Mountain Rescues: Climbers are Not to Blame

Article

Images (1)

Comments (45)

Mountain Rescues: Climbers are Not to Blame

Page Type: Article

Activities: Hiking, Mountaineering, Trad Climbing, Sport Climbing, Toprope, Bouldering, Ice Climbing, Aid Climbing, Big Wall, Mixed, Scrambling, Via Ferrata, Canyoneering, Skiing

Page By: Grizz42

Created/Edited: Apr 27, 2007 / Apr 27, 2007

Object ID: 288660

Hits: 5929

Page Score: 81.76% - 42 Votes

Vote: Log in to vote

Many will recall watching the news about the three climbers who died on Mount Hood last December. The story was in the headlines for weeks as search and rescue teams tried to locate the three climbers, often hampered by severe weather conditions. However, many do not know that it almost happened again when three more climbers and their dog went missing on Mt. Hood on February 18, 2007. It was a shock that after three climbers died in the middle of December, there was another rescue mission on the same mountain only two months later. Three members of the climbing party disappeared over an icy ledge and slid down some 500 feet before coming to a stop, while the other members of the group called for help. The three fallen climbers were able to build a snow cave to keep warm during the snow storm while the Portland Mountain Rescue team came to their aid. All climbers, and their dog, were brought down the mountain safely with only minor injuries.

Bill O’Reilly, the host of “The O’Reilly Factor” on the Fox News Channel, has been an outspoken opponent of mountain rescues. On his show, he said, “There was no reason for people to be trying to climb that mountain other than thrill seeking. Rescuers put themselves in danger and the taxpayers have to pay for it.”2 O’Reilly is trying to use the recent events on Mt. Hood to restrict climbing to certain periods and seasons. Rather than presenting possible solutions to this problem, O’Reilly does not understand what draws climbers to these mountains and the actual costs of climbing related rescues. O’Reilly’s argument is unpersuasive due to his false assumptions about climbing in general, and his biased and incomplete data about mountain rescues.

Mountain search and rescue teams are comprised of primarily volunteers that volunteer their time and money to a rescue. Although climbing may be dangerous, the threats to rescuers are very low. Bill O’Reilly claims that the rescuers put themselves in danger in the high profile mountain rescues like on Mt. Hood. That is not the case. According to the American Alpine Club, a premier authority on climbing and mountaineering, rescuer fatalities are rare involving mountaineering and rock climbing rescues. The most dangerous situations causing the most search and rescue fatalities or injuries occurred while searching and/or rescuing lost or injured hikers, skiers, and downed aircraft.5 Rescuers understand the dangers and hazards in any search and rescue operation. But because of their rigorous training, rescuers are able to stay as safe as possible while still carrying out the mission.

“The mountains are calling and I must go.” (John Muir) Climbers fully understand what draws them into the mountains and they are sure of one thing, it’s not always to seek a cheap thrill of being so close to death with every step they take. As Bill O’Reilly stated, “there was no reason for people to be trying to climb that mountain, other than thrill seeking.” Thrill seeking is in the eye of the beholder. To a person that has lived in a large city their whole life, skiing on a bunny hill at a ski resort for the first time will be a huge thrill. But for someone who has spent their entire life skiing, it has become second nature and comes as an enjoyable and relaxing activity. To the outside world, climbing Mt. Hood in the winter would be the biggest thrill imaginable. But to the climbing community it is so much more.

The climbing community understands what draws them to mountains like Mt. Hood. Something special happens when you are on the summit of a mountain, on a rock face, or in the middle of the wilderness. John Muir, an avid environmentalist, conservationist, and hiker had this to say:

Climb the mountains and get their good tidings. Nature’s peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves.3

But, Bill O’Reilly does not understand what draws people to climb mountains. Climbing is a way to commune with nature and a way to be a peace with everything that surrounds you.

