Mountian climbing in Dec, surprise, surprise

[Integral]

http://www.comcast.net/articles/news-national/20091213/US.Missing.Climbers/" claims yet another fool.

Some people just seem contemptuous of mother nature. Now rescue teams are put at risk and taxpayer money is wasted for what? So they can try again next year?

Were I the dictator there would be no winter rescue, you go in, you get yourself out. They should be required to carry a beacon for spring time body recovery.

 

[FredGarvin]

As someone who used to do high altitude rescues on Mt. Ranier, I agree 100% with you. It's bad enough when one's hobby or passion involves getting injured and driving up medical insurance costs for everyone, but when you force other people to put their necks on the line for your sorry butt...If you're stupid enough (or arrogant enough) to think you can beat mother nature, you deserve to get your butt stranded up there.

I see it every year with also the morons that think ice fishing in the later end of March is safe.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IEbMJuyRnHc

 

[Chi Meson]

I've climbed Hood 4 times. 3 from the south side, once from the east. The West side is not the easiest ascent route, so these guys were deliberately trying something really hard, but not out of the realm of possibility.

I don't know enough yet to assess their level of stupidity.

 

[mgb_phys]

It happens very easily, last weekend I snowshoed up the mountain behind my house - it's only 1000m high with a restaurant on top, not exactly Everest it wasn't snowing and the weather was fine.
But it was icy and I didn't have an ice axe with me, I slipped 20-30 ft down a slope and hit my ribs on a tree. I was still shaken enough not to do the summit.
One of my party was a much more experienced climber but he slipped and went first face into the trees - fortunately in the party was a mountain rescue instructor and a doctor but it still took an hour to get to him and get him back on the path, he needed a few stitches and had a concussion.

The next day somebody else had slipped on the same face and fell 400m - he didn't survive.

I'm still a bit sore when I roll over in bed or sneeze.

 

[lisab]

http://www.timberlinelodge.com/" is on Mt Hood, at 5,960 ft (1,816 m). The view of the mountain from there is spectacular, it looks so close...like you can simply walk up and sit on the top of the mountain in an easy afternoon.

Mt Hood kills climbers just about every year...I wonder if this perceived "easiness" explains some of those deaths.

 

[FredGarvin]

I remember the UH-60 accident. Amazing footage. Flying a helicopter in the mountains is a very tricky job. Impossible when you can't pull your head out of your *** and properly calculate your gross take off weight. Never send a boy to do a man's job.

 

[Chi Meson]

http://www.timberlinelodge.com/" is on Mt Hood, at 5,960 ft (1,816 m). The view of the mountain from there is spectacular, it looks so close...like you can simply walk up and sit on the top of the mountain in an easy afternoon.

Mt Hood kills climbers just about every year...I wonder if this perceived "easiness" explains some of those deaths.

Part of the problem is you can drive from sea-level to 6000 feet in less than two hours. Then you can start climbing and add another 4000 feet of altitude in another 4 hours. So within five or six hours you find yourself gaining 10,000 feet. That is guaranteed to bring on acute mountain sickness.

It is always recommended to spend the night at 5000 or 6000 feet before beginning an ascent. If you are caught in bad weather with AMS, things are much worse.

 

[FredGarvin]

Those guys that climb Mt. Everest spend a few weeks at base camp for that reason, don't they?

 

[Integral]

http://www.timberlinelodge.com/" is on Mt Hood, at 5,960 ft (1,816 m). The view of the mountain from there is spectacular, it looks so close...like you can simply walk up and sit on the top of the mountain in an easy afternoon.

Mt Hood kills climbers just about every year...I wonder if this perceived "easiness" explains some of those deaths.

I have lived my whole life in Oregon and have never been to Timberline. In my defence I grew up in Southern Oregon so Mt Hood is a long drive. We did Crater Lake for our day drive. I have climbed the http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/South_Sister" (9000ft)

 

[Ivan Seeking]

Tsu and I once went to an awesome gourmet BBQ on the terrace at Timberline, on a beautiful summer's Sunday afternoon. It was absolutely wonderful! I think it is still done every summer. At the time we lived very near the base of Hood, so it was easy for us, but still well worth an afternoon if you are in the area.

