|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 18, 2007, 3:33 AM
Post #1 of 80
(3608 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Who are these fat lawmakers ? What are they smoking out there ?
MS
======================================
SALEM — There’s danger aplenty on Mount Hood — including avalanches and crevasses that can swallow a climber and leave no trace.
In the past 25 years, more than 35 climbers have died on the 11,239-foot mountain, Oregon’s tallest peak and one of the most frequently climbed mountains in the world.
Several Oregon lawmakers want to improve the odds of climbers’ survival by requiring them to wear electronic locators above 10,000 feet on Mount Hood — an idea mountaineers resist.
Rep. John Lim, chief sponsor, contends that three climbers who perished in December might be alive had they carried the devices, which send electronic signals that can give search and rescue teams the precise location of stranded climbers.
But many climbers say that while carrying beacons is a good idea, it should be their choice — not required.
“It’s a very dangerous undertaking, but that’s part of the beauty of it,” Dave Sauerbrey, a leader of the Mazamas climbing group, said of mountaineering.
No state requires climbers to carry the devices.
Lim says Oregon should be the first, especially in view of the December tragedy.
Three out-of-state climbers became stranded atop the mountain in gale-force winds and snow that produced whiteout conditions, setting off a rescue operation that made international headlines.
Nine days later, after the weather cleared, searchers found the body of Texas climber Kelly James, but his two companions, Brooklyn resident Jerry Cooke and Texan Brian Hall, are still missing, presumed dead.
James was able to make a distress call to his family using a cell phone. But the trio did not carry electronic beacons.
Lim said having to carry a beacon shouldn’t be that big a deal to climbers and the requirement would cut the cost of search-and-rescue operations.
Lim said that seeing the grief of Jerry Cooke’s mother firsthand convinced him that such a law would be worth it if even one life could be saved.
“It will send a strong message to climbers — this may save your life and spare your loved one’s misery,” he said.
The climbers have a strong ally in Rep. Scott Bruun of West Linn, a climber who’s been to the summit of Mount Hood a dozen times.
“I don’t see this bill passing,” he said. “This was a tragic accident that happened in an extreme sport. This is a situation the Legislature can’t fix.”
Rocky Henderson of Portland Mountain Rescue said his group has taken no stand on Lim’s bill, but he believes that “if you try to legislate so much safety, you lose the adventure.”
Missing mountain climbers accounted for only 3.4 percent of the total number of search-and-rescue missions mounted in Oregon in 2005 — not a disproportionate share compared with hunters, mushroom pickers or others who get lost in the wilds, Henderson said.
“The Oregon Legislature shouldn’t waste time on something that’s such a small problem in the overall scheme of things,” he said.
But a lawmaker who’s co-sponsoring the bill said the climbers “are being a little bit selfish” and the legislation would reduce the risks faced by rescuers at high altitudes.
“Those rescuers are putting their lives on the line,” says Rep. Jerry Krummel, R-Wilsonville. “I want to give them all the tools they need to help them save lives. This bill does that.”
Jim Whittaker, the first American to conquer Mount Everest, said it’s fine for individual climbers to make a decision to carry a locator, but imposing the requirement would take a lot away from the mystique of climbing.
“If you take all of the risk out of life, you lose a lot. You’re removing a personal liberty from somebody who wants to go and explore without having a safety net,” Whittaker said by cell phone from Idaho, where he was on a climbing trip. “You want to go into the wild and enjoy nature and not be followed.”
Charley Shimanski of the Mountain Rescue Association, which represents 100 search-and-rescue groups in the U.S. and Canada, said he worries that relying on electronic beacons could give climbers a false sense of security.
“They might think, ‘I’ve got this gizmo that tells everybody where I am, so I can take greater risks,’ “ Shimanski said in a phone interview from Evergreen, Colo.
He called Lim’s bill an “overreaction” to the December deaths. Even if they had locators, the climbers would have likely died because conditions were so perilous, he contended.
Outfitters at Mount Hood have offered locator devices to climbers since the worst climbing accident on record at the mountain — a 1986 expedition in which two instructors from the Oregon Episcopal School and seven students died after being trapped by a storm.
Portland Mountain Rescue estimates that about half the climbers on Mount Hood carry the devices.
Climber Terry Cone, who’s ascended the summit of Mount Hood 84 times, had a locator unit when he fell and broke a leg on a recent climb.
