|
dirtineye
Jan 30, 2006, 6:45 PM
Post #26 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 29, 2003
Posts: 5590
|
Climbers should join thealpine club. Not only do you get a copy of ANAM, but you get rescue insurance up to a certain height, and can buy more if you go over 6k meters I think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
anykineclimb
Jan 30, 2006, 7:30 PM
Post #28 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 30, 2003
Posts: 3593
|
In reply to: I couldn't agree more. The issue at hand, however, is who should foot the bill in the case of expensive rescues. If all we were talking about is the guy on the trail without a headlamp, we probably wouldn't have a problem. But the cost of EMS, helicopters, NON-volunteer rescuers/search parties, etc. runs up a hefty tab. The concept of rescue insurance seems a good one as long as it is not required AND as long as the general public is well aware that choosing not to purchase it may result in a hefty bill in the event of a rescue.
My opinion is any additional costs should be covered by the government, spreading the burden to state or federal if necessary.
First of all, as I understand it, the Coast Guard does not charge for legitimate rescues, no matter how stupid the rescued are. Though they will charge for a hoax.
http://www.uscg.mil/hq/g-o/g-opr/nojoke.htm
The vast majority of all SAR missions involve hikers, hunters, and fishermen. A search is the most taxing manpower-wise, as you need as many people as possible to explore a large search area. Helicopters may be used for aerial search or ferrying search teams. Despite the sensationalizing on the news, very few missions involve plucking climbers dangling off a cliff.
Private helicopters such as Lifelink are covered by health insurance. Spread out our army less and bring them back from Iraq so the military helis can be used for civilian support free of charge (the MAST program -- they'd need to rescue bags of rocks for mandatory training anyway).
Funny that you bring up MAST. In Hawaii thats all there is; no Flight for Life or other civilian medevac providers. So now the Army unit is about to deploy to Iraq and cannot provide the service so the State is scrambling to find a solution!
Air Force Pararescue has the same sort of peacetime role- rescue. I don't think the Air Force is billing stranded boater and hikers...
One thing that drives me crazy is all these park service fees/ permits we pay that supposedly help pay for rescue service ends up in a federal/ state/ county GENERAL fund and the park gets very little of it.
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Jan 30, 2006, 7:34 PM
Post #29 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In WA, the mountain rescue groups operate under the umbrella of the local sheriff, which allows for the insurance/liability issues to be handled through the state. For inter-county missions, the line of commucation would go something like: Everett Mountain Rescue -> Snohomish County Sheriff -> King County Sheriff -> Seattle Mountain Rescue, but it seems pretty transparent. I'm pretty new to the scene, but I haven't noticed anything yet where the deputies get in the way. They're good at managing without being too hands on, interacting with other agencies, keeping the media busy, etc. The extra paperwork isn't too bad. Sometimes there might be a disagreement on whether to hike in overnight or wait until morning, but if we give a compelling argument and convince them we can do so safely, they'll usually cooperate. The sheriffs do require that SAR maintain some training through them and participate on evidence searches every once in a while, but that's about it.
I dunno how the dynamics would be different in Colorado, but it does sound like the current situation with increasing insurance rates shouldered by the rescuers is not sustainable. I hope a solution can be found that changes the rescuers' role as little as possible..
|
|
|
|
|
builttospill
Jan 31, 2006, 8:59 AM
Post #30 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2004
Posts: 814
|
In a place like Wayne County, they could easily switch the tax burden to the entire state of Utah instead of just Wayne county. It's a very small population, and an incredibly poor population at that, by relative standards. If they spread it to the entire state of Utah, the main taxpayer base of the Wasatch Front, where most of the people who are in Moab on the weekends are from, could be made to pay for some it.
My problem with it is that I don't feel I should be responsible for paying taxes for people's rescues. A. I've never needed rescuing and presume that I won't, although I recognize I may prove that wrong at some point. In that case, I'd be willing to pay for it I suppose.