If anyone gets a chance in the summer, on the way up to Hood, stop at the ski bowl and ride the alpine slides. They are one serious kick in the butt! You do have to get a car with good wheels, but if you do it can get downright scary. With a good car, you can even go beyond 90 degrees on the turns and fly right off the track and land in the rocks [which is not a good idea]. So you can get about as crazy as you want.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nOhpfZ8XGTs

 

[mugaliens]

I think altitude sickness definitely plays a serious role. Here in Colorado, we climb 14-ers (14,000+ feet), but since we live at around 6,000 to 7,000 ft, we're halfway there.

I did Mt. Belford (14,197 ft) in September. As we're fairly well acclimated to higher altitudes, it wasn't much of an issue. Still, we took it easy, and still did about 9,000 vertical over about 10 hrs total hiking time. The trailhead starts around 9,600 feet, and we set up "base camp" at around 11,343 feet, leaving a relatively easy 3,000 ft ascent for the next day.

Even though it was September, we hit a blizzard just after we summited, and that lasted on and off for the next two hours throughout our descent back to base camp.

 

[rolerbe]

It's certainly true that there are stupid climbers (usually not for too long). The guy who had to cut off his own hand comes to mind. I was generally inspired by his courage, etc., until I started reading his book "Between a rock and a hard place" (or something like that). Then I wasn't so inspired. Generally poorly prepared and poorly thought through 'expeditions' on his part, bound to catch up to him eventually.

OTOH, there are sometimes very well planned and well executed attempts at challenging feats that, nonetheless, go awry. In each of these kinds of activities there is a risk residue that cannot be reduced below some epsilon. Can't tell yet which this one is (but the Baysian classification at this point would have to go with 'stupid').

 

[Sorry!]

It's certainly true that there are stupid climbers (usually not for too long). The guy who had to cut off his own hand comes to mind. I was generally inspired by his courage, etc., until I started reading his book "Between a rock and a hard place" (or something like that). Then I wasn't so inspired. Generally poorly prepared and poorly thought through 'expeditions' on his part, bound to catch up to him eventually.

OTOH, there are sometimes very well planned and well executed attempts at challenging feats that, nonetheless, go awry. In each of these kinds of activities there is a risk residue that cannot be reduced below some epsilon. Can't tell yet which this one is (but the Baysian classification at this point would have to go with 'stupid').

Who cares, would you be able to cut off your own hand... I'm not sure if I would be able to do it.

 

[Evo]

We had this discussion a couple of years ago, if climbers refuse to take electronic locators with them, then no attempt will be made to locate you. These climbers did not have the locators.

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.

 

[ideasrule]

Who cares, would you be able to cut off your own hand... I'm not sure if I would be able to do it.

I'm not sure that having your hand crushed under a rock while dying of thirst is any more comfortable than cutting the hand. The hand was completely dead anyhow.

 

[Sorry!]

I'm not sure that having your hand crushed under a rock while dying of thirst is any more comfortable than cutting the hand. The hand was completely dead anyhow.

Yeah, I understand that, I still wouldn't know if I'd be able to cut off my hand... like it's my freaking hand.

Regardless I think that while some people may be stupid and go mountain climbing and get lost/stuck/injured then they definitely should be rescued. There are people who have specific jobs of rescuing these people. It doesn't matter how stupid a persons actions are to get them into the mess they still deserve to be helped when they need it. If people are willing to go the lengths of risking their own personal safety to rescue these people then they so be it. Who are we to judge THEIR actions of going to save these people?

You are no longer judging the actions of the people who were stupid and got stuck, now your judging the people who go to save them... by saying that they shouldn't do it. Why?

It's like the coast guard going out to save stranded sailors who knowingly go out into a storm... are we going to sit here and judge the coast guard saying that they shouldn't be going out to save those people? I'm sure the coast guard takes great pride in saving these people no matter how stupid they are and do not mind at all risking their lives to save these people. Of course they also go to great lengths to reduce the personal risk towards themselves but they still go out into that storm and attempt the rescue operation.
So this is my question to you guys:
Why should you mind that they risk their lives going to save these people...

I've recently enlisted in the army and it doesn't really matter if people say 'oh such and such a area doesn't deserve you to risk your life to help them'. Should I care about what those people think? In my opinion any person is worth saving and helping out when they need it, regardless of how stupid they are.

 

[Evo]

Regardless I think that while some people may be stupid and go mountain climbing and get lost/stuck/injured then they definitely should be rescued. There are people who have specific jobs of rescuing these people. It doesn't matter how stupid a persons actions are to get them into the mess they still deserve to be helped when they need it. If people are willing to go the lengths of risking their own personal safety to rescue these people then they so be it. Who are we to judge THEIR actions of going to save these people?