Mt. Rainier is a glaciated volcano that stands at 14,411 feet in southern Washington State and sees over 10,000 climbers annually. The weather is notoriously bad on Mt. Rainier. The mountain creates its own weather since it is the tallest peak around, creating high winds, snowstorms, and rain in an instant. The average temperature ranges from a high of 7 degrees in the winter to a high of 32 degrees in mid summer. Last summer I had the opportunity to climb and stand on the summit of Mt. Rainier. It took our party two days to reach the summit and on summit day, we spent 12 exhausting hours climbing to the top on less than 4 hours of sleep. We fought our way up the mountain, battling exhaustion, high winds, freezing temperatures, dehydration, and altitude sickness. When we got to the summit, it was one of the most exhilarating joys that I have ever experienced. Even though I could barely stand from exhaustion, being on the summit put everything in perspective. While we sat there contemplating what we just accomplished, I felt a deep peace within me that I had never felt before. All the problems in life beyond the mountain seemed trivial. It allowed me to refocus on what is important in my life. Being on a mountain, in the wilderness, or just in nature changes you for the better. If you talk with any climber that has gone through a similar experience, they will tell you the exact same thing.

The most frequently asked question that people asked me was why? If I could explain to them the feeling of standing on the summit, or the feeling of rejuvenation and new found energy on the drive home, I would. But the thing is, if you have never had an experience like this, then you cannot understand. That is the problem with Bill O’Reilly’s statement he will not completely understand until he does it for himself. Climbing is much more than a thrill. It’s a way to find peace and energy that you never knew you had.

Would I do it again? Despite the blisters, the complete exhaustion, dehydration, sunburns, and sore muscles, I would make that climb again in a heart beat. And so would any other climber. Climbers are attracted to the mountains. They might not know why they are drawn, but they know that when the come off the mountain, they will be a changed person. One has to understand why we climb before they can criticize climbers as thrill seeking junkies.

A large misconception about mountain rescues is the cost. Most people do not realize that search and rescue groups are non-profit, costing the taxpayers nothing. Bill O’Reilly believes that during high profile mountain rescues, the taxpayers are footing the entire bill. A single glance on any search and rescue group’s website will reveal that they are proud to be non-profit organizations. The Portland Mountain Rescue (PMR) search and rescue missions, as well as every search and rescue organization, are coordinated through the local Sheriff's Office. The team is made up entirely of volunteers that give their time and money to every rescue mission. PMR is a non-profit organization that does not receive funding from government agencies. All of their funding results from individual donations, grants, and fundraising. Being a non-profit organization, PMR will never charge for a rescue1. The only costs to taxpayers are for local government organizations, like the local Sheriff’s Office, to oversee the rescue effort. Even though search and rescue operations do cost taxpayers, most of the cost is covered by private funding through the local search and rescue.

During 2003, the National Park Service (NPS) spent $3.5 million on personnel, supplies, aircraft, and vessels for search and rescue operations. The NPS responded to 3,108 search and rescue missions, with an average cost of $1,116 per incident. The $3.5 million spent on search and rescue may sound overwhelming but the search and rescue costs accounted for 0.15% to 0.2% of the entire NPS budget. The search and rescue budget for the NPS is funded by a very small portion of the entrance fee to the National Park System. Every time you enter a National Park, you are funding search and rescue costs.5 Search and rescue operations are not funded by taxpayers, but by entrance fees, private funding, and donations.
Is it fair to place the blame of high rescue costs on climbers alone? Most media coverage is of mountain climbers because these rescues generate the most attention. But what about all of the smaller rescues that occur on a day to day basis? The common held perception is that climbers are a significant drain on the search and rescue services and budget. However, NPS data from 2003 confirmed “that climbing and mountaineering rescues, while highly visible, are less frequent than rescues of perceived lower-risk visitor groups including hikers, boaters, and swimmers.”5 According to this data, climbers and mountaineers accounted for only 5% of all NPS rescues, whereas day hiking accounted for six times that amount. The NPS data shows that climbing, although dramatically and regularly covered by the media, composes only a small percent of all search and rescues.

