SHARE THIS SHOW:
ON THE BLOG:
RELATED CONVERSATIONS:
RECENTLY ON TOL:
TOL Our Town
- A tumblr site dedicated to the people and places that make up Oregon and Southwest Washington.
TAGS:
Mt. Hood looms over northern Oregon: majestic and soaring, a reminder of both the pleasures and the dangers of the wild. As rain falls in Portland, snow falls on the mountain. It covers the peak and, this week, makes the search for a pair of missing climbers nearly impossible.
Katie Nolan and Anthony Vietti, both in their 20s, headed up the mountain with their friend, Luke Gullberg, on Friday. They left Timberline at 1 a.m. with plans to return that day. When they didn't, a search began. Luke Gullberg's body was found on Saturday morning. It is reported that he died of hypothermia after suffering from a "long, slow fall". The search, now in its fourth day, continues for the other two climbers, but has been temporarily suspended due to worsening weather conditions.
As family and friends gather at Timberline (or, if they can't be there, busily Tweet their thoughts), volunteers ready themselves to continue the search. Off the mountain many people look up at the mountain and think about what's happened.
What's your experience with Mt. Hood? Have you climbed it? What was that experience like? If not, have you ever wanted to? How does your experience illuminate what's happening on the mountain right now?
Update 12/16 8:30 am: Now in its fifth day, an air search may continue with a military helicopter. Due to weather conditions continuing the ground search is pretty unlikely.
GUESTS:
- Allan Brettman: Reporter for The Oregonian
- Monty Smith: Vice president of Portland Mountain Rescue
- Michael Leming: Climber who was rescued from Mt. Hood in January and a member of Portland Mountain Rescue
- David Sauerbrey: Spokesman and climb leader with the Mazamas
Tagged as: mt. hood · recreation
Photo credit: Colette Cassinelli / Creative Commons
-
You know, climbers pay taxes too. On average, climbers probably more than pay their share.
But, you do get your wish with pilots. Pilots in Oregon have to register with the state and pay a fee that funds air search and rescue services.
Of course, there would probably be more money for air search and rescue services for everyone (boaters, hikers, climbers, etc.) if the state had forgone establishing a Department of Aviation, avoided the overhead of collecting a special tax, and just used the normal channels for funding such services.
Besides the math your plan gets kind of morbid. You have to figure out how many people, on average, want to be found but will be found dead and set the fees charged to people found alive such that they cancel out the fees that can't be collected. That's just depressing work.
-
Yeah, great idea. Let's require the same (and the carrying of beacons) for Hikers, Hunters, Swimmers, Fishermen, Mushroom Pickers, etc. Oh, and how about you get the Mushroom Pickers to staff the volunteer SAR positions from now on. We climbers are tired of helping rescue those risk-takers who have no regard for friends, family and the rest of society.
Number of statewide search and rescue operations carried out by Oregon State Sheriff's Office.
136 - Hikers
119 - Motor Vehicles
48 - Wandering
39 - Game Hunting
30 - Aviation
28 - Suicide
22 - Swimming
21 - Snowmobile
21 - Fishing
21 - ATV Mission
15 - Climbers
13 - Snowboarding
11 - Bicycle
10 - Other snow
9 - Mushroom Pickers
6 - Criminal
6 - Cross Country Ski
http://www.examiner.com/x-29734-San-Diego-Outdoor-Recreation-Examiner~y2009m12d15-Setting-the-record-straight-on-Mt-Hood-tragedy -
Good idea. You know, I think I may owe the taxpayers because I'm pretty sure the riskiest thing you can do is drive a car, and it took Fire, police, and EMS a full hour and a half just to cut a hole big enough with all kinds of fancy machines to get me out of mine. Then on top of that they flew me by helicopter 60 miles to the hospital. I wonder how much that would have ended up costing. Not as much as a mountain rescue, but it wouldn't be an insignificant bill. Multiply that times the number of vehicle rescues these tax-funded services do a year, then we're talking big bucks. Maybe we could have an opt-for-rescue form that you have to sign before you get car insurance?
Back to reality: Katie will be deeply missed. My heart is with the families and friends of all three climbers.
