Climbers on Oregon’s most-climbed peak, Mount Hood, have been making headlines lately. In December, three climbers lost their lives when a blinding snowstorm set in during their climb. Another three climbers and their dog were successfully rescued this week (see photo).
Oregon state lawmaker John Lim is sponsoring a bill that would require climbers to carry a beacon when climbing above 10,000 feet. He says that this requirement would save lives and the amount of time and money spent on rescue missions.
Opponents of the bill say that danger is an inherent part of extreme sports and that the beacons are not necessary. Some feel that carrying a beacon would give climbers a false sense of security. Besides, having to make life or death decisions is what puts the “extreme” in extreme sports.
Whether carrying a beacon is required or a choice, having a signaling device won’t ensure climbers come back alive. No matter how hard some people try, one cannot legislate sound judgment.
Posted by Patrice Hein
Registered?
Commenting on WE Blog now requires you to be a Kansas.com member. Use the links above to register, if you haven't already, or to log in.Contact us
Follow us
Daily Archives
-
Recent Comments
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- thomaswitt on Let immigrants run
- ANTI on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- Phantom on Open thread 11/23
- minutelady on Open thread 11/23
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
- ANTI on Let immigrants run
- Phantom on Let immigrants run
- XXX on Open thread 11/23
7 Comments
I can definitely see both sides of the coin on this one… I would probably go with the beacon would be required for beginners and medium experience hikers or first timers on that mountain; I would say experts that have already climbed that mountain would be allowed to go with out them. I think I would have to side with the state/gov on this one because of the extreme costs involved with saving someone that Darwin states shouldn’t be… It can be justified because it is government property, they can regulate who can climb, than they can regulate what they take.
Laws are about setting a minimum standard of behavior to keep society safe. Beyond that you are talking about ethics and civil issues. These climbers are only harming themselves. Where the community takes the hit is in the wallet. They should charge these guys for their rescues. (Other parks already do this in some states) Give them a 20K benifit of the doubt- after all accidents do happen. After that, send them the bill. If you refuse to take resonable precautions that will make your rescue easier then you deserve to have a lein on your home when the state finally fishes you out. Anyone climbing a mountain like this- esp. in February!- should be required to check in with the ranger and have minimum standards met for gear, supplies, beacons etc. If they really want to be extreme, we can have them sign an extreme waiver with a ‘no rescue’ clause.
Oh Patrice you can do better than this! Not much of a question here. No beacon, no rescue I say. Let ‘em keep up with the life or death thrill right to the end.
“No matter how hard some people try, one cannot legislate sound judgment.”
But, isn’t that what the Libs and the Nanny-staters try to do?Seatbelt laws, helmet laws, kids 8 and under can’t be left in the car alone unless a 13 year old is in the car, mandatory vaccinations for HPV, no smoking laws, etc, etc.
The last line of Patrice’s finely written article should read “one cannot legislate against the abject stupidity of people, singularly or in groups”.
I suppose the legislation is beneficial, for that reason only. Evidence the strict requirements in Nascar. Weight being a major issue, were it not the requirement, I assure you there would be some moron out there deciding that running without a roll cage would reduce weight significantly. And these guys are professionals.
From the Journal of the Wilderness Medical Society: ‘The 1992 climbing season on McKinley was record setting in the numbers of climbers on the mountain as well as in the number of mountaineering fatalities. This year marked the most intense period of rescue in the mountain’s history, and attracted unprecedented attention by international media.34 Rescue costs soared as 22 rescue or body recovery missions involving 28 climbers were conducted by the Talkeetna NPS mountaineering ranger staff and volunteers.
By the end of the 1994 season, a plan had been formulated and approved that would, beginning in the 1995 season, require climbers on McKinley and nearby 5304 meter (17400 feet) high Mount Foraker to be charged a mountaineering program fee of $150 per climber. The intention of the fee was to offset mountaineering administrative costs such as positioning and maintaining the high altitude ranger camp at 4300 meters (14108 feet) on the West Buttress route, mountaineering salaries, education materials directed at reducing the number of accidents, transportation, and supplies.35 Also initiated for the 1995 season was the requirement that prospective climbers of McKinley and Foraker register with the NPS a minimum of 60 days in advance of intended arrival on the mountain. This new regulation was meant to afford the Denali mountaineering staff an opportunity to provide information to mountaineers on hazards, and how to prepare, equip, and schedule their expedition. Needless to say, these new NPS regulations were far from universally embraced by the mountaineering community.
An analysis performed after the 1999 mountaineering season suggested that the changes implemented in 1995 had, over a 5-year period, significantly reduced the number of mountaineering rescues performed as well as the number of fatalities on the mountain.36 The continuing downward trend in the number of accidents, illnesses, and rescues noted during the last several years on McKinley (since 1999) supports the assertion that the above NPS regulations initiated during the 1995 season were bureaucratic dictates that were well-considered before implementation. They have been shown, over the course of the past 8 seasons, to be impressively effective at accomplishing their intended aims.’
In other words, regulations will piss off the climbers but they save money and lives. Mt Hood is a problem mountain. The office workers see it every day from their windows and think it is just down the road and no big deal to climb. The NPS is overdue for a crackdown on this peak. Never forget that the rescuers are at risk here too.
More Nanny State legislation. Predictable, but unacceptable.Oh, BTW, I _tried_ releasing my state’s SAR people from any responsibility to rescue me, so I could be left alone to hike and climb unencumbered, but they wouldn’t even respond.