As shown by National Park Service data, climbing rescues are less frequent than perceived, but the media still argues that high-profile climbing rescues are still expensive to taxpayers. For instance, look at search and rescue operations in Yosemite National Park, an international destination for hikers and climbers. A detailed analysis of search and rescue operations from 2000 to 2004 showed that rescuing hikers and overnight hikers cost more than three times as much as rescuing climbers.5 However, these figures may be skewed because Yosemite has some of the most technical climbing in the world, like El Capitan and Half Dome. A rescue on these big walls usually involves a helicopter and more personnel than is required for rescuing a day hiker. Nevertheless, climbers that are on El Capitan and Half Dome are the most self-reliant visitors to the park, as they carry the equipment and skills necessary for self-rescue, reducing the need for the assistance of search and rescue personnel.

On average, climbing rescues are more expensive but they are not the most expensive. The most expensive rescues are the search for lost persons. A search for a lost person requires a large force of personnel. A lost person can travel a significant distance trying to find their way. Even before they are reported missing, a lost person can travel tens of miles from their last known location. The search and rescue personnel must search an area that is even larger since they do not know the direction the lost person traveled. For instance, if a lost hiker traveled 2 miles east from their last known location, the search and rescue group will have to search 16 square miles, searching 2 miles in each direction around the last known location. This requires a very large amount of personnel on the ground searching for the lost hiker. In Yosemite between 2000 and 2004, of the 10 most expensive rescues, five were day hikers, four overnight hikers, and one was a climber climber. Two of the hiker rescues cost over $100,000 with the most expensive being $123,699 for an unsuccessful search for a lost day hiker. The one climber came in 10th at a cost of $23,264.5 Another factor making climbing rescues less expensive than a search for lost persons is that the climber is usually in a known location. When climbing a big wall like El Capitan, the climbing rangers know where you are at all times since a climber cannot travel very far on a rock face. The same goes for a mountain like Mt. Hood. Although there are many routes on the mountain, climbers will be on the mountain. Having the known locations of the climbers makes search and rescue efforts more efficient by allowing the search and rescue group to go directly to the climbers, without having to perform a large search.

Bill O’Reilly states that all climbers are thrill seekers that put rescuers in danger while taxpayers have to pay for the cost of the rescue operation. Climbers are not thrill seeking daredevils but individuals who take pleasure in being out in nature, returning home with a renewed sense of peace and energy. If a climber, hikers or any person participating in an outdoor sport, gets in trouble, a search and rescue group will help them out of their situation. Although most people believe that the entire search and rescue cost is paid by taxpayers, search and rescue operations are mainly funded by volunteers, fundraisers, and private donations. The only costs to taxpayers are for local government organizations, such as the local Sheriff’s Office, to oversee the rescue. The costs for rescuing climbers are a small part of the total rescue costs compared to all other outdoor activities. Climbers should not be blamed for the seemingly high rescue costs given that lost day hikers and overnight hikers put the largest strain on rescue budgets. People like Bill O’Reilly are not looking at the big picture. Climbers are not the only individuals enjoying the outdoors; there are millions of people that enjoy getting outdoors every year. And for the climbers, it’s much more than just enjoying the great outdoors. As Sir Edmund Hillary, the first person to reach the summit of Mt. Everest, said,

“It’s not the mountains we conquer, but ourselves.”

References

1. Portland Mountain Rescue website. www.pmru.org
2. BillOReilly.com. O’Reilly Factor Flash. http://www.billoreilly.com/show?action=viewTVShow&showID=1217#2
3. Castle, Alan. The John Muir Trail. 2006.
4. Ross, Winston. “The Price of Survival.” http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/17247966/site/newsweek/
5. Athearn, Lloyd, Deputy Director; American Alpine Club. “Climbing Rescues in America: Reality Does Not Support ‘High-Risk, High-Cost’ Perception.” May 19, 2005.

