Wow! I was really surprised to see so much opinion on this topic, particularly as much of it was void of fact. I'm going to pick out some representative posts, some good, some bad, and hope to interject some facts as I know them to be true based on first-hand knowledge:
Evo said:
...if climbers refuse to take electronic locators with them, then no attempt will be made to locate you.
Not true at all, particularly here in the Rockies. If you provide a trusted third party with a plan (trailhead, route, expected times, emergency actions, etc.), help will come.
I also think that anyone climbing that would like to be rescued should post a hefty bond to cover at least the cost of a one day search, with the agreement that if any rescue effort is made that exceeds the amount of the bond, that they agree to pay any remaining costs.
Interesting opinion, but who's going to enforce it? The U.S. Forest Service? National Parks rangers? The vast majority of the backcountry is unpoliced. Even if this were made into a law, few would follow it, yet most would still "like to be rescued."
Evo said:
There are real emergencies they need to be available for instead of searching for idiots.
Rescue resources and operations are prioritized like any other potentially scarce resource. You can be assured the National Guard will not be off rescuing a few lost winter hikers if there's a need to rescue dozens of people who're stranded due to rapidly rising flood waters.
The second issue is that whether the rescue forces are military, civilian, or volunteers, this is what they live for. They're willing to help someone or die trying. Secondly, real-world rescues are highly coveted as it provides them with rare, real-world training. Each successful rescue to these folks is more experience, making them better at what they do. They wouldn't turn down that opportunity if you paid 'em!
If [people] choosing to do something [beyond their capabilities, experience, and training] for the fun of it want to be rescued they should
1) carry emergency locators.
Optional.
Here in Colorado, if you're rescued, you're going to be paying something. I believe the going rate for a standard, foot-mounted rescue is something like $400, and that starts the moment they receive the call. It includes the three-hour drive to the Collegiate peaks, the return, and the five to twenty-four hours it takes them to find you and transport you down.
That's per-rescuer, and they usually travel in packs of three.
Thus, your ticket off a mountain will be somewhere in the neighborhood of $15,000.
Integral said:
...it is not the rescuers that I have trouble with, it is the fools who take unnecessary risks for no good reason. Why should these supposedly experienced mountain climbers climb in December when it is well known that the weather at the mountain tops is highly unpredictable and can change in just a few minutes.
Because they want to. Rescue ops here are voluntary. Even those on the public payroll are volunteers to do what they do. Not one's holding a gun to their head saying, "go get 'em!"
...yet the brave volunteers are out there risking their lives. That is what I object to.
Again, those "brave rescuers" do not share your sentiments. They're out there risking their lives because that's what they choose to do, whether it's for a living, or just as volunteers.
You can bank on the fact that they're far better trained and equipped than those they're rescuing, and they're almost always in better physical condition. So the risk to them is usually minor whereas for those who're stranded it may be life-threatening.
As for sea rescue if those in need of help are fishermen doing their life's work I have no trouble with helping them.
Would you still feel that way if you knew that 80% of all sea rescues were the result of captains pushing their crews and their boats in weather conditions beyond what they could handle? How is that different than people pushing themselves in weather conditions beyond what they could handle?
Whether for fun or profit, what makes one act "stupid" while the other is somewhat heroic, if often tragic? Alaskan crabbers and Glouster swordfisherman don't
need to crab/fish to make a living. There's always something else they can do somewhere else. But if they stopped, someone else would fill in the gap.
They do it because that's what they want to do, and that's no different than the climbers. Both have far less risky alternatives, but neither chose the less risky alternatives. They chose the riskier one, and sometimes, they pay the price.
On the other hand if it is some landlubber that wants to take his 12' open boat with an outboard motor out just see the 30' waves, I say let Davy Jones have him, and give him a Darwin award.
LoL, the Dawin effect is indeed alive and well.
Perhaps if these guys realized that when they leave the pavement that there is no help to bring them home they would either not leave the pavement or at the very least be prepared to get themselves back if trouble strikes.
Most simply don't know how. I'd be nice if, instead of whatever passes for Saturday morning cartoons these days, they'd play interesting spots on first aid, basic mountaineering skills, etc.
FredGarvin said:
The Coast Guard probably spends more time finding merchant vessels and fisherman than the average joe fisherman or sight seer.
Yep.
I can't think of very many professions, except military, where one earns a living mountain climbing. Those that do, I would bet, spend a lot of time working on being safe and knowing when to quit.
Very few military units are trained mountaineers. But you're right, those that are, like the 10th Mountain Division, are so trained:
"The 10th Mountain Division (Light Infantry) is a light infantry division of the United States Army based at Fort Drum, New York. It is a subordinate unit of the XVIII Airborne Corps and the only division-sized element of the US Army to specialize in fighting under harsh terrain and weather conditions." - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/10th_Mountain_Division"
Back in the late '80s, I remember being told that, Uncle Same spent about $14,000 per hour of our flight time.
It varies quite a lot between aircraft. For Herks it's around $5,000 an hour, but for Buff's it's about 10 times that.
I think the idea is great to make it known at all starting points that if you want to be rescued, you're signing up to pay for it.
Not true, my friend! I previously mentioned the "real-world training," and that training can prove invaluable later on, particular during combat conditions, when the people who're being rescued are our own soldiers, or downed airmen. These "idiots" are actually a golden opportunity. The military actually pays big bucks to create real world scenarios for our various forces to hone their skills for combat. When you're job is rescuing people, all rescues are considered valuable training of the kind you'll never find in a classroom.
As I said, rescuers live for this. It's what they do.
I know - I am one of them.
ETA: I also run an outdoor adventure group here in Colorado Springs, but don't take this as advertising, as I'm not, and won't reveal the name of my outfit, here. :)