-
I've been to the summit of Hood three times over the past 12 years (and Adams once). Each time I went with a very experienced climber who's been up at least 40 times. We chose May/June times to avoid bad weather and get the most pristine views from the top of the other mountains in the range, Adams, Ranier, St. Helens, Jefferson. I can't imagine enjoying it half as much if the weather had been cloudy, much less questionable for really bad weather. One thing that has come to mind with the latest tragedy is the talk of most of these climbers being "experienced." I'm not sure what that means. Does it mean, you don't have to be as carfeful as the "novice" just starting out? Are you able to throw caution to the wind more readily because you have a lot more summits under your belt? I think "experience" is a dangerous word in the face of an unpredictable mountain. You can pick safer times to climb and go with people who care about every step of the process. Accidents happen. Some can definitely be avoided.
-
No, experienced means experienced. By reports of other climbers who were on Hood that day, snow conditions were near perfect. These climbers appear to have done nothing wrong and probably just got unlucky.
My condolences to Luke's friends and family. To the friends and family of Anthony & Katie, my thoughts are with you and still hoping for the best.
-
There are two things that, in time, will always trump experience. They are arrogance and ignorance. Nearly every tragedy on Mt. Hood - or any mountain - has been a product of one or both of these. I've personally witnessed people blindly climb to their death in obviously treacherous conditions on this peak. That terrible day could have been prevented by the simple employment of a little judgement, and so too could this current tragedy.
Why these people chose to climb at the tail end of a brilliant stretch of weather I can't fathom. The previous 10 days saw the successful ascents of the following routes on Mt. Hood:
- Wy'East
- Sunshine
- North Face
- Ried Glacier Headwall
- Devil's Kitchen Headwall
Some of these routes are quite difficult. The reason they were possible is because smart climbers chose to go up in good conditions - conditions that were forecast to be good for a few days to come - so should there be an accident there's time to get help, or for help to get you.
This isn't about mandating that everyone carry MLU's (which will only embolden the inexperienced, thus leading to more rescues), or rescue insurance, or tax dollars. Climbers are going to climb. Somtimes they're going to die doing it. Just know that when they do, it's probably because they screwed up, and take solace in the fact that they died doing what they love.
Hugo
-
I agree whole-heartedly with the last paragraph... my dad and I have summited the major peaks in the west and considered getting back a personal responsibility and part of the experience. We've been in some dicey situations, but knew the risks and accepted the potential consequences.
If the issue is the cost of rescue, then don't and let darwinism reign. Take away the risk and you diminish the experience and accomplishment... I'd rather die on a mountain than in a hospital bed with tubes running out of every orifice any day.
-
In 1903 John Muir penned the words: “Going to the mountains is going home.” Growing up in Portland there was one feature that dominated the landscape, Mt Hood. On a clear winter’s day I could look out of our den window and there in her majestic winter coat she stood in perfection. Throughout the yearly cycle I would watch her change and yet she remained the same, alluring and yet mysterious.
I know that the human psyche can be manipulated by subconscious data. For example, subliminal pictures or sounds placed in a movie or other forms of communication. I have wondered for some time what influence growing up with such a beautiful work of nature has had on my psyche.
What ever the answer is one could say that in many ways she came to dominate my life. I came to love her.
To be truthful, not only did I love Mt Hood, but every mountain I have ever seen, in particular the many throughout the Oregon Cascades. I have hiked around, skied upon, and climbed to the tops of many of these mountains and their surrounding foothills. I have enjoyed their solitude and the community they create when shared with others. These experiences have been a big and important part of my life.
If it is one thing every mountain has taught me, it is the impermanence of this experience we call life.thank you
roger paul
-
I have visited and stayed at Timberline Lodge many times. To those who have never been, I thoroughly recommend a trip there. Even at the lodge, the weather can change quickly and visibility can diminish at an astonishing rate. I cannot imagine what that would be like up on the mountain.
I would like to climb to the summit, but will not attempt to, because I am not experienced enough nor qualified to. Simpe as that.
Hopefully the lost climbers will be found holed up in a snow cave. That would certainly be a nice Christmas present for them and their families.