You are no longer judging the actions of the people who were stupid and got stuck, now your judging the people who go to save them... by saying that they shouldn't do it. Why?

It's like the coast guard going out to save stranded sailors who knowingly go out into a storm... are we going to sit here and judge the coast guard saying that they shouldn't be going out to save those people? I'm sure the coast guard takes great pride in saving these people no matter how stupid they are and do not mind at all risking their lives to save these people. Of course they also go to great lengths to reduce the personal risk towards themselves but they still go out into that storm and attempt the rescue operation.
So this is my question to you guys:
Why should you mind that they risk their lives going to save these people...

I've recently enlisted in the army and it doesn't really matter if people say 'oh such and such a area doesn't deserve you to risk your life to help them'. Should I care about what those people think? In my opinion any person is worth saving and helping out when they need it, regardless of how stupid they are.

No, people here are saying that it is terrible that the people who do mountain rescue are unnecessarily risking their lives for idiots. There are real emergencies they need to be available for instead of searching for idiots.

If idiots choosing to do something idiotic for the fun of it want to be rescued they should

1) carry emergency locators.

2) pay for the rescue

It's not like that idiot family last year that decided to "take a shortcut" through a dangerous pass that was shut down, in order to cut a few hours off their drive and got stuck. Well that's really stupid, but it was the idiot husband that endangered his entire family and it wasn't planned "for fun". that's what the rescue people are for.

 

[Sorry!]

No, people here are saying that it is terrible that the people who do mountain rescue are unnecessarily risking their lives for idiots. There are real emergencies they need to be available for instead of searching for idiots.

If idiots choosing to do something idiotic for the fun of it want to be rescued they should

1) carry emergency locators.

2) pay for the rescue

It's not like that idiot family last year that decided to "take a shortcut" through a dangerous pass that was shut down, in order to cut a few hours off their drive and got stuck. Well that's really stupid, but it was the idiot husband that endangered his entire family and it wasn't planned "for fun". that's what the rescue people are for.

Wong. The rescue people are to rescue anyone who needs rescuing. Just because you think they are 'unnecessarily' risking their lives doesn't mean they are.

That goes back to my point, you are judging THEM, not the idiots who need to be rescued. I think that is very wrong. Why don't you go tell them that they are unnecessarily risking their lives to save these people... see what kind of feedback you get.

 

[Integral]

You have really missed the point sorry, 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. On top of that these guys had the bothered to look at the weather could have known that we were going to see a change for the worse. Well now they are all dead (or very likely) yet the brave volunteers are out there risking their lives. That is what I object to.

As for sea rescue if those in need of help are fishermen doing their life's work I have no trouble with helping them. 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.

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.

Rescue efforts are not cheap, they consume taxpayers money just because some fool wants to have fun. Not on my watch.

 

[Evo]

That goes back to my point, you are judging THEM, not the idiots who need to be rescued. I think that is very wrong. Why don't you go tell them that they are unnecessarily risking their lives to save these people... see what kind of feedback you get.

You've been warned about this before sorry! telling people what they mean and putting words into their mouths.

 

[FredGarvin]

I've recently enlisted in the army and it doesn't really matter if people say 'oh such and such a area doesn't deserve you to risk your life to help them'. Should I care about what those people think? In my opinion any person is worth saving and helping out when they need it, regardless of how stupid they are.

That is very admirable. However, with no experience to back it up, you are out of your league. I have actually done this and, while it is something I don't regret doing, there have been times I have thought that some people/situations are best left alone.

The Coast Guard probably spends more time finding merchant vessels and fisherman than the average joe fisherman or sight seer. That I understand because those people are working and earning and helping all of us get along. We're talking about the idiots that have looked at one too many REI catalogs and think that they can get away with being stupid. 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.

Back in the late '80s, I remember being told that, Uncle Same spent about $14,000 per hour of our flight time. 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.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

The fact is that public sentiment would never allow people to die on a mountain with no effort made to help them. The next thing you know, the families would be suing the State for having a mountain that acted as an attractive nuisance.

