Rescue on Mount Shasta

by **mrchad9** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:29 am

LOL at Kevin and Chief on the last two! :lol:

by **Marmaduke** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:04 am

Sunny Buns wrote:If you are a member of the American Alpine Club you get some kind of climbing insurance. What all does it cover? Would it help on Shasta?

Colorado has a search/rescue plan that every hiker, hunter, fisherman, etc is encouraged to buy: it used to cost $1 per year and was available wherever fishing/hunting licenses were sold. Not sure if it still exists or not. Seems like a good idea.

I'm still looking for my photo of the trailhead sign with the verbage on permits covering rescue but so far have not found it. I'll keep looking but no guarantees - I have many years of trips photos/videos scattered around.

I usually go up one of the SE routes and based on that photo of the Avalanche Gulch Trailhead with a bazillion vehicles I am very glad of it. Usually I am the only one on the route I take (I go during the week) and when I get to the summit plateau I see a constant string of people coming up from Avalanche Gulch. It never occurred to me what the parking lot must look like at the bottom of that thing!

Sounds like a good idea to me. A year long hiking permit that all funds go for SAR. Say $20 per year and then take it a step further and for another $10 per year and your wilderness permits are included. I know some would say they would be paying for the stupidty of others. But I like the idea.

by **Marmaduke** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:07 am

Vitaliy M wrote:I am SHOCKED by two who requested SAR because they were getting deep in the snow...if it is that deep, imagin how nice of a snow cave they could have created!

But my favorite are these two! Picture I took on Whitney portal road of two hikers wearing snowshoes, with NO SNOW around!

Curious, did they know you took the photo? And if so, did they ask why?

by **kevin trieu** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:08 am

Vitaliy M wrote:But my favorite are these two! Picture I took on Whitney portal road of two hikers wearing snowshoes, with NO SNOW around!

isn't it obvious that the asphalt was getting soft and they were about to punch through without the snowshoes? these guys would have called SAR if it wasn't for those proper gear.

instead of mocking them, you should applaud them for using common sense.

by **Marmaduke** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:11 am

Another note on the snowshoe hikers, he's a golfer. Maybe he belongs in a golf cart

by **dskoon** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:26 am

kevin trieu wrote:
Bombchaser wrote:http://www.redding.com/news/2010/jun/23/helicopter-rescues-stranded-climbers-mt-shasta/

Actually now that I re-read this one, these two didn't have the right gear either. They should have brought climbing snowshoes if soft snow was expected...

you need snowshoes to go down soft snowy hill?

i see that you go out solo a few times. that's not safe at all. what if a bug flew into your eye causing blindness?

Yeah, what if B-chaser went out solo in the winter, got himself into a jam, ie, a storm came in and he got stuck out there, his equipment failed, and SAR came in to rescue him. Guess he'd be ok with that, as well as footing the bill. After all, someone could determine that it was gross negligence heading out solo in the winter, and charge him for that rescue. Responsibility, right?

by **dskoon** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:27 am

The pic with the snowshoers descending a dirt road is one of the most absurd things I've ever seen. I wonder if that's real?

by **Marmaduke** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 7:28 am

Vitaliy M wrote:Troy: LOL "Excuse me! Let me take a photo of you guys, since I think you have IQ of a squid! Is that ok Sir?!"
No, I didn't ask them if I can take the photo...they didn't even know : ( I think they may have been from that conspiracy group 1000pks always brings up though, so too bad I didn't get their faces

Kevin: Ground actually got too hard for my liking that day and I was in beginning stages of developing a blister, and it was a bit too warm and I almost started to sweat, so I called SAR myself...I HAD TO CALL, I almost got a blister!

PS: Seriously we have to make a photo contest or story contest about "dumb" (in our opinion. I am sure someone will defend this couple, but every time I look at this photo I get a brain freeze) things we encounter when we are out

You Russian Immigrants???(AND LEGAL IMMIGRANT I MIGHT ADD

I didn't say or insinuate you asked them, just did they know. I figured maybe you were laughing so loud they might have turned around and caught you with camera in hand.

by **simonov** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:58 pm

The Chief wrote:
Gary Schenk wrote:
The Chief wrote:An individuals actions which ultimately lead to their ass being Rescued should be the primary evidence. As the OP's subject so blatantly exhibited.