B. The gov't is shitty at running programs and I fear that if this becomes a State of Utah program, it will just cost everyone more than it has to. I mean, the administrative costs will immediately jump upwards. Of course, the potential for lawsuits will also raise the cost if they charge individuals for rescues, so its pretty much a crapshoot either way.
But Wayne county residents certainly shouldn't have to pay for it themselves. They're mostly barely eeking out a living as it is, and I guarantee most of them aren't the ones needing rescuing. It's the out-of-towners like myself.
|
|
|
|
|
erclimb
Jan 31, 2006, 12:52 PM
Post #31 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2002
Posts: 204
|
even with the best equipment and years of experience, accidents can happen...experienced hikers don't hike in the dark because it's dangerous, so hiking up to "bob" with a headlamp DOES put the rescuer in danger...there's an enormous difference between turning your ankle on a loose rock in the middle of the trail and heading out for a long hike just two hours before sundown without a headlamp or warm jacket or water...the first is an accident; the second is STUPID
the coast guard in alaska recieved a signal from a sailing emergency beacon, but the signal originated 100 miles INLAND; by law, the coast guard is required to respond to every signal; so, they loaded up their chopper and headed out...they found a backpacker who was out of food, out of water, and lost...he said he bought the beacon because he "knew" somebody would rescue him if he got in over his head...you and i paid for that guy's stupidity...and what if there had been an actual accident somewhere out to sea while the coast guard was flying over tundra to rescue this idiot?
all "accidents" are investigated so that others can learn, but there are some people who will never learn and always depend on somebody else to bail them out...as a climber, i'm committed to assisting in any rescue that takes place while i'm climbing, but all reports should be honest and straightforward...if my friend does something stupid and gets injured, then i need to say so even if that means he has to pay for his rescue and even if i lose a climbing partner
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Jan 31, 2006, 5:49 PM
Post #32 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: experienced hikers don't hike in the dark because it's dangerous, so hiking up to "bob" with a headlamp DOES put the rescuer in danger.
You're joking, right?
With a headlamp and appropriate navigational aids, there is nothing more dangerous about hiking in the dark. Climbers do it all the time. If you're going to bust out an all-day rock route, you may hike in in the dark and hike out in the dark.
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Jan 31, 2006, 5:56 PM
Post #33 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: My problem with it is that I don't feel I should be responsible for paying taxes for people's rescues.
Well, you're paying for a lot things that you may not like. I'd rather pay for other people's rescues than for needless expenses for capital punishment, wars that had no plan or exit strategy, corporate welfare...
I'd rather have more people experiencing the wilderness. That way they can get some exercise and be in better health (which could cost the taxpayers less). They'd appreciate the environment more and take better care of it. If someone did need a rescue, I wouldn't want them to hesitate whether or not to call because of financial obligations. A dead body will cost society more money in the long run from dealing with the repercussions on the loved ones.
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Jan 31, 2006, 6:07 PM
Post #34 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: there's an enormous difference between turning your ankle on a loose rock in the middle of the trail and heading out for a long hike just two hours before sundown without a headlamp or warm jacket or water...the first is an accident; the second is STUPID
I don't like the word stupid. How about ignorant or inexperienced?
And what if it was just supposed to be a 30-min trail run after work, but then somehow the person made a wrong turn and got lost?
Or what if he got to the top, accidentally dropped his keys, tried to scramble down to them, and got in a position where he didn't feel going up or down? (substitute he was retrieving hs dog who ran off here too)
|
|
|
|
|
erclimb
Jan 31, 2006, 6:15 PM
Post #35 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2002
Posts: 204
|
you clearly missed the point...i was not referring to people with a "headlamp and appropriate navigational aids" who hike in the dark when necessary (and even with the proper gear, hiking in the dark is much more dangerous than hiking in daylight, hence the specialized gear--duh)...nor was i referring to experienced climbers who plan nighttime approaches/descents or carry extra gear just in case plans go awry
the thread refers to those who are inexperienced and/or ill-equipped
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Jan 31, 2006, 7:24 PM
Post #36 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: you clearly missed the point...