-
I have climbed Hood many times. What makes Hood such a noteable flashpoint in the news when accidents happen is its accessibility from Timberline Lodge and volume of climbers of all levels that attempt the summit. Hood is an easy climb until you get to the 9500 foot level then it becomes like any other technical climb. Add to the complexity weather conditions we have in the northwest. Mountain climbing is like any other risk sport; kayaking, whitewater rafting, surfing, hang gliding, etc. - there is risk involved. Climbers take a calculated risk climbing in any season. Climbing in winter can be safer because rocks that commonly fall on climbers during the summer season are encased in frozen ice. On the other hand climbing in winter adds risk due to the storms that move in and as we have seen the past few rescue attempts can hold rescue teams off the mountain for days - which in the end is probably the biggest risk of winter climbing. I have climbed between storms and was lucky that I was never injured so that I could not descend before I was pinned down by an incoming storm. Besides your equipment, planning and skill, you need a little luck from time to time and it looks like this trio simply experienced something that overwhelmed them. My thoughts and prayers go out to the families of these three fine individuals.
-
Something about seeing that picture of Mt. Hood in the article and that talk about tax money has put me in wishful state of mind...
We spend so much time arguing over where our tax money is going... we don't want tax money going to this, we don't want tax money going to that. We don't want to pay taxes to fund health care for people we don't like. We don't want to fund social services for "lazy" people. People without children don't want to fund schools.
Not worrying about that stuff is what really attracts me to "socialism". I just want to have a good job, pay my 50%, know I have cradle-to-grave everything, know I don't have to worry about how the market is doing, know I don't have to worry about paying taxes for finding missing climbers that could go to saving up for my future healthcare needs...
...and just go climb a mountain or something...
Sure, that means I might not get to own as much stuff. Maybe I don't get to buy that 370Z, maybe I don't get to have six computers in my house, etc...
But, I'm pretty sure I would be happier sitting on the summit of Hood with my girlfriend staring down at Portland and thinking: we live in an amazing place and have no worries.
-
The price of Search & Rescue missions isn't a privilege, it's a right. I once worked four years as a member of Lane County Search & Rescue and am fully aware of the burden such endeavors places on already overburdened local budgets.
Such a tax on the lost would be a 'stupid tax', which inherently is wrong on so many levels I won't even begin to address it.
The carrying of transponders to aid in finding the lost, however, should be mandatory and subject under law if a climber is found to not be carrying one. Why these folks were or were not carrying such a device, I do not know. But they would have been located and brought out by now if they had been carrying one, I should think.
Were they carrying transponders?
-
Do you care to explain how this would be enforced?
I suppose you think hikers should carry them as well, since so many more hikers require search and rescue than climbers. Have you ever gone for a hike without an MLU?
-
The 'stupid tax' is the burden placed on the 90%+ that will never need rescue by having to carry a transponder just in case coupled with the cost of enforcement, the bureacrats needed to manage it all, etc, etc.
My life and decisions are my own, stay out of them. If you can't afford to rescue me, then don't.
-
It is about the relativity of risk. Some are suggesting hikers/climbers who die are simply taking too great a risk, whether through stupidity, inexperience or inadequate preparation. But what they are often not considering, hiking on Mount Hood is always a risk. Who gets to decide what risk is too much? Do only the ultra-prepared get rescued? Do we rescue anyone at all? It is a conundrum.
Not entirely certain how I feel. From my view, I am not sure people need to go hiking at levels that would require being rescued. I think in reality people don't climb to those heights for a love of nature, not that it necessarily matters, but they generally do it as a sport or a challenge, a sort of football on the mountain.
There is not much to compare this situation to, to try and understand the risk. In some ways it is like hurricane Katrina, and whether New Orleans should exist at all. You could say LA doesn't have water, San Francisco has earthquakes. But the risk of hiking, sport or recreation is an individual risk, and in some ways, it is a risk of luxury.
-
The logic of the Portland Mountain Rescue about requiring a locator beacon is questionable. They seem to say that with a beacon, climbers might be more prone to take risks.
So when I drive my car and use my seatbelt, I am more likely to drive with recklessly. The use of the seatbelt or the locator beacon is just a prudent safety measure that is required for drivers why not for climbers?
-
That is terrible logic---it is baffling.
-
This is the short-sighted, false logic of a non-climber.
-
You're missing one point... when I drive I can choose not to wear a belt and have to accept the consequences if caught or get in an accident.
Personally I know that I'm willing to climb more aggressive pitches if I think I'm carrying the equipment to protect me... I'm also much more attentive at the wheel at 90mph than at 55.
I'd suggest you carry one when you climb and leave decisions about the rest of our lives to us.
-
rethomas,
Maybe we should put everyone in stilettos when they go hiking, and make the speed limit 100MPH so we can increase safety.
If you choose not to wear a seat-belt you would be breaking the law, just as you would be breaking the law if it was mandatory to have an MLU and you did not.
