What is it about climbing/mountaineering that makes a person believe that he can check his personal responsibility at the trailhead? Are the mountains some magical place where the rules of society are suspended in order to leave you free of all responsibility to pursue whatever path you want? I’d like to see a map of those magical places (not really sure where/how the geographical lines get drawn -- which mountains are exempt? How about mere hills? Is there an elevation/gradient rule?).

I understand (and agree) that climbers and mountaineers don’t want “flatlanders” deciding what’s right and wrong because of the misperception that ALL such activities are negligent or worse. And I understand that it can be difficult in certain circumstances to determine what is “negligent,” “grossly negligent,” or “reckless” -- depending on which standard you are applying and for what purpose (i.e., paying for rescues vs. legal liability for stupidity-induced-injuries). But just because a standard may be hard to apply (and there is disagreement about which standard applies and who should apply it) doesn’t mean that here should be no standard at all. We apply such difficult standards all the time in the non-magical world of the flatlands. Being subject to such standards is part of society.

Why the exemption -- because this is a site about climbing/mountaineering and we are all bias? Or is there really a valid distinction between a mountain idiot and a city idiot that gives the mountain idiot a free pass to do as he pleases? I think some of the participants on this thread have taken the phrase "freedom of the hills" a little too literally. (I think there’s actually an argument that a climber/mountaineer should be held to a higher standard because he operates in an area of higher risks to himself and others).

kozman18 wrote:What is it about climbing/mountaineering that makes a person believe that he can check his personal responsibility at the trailhead? Are the mountains some magical place where the rules of society are suspended in order to leave you free of all responsibility to pursue whatever path you want? I’d like to see a map of those magical places (not really sure where/how the geographical lines get drawn -- which mountains are exempt? How about mere hills? Is there an elevation/gradient rule?).

I understand (and agree) that climbers and mountaineers don’t want “flatlanders” deciding what’s right and wrong because of the misperception that ALL such activities are negligent or worse. And I understand that it can be difficult in certain circumstances to determine what is “negligent,” “grossly negligent,” or “reckless” -- depending on which standard you are applying and for what purpose (i.e., paying for rescues vs. legal liability for stupidity-induced-injuries). But just because a standard may be hard to apply (and there is disagreement about which standard applies and who should apply it) doesn’t mean that here should be no standard at all. We apply such difficult standards all the time in the non-magical world of the flatlands. Being subject to such standards is part of society.

Why the exemption -- because this is a site about climbing/mountaineering and we are all bias? Or is there really a valid distinction between a mountain idiot and a city idiot that gives the mountain idiot a free pass to do as he pleases? I think some of the participants on this thread have taken the phrase "freedom of the hills" a little too literally. (I think there’s actually an argument that a climber/mountaineer should be held to a higher standard because he operates in an area of higher risks to himself and others).

Well put....

redneck wrote:

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.

It's not completely a moot point, isn't the sheriff an elected official in most states? The public could have undue influence in such circumstances.

Here is another news article from the Siskiyou Daily on recent incidents:

http://www.siskiyoudaily.com/news/x1887 ... recedented

From what I have read, some of the incidents were due to inexperience, lack of gear knowledge, and climbing at the wrong time of day. Some may just be bad luck. These incidents not quite as cut and dry as the dude in tennis shoes, who was likely climbing in similar conditions.

Here’s the decision tree on paying for a rescue (and highlights the points which are being argued here). It's pretty simple:

(1) Are you going to have a standard by which the responsibility for rescue costs is measured? If not, either everyone pays or no one pays. The level of stupidity is irrelevant either way. This is the DMT system.
(2) If you are going to have a standard, which one? Here’s the span that is used in other contexts: negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional (this one is not really applicable here). Pick one -- make it public, and apply it consistently.
(3) If you are going to have a standard, who is going to apply it? Rangers, SAR’s, sheriffs, DA’s, judges, juries. Pick one -- they all have their drawbacks. I would rather be judged by a panel of mountaineers than by a sheriff or a jury. Good luck getting that legislated.

I would also rather be independently wealthy, but gotta go back to work. . . .

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

Hilarious photo Vitaliy!!!
I can believe it too! 5-6 years ago I was at Pinnacles National Monument, in March or April, must have been 70-80 degrees out and no snow for hundreds of miles. Walking around the balconies area I ran across this fellow wearing crampons!!! I couldn't imagine what he was doing, just walking around down the trail like your snowshoe couple. I wish I had a photo but I was so in shock- and trying to imagine what this nut was up too.

You really think someone is going to defend them? Rather I think a certain someone is going to critisize them for leaving their avalanche beacons, probes, and GPS behind (how else are they going to be able to prove where they were?).

Neophiteat48 wrote:

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.

This is a terrible idea. More Republicans claiming to want more freedom and less government, now wanting an annual permit to go hiking with a fee on top of it!!! What good would come out of this? How is this better than the current system? You already have rescues occurring, what's the advantage of this fee? Hell, with the already present excessive use of helicopters by the CHP and Siskiyou County, what do you think it's going to be like when every Joe Blow is calling 911 saying they paid their $20 and want their flight out? If these asses need a flight out because of deep snow, getting their moneys worth for their $20 is going to have them calling with it's too hot, they're sleepy, it's crowded, they ran out of food...

The government can stay out of my hiking plans. It's so aggrivating to me when I get a permit and they ask me where I am going to be camping. None of their business- no good can come of them knowing, probably wanting to send some preverted ranger up there to watch me.