You clearly did not express the point clearly.
In reply to: the thread refers to those who are inexperienced and/or ill-equipped
I don't want some arbiter deciding what's inexperienced or ill-equipped. Ill-equipped could be the climber who didn't carry hammer and pins or a bolt kit. Inexperienced could be the guy leading his first 5.9 after getting comfortable on 5.8s. We are all inexperienced and ill-equipped to some extent. If you want to be arrogant and call folks who get stuck after dark on a trail "stupid," then go ahead, but realize that you and I are doing plenty of stupid things too. And whatever level of experience you are at now, you certainly didn't get there from nowhere. You were one of the "stupid" folks at some point, except you never got in trouble.
|
|
|
|
|
docontherock
Jan 31, 2006, 8:45 PM
Post #37 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
[quote="gyngve
Well, you're paying for a lot things that you may not like. I'd rather pay for other people's rescues than for needless expenses for capital punishment, wars that had no plan or exit strategy, corporate welfare...
I'd rather have more people experiencing the wilderness. That way they can get some exercise and be in better health (which could cost the taxpayers less). They'd appreciate the environment more and take better care of it.
Do you like paying for new roads built through Joshua Tree so more motor homes with generators and satellite TV can clutter the landscape and dump their trash? Do you like paying more for food in the Valley so the Ahwahnee gets its frequent remodels and the Mc Donalds eating milk-toast tourons can crap at the side of the trails? The typical rescuee comes from this subset. People who are really interested in experiencing the wilderness will prepare and do it without their RV's and hotel rooms. The wilderness is NOT for everyone... Edward Abbey discusses this nicely in Desert Solitaire.
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Jan 31, 2006, 10:06 PM
Post #38 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: In reply to: I'd rather have more people experiencing the wilderness. That way they can get some exercise and be in better health (which could cost the taxpayers less). They'd appreciate the environment more and take better care of it. Do you like paying for new roads built through Joshua Tree so more motor homes with generators and satellite TV can clutter the landscape and dump their trash? Do you like paying more for food in the Valley so the Ahwahnee gets its frequent remodels and the Mc Donalds eating milk-toast tourons can crap at the side of the trails? The typical rescuee comes from this subset. People who are really interested in experiencing the wilderness will prepare and do it without their RV's and hotel rooms. The wilderness is NOT for everyone... Edward Abbey discusses this nicely in Desert Solitaire.
Okay, let's ignore your irrelevant rant about the Disneyfication of the wilderness. I'm just as against new roads and amenities in the wilderness as you are. I'm pretty happy with the current formula of keep a few places as the designated "overuse for everybody" places, usually in the most convenient locations, so that those of us who want wilderness can seek it out with a little more work.
Whining about the price of food in the Valley? Lame. Bring in your own food so you don't need to buy theirs. What? You're too lazy or don't know how to cook, so you'd rather use an amenity? I see how it is. If the access/amenity helps you, you're all for it, but if not, you're against it.
What I take most offense to is, "The typical rescuee comes from this subset." First of all, that's simply not true. There are plenty of folks who get rescued from all categories: know nothing, know enough to be dangerous, very experienced. Second, I don't like your attitude how you think you're better than them. You tell them they're a bunch of dumbasses. They think you're a crazy daredevil and think you should have to pay for your own rescues because what you're doing is dangerous and reckless. Why not give them some respect? Educate them? Let them understand what you do. The end result can only be better for all of us.
|
|
|
|
|
horseonwheels
Jan 31, 2006, 10:57 PM
Post #39 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 3, 2005
Posts: 226
|
In reply to: Do you like paying more for food in the Valley so the Ahwahnee gets its frequent remodels and the Mc Donalds eating milk-toast tourons can crap at the side of the trails? The typical rescuee comes from this subset.
From the friends of YOSAR website -
In reply to: Most Yosemite victims (rescuees) are experienced climbers, 60% have been climbing for three years or more, lead at least 5.10, are in good condition, and climb frequently. Short climbs and big walls, easy routes and desperate ones – all get their share of the accidents.