-
Mountain Climbing is dangerous. So is driving on I 5. Mt. Hood has racked up deaths every year. So has I5. We do both voluntarily and expect rescue if something goes wrong.
Every climber I know takes more in the way of survival gear than most drivers.
It's when it gets to the point where we are sending out search parties when the chance of survival is at 1% that I stop seeing a reason for risking lives and equipment. If the rescuer wants to be there that's their choice, possibly a life or death one.
-
Driving and climbing are very different. Driving doesn't require abnormal amounts of rescue or really rescue at all. It requires an ambulance to pick you up, or sometimes cut you out of a car. If you drove your car around on a distant glacier that might be a similar scenario.
-
Scott,
Last winter we had a man die because he drove his car onto a gated road. Rescuers went out and found his family and his car. Driving doesn't necessarily make you brighter than the average door knob. I have a survival kit in my car with stove, food, warm clothes and boots. Do you not get rescued when you drive in weather like the mid-west and east are getting now because there is a chance of getting stuck and snowed under even on a turnpike? I believe that they recently pulled people out of their cars which were stuck on the Pennsylvania turnpike. It took more than an ambulance and a jaws of life to get to these people. The rescue teams were also in danger even in snow-plows.
-
wandapease,
Oh please---the building I am in may fall on me and I might need to be rescued through extreme measures. Hiking is a risk of sport and pleasure, it is not a risk of function. Driving a car is a reasonable risk under normal circumstances, it is not commensurate to climbing a dangerous mountain for recreation. In fact, when the risk to drive a car is too great we are told not to, or we are told to put chains on our cars or traction devices, as a matter of law. We are also required to be insured to help pay for the risk. We are also licensed and tested to make sure we know how to do it. When you drive a car the attempts to lessen the risk are legislated and policed.
-
In a society that doesn't think health-care is a right, it would be hard to say that rescuing people is a right---or if it is a right, then perhaps it is one they could/should be charged for. Health-care and rescue are both about physical survival.
-
The way our society deals with climbing accidents is similar to how they deal with aviation accidents. It stems from a bad image created primarily by the media and also from a lack of exposure of much of the general public to these activites. Climbing and general aviation are seen as being more dangerous than they really are, statistically, but they make great news stories because the accidents are few and far between, dramatic, and emotional.
-
They make a lot of them, because there are few things to compare them too. There are few other risks one can take that require the extent of rescue that mountain climbing does. I can't really think of others. Few other activities have the physical isolation that mountain climbing does.
-
Can any of the search and rescue people there look you in the eye and say that when they get a call to go to a rescue that the would think:" I hope the person in trouble DOESN'T have a MLU"
-
Having a locator beacon such as a mountain locator or a SPOT GPS beacon should be the responsibility of the individual. It is the equivalent of backcountry skiers and snowmobilers using avalanche beacons. People SHOULD use these devices but very few actually take them when they travel into the backcountry.
-
While I think this is a timely and important discussion, I also believe it may be too timely. It seems inappropriate to have the discussion of who should be rescued, whether or not "we" should pay for rescue, and pass judgement on climbers' decisions while there are still two people missing on the mountain.
-
Since you have a member of the Mazamas on, I am reminded of Terry Cone, and very long time member of the Mazamas. I am also a member and I have hiked with Terry a few times. He is very experienced and has been up Mt. Hood many, many times (his 65th climb was on his 65th birthday!). A couple of years ago, he was doing a solo climb. Somewhere near the top, he ran into trouble, fell, and broke his ankle. Not to worry! He tripped the locator that he always carries, he was rescued, and today he is back hiking and climbing. I wonder how different the outcome would have been had he not had the locator!
-
My understanding is that other climbers reached Terry because they happened to be on the mountain at the same time. Totally incidental to the activation of his MLU. It was the South Side and even in the Winter you're rarely alone on that route. Also activation of an MLU means nothing unless someone is listening for it. They are not a PLB. Mandating MLUs .... a clear example of why you don't want the "government" involved in specifying technology ;-)
-
I think we need to stop asking whether requiring MLU's would increase the amount of unskilled climbers on mountains. If unskilled climbers wanted to use the MLU's, they have the ability. I don't feel that is a good argument. Climbers tend to have a little bit of an ego, so being told what to do isn't the right path.