Images

Comments

[ Post a Comment ]

Viewing: 21-40 of 45

« PREV 1 2 3 NEXT »

shanrickv

Far From a "Rant"

Voted 10/10

Great article! It is far from a rant about Bill O'Reiley and his cluelessness. You take an experience like climbing Rainier and put words to a summit experience that can be difficult to articulate. Doing so may allow someone like him to understand that we are mostly far more than just thrill seekers. Great job.
Climb On!
Patrick

Posted May 4, 2007 12:42 pm

Andinistaloco

NIcely written

Voted 10/10

Bill O'Reilly's an ass clown.

Furthermore, I'd like to hear a fool like him go off on people who got into a car accident on the way to an amusement park or the movies. Hey, they were going thrill-seeking, right? Give me a break.

Thousands of TIMES more money is spent on folks with little or no health insurance who are in hospitals. Yet folks want to whine about climbers because we're visible. Like much public debate today, folks who have no no clue what's going on insist upon arguing the facts.

Posted May 4, 2007 1:38 pm

mrbynum	Good things to think about
Voted 9/10	I think Bill O'Reilly would tell you to shut up! Thanks for bringing up some topics not well understood by the general public. I have similar discussions with many of my non-climbing friends and family members. As the climbing community continues to grow I feel it becomes increasingly crucial to stress the importance of preparation and personal responsibility. It only takes one missed step, or one popped anchor to take an outing from a routine scenario to an emergency scenario.
	Posted May 4, 2007 6:01 pm


	Grizz42	Re: Good things to think about
	Hasn't voted	I also have the same conversations with my friends and family. It is important that people prepare for climbs and I think that most of the times they don't. If I'm going to an unfamiliar mountain, I'll spend a week or so researching it, trying to learn the mountain even before I step foot on it. You sum it up nicely, "t only takes one missed step, or one popped anchor to take an outing from a routine scenario to an emergency scenario." And how true that is. Thanks for the feedback.
		Posted May 6, 2007 10:03 am

Moni

Great article

Voted 10/10

As a volunteer ski patroller, I have never bought into the sympathy for the "great danger" in which rescuers are placed. We chose to be there and no sympathy is warranted. Yes, it is irritating if you are looking for or rescuing an idiot, but again, that's part of the gig you signed up for.

We are very fortunate that rescues are free to the victims in the US - that's not so in other parts of the world where I have climbed.

I actually believe that most climbers are more conservative and aware of the consequences of their decisions than most others. Hardly thrill seekers! Unfortunately, E coli happens and some haven't the depth of experience to see the entirety of the possible consequences, but "for the grace of God go I". I know I have screwed up and gotten away with it, but not everyone is so lucky. Hopefully we learn from those mistakes and don't become statistics. I hope others will be there for me, if I make the wrong choice.

However, there is a subgroup, who think that, hey it doesn't matter, someone will come and bail my butt out. Those are the idiots it would be nice to send a bill to.

Posted May 5, 2007 9:39 pm


	Grizz42	Re: Great article
	Hasn't voted	When I was researching this article, I found that some places in the US are starting to charge for rescues. It's not much usually only a couple of hundred bucks, but it's mostly to cover the cost of getting equipment out to the site. This could be a whole other article on the concequences of stupid descisions. I have made some stupid climbing descisions and looking back on it, I can't believe I got away. And it is disappointing that there are a group of people that believe that someone will bail them out. Thanks for the great input from a patrollers point of view
		Posted May 6, 2007 10:10 am

Crashmoore

A minor suggestion

Voted 8/10

I just want to let you know that I agree with many of the points you made and I think it is good for the climbing community to discuss issues that we all face. I would say you have full support from the people here for trying to help the general public understand why we climb. The only real criticism you have received is not so much for the ideas presented but for some minor discrepancies in your writing, citing of sources, jumping around in your thoughts, ect. The only improvement that I would suggest before presenting this article to the mainstream public is find an English professor or teacher somewhere and have them edit it. After a few revisions you would have material fit for the New York Times.