He activated the device, but credits his rescue to quick action by other climbers who notified Portland Mountain Rescue. Volunteers climbed to reach Cone at the 9,000-foot level and brought him down on a sled.
Cone said he thinks anyone who climbs Mount Hood should be equipped with an electronic beacon — but he opposes making it mandatory.
“What are you going to do, have a cop on every corner of the mountain to enforce this?” Cone said. “You cannot legislate this stuff.”
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Feb 18, 2007, 3:34 AM)
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Feb 18, 2007, 6:02 AM
Post #2 of 80
(3554 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
So? What's the size, about as big as a blackberry?
|
|
|
|
|
easton
Feb 18, 2007, 7:20 AM
Post #3 of 80
(3533 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 27, 2004
Posts: 250
|
I don't think it is a matter of size or cost to the climbers, rather a case of right to choose. Just like helmet and seatbelt laws.
All good ways for politicians to profess to the ignorant public how much they care about our safety and want to fix our flawed decision making and obvious lack of common sense.
|
|
|
|
|
climbingaggie03
Feb 18, 2007, 8:50 AM
Post #4 of 80
(3519 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 18, 2004
Posts: 1173
|
I think climbers ought to have the right to choose too, but I don't think this is a fight we're going to win. I'm pretty sure that there is a policy on rainier that helmets are required on the glaciated areas of the peak. I haven't heard of strict enforcement on this, but lawmakers are a step ahead because they have a historical precedent.
I don't think it's right, I just wouldn't put a whole lot of energy into fighting it.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 18, 2007, 9:03 AM
Post #5 of 80
(3514 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
climbingaggie03 wrote: I think climbers ought to have the right to choose too, but I don't think this is a fight we're going to win. I'm pretty sure that there is a policy on rainier that helmets are required on the glaciated areas of the peak. I haven't heard of strict enforcement on this, but lawmakers are a step ahead because they have a historical precedent. I don't think it's right, I just wouldn't put a whole lot of energy into fighting it.
You do not need to fight it ,in fact you can just kick back but one day you will end up calling for help and they will turn around and charge you $15000 for helping you out there cause you forgot to read the sign and did not carry your emergency device.
That is what is going to happen.
|
|
|
|
|
thomasribiere
Feb 18, 2007, 10:02 AM
Post #6 of 80
(3493 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 24, 2002
Posts: 9306
|
A beacon is so light to carry that I don't get out in the snow (off piste) without it anymore. Of course, it's expensive and I could understand that people resist to buy one.
|
|
|
|
|
overlord
Feb 18, 2007, 3:09 PM
Post #7 of 80
(3431 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 25, 2002
Posts: 14120
|
a beacon is definitely a good idea if you can afford it. definitely cheaper than untimely death though.
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 18, 2007, 3:43 PM
Post #8 of 80
(3416 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
The human (especial young humans) tendency to believe that "it wont happen to me" is going keep most people from being able to justify spending $450.00 or more on a PLB. Just like a helmet, PLB's arent a panacea for poor judgment and lack of experience but they will stack the deck in your favor. I would like to think that if I climbed in an alpine environment I would carry one but all I've got around here is rock and non of it over a few hundred feet so it looks like I'll just have to buy another rope and some new shoes instead.
Oh yeah, they should not under any circumstances be required by law, thats B.S.
|
|
|
|
|
Adk
Feb 18, 2007, 3:57 PM
Post #9 of 80
(3407 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 2, 2006
Posts: 1085
|
We need to be careful as a society to legislate what you "need' to carry with you on leisure time activities.
It's no differant than "bear proof food containers"
I'm not for such laws even though they can help out the ignorant.
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Feb 18, 2007, 4:53 PM
Post #10 of 80
(3383 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In the near future enhanced RFID and other tagging and detection methods will render this bill moot. Everything will be tagged and ultimately trackable; every manufactured good that is. Its already begun eh?
And btw, it doesn't seem outlandish to me to incorporate this beacon technology into a traditional avi beacon. Most of us are sensible enough to carry those.
DMT
(This post was edited by dingus on Feb 18, 2007, 4:54 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
acarp
Feb 18, 2007, 4:59 PM
Post #11 of 80
(3379 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 10, 2006
Posts: 132
|
With climbers spending thousand upon thousands of dollars on equipment, I hope cost would not be an argument. Doesn't arc'teryx even have them on some of their jackets already?