This is talking only about rock-climbing related rescues, as hiker rescues are the bulk of what YOSAR does. However, those people that you so callously refer to as "milk-toast tourons" are the ones that pay higher taxes given their income compared to the dirt-bag. They also buy more merchandise and food at Yosemite businesses, contributing to the park. Their money and the good-will of the rescue workers are the real reason that search and rescue groups like YOSAR are able to do the great things that they do.
In reply to: People who are really interested in experiencing the wilderness will prepare and do it without their RV's and hotel rooms. The wilderness is NOT for everyone... Edward Abbey discusses this nicely in Desert Solitaire.
I don't think you can tell someone else how they should enjoy the outdoors. For them, it isn't about adventure. Just as sport-climbers enjoy different things about climbing than trad climbers. Everyone has different motivations for things and that's fine.
|
|
|
|
|
docontherock
Feb 1, 2006, 12:21 AM
Post #40 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
I guess I'm the only one who prefers to enjoy the wilderness without the hotels, RV's and porta-potti's.
|
|
|
|
|
docontherock
Feb 1, 2006, 12:35 AM
Post #41 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
Blah Blah Blah. You want to pay more money for other people's stupidity fine. I'm not so keen on my hard-earned cash covering someone elses problems. They call that socialism which is a step away from communism which, in case you haven't watched TV lately, doesn't work. I'm all for helping my fellow man through personal action and would never hesitate to join a search party REGARDLESS of the circumstance. BUT... I don't need to pay the government to do it. For the record, YOSAR and the other SAR groups nationwide do an outstanding job and need support, but taxes, use fees, etc. are not the way to do it. Make people responsible for crying out loud!! Either up front with proper training or "Rescue Insurance" or on the tail-end paying for their rescue. The more we allow the government to "take care of us" the more freedoms we will lose.
|
|
|
|
|
erclimb
Feb 1, 2006, 12:36 AM
Post #42 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 23, 2002
Posts: 204
|
[I don't want some arbiter deciding what's inexperienced or ill-equipped. Ill-equipped could be the climber who didn't carry hammer and pins or a bolt kit. Inexperienced could be the guy leading his first 5.9 after getting comfortable on 5.8s. We are all inexperienced and ill-equipped to some extent. If you want to be arrogant and call folks who get stuck after dark on a trail "stupid," then go ahead, but realize that you and I are doing plenty of stupid things too. And whatever level of experience you are at now, you certainly didn't get there from nowhere. You were one of the "stupid" folks at some point, except you never got in trouble.]
dude, your examples make no sense...yes, the climber who doesn't carry hammer and pins on an aid climb is ill-equipped; somebody moving from "comfortable" 5.8 to 5.9 is NOT inexperienced; anybody can get "stuck after dark...the smart person will allow himself plenty of time, carry a map or trail directions, stick a light in his pack "just in case", tell somebody where he's going and when he should be back, etc.--we're not talking brain surgery here
ever looked at a climbing guide or trail book? they ALL say--at the very beginning--that climbing and hiking in the backcountry are dangerous and that certain precautions must be taken to ensure everyone's safety...want to climb someplace new? it doesn't take much to learn the general weather conditions, rack/rope requirements, etc....if i believe that my two years of climbing 5.10 at the local gym qualifies me to jump on a j-tree 5.10 sport climb, then i'm STUPID
have i ever done anything stupid in the wilderness? yes, and had i needed a rescue, i would have agreed that i needed to pay for my stupidity...am i inexperienced in some areas? yes, so i ask for help/advice; i take classes; i read the latest info; i over-prepare...i use good sense
several years ago while i was climbing in the tetons, somebody died on rappel...they were climbing in the high country; it stormed; they had NO RAIN GEAR; they got wet, they got cold, they went hypo and tried to rap off a thin flake...verdict? they were ill-equipped and required to pay the $25,000 rescue cost...i have to agree with the state's decision
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Feb 1, 2006, 1:00 AM
Post #43 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: In reply to: I don't want some arbiter deciding what's inexperienced or ill-equipped. Ill-equipped could be the climber who didn't carry hammer and pins or a bolt kit. Inexperienced could be the guy leading his first 5.9 after getting comfortable on 5.8s. dude, your examples make no sense...yes, the climber who doesn't carry hammer and pins on an aid climb is ill-equipped; somebody moving from "comfortable" 5.8 to 5.9 is NOT inexperienced.
