|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 23, 2007, 12:56 AM
Post #76 of 80
(503 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
gavroche wrote: but bear canisters are not about protecting you from bears, they are to protect the bears from you as you
Point taken but I have *never* had an adverse bear encounter, not even close, in 30 years of recreational back country travel. The bears aren't being harmed by me or by my reluctance to tote an enormous plastic one-size-fits-all canister.
And this is a direct correlation to the beacon thing... another one-size-fits-all answer to a highly variable problem.
I think ultimately the free spirit of our sport is dying, tragedy of the commons and all that bullshit. I can see it now... a climbing ranger whipping out her ticket book and droning in an official voice, "The regulations stipulate... blah blah blah," as she writes ourparty a ticket for using a figure 8 on a bight instead of the official clove hitch tie in.
NO!
I intend to milk the anarchy as long as I can.
Cheers buddy!
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Feb 23, 2007, 12:57 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
graniteboy
Feb 23, 2007, 1:03 AM
Post #77 of 80
(495 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 1, 2001
Posts: 1092
|
Well....I'VE HAD ME a few close calls with bears....you can't climb in alaska much (other than doin all those sissy routes where they fly you in from talkeetna) without having some bear fun. But I agree with anti-gym monkey boy above, in that the NPS should STAY THE F%$K outta my gear choices....
If I want to be smart, avoid bear trails and habitats on my approaches, and not carry a Bear resistant container (remember that second word, "resistant", podners) then that's my goddamned business.
And when they regulate that I hafta carry all this CRAP that LESSER MORTALS probably SHOULD carry, because they're dumbshits with no common sense and much less skill, then to HELL with em.....I'll just climb in more and more remote places where the NPS doesn't have the BUDGET to ENFORCE their lame ass rules.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 28, 2007, 7:22 AM
Post #78 of 80
(476 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
TWO Swiss tourists who set off an EPIRB distress beacon after bogging their four-wheel drive on a West Coast track potentially put lives at risk, police say.
The tourists were 7km from a sealed road when they activated the EPIRB about 10.40pm on Monday, triggering an unnecessary and costly search and rescue operation.
Australia's search and rescue service AusSAR sent a fixed-wing aircraft from Moorabbin Airport in Victoria while the Tasmania Police Westpac Rescue Helicopter was sent from Hobart.
Commander Colin Little of Tasmania Police said the EPIRB had been activated needlessly.
"Clearly it wasn't appropriate. EPIRBs are for emergency situations involving serious injury, lives at risk or where there is a real possibility of that occurring," he said.
"Clearly Monday night's activation doesn't fall into those categories."
|
|
|
|
|
aglane
Mar 10, 2007, 3:33 AM
Post #79 of 80
(466 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 19, 2007
Posts: 41
|
In today's NYTimes, March 9, 2007, Jim Whitaker has a detailed and finely argued op-ed piece against the required use of PLBs on Mount Hood in winter.
Worth reading, and it should be available for a short while at least by the following link:
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/03/09/opinion/09whittaker.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
|
|
|
|
|
tanner
Mar 11, 2007, 1:59 AM
Post #80 of 80
(438 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 28, 2002
Posts: 491
|
On super easyly appoached tourist mountains they should do something to keep over ambitious novices from getting into trouble.
Ex. get a climbing pass, desribe route to ranger, shown that they are properly equiped and be able to answer correctly some what if questions. Wistler does something like this for those that use the lifts to accsess their backcountry.
It seems to work for them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
