the pattern when “experienced” climbers tackle the mountain, the result is an eventual recovery operation. Talk of regulating the mountain, requiring locator beacons for all climbers, and/or requiring a bond or paying for your rescue are loudly shot down by the climbing community.
An argument can be made from all sides here. However, what doesn’t appear in the debate is a comparison of accidents/deaths between regulated and unregulated mountains. What little research I’ve done amounts to only anecdotal stories. Perhaps the climbing community needs to do some research and publish the results before the call to require locator beacons, rescue bonds and more government red tape is forced upon the community.
FWIW, this recent climbing tragedy should not have happened. Bravado and arrogance of the climbers overshadowed common sense. If your ego is more important than the dead legacy you leave to your family and friends, when it could be largely prevented, you shouldn’t be climbing, or any other inherently dangerous play. I can see the day that requiring permits, rescue bonds and locator beacons will be a mild ego annoyance compared to a nanny state approach that could go so far as to also require verification you have an up to date will and assets plan in place even before you can obtain a climbing permit. (Then that could mean higher premiums on your health and life insurance because you like to take such risks. It goes on from there.)
Forgive me if I missed it but, don’t public S&R attempts enable stupid behaviour? I am not a climber or serious hiker but I might well attempt a tough mountain hike in a public park because I know that I would be rescued if I get in trouble. On the one hand, knowing that I would be rescued allows me to attempt activities that I would never, ever try if I were totally on my own, and that’s a good thing. On the other hand, I just might take a shot at Mt. Hood. I mean, if i get in trouble I’ll be rescued, right? That would probably be stupid of me but how do I know where to draw the line?
Would you really attempt a tough mountain hike that you knew you were not capable of, just because of the existence of S&R? I think the number of people who actually change their behavior is minute.
May as well say the existence of paramedics and ambulances encouragages people to not look both ways before crossing the street.
I deal mainly with the White Mountains of NH, and yes, familiarity does breed complacency. People do head into the mountains with a bottle of water and a cell phone, and they do sometimes call for help for all sorts of reasons, such as they got tired. Seriously.
But the Whites are within 3 hours drive of a huge population center, and they’re perceived as being “small” mountains. There are roads and fairly good cell coverage so people do attempt things out of their reach with the idea that a 911 call will bail them out. There’s a pretty strong education attempt at trailheads and in the media trying to teach them otherwise. IMO, the solution is not to ban rescues, but to educate the public.
Smart people don’t but dumb people do. And there are often enough of those to go around.
Its nearly standard procedure for this to happen :
Some easy cave that hasnt had an accident for years has one. Usually, not because the cave is too hard, but because the person there has one flashlight and no clue.
After the “dramatic life and death rescue”, more often than not, very shortly afterwards there will be subsequent rescues from all the other cluesless people coming out the woodwork to try out that particular cave.
It would not surprise me if other activities suffer from the possible problem of publicity attracting more bozos that get into trouble than saving uninformed people through 30 second sound bite rescue education.
I might, since I have no idea how tough a mountain is that I have never been to. I’ve seen mountains before and they aren’t that big. I could probably handle the Rockies, at least, and if I get in trouble a helicopter can just come and pick me up. And no, I am not that uninformed but some people are. I have heard, more than once, the question “why don’t they just send a helicopter to get them” when talking about climbers in trouble on Mt Everest. People don’t just underestimate what they are capable of, they also don’t really understand the remoteness of these places and what is involved in a rescue.
Being a member of the “local community” (close enough for it to be local news, anyway), I don’t think there needs to be any further regulation re’ such activities.
These climbers were experienced (which doesn’t always mean much…they say it is the best swimmers who drown, and I think there is some truth to that; if you get too cocky and feel invincible, you might take take risks you otherwise wouldn’t)
Regardless, they made an informed decision and lived (and died) with the consequences.
Those who did the search and rescue also made an informed decision to do such work, and NOT to search when conditions posed risks to their own safety they deemed unacceptable. (as I recall, the helicopters were not used for a day or more due to conditions, and there were other such delays which may very well have meant the death of the climbers…sad, but a logical consequence of their actions)
As for the costs involved, I am not sure what funding sources are in place currently (being the sort who visits Timberline and plays around in “the shallows” but doesn’t try to scale the beast :eek:) but seems like a great deal of fees are collected to use the mountain, and considering how much revenue is generated annually for the entire surrounding community from such recreational uses, the cost of a few annual rescues could easily be “eaten”.
Fact is, there will always be those who crave such challenging and yes, dangerous activities. I may not be one of them (though I do enjoy a personal challenge…I just tend to be more cautious) but I wouldn’t want to live in a world where the mountains, beaches, forests, and any other “untamed” places were off limits due to risk.
