Dingus Milktoast wrote:The alternative is private insurance, etc. DMT

"Private insurance" seems to be an interesting proposal. The premiums could be based on evidence of training, years of experience, etc. Obvious negligence or improper gear could raise premiums....

Hmmm... what do others think?

kozman18 wrote:The "No Personal Accountability" system. Idiots pay, so do those who need a rescue when they have zero fault.

I thought we worked it out a few weeks ago that there is no such thing as a zero fault rescue.

A guy at REI saw my hiking boots and thought they were really old since most of the tread was worn off and they were scatched up. I told him they were only six months old and he about shit. He told me he goes hiking in his treaded toe sock looking things. Bascically a water shoe. Seems to be the new way of hiking and climbing to go in as little as possible and hope you don't need anything and the weather will stay sunny. I guess they figure if something should happen they can just call 911 or the other people who are prepared will help there moronic asses.

This whole needing SAR and pay costs should just be based on a case by case basis, as has been pointed out already. If someone knowingly goes into the outdoors, or climbs a big mountain in total disregard for everything, they should be billed. This is negligence under the definition of the law. A normal person does not wake up and decide to climb to the top of Mount Shasta in the same clothes they would wear to go running down the street. I have been on both sides of this issue, as some on here know by other postings. I don't want climbers and outdoors recreationist to be charged or further regulated. Or be required to carry beacons and cell phones. I'm very much against this. But when someone is so oblivious and/or ignorant and/or reckless, then they should be charged. These people are ruining things for the rest of us. They will make it to where the rest of us end up paying more, and/or will be further regulated. I believe there should be a fine for these sort of cases.

I climb mountains in winter time. Many people outside the climbing world would say this is reckless. Many inside the climbing world would know this is safe as long as the proper precautions and prepareation are taken. I would say anytime you climb a major peak you are putting yourself in an element of heightened danger. Some would say this is reckless. But like anything, you do things to mitigate the risk. You prepare for the potential accident. You gain experience and training. This makes the sport safe to those who take part in it. But when you just disregard all elements of safety, reccomendations, warning signs, then you are creating a potential hazardous situation for yourself and others.

This whole debate comes down to common sense. If you have to take the time to think about wether your doing the right or wrong thing, then you are likely wrong. I don't want to get into personal attacks and arguements with people on here. But I see this new wave of people out on the hills and it is a problem. I think it's great your capable of climbing a 14,000 foot mountain in your underwear, that's great. But when I pass these people carrying nothing with them, I immediately think they have absolutly no knowledge of anything related to being out there, and should not be on the mountain. There is so much unpredictability on a high mountain, especially along the West Coast. There is this thing called the Gulf of Alaska. Any slight variation in weather out there, to include wind direction, can produce violent, localized weather on these peaks. I have been caught in this several times when the forecasts and weather models showed only mild conditions. These mountains create their own weather. Just because you can get to the top of a mountain in running clothes, doesn't mean you will survive to get back down. Most major peaks here have warning signs and lists of things you should have, as well current mountain conditions.

SoCalHiker wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:The alternative is private insurance, etc. DMT

"Private insurance" seems to be an interesting proposal. The premiums could be based on evidence of training, years of experience, etc. Obvious negligence or improper gear could raise premiums....

Hmmm... what do others think?

How are you going to "prove" your experience and training? Does it only count if you were taught by a certified guide? Who decides what is "improper gear?" Is it "improper" if someone is climbing class 4/easy class 5 without a rope? Can I go out for a morning walk without the "10 essentials?" (Note that my "morning walk" often involves going well above timberline.) Do I pay extra because I often climb Pikes Peak in the winter wearing blue jeans and low top hiking shoes? Even if I've been up there over 50 times spread over 35 years without any problem that I haven't handle on my own? What about hiking solo?

The point is that all of the requirements such as "adequate training", "obvious negligence", "improper gear", etc. are all matters of opinion. Many people think it is very dangerous for me to walk to get my mail since there a cougars and bear in the area. Others feel that free soloing big walls is a reasonable thing to do. Whose opinion wins?

This one ain't so bad. What about the two Japanese tourons who were found at c.21,000 feet on Acongcagua in loafers and slacks ?

SoCalHiker wrote:More and more people I encountered here in the local SoCal mountains are shirtless (!)

Do you have any pics?

mrchad9 wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:More and more people I encountered here in the local SoCal mountains are shirtless (!)

Do you have any pics?

No, I don't. I usually can't wait to leave them behind. However, they have been all guys so far Next time (which I hope won't happen) I will try to take one though.

All this talk about private insurance and regulation. I fail to see what folks here think will be gained by any of it. Do you want the hassle of having to prove your experience, and that you are prepared? Do you really believe that someone who goes unprepared is going to take the step of getting insurance to climb Shasta, but not crampons? I doubt it. Sounds like more big brother for the responsible folks and no impact on the irresponsible.