-
Portland Mountain Rescue disagrees with you:
"Contrary to what might seem common sense, we believe that mandating beacons actually increases risks for both climbers and the rescuers."
http://www.pmru.org/pressroom/headlines/20091213PMRStatementRegardingMissions.html
No disrespect, but their opinion carries more weight for me than yours.
-
Part of desiring to take risks is having confidence that you can deal with adverse issues that come up. A person does this by utilizing what ever he has on hand, including tools and on self. A locator is just one more tool. One of last resort, maybe, but certainly one that could make the difference between being able to talk about it or just being talked about!
-
Regarding the belief that locators will likely cause more climbers to take risks than without locators . . . is there any research to show that? How would we ever know if that would result without trying it out? Why not have a 2-year trial with mandatory locators and see?
Dee Dee
-
Just thought I'd mention that one of the guests just contradicted himself. He said that carrying beacons would give climbers a false sense of security and they might take risks. Then he went on to say that cimbers always know that if something bad happens that someone will come rescue them. Huh? So he wants to just make it harder for the rescuers to actually find the person?
-
I've lived in Government Camp for about 25 years. When we hear helicopters, it's usually not good news. Usually it is a rescue operation.
After all these years here, my suggestion to people is that they be willing to (1) turn back, OR (2) cancel the trip.
We hear of people climbing in bad weather too often. I talk to visitors to Mt. Hood and they say they have had their climbing trip planned for a long time, and they have friends and family gathering for it. So, they are reluctant to cancel. That seems to be when they get into trouble.
-
Are the rescue units ever monetarily comepensated in anyway by the families or rescued persons themselves? How often have families made donations in the past and if so how much? I apologize if this was already covered, I tuned in late. thanks
-
Wow, testing and MLUs? So, if if the MLU doesn't save me and I am imcompetent but manage to pass the test, can my family sue those responsible for putting those conditions upon me when a rescue fails?
Mountains are inherently dangerous, unfortunately sensational media coverage of rescues only draws more inexperienced climbers into the realm of mountaineering.
-
Not only should MLUs be required for the SAFETY OF THE RESCUER if not that of the lost climber, but an insurance charge of ten to twenty dollars per climber that would go into a rescue fund to offset at least part of the expense of the search and rescue.
-
This is really a very emotional issue to many people, so it’s important to make sure the facts are represented as well as the emotions.
- Climbers amount to 3% of all rescues, both in Oregon and nationwide, while lost hunters and hikers are more than 10X that amount.
- Climbing rescues also have more volunteer time than any other category except lost aircraft. 85% of all climbing search and rescue is volunteer.
- The actual costs are far less than the efforts would indicate. As mentioned, 85% is volunteer, the helicopters need to log those training hours whether on a real mission or mock mission, and the only costs are the sheriff deputies, some food, and paying Timberline for the snow cat.
- Mountain Locator Units (MLUs) have far more limiting capabilities than most people think. They operate line-of-sight only, and the climber must be capable of activating the device. We know where most accidents are, and the more serious ones often have injuries that render them unable to set off the device. The circumstances under which an MLU would make a difference are rare. They are NOT a panacea, but one tool that should be used wisely.
- PMR and all rescue teams strongly support climbers taking MLUs, cellphones, GPS, and newer technologies like Satellite Personal Trackers (SPOT) and Personal Locator Beacons (PLB). But mandating them creates expectations of their effectiveness, which just isn't the case.
- Climbing in the winter is no more unsafe than other seasons. It’s very important to watch the weather and climb within a safe weather window, but that applies to all twelve months. But in the winter there’s better snow conditions and less rockfall, both factors that are heightened safety concerns in non-winter months.
- All climbers must know the route, know the conditions, be prepared, and have a backup plan.
Monty Smith
VP, Portland Mountain Rescue
-
Thank you Monty for helping educate the public with the true information regarding mtn rescue and climbing in general. The mainstream press tends to not tell the entire story.
As a long time member of the Corvallis Mountain Rescue Unit I can say that our team feels similarly regarding electronic devices and MLUs. The MLU is a piece of technology from the 60s and 70s that was originally used to track animals. It is difficult to use in high alpine conditions and has many limitations and drawbacks that the general public just does not understand. The newer devices that are available are very precise and are a great piece of equipment to carry however all the problems mentioned regarding these devices still exist. Batteries go dead, the unit can malfunction, the person needing it still needs to push the button, etc, etc not to mention that they are very expensive and at this time cannot be rented at local shops. We are not saying it is not a good idea to take one along, it is, but they do not replace experience and being properly equipped for an individual climbers particular summit attempt. I personally take along a cell phone and a GPS on climbs in OR.