It's not always the incompetent climbers who enter tragedy either. Better safe than really sorry.
|
|
|
|
|
reno
Feb 18, 2007, 5:56 PM
Post #12 of 80
(3353 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 30, 2001
Posts: 18283
|
I'm curious:
Those who are against the idea of making PLBs required.... Are you also against the idea of mandatory seat belt laws when in a car?
|
|
|
|
|
a.a.
Feb 18, 2007, 6:27 PM
Post #13 of 80
(3331 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 23, 2004
Posts: 74
|
Reno, I’m ok with seat belt laws, but only because it saves the public so much in medical costs. If I didn’t (indirectly) have to pay for their mistakes I wouldn’t care one bit if some else wears a seatbelt.
I don’t like requiring beacons; however, I wouldn’t mind charging people for rescues if they don’t have one since that makes it a lot harder on the rescuers.
|
|
|
|
|
coastal_climber
Feb 18, 2007, 6:27 PM
Post #14 of 80
(3330 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Nov 17, 2006
Posts: 2542
|
notapplicable wrote: The human (especial young humans) tendency to believe that "it wont happen to me" is going keep most people from being able to justify spending $450.00 or more on a PLB. Just like a helmet, PLB's arent a panacea for poor judgment and lack of experience but they will stack the deck in your favor. I would like to think that if I climbed in an alpine environment I would carry one but all I've got around here is rock and non of it over a few hundred feet so it looks like I'll just have to buy another rope and some new shoes instead. Oh yeah, they should not under any circumstances be required by law, thats B.S.
btw, I'm 16.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 18, 2007, 6:48 PM
Post #15 of 80
(3319 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
a.a. wrote: Reno, I’m ok with seat belt laws, but only because it saves the public so much in medical costs. If I didn’t (indirectly) have to pay for their mistakes I wouldn’t care one bit if some else wears a seatbelt. I don’t like requiring beacons; however, I wouldn’t mind charging people for rescues if they don’t have one since that makes it a lot harder on the rescuers.
You like the seat belt law cause it saves so much in medical bills but you keep forgetting that 10 days of doing SAR in Mt. Hood could cost $100,000s and still you could come up empty handed.
You see, this law is not about saving Joe on time but to locate him (dead or alive) and to keep the operation cost low, also lets even say you took the PLB with you and turned it on, you think some UFO will land and rescues you 30 minutes later ?
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
Feb 18, 2007, 7:01 PM
Post #16 of 80
(3302 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
I think the arguments about rescuer safety are pretty compelling. Having a team of people out there putting themselves in harm's way to find you over a ten day period versus a one or two day period?
Sure, you can say you'd rather have the mystery and danger of not being traceable, which is valid - no question - but bottom line, once the hit fits the shan I hope you'd want the team to get to you sooner rather than later for their own safety, even if not your own.
But I wonder if there are people on this site who have had to be rescued. I'd like to hear their thoughts on this.
Editing to add that if it really becomes a debate, perhaps there should be somewhere to formally register that you do not wish to be rescued should you not return on time. If you want a rescue in case of emergency, then you should carry the beacon. If not, then you're on your own. That way you are only risking yourself if you climb. That would be fun to explain to your family, though.
(This post was edited by htotsu on Feb 18, 2007, 7:05 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 18, 2007, 7:08 PM
Post #17 of 80
(3290 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
reno wrote: I'm curious: Those who are against the idea of making PLBs required.... Are you also against the idea of mandatory seat belt laws when in a car?
Yes, for people over the age 16 the choice to wear seat belts should be up to the individual.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 18, 2007, 7:18 PM
Post #18 of 80
(3278 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
htotsu wrote: I think the arguments about rescuer safety are pretty compelling. Having a team of people out there putting themselves in harm's way to find you over a ten day period versus a one or two day period? Sure, you can say you'd rather have the mystery and danger of not being traceable, which is valid - no question - but bottom line, once the hit fits the shan I hope you'd want the team to get to you sooner rather than later for their own safety, even if not your own. But I wonder if there are people on this site who have had to be rescued. I'd like to hear their thoughts on this. Editing to add that if it really becomes a debate, perhaps there should be somewhere to formally register that you do not wish to be rescued should you not return on time. If you want a rescue in case of emergency, then you should carry the beacon. If not, then you're on your own. That way you are only risking yourself if you climb. That would be fun to explain to your family, though.