Rescue costs can be expensive. Why should someone be able to go up there and get what turns out to be a free rescue just because they are too poor to pay it while others have to pay there own way? And then your going to have some judge decided which climber has the experience for a free rescue and who does not? The uninformed public may see the more experienced climbers as the more negligent ones, based on the types of routes they do. And if this guy had crampons and an ax, that might not have made him any safer if he didn't know how to use them.

Again- this all sounds good to you when the line is drawn where you would draw it, but if someone else decides, do you still think it is better than all pay or no one pays?

The Chief wrote:But, as I my recent conversation with the local Deputy who is the OIC of the local county SAR Team shared with me, the costs are mounting as are the number of unwarranted operations. Thus, the criteria may become more subjective and intensified in order to establish a balance point in order to continue to fund and respond to each incident.

If there are unwarranted operations, that is the fault of those making the decision on the type of operation to execute. Using gun-ho blingy helicopters as discussed before. Yet another reason the person being rescued shoud not be responsilbe for the costs.

Bombchaser wrote:A guy at REI saw my hiking boots and thought they were really old since most of the tread was worn off and they were scatched up. I told him they were only six months old and he about shit.

My boots look the same after 6-12 months. So, if we slip and fall on our worn-out treads do you think we should pay our own way? Just wondering if you are now considering yourself grossly negligent for not having the proper footwear, as Mr. Tennis Shoes seems to be. Will you be paying your rescue fees, even though you didn't get a new pair a boots before the tread wore?

mrchad9 wrote:

The Chief wrote:But, as I my recent conversation with the local Deputy who is the OIC of the local county SAR Team shared with me, the costs are mounting as are the number of unwarranted operations. Thus, the criteria may become more subjective and intensified in order to establish a balance point in order to continue to fund and respond to each incident.

If there are unwarranted operations, that is the fault of those making the decision on the type of operation to execute. Using gun-ho blingy helicopters as discussed before. Yet another reason the person being rescued shoud not be responsilbe for the costs.

Just as any 911 E-Call Out, they must respond to all calls and then evaluate the situ on scene. A CP is immediately set up and IC will make any further decisions as to what entities need to be included in order to safely and effectively complete the SAR OP.

Unfortunately, that is the protocol in place.

As I posted several times, the ensuing follow-up investigation will determine the validity of the situ and ultimately make that decision. It is not the position of the First/Immediate Responders to determine whether or not to respond. We should all be thankful of that.

mrchad9 wrote:

Bombchaser wrote:A guy at REI saw my hiking boots and thought they were really old since most of the tread was worn off and they were scatched up. I told him they were only six months old and he about shit.

My boots look the same after 6-12 months. So, if we slip and fall on our worn-out treads do you think we should pay our own way? Just wondering if you are now considering yourself grossly negligent for not having the proper footwear, as Mr. Tennis Shoes seems to be. Will you be paying your rescue fees, even though you didn't get a new pair a boots before the tread wore?

Nice try, those were actually my light hiking boots. When I go up on a big mountain with possible exposures I wear my $1000 mountaineering boots with crampons. Or I may choose to wear my less expensive moderate mountaineering boots for smaller mountains. The boots I took into the store were being replaced for new hiking boots. So no negligence. Like I said, I do go prepared so no negligence on my part. This is a far cry from wearing running clothes on a 14,400 foot ice capped peak.

mconnell wrote:

SoCalHiker wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:The alternative is private insurance, etc. DMT

"Private insurance" seems to be an interesting proposal. The premiums could be based on evidence of training, years of experience, etc. Obvious negligence or improper gear could raise premiums....

Hmmm... what do others think?

How are you going to "prove" your experience and training? Does it only count if you were taught by a certified guide? Who decides what is "improper gear?" Is it "improper" if someone is climbing class 4/easy class 5 without a rope? Can I go out for a morning walk without the "10 essentials?" (Note that my "morning walk" often involves going well above timberline.) Do I pay extra because I often climb Pikes Peak in the winter wearing blue jeans and low top hiking shoes? Even if I've been up there over 50 times spread over 35 years without any problem that I haven't handle on my own? What about hiking solo?

The point is that all of the requirements such as "adequate training", "obvious negligence", "improper gear", etc. are all matters of opinion. Many people think it is very dangerous for me to walk to get my mail since there a cougars and bear in the area. Others feel that free soloing big walls is a reasonable thing to do. Whose opinion wins?

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.

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

Lol, good one.

DMT

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

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

Lol, good one.

DMT

Don't remember saying the boots proved experienced, unless someone wants to look at the wear and tear, maybe then. But yes, the other stuff does. Having been in law enforcement and had to appear in court numerous times, I'm sure I do know a thing or two about proving training and experience.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:No no he's on your side of the debate!

You gotta admit, the GPS log was a bit over the top, like grade A sushi on a shiny treble hook.

DMT

I have always tried to keep good records of everything I do, wether it's climbing, or bomb call outs. I try to have as much data as possible in my files. More of an OCD thing, but in the event I need to prove something I can go about doing it. When someone says prove it, I can say well here you go!