To answer those out there that say it would help the rescuers, yes, sometimes. However if someone sets off their MLU and someone tells the Sheriffs dept that they are overdue and they start a search there is still no guarantee that a team will go out on the mountain and rescue you. If the conditions are unstable or dangerous we don't go! We are volunteers with mountain and rescue experience but the first thing you learn is to not become part of the problem. Where does that leave us when a beacon is going off because it was required to be carried and we can't get on the mountain? Who becomes responsible when we don't get to the subject in time because they had a beacon and we knew where they were?
Making locators (MLUs specifically) mandatory is not the answer here. A device for two way communication (cell phone, 2-way radio) and a GPS is much more effective and has saved many a climber without the need for an MLU or other locator. I can keep going but this is not the proper venue to continue the conversation as many will just not understand all of the complex issues involved with climbing and Mtn rescue and SAR in general.
Jim D.
CMRU
-
I SERIOUSLY QUESTION the objectivity of the Portland Mountain Rescue. It is has an alarming lack of objectivity on the issue of locator beacons (MLUs). 'Risk homeostasis' is not fact, it is a flimsy hypothesis. Even if risk homeostasis was proven to be a sound concept in every area of risk, it wouldn't matter much, because you could argue its relevance is time-based. As MLUs become commonplace we would likely adjust to their newness and our initial (alleged) taking on added risk, would be reduced over time with a little history behind us. Not only that, but it would be necessary to prove that the greater risks taken outweighed the benefits of MLUs in general.
It seems like commonsense that over time people who added risk because MLUs were mandatory would scale it back as they adjusted to the newness and the technology became old. Additionally, people who were new to hiking, and awoke in a world of mandatory MLUs, would not increase their risk if they had nothing to base it on or compare it to in the first place. So, this flimsy hypothesis only applies to people who were previously engaged in the activity.
The Portland Mountain Rescue lacks objectivity because the organization is largely comprised of volunteers, who volunteer because they have an interest in mountaineering. So the objectivity is swayed by a potentially inherent conflict of interest. The lack of willingness to endorse MLUs is similar to saying researchers should stop trying to find cures or treatments for AIDS, because we have seen increased risk taking do to the success of AIDS medications. I realize the comparisons are out of proportion, but the concepts are similar. People who are going to make bad decisions or act recklessly should not be our primary concern or motivator. We should try and help everyone, if a false sense of security results through new technologies that is a separate issue from whether the technology is effective and useful in its own right. We don't not install ABS brakes because some people will drive more recklessly with them, we make them mandatory because it will save others who are acting responsibly.
-
All the flap about Locator Beacons sounds very similar to the flap that occurred about using "AOD's" (automatic opening devices) when I was a skydiver. All serious skydivers were for "survival of the fittest", just like your current 'expert'. Ha. I wasn't impressed with that reasoning back then, and I'm not impressed with it now. Everyone who engages in activities that are beyond the limits of our every day dangerous activies, should want to maximize their own safety and minimize the anguish of their families. We can't make these high risk activies safe, but we should want to do our best. In the case of AOD's or PLB's I voted then for AOD's on all students and I vote now for a climbing permit and a mandatory PLB for all climbers. If nothing else, it will makes finding the people easier in some of the cases.
-
Responding to zenpixie's question on compensation by the families:
Yes, that does occur, but it's completely up to them. Some have been quite generous, unfortunately often as a memorial. But there's never an expectation placed on any rescued person or family.
-
I don't get the logic that by requiring MLU will encourage inexperienced people to flock to climbing Mt Hood, that it will give them an "out". MLU's are readily available now. I don't climb. I know that technology is available, but it doesn't make me more inclined to try to summit Hood. An MLU is not a guarantee of anything.
It won't take away from the "spiritual" experience. All of this resistance from the climbing community is just excuses.
I didn't hear one decent argument as to why not take an MLU on climbs summiting Mt Hood. It reminds me a lot of when HIV first hit the scene and people didn't want to use condoms. They would rather risk their life or their partners life, to keep the experience more "spiritual". Cause, ya know, it just didn't feel the same.