Posted May 8, 2007 11:26 pm

brentonjweaver

Nice Article

Hasn't voted

Bill O'Rielly truly does not understand the draw of the outdoors, not to mention that he is very opinionated and rarely listens to true reason. His show is near the top of the list of uncontrolled propoganda that showers the media. The company I work for was recently listed as being a recalled pet food by the media company that O'Reilly works for. We are all natural, and produce organic products. We are in no way involved in the recall, but the media group never showed a retraction to their original coverage. I think that companies and people like O'Reilly must present both sides of an argument fairly before they pass judgement. Isn't the news suppossed to be fair and unbiased, anyways? I'm no constitutional expert, but telling people when they can or can't use public lands, especially when they pose no threat to others, sounds like a breach on what the constiution is based on.

Posted May 11, 2007 7:19 pm

avidwanderer

You are wrong...

Hasn't voted

It does cost the taxpayers. I am in a Chinook course and there is someone in my class whose guard unit was involved in the rescue attempts of the late climbers. The guard unit utilizes CH-47 Chinooks. A Chinook flying at that altitude will be burning 2000+ pounds of JP-8 an hour. Thats alot of cash, and that doesn't even include maintenance.

This is nothing new, PJs have been plucking climbers off Denali for a long time in HH60s... Often the military is the only group with the resources to attempt rescues at these altitudes.

Don't fool yourself, you're paying for it.

Posted May 12, 2007 10:37 pm


	Grizz42	Re: You are wrong...
	Hasn't voted	Yes I agree that we are paying for it but I have read and been told that it is coming from the military buget which taxpayers are already paying for. Therefore the cost of the personel on the ground from rescue groups doesn't cost taxpayers any additional money but the military helicopters cost comes out of the military budget, which taxpayers are paying for already.
		Posted May 15, 2007 6:37 pm


	avidwanderer	Re: You are wrong...
	Hasn't voted	That is poor logic. A Guard unit has a specific amount of money allotted each year, which equates to a specific amount of flight time. If it is spent on rescues, it is not getting spent on training and preperation for deploying downrange to Iraq and Afghanistan. So, to get the proper training, more money must be requested. Increase budget. Increase taxes. Dude, you are paying for it.
		Posted May 16, 2007 7:30 pm


	Grizz42	Re: You are wrong...
	Hasn't voted	Read Mark Trevors post below.
		Posted May 20, 2007 11:06 am


	avidwanderer	Re: You are wrong...
	Hasn't voted	Mark Trevors doesn't sound like he is in the military or has any knowledge of how a guard unit's budget works. One chinook, one hour of flight time equals 12,000+ dollars an hour. A rescue/recovery mission could easily add up to 20+ hours of flight time. 20 times 12,000 is 240,000 dollars. A quarter million. I will do some research, but I doubt that is .003 percent of a gaurd units stateside budget. Stateside budget you ask? Let me explain. If a national guard bird is flying stateside it is coming out that unit's budget (the state's) budget. (unless funded by federal for special cases, i.e. Katrina) When a guard unit deploys downrange to Iraq or A-stan, it is FEDERALLY funded. Keep rationalizing all you like.
		Posted Jun 21, 2007 6:25 pm


	sascha	Re: You are wrong...
	Voted 10/10	Military is the biggest money spender anyway. The question is: is it better to spend it in SAR missions or in some remote countries like Iraq and Afghanistan?
		Posted Jun 6, 2008 8:26 am

