Bogley

[Iceaxe]

"Oregon state legislators have introduced a bill that would require climbers on Mount Hood to carry an electronic signaling device when they’re above timberline"

WTF!!! they want me to wear an electronic dog collar when climbing Mount Hood???


A Summit Technology Can’t Reach
By JIM WHITTAKER

MOUNT HOOD is Oregon’s highest peak, and given its close proximity to Portland and its relatively unchallenging ascent, more than 10,000 people climb it each year. But after the rescue of three climbers trapped in a canyon during a storm last month and the deaths of three others in December, state legislators have introduced a bill that would require climbers on Mount Hood to carry an electronic signaling device when they’re above timberline between November and March.

This might seem a no-brainer: there are many lightweight, relatively inexpensive safety devices on the market today. Signaling beepers — more accurately called “emergency position indicating radio beacons” — as well as cellphones (which one climber in the February incident used to alert rescuers), global positioning systems and avalanche beacons have all saved many lives and will continue to do so. Mandating such equipment, however, does not offer a quick and easy solution to the problem of those in distress. In fact, reliance on technology often creates new dangers, not only to climbers but also to rescuers.

The technology has made it easier to rely more on search-and-rescue personnel, and less on skill and knowledge. For example, as cellphones have become common, well-equipped and trained hikers have used cellphones to call for rescue, although in hindsight they could have descended on their own.

In these cases, the high-tech devices wasted rescuers’ time and cost taxpayers huge sums of money. (Under Oregon law, climbers can be charged only $500 to cover rescue costs, yet the local sheriff’s office in the December rescue attempt reportedly spent more than $5,000 a day for more than a week.) One can envision a similar effect with locators, which send out a distress call with the pull of a cord, if they became mandatory.

The accidents on Mount Hood remind us that nobody can move in a severe mountain storm, not even a rescuer. Sending a distress call could result in rescuers being sent out into a life-threatening situation for no good reason, which is why most rescue workers oppose the law. And waiting for rescuers summoned by beacons can be more deadly than moving on.

It is better to plan your own way off the mountain first. A climber should begin every expedition assuming that that he could be trapped in a blizzard, even if the weather looks perfect and he is in a well-monitored area like Mount Hood. Conditions can change very fast. Climbers should be prepared to wait days for a storm to pass. With plenty of extra food, stoves with enough fuel to melt snow for a week, snow shovels to dig caves, and a warm sleeping bag and pad, a stranded climber can change his situation from life-threatening to exhilarating.

Good climbers understand that while reaching the summit is optional, getting off the mountain is mandatory. The storms on Mount Hood and Mount Rainier here in Washington can be just as severe as those on Mount Everest and K2. Once a storm on Mount Rainier, also a popular climb, kept me buttoned down for five days. Beepers, even if they had existed then, would have been worthless; we survived because we were prepared.

Mind-set is the most important factor, especially as interest in the sport booms and more inexperienced climbers take on challenging mountains. The last thing we want to do is create a situation where climbers feel that if they carry a locator, a rescue is guaranteed.

This is what I fear the Oregon bill would do. It creates too much potential for a nonprofessional climber to be cocky, to take risks he otherwise wouldn’t and to fail to pack well and otherwise be self-sufficient. Skills like being able to interpret signs in the weather, assess the danger of avalanches and rescue a companion from a crevasse are vital to a safe climb, and they cannot be replaced by an electronic device. Viewing technology as a quick fix is more likely to cause tragedy than prevent it.

Nature is what it’s all about. Mountains are truly cathedrals, and everyone should experience the high country. Through climbing, we can learn about gravity, rock, snow, ice, storms — and about ourselves. Most important, though, we need to meet the wilderness on its own terms. Laws and locators cannot replace careful attention, knowledge and personal responsibility.

Jim Whittaker, the first American to climb Mount Everest and a former president of the REI outdoor products cooperative, is the author of “A Life on the Edge.”

[tanya]

I take it you don't like the idea? :lol8:

[Bo_Beck]

[quote="Iceaxe"]"Oregon state legislators have introduced a bill that would require climbers on Mount Hood to carry an electronic signaling device when they’re above timberline"

WTF!!! they want me to wear an electronic dog collar when climbing Mount Hood???


I have a couple "Dummy" ACR's floating around somwhere. They don't even have batteries. They wouldn't know the difference. You can't test them for function or it'll cost you big bucks. If you're planning to climb Mt. Hood....I'll loan em to you :naughty: Seems like pretty soon we'll have to carry a licence just to leave our front doors to go into the wilderness. More and more restrictions and restraints.

I personally would carry a beacon or ACR if I went up Hood anyway, but to mandate it takes away some of the appeal. :ne_nau:

[ExpUt]

Sounds to me like the law they need to change is the amount they can recoup from those they rescue. If you have to get rescued, there is no reason you can't pony up for the bill... Don't make others pay for your rescue.

[gonzo]

That's a discussion we've had here before. Salt Lake County Search and Rescue doesn't charge for their services because they don't want people to get into trouble and not call because they're afraid of the bill. However, if you need transportation to a hospital (ambulance or chopper) you'll get charged by whoever does the transport. (SLCSAR is a volunteer organization, so most of the members don't get paid, which is probably a factor as to why it's free).

My gut reaction is that people should be charged for SAR. After all, if you're dumb enough to get caught on a cliff you should have to pay to have people get your sorry ass down. But, on further reflection it makes more sense to have it be free - you don't want a simple evacuation operation to become a rescue operation because someone waited too long to ask for help.

[AJ]

It's not a cut and dry situation. What about the rescues that are out of people's control? Rockfall broke someones leg, or similar. Sure, the stupid ones are easy to say let them foot the bill, but then it may result in no call because of anticipated cost.

I agree with Jim though, I think mandating the devices would just cause more rescue situations because it gives the impression that if you carry one of these, you will be safe. The mountains aren't safe, you need skills and knowledge to travel there. I liked the alternative idea of a safety zone. Once you cross this line, you are on your own. A rescue is optional; so you better know how to get yourself up or down...

If we make it more known that there are dangers, and that people need to be prepared for them; I think that would be best. Knowledge goes a long way. After a few deaths like last year, (which is sad, don't get me wrong) but maybe people will stop believing the stuff they see on TV and realize that the outdoors carry risk. People can, and sometimes do, die. It's not appropriate for couch potatoes to brush off the crumbs from thier shirt, get up, and try to climb a mountain...