As if that MLU will somehow come between them and the mountain. Somehow just knowing they have a MLU in their gear will change the experience for them is just dumb. The climb will be just as technical, Mt Hood will be just as beautiful, the view of the other peaks will stay the same, the weather won't change, and if you fall or get hurt you will still be f%&^*! It will just be a tool for the rescue team to find you (that is if the weather conditions allow)
-
Amazing that you can know with such certainty what the experience of others will be.
-
number-six-
please enlighten me. i am waiting to hear how the MLU changes the climb in some significant way.
carring a transponder when i backcountry ski hasn't changed the experience for me one bit. the untracked snow is still there, the alone with nature and the mountain feel is still there, and it doesn't even embolden me to take a sketchy line.
-
I'd suggest you try it sometime and see for yourself... it may not change your experience, but it would change mine.
So let's agree that you'll keep your hands off my life and I'll keep mine off yours.
-
Responding to Dee Dee:
> is there any research to show that?
Yes.
The new PLBs and other GPS technologies are creating situations where the parties have openly stated they would never have attempted this route/trip/etc. without the ability to easily call for a rescue.
The national SAR community expects this to increase over time.
-
As a resident of the Gorge, we hear about all of the searches, including the lower profile ones, that happen on Hood and the surrounding area constantly. Many of us go out and hike and climb in this gorgeous region year round. Not only that, but our family and friends are the ones out there performing rescues. My father has been a Crag Rat (based in Hood River and one of the nation's oldest search & rescue groups) for 18 years and I've worried about him countless times going on searches. Huge kudos go out to the rescuers who often have to leave their homes in the middle of the nightto go on a search, brave the worst conditions and unfortunately sometimes end up in body recovery scenarios.
Last year I had the pleasure of summiting Hood for the first time, and despite my relative inexperience with mountain climbing, it was well within my reach. That's why Hood is one of the most popular peaks to summit in the nation-- it's accomplishable for many.With the high number of people climbing the mountain, including those like myself who have limited experience, statistically speaking there will be a higher number of injuries and rescues needed. When an experienced climber is up there with relative newbies such as myself, I imagine it's easy to feel emboldened to the point of attempting very risky routes, weather conditions or maneuvers.
Luckily for me though, when I climbed I was with my dad, who not only has climbed the mountain dozens of times, but has also seen how and why people end up in situations such as this. That doesn't mean accidents don't happen, but no matter where you're hiking or climbing, exercising sometimes excessive caution is always the ideal.
-
This is a matter of personal responsibility and acceptance of consequences. Many risky activities (e.g. river rafting with a group) require training courses and an extensive waiver. You don't sign, you don't go.
It seems logical that, should a climber choose not to carry a beaconing/location device of some sort, they should forfeit a rescue mission. The caller who claimed to rather die on the mountain than receive medical assistance, I'm betting, would be clamoring for rescue should he find himself in a horrifying situation that, without rescue, would almost guarantee his loss of life. I'll paraphrase an expression: there are almost no atheists in foxholes.
When I lived in Austin, I was confused when the law that required helmets for motorcylists was repealed, while a bike helmet law was simultaneously enacted. I realized it came down to this: motorcycle accidents without helmets greatly increases the chance of critial, potentially fatal accidents. The law circumvents expensive treatment that may become a tax payer's burden. Bike injuries while wearing a helmet result, more often that not, in non-life threatening injuries, reducing the amount of medical care and thus societal financial burden.
If this sounds cold, take into account that while I am incredibly lucky to have health insurance, I still wear a bike helmet, and wouldn't dream of a climb without a beacon of some sort.
Also: this is recreation, not a mandated activity of some sort.
One last comment to the man who feels a tracking device detracts from the thrill of risk-taking and the experience of total detachment from everyday life: why bring a cell phone?
-
I'm amazed at the reaction to this. Not so much here on OPB but there is amazing anger and venom on other forums. PMR and the Crag Rats are all volunteer. There is indeed expense to Clackamas County Sheriff, expense to Timberline (snowcats) and expense to the Air National Guard (assuming you don't buy into the "they need to train regardless" reasoning) but rescues of this magnitude are infrequent.
I wonder what each individuals tax liability is here. Pennies at best I would think? Given all the places our tax dollars get wasted, this issue just doesn't seem worth the raised blood pressure.
Claims that people are making "selfish" choices and engaging in "reckless" activities are misplaced not to mention a fairly slippery slope as if we all get together and combine our views on what constitutes selfish and reckless behaviour we'd better have a really large piece of paper.