Says you. But someone else, say a legislator or a judge, could feel otherwise. Maybe they decided you didn't place enough pro and are therefore stupid. Or you should have approached in burly boots instead of approach shoes and are therefore stupid. Or maybe we should appoint you the Holy Arbiter of Stupidity. The precedent for years has been that it's hard to draw a line, so don't have one. All rescues are free, unless the situation is so clear that endangerment/negligence can be proven criminally. I want that precedent to remain.
In reply to: ; anybody can get "stuck after dark...the smart person will allow himself plenty of time, carry a map or trail directions, stick a light in his pack "just in case", tell somebody where he's going and when he should be back, etc.--we're not talking brain surgery here.
An engineer for NASA would argue that you need to carry five lights, one stored in your pack, another in your jacket, another in your pants, and two already on your head.
As for allowing plenty of time, we should give ourselves enough time for a 3-sigma variance. Anything less would be stupid.
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Feb 1, 2006, 1:06 AM
Post #44 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: Blah Blah Blah. You want to pay more money for other people's stupidity fine. I'm not so keen on my hard-earned cash covering someone elses problems. They call that socialism which is a step away from communism which, in case you haven't watched TV lately, doesn't work.
Ah, I'm now a Pinko Commie. Good to know. Well, as soon as we follow your line of thought and get rid of any sort of welfare, healthcare, etc., you're going to need to hire your own personal army to defend yourself against the revolting underclass!
More seriously, the cost of rescues with respect to our whole budget is next to nothing. If you want to keep your hard-earned cash, your problem is Iraq.
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Feb 1, 2006, 1:12 AM
Post #45 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: Either up front with proper training or "Rescue Insurance" or on the tail-end paying for their rescue.
Rescue Insurance unfairly burdens the poor. And everyone needs to be made aware of the necessity of it.
Paying for a rescue afterward is very bad news because it will cause people to second-guess calling for a rescue, and then they'll die.
The real answer is EDUCATION. If someone gets rescued, don't charge them. Use it as a chance to EDUCATE them. Organize free seminars on mountain safety. Have pamphlets available at trailheads.
|
|
|
|
|
docontherock
Feb 1, 2006, 1:31 AM
Post #46 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2004
Posts: 109
|
In reply to: In reply to: Either up front with proper training or "Rescue Insurance" or on the tail-end paying for their rescue. Rescue Insurance unfairly burdens the poor. And everyone needs to be made aware of the necessity of it. Paying for a rescue afterward is very bad news because it will cause people to second-guess calling for a rescue, and then they'll die. The real answer is EDUCATION. If someone gets rescued, don't charge them. Use it as a chance to EDUCATE them. Organize free seminars on mountain safety. Have pamphlets available at trailheads.
This issue is about personal responsibility. If you choose to ride a motorcycle and crash it, I should not have to pay for your hospital bills or your wrecked bike. If you choose to skydive and your chute doesn't open, I should not have to pay for your funeral. If you choose to drop out of high school and spend your days on the sofa, I should not have to pay for your house, food, clothing, etc. If you (or I) choose to enter the wilderness and, for whatever reason, need to be rescued, no one else should have to pay for your (or my) rescue. Why are you so against personal responsibility? And why do you keep bringing up the war? Was there a recent rescue of stranded climbers in the middle east that I don't know about? Finally, I hardly think that "Rescue Insurance" unfairly burdens the poor. If someone has the means to make it to a wilderness entry point, they can probably shell out another $15 a year for insurance.