Some would say just mountaineering meets that criteria. Where is the line drawn, and who draws it?

Ahh, where and how does mountaineering meet that criteria Gary?

Chief, just read the public comments included in any on-line article about a mountaineering rescue or death. A large proportion of the general public believes that anyone who goes up a mountain in the snow is negligently endangering himself.

by **The Chief** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:03 pm

redneck wrote:Chief, just read the public comments included in any on-line article about a mountaineering rescue or death. A large proportion of the general public believes that anyone who goes up a mountain in the snow is negligently endangering himself.

So what?

They, the public, have absolutely no say in any ensuing post SAR OP incident investigation. Just as they don't in any post TA incident investigation in which ones Insurance Co determines whether or not they will pay for the damages and ensuing medical expenses.

Moot post.

by **simonov** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:14 pm

The Chief wrote:
redneck wrote:Chief, just read the public comments included in any on-line article about a mountaineering rescue or death. A large proportion of the general public believes that anyone who goes up a mountain in the snow is negligently endangering himself.

So what?

They, the public, have absolutely no say in any ensuing post SAR OP incident investigation. Just as they don't in any post TA incident investigation in which ones Insurance Co determines whether or not they will pay for the damages and ensuing medical expenses.

Moot post.

You asked how (and presumably by whom) mountaineering is regarded as negligence on its face. There's your answer.

The point is, after 13 or 14 pages of climbers arguing about what and what is not negligent, at the end of the day when it comes to public policy it will be the perceptions of flatlanders that matter most. And quite a few of them believe we are negligent just for being up there.

Not moot at all.

by **Bombchaser** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:26 pm

dskoon wrote:
kevin trieu wrote:
Bombchaser wrote:http://www.redding.com/news/2010/jun/23/helicopter-rescues-stranded-climbers-mt-shasta/

Actually now that I re-read this one, these two didn't have the right gear either. They should have brought climbing snowshoes if soft snow was expected...

you need snowshoes to go down soft snowy hill?

i see that you go out solo a few times. that's not safe at all. what if a bug flew into your eye causing blindness?

Yeah, what if B-chaser went out solo in the winter, got himself into a jam, ie, a storm came in and he got stuck out there, his equipment failed, and SAR came in to rescue him. Guess he'd be ok with that, as well as footing the bill. After all, someone could determine that it was gross negligence heading out solo in the winter, and charge him for that rescue. Responsibility, right?

It's funny how you guys keep reaching for things here. Like I have stated I go prepared. There is nothing wrong with going solo. Actually I go solo 90% of the time. What is the difference if I have a partner or not if something happens? I also carry a SAR/SAT locator beacon. So this resolves this issue. I'm not heading out into the backcountry with only the clothes on my back. There is a big difference. Everytime I go out, I know i'm taking on a certain amount of risk. Mountaineering is a dangers sport. But that danger is mitigated by taking proper precautions. I have more issues on climbs with a partner than by myself.

by **The Chief** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:02 pm

redneck wrote:The point is, after 13 or 14 pages of climbers arguing about what and what is not negligent, at the end of the day when it comes to public policy it will be the perceptions of flatlanders that matter most. And quite a few of them believe we are negligent just for being up there.

Not moot at all.

It is obvious that the general "public" has nothing to do with any policy making regarding this issue. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we.

by **dskoon** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 4:13 pm

The Chief wrote:
redneck wrote:The point is, after 13 or 14 pages of climbers arguing about what and what is not negligent, at the end of the day when it comes to public policy it will be the perceptions of flatlanders that matter most. And quite a few of them believe we are negligent just for being up there.

Not moot at all.

It is obvious that the general "public" has nothing to do with any policy making regarding this issue. If they did, we wouldn't be having this discussion now, would we.

Chief, while the general public has little to do with setting policy on these issues, aren't they the ones clamoring for more regulation, mandatory beacons, etc. etc. after just about every rescue? And don't legislators listen to their voices?
This is the case nearly every time when something goes wrong up on Hood. And, then, despite objection from nearly every professional SAR group around here, there's always some legislators, mostly Repubs(imagine that!), who start vocalizing how these climbers are "negligent," and that we all need stronger regulations, new laws, etc.

Rescue on Mount Shasta

Who is online