-
I have an adverse reaction to this topic, because the arguments seem dishonest and defensive. Climbers talk about the sport like a religion, abandoning reason and being unwilling to put the risk in perspective. I think it is pretty fair and accurate to say, most people don't engage in the degree or type of risk that a climber does. There are very few times that I would find myself in a situation, that could require a search and rescue team to come and save me, or that would require as many resources to locate me. Climbing a treacherous physical structure, has a greater risk then walking in the mall, no matter how you spin the statistics. It is not just the risk of the activity it is also the risk of the rescue, and the scale of the rescue necessary.
Sure it is dangerous to drive a car, sure it is dangerous to walk across the street, but if something bad happened, it would on average never require as many resources for emergency services to come to the rescue. There are also few mountaineers that don't also walk across streets and travel in automobiles, so climbing is an added risk by choice that is not commensurate with day-to-day life for most people. It doesn't mean there is anything wrong with climbing, but that is the reality of the risk and it should be stated as such. It is like having a tiger as a pet, it is a lot riskier then a house-cat because the capacity or potential for catastrophe is increased do to the economy of scale.
-
My son and I have been mountain climbing for years. We have one rule that we share with anyone who climbs with us: the mountain never looses, we can always come back. Like every rule there are exceptions,ie Mount St Helens.
Life is about experiences the last of which is death. When it comes time for my final experience I can't think of a place I would rather be than on a mountain. My family knows this and is comfortable with it. No rescue no resuscitation.
roger paul
-
What was missing from this conversation is the question:
Why doesn't Oregon require climbers to obtain permits?
Mt. Hood is the most climbed mountain - in part because we don't ask people to go through a permit system to climb it. As one caller mentioned, this is when you get people in jeans with a gallon of water heading up the side of the mountain.
Washington has a permit system which not only brings in revenue from the climbing community but also encourages people to really think about if they're capable of such an endeavor.
This was a major point the show missed. Are we really talking about requiring beacons - which by the way aren't cheap - and not even talking about permits?????
If you want to climb Mt. Rainer, for example, your $30 permit fee is part of what pays the salaries for the climbing rangers. Who, by the way, are stationed on the mountain and the first responders to accidents.
Why does Oregon always have to re-invent the wheel? We can learn by other systems in place in other states - and yet other successful methods of rescue and preventing accidents wasn't even mentioned in this program.
-
Not to nitpick, but Washington doesn't have a permit system, but the federal government has three different permit systems within the State of Washington. And all this has nothing to do with rescue rescurces.
Rainier NP has their permit system for that mountain that is run by the park service. Adams has a system managed by the Forest Svc, and St Helens has... well a really strange system managed by the Mt St Helens Institute. The state of Washington has no permit system and to the best of my knowledge, sees no revenue from any of the permits. Further complicating matters is that rescues are the responsibility of each seperate county.
Were Oregon to desire a permit system it would be up to the Feds to develop and implement it since Mt Hood is on federal land. If you disagree with that setup, you'll have to take it up with Thomas Jefferson and Sam Adams, and it's too late for that. It gets back to state vs federal superiority and the last time that became an issue, we had a Civil War over it (the feds won).
A few years ago the Forest Svc proposed a permit system but it was unbeleivably onerous and complicated and rather than revise it, they dropped it. Will another one come around again sometime? Oh, probably.
If you care enough to back your thoughts with action, contact the Forest Service or your elected federal officials and let them know your views.
And remember -
Complaints without action are just whining!
Monty
-
i totally get that MLU's are not particularly effective, and that PLB's are pricey, but...
i must say it's really amazing that climbers don't want to carry some kind of locator/communication device. is that really what i'm hearing?
maybe its time to update "the ten essentials"?
-
It's unfortunate that so many people believe climbers as a whole are against locators - the vast majority strongly support their use, as do rescue groups like PMR. The argument is whether mandating them does more harm than good, but this shouldn't be interpreted as being opposed to them.
-
Comments are now closed.
I think that climbers ought to sign a form at the start of their climb stating that they either "Do" or "Do Not" want to be searched for and rescued and that they will pay for all costs of the rescue if that is their choice. And then maybe make available to sell them a form of Rescue Insurance if that is what they want.
Sort of like a "do not resuscitate" form for regular folks.
I honor highly that they are willing to train themselves and take the risks of climbing but I am not so happy about my tax dollars going to fix their mistakes.