GEM Trail	Must Respectfully Disagree
Hasn't voted	Let me start by saying I did not see the Bill O'Reilly show and don't think much of the guy or his opinions. But the title of this article is "Mountain Rescues: Climbers are Not to Blame." Well, who is? Those climbers on Hood messed up, pure and simple. If a climber messes up high on a mountain they ARE to blame (assuming you want to blame someone). There is no one else to blame! Why do we climb? For most of us I'd guess a big part of the lure comes from venturing into some big wild place ON YOUR OWN, TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF THROUGH EVERY SITUATION, conquering the challenges you face knowing that your collective skills and judgement are ALL that stand between you and death. I hate to put it so bluntly but if I mess up high on a mountain I deserve whatever happens. And so does anyone who climbs. Would you want it any other way? Would you want someone holding your hand. pointing out the right route to take cos you can't figure it out yourself, helping you up the hard parts cos you can't do it yourself, carrying that heavy pack all those miles cos you can't do it yourself, saving your ass cos you can't do it yourself. What would be the point of that?
	Posted May 13, 2007 10:19 pm


	Grizz42	Re: Must Respectfully Disagree
	Hasn't voted	As I stated in my article, overnight hikers and day hikers are the main drain on rescue bugets, around 30%, where climbers are only about 3%. So climbers shouldn't be to blame for being rescued because climbers aren't the only ones that need to be rescued, climbers just get the most press becasue they are the most interesting. I agree that if someone messes up then they are to blame, but that is a whole other topic of discussion. But rescue groups are there to rescue you when you get hurt or are hopelessly lost. They are not there to hold your hand and point you in the right direction.
		Posted May 15, 2007 6:52 pm

Danger722

CMRU

Hasn't voted

I am a member of the Corvallis Mountain Rescue Unit. Our unit was called out for both searches on Hood mentioned in this article. I've heard of Bill O'Reiley's rants and I think his opinion is garbage. This article is fantastic. Something that isn't stated in this article is that the 2nd party that was rescued with the dog went on to talk shows such as "Ellen" and others to raise awareness of how critical it is to have mountain rescue units. They then went further to show their gratitude by sponsoring a large fundraiser that took in thousands of dollars that was distributed throughout Oregon to needy rescue units like ours in Corvallis. I climbed Mt. Hood on Sunday, the night after yet another search for a group of 5 lost kids. Portland Search and Rescue were able to pull them all off the mountain safely. As a member of a rescue unit I take offense to Bill O'Reiley's comments. He has no idea what he is talking about.

Posted May 15, 2007 11:43 pm

lilmantis

Great reading!

Voted 10/10

What does Bill know anyway? Sometimes he should just shut his pie-hole! This has to be the best response to Bills assumtions that I have heard or read! Thanks alot!

Posted May 16, 2007 1:26 am

Mark Trevor

Negligible Cost

Hasn't voted

The costs and risks are negligible*. I've put in 200 hours this year for my SAR team and you know how much it cost the tax payer? $0. And the risk is my own. Nobody put a gun to my head before I clipped into a helicopters hoist. BUT the important thing is that O'Reilly's points (budget, risk, thrill seeker) are all moot. To deny our citizens of emergency services based on their chosen activity is a slippery slope we ought not tread on. Who will deem which activities are "cheap thrills" taking unnecessary risks?

*as for air support: many of the air-ambulances are non-profits and law-enforcement birds are airborne half the time anyways. If it's military, I'm not sure, but I'll bet a few SAR missions a year probably equates to about 0.0001% of the daily operating budget to occupy Iraq. The point is that these costs and risks are so minimal compared to overall ops that they don't constitute an argument to discontinue them.

Great article by the way - O'Reilly doesn't get out much.

Posted May 17, 2007 7:23 pm

herbie

Bill O’Reilly

Voted 10/10

People like Bill O’Reilly exist all over the world.
They have no clue what they are talking about, and their thinking is based on a materialistic worldview, which puts money and the cost of things as the most important measure of everything.
As a member of the Austrian Mountain Rescue I'm confronted with views like that nearly every day.
Have mercy with people like him, their narrow mind does not allow them to think in other terms than economy, stocks, printed paper and coins.

Posted May 21, 2007 5:15 am

Viewing: 21-40 of 45

« PREV 1 2 3 NEXT »