What to do. Do I hear the Nanny State coming? Seatbelt and helmet laws, smoking laws and taxes, and now even fat taxes... It seems that we already have a solution: Since it is considered unacceptable to charge for rescues - too much chance of people waiting too long to call for help, making things worse - tax the hell out of mountain climbers. Make it so expensive that they all quit. That seems to be the modern form of social control.

 

[Sorry!]

You've been warned about this before sorry! telling people what they mean and putting words into their mouths.

yet the brave volunteers are out there risking their lives. That is what I object to.

It has been reiterated multiple times in this thread that the rescuers are basically UNNECESSARILY risk their lives. Thats what YOU think not they so why should YOU judge what is unnecessary in THEIR lives. I am not putting any words in any peoples mouthes. Yes some people ARE stupid and get themselves into horrible situations. There ARE people out there that will risk their lives to help them when they need it though; just because you won't do it or you don't think anyone should do it has no bearing on the situation. Sure it's tax-payers money what are you going to do about it?

That is very admirable. However, with no experience to back it up, you are out of your league. I have actually done this and, while it is something I don't regret doing, there have been times I have thought that some people/situations are best left alone.

Thank you and I understand what you say about me having no experience but I do have many, many family members who do these various jobs and the always say it is well worth it.
I don't know exactly what you had done but I'm sure that even though you felt that some situations and people were best left alone, did you ever stop yourself? Did you ever actually just sit there and think to yourself 'we should just let them die it's their faults anyways?' I would assume you didn't think that no matter how stupid you thought a particular person or situation was.

EDIT: I do agree that maybe mountaineers should be taxed or be prepared to pay for rescue efforts in certain situations. Like there are some situations which are geniune accidents and not fore-seeable or avoidable.

 

[Ivan Seeking]

In fact, the legal precedent is already in place to tax or regulate all forms of dangerous activities. Seatbelt and helmet laws are based on the potential financial public risk, as are taxes on tobacco, so we can logically tax or regulate all dangerous activities that offer any chance of public liability. By default this includes all dangerous activities because some people may not have health insurnace, which makes it public. Those that do have insurance affect everyone else's rates by making the "wrong" life choices.

 

[Astronuc]

At the Grand Canyon, they started charging to retrieve (rescue) people from the Canyon. These are folks who go hiking without the proper provisions such as water and Gatorade, or who have health problems, such as a heart condition, who don't appreciate the fact that the Canyon is at least 4300 ft (1300 m) at the river and rises to between 7000-8000 ft on the rims. It is a dry environment and the trails can get very steep toward the rim.

A helicopter evacuation will cost something like $2+K.

PRECAUTIONS - TAKE THIS SERIOUSLY!

You should not try to hike from the rim to the river and back in one day. Most people find that this round trip is a tough trip to do in two days.

The extreme temperatures of summer can be life-threatening. Access to certain trails may be restricted in the summer when temperatures within the canyon are most extreme. Call (928) 638-7888 for information on trail restrictions and closures.

See Summer Hiking

Trails within the Canyon are remote, making search and rescue operations difficult and expensive. If you have to be rescued, it will be at your expense. A helicopter rescue will cost you $2,000 or more.

http://www.grand-canyon-hiking.com/north-rim-day-hikes.htm

 

[Evo]

It has been reiterated multiple times in this thread that the rescuers are basically UNNECESSARILY risk their lives. Thats what YOU think not they so why should YOU judge what is unnecessary in THEIR lives. I am not putting any words in any peoples mouthes. Yes some people ARE stupid and get themselves into horrible situations. There ARE people out there that will risk their lives to help them when they need it though; just because you won't do it or you don't think anyone should do it has no bearing on the situation. Sure it's tax-payers money what are you going to do about it?

The fact is that no one has criticized the rescuers. That is your own personal interpretation, and it is inappropriate to make claims that others are saying things that you are imagining. Stop it now.

 

[ideasrule]

Nobody has criticized the rescuers, but people have been talking about what they think the rescuers should or should not risk their lives for, instead of what the rescuers themselves think. The latter should have priority, no?

It's certainly regrettable that stupid people are wasting public money by getting themselves in danger, but not rescuing them is certainly not an option. Who's going to judge whether an activity is stupid or not? Some people are conservative and don't take risks; others find it thrilling to push their bodies to the limit. As long as search and rescue missions are mostly used for helping fishermen/merchants (which they are, according to Fred), I'm happy.