So you are saying, once I take this toy with me, I am guaranteed to be rescued by those who made it to a law ?
if not , I am on my own !!
|
|
|
|
|
notapplicable
Feb 18, 2007, 7:19 PM
Post #19 of 80
(3272 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 31, 2006
Posts: 17771
|
coastal_climber wrote: notapplicable wrote: The human (especial young humans) tendency to believe that "it wont happen to me" is going keep most people from being able to justify spending $450.00 or more on a PLB. Just like a helmet, PLB's arent a panacea for poor judgment and lack of experience but they will stack the deck in your favor. I would like to think that if I climbed in an alpine environment I would carry one but all I've got around here is rock and non of it over a few hundred feet so it looks like I'll just have to buy another rope and some new shoes instead. Oh yeah, they should not under any circumstances be required by law, thats B.S. btw, I'm 16.
It wasnt ment as an unsult, younger people tend to believe much more strongly in there invincibility than those that are older. Im only 25 and still part of the young and dumb crowd.
|
|
|
|
|
htotsu
Feb 18, 2007, 7:20 PM
Post #20 of 80
(3269 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 11, 2005
Posts: 673
|
majid_sabet wrote: So you are saying, once I take this toy with me, I am guaranteed to be rescued by those who made it to a law ? if not , I am on my own !!
Of course not. There is never a guarantee of rescue. All the more reason for the rescuers to have some help in finding you should something go wrong.
|
|
|
|
|
the_leech
Feb 18, 2007, 7:26 PM
Post #21 of 80
(3265 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Feb 8, 2007
Posts: 392
|
coastal_climber wrote: btw, I'm 16.
Congratulations!
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Feb 18, 2007, 9:56 PM
Post #22 of 80
(3222 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
dingus wrote: In the near future enhanced RFID and other tagging and detection methods will render this bill moot. Everything will be tagged and ultimately trackable; every manufactured good that is. Its already begun eh? And btw, it doesn't seem outlandish to me to incorporate this beacon technology into a traditional avi beacon. Most of us are sensible enough to carry those. DMT
Dingus
Our company got bunch early patents on RFID, I will see how you are going to like it once feds starts to put them in your $20 bill.
How much you got in your pocket boy ?
Do not lie to us, we know you got $960 worth of $10s and $20s there, what you doing with all these cash ?
buying some thing or selling some !!!!!
(This post was edited by majid_sabet on Feb 18, 2007, 9:59 PM)
|
|
|
|
|
scrapedape
Feb 18, 2007, 10:18 PM
Post #23 of 80
(3207 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jun 24, 2004
Posts: 2392
|
majid_sabet wrote: dingus wrote: In the near future enhanced RFID and other tagging and detection methods will render this bill moot. Everything will be tagged and ultimately trackable; every manufactured good that is. Its already begun eh? And btw, it doesn't seem outlandish to me to incorporate this beacon technology into a traditional avi beacon. Most of us are sensible enough to carry those. DMT Dingus Our company got bunch early patents on RFID, I will see how you are going to like it once feds starts to put them in your $20 bill. How much you got in your pocket boy ? Do not lie to us, we know you got $960 worth of $10s and $20s there, what you doing with all these cash ? buying some thing or selling some !!!!!
You mean they're not doing this already? I've been microwaving all my cash for nothing?
|
|
|
|
|
miavzero
Feb 18, 2007, 10:21 PM
Post #24 of 80
(3202 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Oct 8, 2005
Posts: 624
|
Tracking devices are not only going to make mountaineering safer, they will also expediate the process of reporting important news.
I can see it all now...
"According to 8a.nu tracking devices, Shawn Diamond as made uninterrupted progress to the anchors of Realization."
Just think, no more Dr. Cooks!
|
|
|
|
|
greenketch
Feb 18, 2007, 10:22 PM
Post #25 of 80
(3201 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jan 12, 2005
Posts: 501
|
overlord wrote: a beacon is definitely a good idea if you can afford it. definitely cheaper than untimely death though.
You are correct only in theory here. We are not talking about a beacon. This potential law is for a MLU which is a device tht only works on Mt Hood and only works after the SAR folks have been led to start a search. It is sort of nice that most of us wont have to buy one (they are rented at certain locations before the climb) but they in no way can be compared to a beacon or a PLB.
Definatley a knee jerk reaction to recent events.
|
|
|
|
|
|
1