You really think wilderness permits are going to be covered for $10? I've spent 3x that on permits already used this year, and summer just started.

kozman18 wrote:Here’s the decision tree on paying for a rescue (and highlights the points which are being argued here). It's pretty simple:

(1) Are you going to have a standard by which the responsibility for rescue costs is measured? If not, either everyone pays or no one pays. The level of stupidity is irrelevant either way. This is the DMT system.
(2) If you are going to have a standard, which one? Here’s the span that is used in other contexts: negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional (this one is not really applicable here). Pick one -- make it public, and apply it consistently.
(3) If you are going to have a standard, who is going to apply it? Rangers, SAR’s, sheriffs, DA’s, judges, juries. Pick one -- they all have their drawbacks. I would rather be judged by a panel of mountaineers than by a sheriff or a jury. Good luck getting that legislated.

I would also rather be independently wealthy, but gotta go back to work. . . .

It's all difficult to decide what to do. If we just set up a fund in every state to pay for rescues, I think it would just encourage more stupid behavior like Mr. Tennis shoes. I think the rescues would increase and that would eventually break any budget set up. Then these fees would go higher and higher. How many people go out that never would have if it wasn't for a cell phone? I don't want to see any regulation on additional fees set up. Things can happen to anyone who ventures out. It's just when people venture out in a very reckless way is when they should have to pick up the bill. Maybe there needs to be a line drawn between reckless, negligent, and accidental. To me, the tennis shoes case is so cut and dry. If this had been a year where there was no snow up there, then maybe not so reckless. Still he didn't even have survival gear, so not good. But when you look at shasta from the hwy and see it's caked in ice and the rangers suggest safety gear, and you still go up, with no climbing experience, that is reckless. Pay the bill!!!

kozman18 wrote:Here’s the decision tree on paying for a rescue (and highlights the points which are being argued here). It's pretty simple:

(1) Are you going to have a standard by which the responsibility for rescue costs is measured? If not, either everyone pays or no one pays. The level of stupidity is irrelevant either way. This is the DMT system.
(2) If you are going to have a standard, which one? Here’s the span that is used in other contexts: negligence, gross negligence, recklessness, or intentional (this one is not really applicable here). Pick one -- make it public, and apply it consistently.
(3) If you are going to have a standard, who is going to apply it? Rangers, SAR’s, sheriffs, DA’s, judges, juries. Pick one -- they all have their drawbacks. I would rather be judged by a panel of mountaineers than by a sheriff or a jury. Good luck getting that legislated.

I would also rather be independently wealthy, but gotta go back to work. . . .

The simplest system is always best, so clearly number one. A panel of mountaineers wouldn't work, Gary already brought up the awe some of these folks have for people with well-known names, there's hardly a group so ready to wet their pants for someone they've heard of before than most mountaineers are for one of their 'heros'.

Bombchaser points out that most of there people are idiots and brought the accident upon themselves. Of course! That's why they got into an accident! 90% of these folks would be paying their own rescues. If this is the standard, you might as well make being an idiot against the law.

MikeTX wrote:this thread is another perfect illustration of how "republicans" and "conservatives" aren't really the same thing.

Maybe not, but it's the "conversatives" who keep putting republicans in office, so what does it matter?

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Certifications, GPS logs and thousand dollar boots to prove experience.

Lol, good one.

DMT

Classic!

Well, sometimes I could be that couple.

At least once a year, I like to take at least one long meaningless hike in my ice boots for example. People flip when they see it. You can imagine the way they tell their friends. "There was an asshole on the trail wearing Ski Boots".

I get into situations where I have to dump all the gear at BC or even the last hotel except for my "Summit Shot" stuff. So maybe the first few days I am waaay over dressed. So I like to take long hikes wearing Camp 3 level gear just for practice.

MikeTX wrote:

John Duffield wrote:Well, sometimes I could be that couple.

At least once a year, I like to take at least one long meaningless hike in my ice boots for example. People flip when they see it. You can imagine the way they tell their friends. "There was an asshole on the trail wearing Ski Boots".

I get into situations where I have to dump all the gear at BC or even the last hotel except for my "Summit Shot" stuff. So maybe the first few days I am waaay over dressed. So I like to take long hikes wearing Camp 3 level gear just for practice.

i've considered taking my ice axe to the beach for some self-arrest practice on the sand dunes. i'm worried i'd get arrested though.

Don't forget your crampons! You might need 'em to get up those sand dunes.

Bombchaser wrote:
Proving experience and training is not difficult. There are certs for training, or at least letters of attendance. For experience, I have carried a GPS on nearly every peak I have climbed. Why do I do this, so I have a recorded track of the climb. Between my track records, whitnesses, and dated photos, experience can be proven. I also keep a climbing log of all climbs even small hiked summits.

I'm not sure so much the gear has to be proven, it's the total disregard for safety and not having essential items. Standing on a 14,400 foot peak with nothing but running clothes and then getting hurt or stranded due to the fact you are in nothing but running clothes would be negligent on your part. This would not be hard to prove at all. A reasonable person in the same situation would not do that. The guy that fell in running clothes, fell because he had no traction. It even stated he was using his hands to try and dig into the snow to self arrest. Crampons and an ice axe would have likely prevented this incident.

I can download a set of waypoints for anywhere I want and claim I recorded it on my own GPS. As for "certificates", do I get to print my own since I am mostly self taught or taught by friends?

And I strongly disagree that your running clothes scenario proves negligence. That is your opinion of what is reasonable. On average, several hundred people a day climb a 14,100' peak in running clothes within a couple miles of me. I guess if one of them slips on gravel and twists their ankle, they are being negligent? A "reasonable" person would have stayed home and sat on the couch. Some would say that anything else is unreasonable.

Do you wear snowshoes and crampons with those ice boots John? When there's no snow around?

Vitaliy M wrote:

MikeTX wrote:i've considered taking my ice axe to the beach for some self-arrest practice on the sand dunes. i'm worried i'd get arrested though.

This time I will have to video tape that!

Glissading down a sand due into a pool of oil. Guess that passes for fun in Texas?