 

[Evo]

It's certainly regrettable that stupid people are wasting public money by getting themselves in danger, but not rescuing them is certainly not an option. Who's going to judge whether an activity is stupid or not? Some people are conservative and don't take risks; others find it thrilling to push their bodies to the limit. As long as search and rescue missions are mostly used for helping fishermen/merchants (which they are, according to Fred), I'm happy.

Actually, it has been brought up that mountain climbers that refuse to take electronic locators with them because they feel it will "take away from the excitement" need to wave their right to rescue.

 

[Sorry!]

Nobody has criticized the rescuers, but people have been talking about what they think the rescuers should or should not risk their lives for, instead of what the rescuers themselves think. The latter should have priority, no?

Exactly my point, nobody is critizing the rescuers but they have been judging the actions and their job as unnecessary for 'stupid people'. (This could be considered a criticism I guess)

Who's going to judge whether an activity is stupid or not?

This is a valid point however I think that going climbing when it is known to be a dangerous time period to be climbing a particular mountain would be considered stupid. Maybe during these time periods the mountain should be closed off to climbing? Anyone caught climbing during this period regardless of if they need to be rescued or not will have to pay a fine? Kind of like a hunting season...
You're right about those thrill seekers but this is a situation where you begin to involve other peoples lives...

I'm not exactly sure how these fines/fees would be implemented or if it would even be possible to enforce them(this may very well be why there are currently nothing of the sort) but I think it's a great idea to pursue further... I think it would benefit the most people.

 

[turbo]

My good friend has retired as the chief of the Maine Warden Service (years ago, since we are both getting up there), and during his years of service on that force until he took on more supervisory duties, he was on the dive team. He risked his life countless times, not to save a (potentially) live person, but to recover the bodies of people that were certainly dead. Dark humor, but when he went on a body-dive he called it "looking for my chum". For the uninitiated, "chum" is meat thrown into the water to attract fish. Imagine diving under the ice in a river, fighting current and cold to recover the body of some idiot who thought that he could run his snowmobile across a river in uncertain conditions... My wife's cousin (his wife) sweated out a lot of assignments like this.

 

[mugaliens]

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:

...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."

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.

2) pay for the rescue

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.

...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.

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. :)

 

[Sorry!]

thank you

As I said, rescuers live for this. It's what they do.

I know - I am one of them.

 

[kohana]

My daughter was a member of a mounted search and rescue volunteer group in NM, and almost aways the difficulty of getting to the search area, the cost in time, meant they brought in a body. She always despaired and always went out again when called. She now has an adult son who enjoys deep woods backpacking, so she bought him a GPS so she could find him if necessary. IMHO I think a few people feel invincible, that nothing will happen to them, so they don't properly prepare or think out the logistics prior to attempting a difficult feat.

 

[rolerbe]

Whew! Lots of heat! (cool!).

The rescuers go when they feel safe doing so. They're adrenalin junkies too, so it is what they live for. So I think that part of the debate is moot.

I think there are two basic issues on the table:

1. How much should the general taxpayer bear for rescue services to be provided?

Idiocy is a pretty subjective measure (e.g. there are only two kinds of people sharing the highways with me -- the idiots going faster and the idiots going slower). There is always measured risk. Some are (to my thought) foolhardy, others even more careful than me in going outbound. Both get in trouble (with different statistical rates) because it can become suddenly and surprisingly 'harsh' out there (understatement) no matter what your preparation is.

Net-net on this score, I vote that it is good to have such rescue capabilities extant. This means a certain 'sunk' cost that the taxpayer must bear. Then, as pointed out, if they didn't go out and do actual rescues, simulation exercises would have to be manufactured for them to train on. So, IMHO, the cost to be borne by the rescued should be limited only to the opportunity costs -- those costs expended specifically by the rescue operation itself, not infrastructure, and over and above the training exercise costs that the event displaces. This brings the per rescue cost down quite a bit.

Some level of cost by the rescued makes sense. Should help weed out the less prepared.


2. The negative impact on the public opinion of these kinds of adventures, and those who do them, that is caused by the 'idiots' who are clearly unprepared or incompetent. Dick Cheney as a hunter, the insane pile up on Mt. Everest detailed by Krakauer, etc.

These damage their respective sports and make it more likely that silly regulations (like the recent legislation -- thankfully repealed -- in Maryland requiring all boaters to have PFD's on at all times above deck, even at anchor), are passed that are ineffectual, unfundable, unenforceable, endlessly bureaucratic, and needlessly freedom limiting.