|
|
|
|
|
builttospill
Feb 1, 2006, 1:42 AM
Post #47 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2004
Posts: 814
|
In reply to: In reply to: My problem with it is that I don't feel I should be responsible for paying taxes for people's rescues. Well, you're paying for a lot things that you may not like. I'd rather pay for other people's rescues than for needless expenses for capital punishment, wars that had no plan or exit strategy, corporate welfare... I'd rather have more people experiencing the wilderness. That way they can get some exercise and be in better health (which could cost the taxpayers less). They'd appreciate the environment more and take better care of it. If someone did need a rescue, I wouldn't want them to hesitate whether or not to call because of financial obligations. A dead body will cost society more money in the long run from dealing with the repercussions on the loved ones.
This is a red herring argument at its finest. So because I'm paying for other things I'd rather not pay for, that makes paying for rescues I don't want to pay for okay?
By that logic, the fact that you are paying for the war in Iraq (which you are presumably against, but it doesn't matter) makes it okay for the government to charge you for ANYTHING they want, because there are other things that you're paying for against your will? Do you see the circular nature of this reasoning? Please tell me you do.
I'm not saying I have strong feelings about rescues or SAR groups being supported by federal tax dollars. I do support conservation and would like to see the NAtional Park service do a better job of preserving wilderness in our national parks. I also object to the way the BLM, Forest Service and other groups are administering the land. Do I care who pays for rescues? Not so much, because it's chump change. But I still care a little bit, because it is my goddamn money. And I've managed to be in the wilderness without getting myself hurt plenty of times.
In any event, I'm done with this argument. I'll nevr have to pay for a rescue under this system, and it seems inevitable that it will be adopted more widely, so who gives a fuck? Not me.
|
|
|
|
|
gyngve
Feb 1, 2006, 1:49 AM
Post #48 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 28, 2002
Posts: 155
|
In reply to: By that logic, the fact that you are paying for the war in Iraq (which you are presumably against, but it doesn't matter) makes it okay for the government to charge you for ANYTHING they want, because there are other things that you're paying for against your will? Do you see the circular nature of this reasoning? Please tell me you do.
We're branching away from the original topic, but:
The FS/NPS budgets are but a fraction of a percent of the whole budget. If I were concerned about my tax dollars going to waste, I'd target where most of them were going. Interest on the growing debt and defense / the Iraq war.
|
|
|
|
|
scrappydoo
Feb 1, 2006, 1:51 AM
Post #49 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 19, 2002
Posts: 139
|
In reply to: Blah Blah Blah. You want to pay more money for other people's stupidity fine.
Um, yeah... everytime someone gets hurt it's a result of their own stupidity... that's sooo right!
You don't do a very good job of hiding your opinion of others or of your flawed logic that "I'm not stupid so I won't get hurt".
-D
|
|
|
|
|
builttospill
Feb 1, 2006, 1:57 AM
Post #50 of 63
(4891 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 8, 2004
Posts: 814
|
In reply to: In reply to: Either up front with proper training or "Rescue Insurance" or on the tail-end paying for their rescue. Rescue Insurance unfairly burdens the poor. And everyone needs to be made aware of the necessity of it. Paying for a rescue afterward is very bad news because it will cause people to second-guess calling for a rescue, and then they'll die. The real answer is EDUCATION. If someone gets rescued, don't charge them. Use it as a chance to EDUCATE them. Organize free seminars on mountain safety. Have pamphlets available at trailheads.
By the way, where I live we have plenty of free mountain awareness clinics. The Utah Avalanche Center holds seminars on winter travel safety and avalanche safety. Other groups hold similar things for backcountry travellers. I know the same occurs in California and Colorado. I'm not sure about other parts of the U.S. though. There are plenty of methods through which people can educate themselves before going into the mountains, just so you know. This website is one source, for climbing information. There are tons of other ones that are less full of random chit-chat, but the sources are available to anyone with a computer.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
