Bombchaser wrote:certs for training...letters of attendance...carried a GPS on nearly every peak...track records...whitnesses...dated photos...a climbing log of all climbs even small hiked summits.

My god!!! You are talking about a TON of hassle and bureaucracy to do something that takes none currently! WAY over the top in my book. No one should have to get a cert for climbing, a letter, prove what they've done, drag a GPS around. You really want someone on patrol at the Mount Shasta trailhead asking for all that stuff so you can climb without fear of being left for dead if you twist your ankle?

Bombchaser wrote:When I go up on a big mountain with possible exposures I wear my $1000 mountaineering boots with crampons.

Well, that explains your side of the arguement. Sorry, I don't have the money for a $1000 pair of boots with crampons. You have the money to pay for your own helicopter rides, many of the rest of us don't.

The Chief wrote: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.

That's fine, I'm just saying if they make the wrong decision, and overdo it, that isn't the fault of the victim and the victim doesn't need to be the one that pays for it.

mrchad9 wrote:

Bombchaser wrote:certs for training...letters of attendance...carried a GPS on nearly every peak...track records...whitnesses...dated photos...a climbing log of all climbs even small hiked summits.

My god!!! You are talking about a TON of hassle and bureaucracy to do something that takes none currently! WAY over the top in my book. No one should have to get a cert for climbing, a letter, prove what they've done, drag a GPS around. You really want someone on patrol at the Mount Shasta trailhead asking for all that stuff so you can climb without fear of being left for dead if you twist your ankle?

Bombchaser wrote:When I go up on a big mountain with possible exposures I wear my $1000 mountaineering boots with crampons.

Well, that explains your side of the arguement. Sorry, I don't have the money for a $1000 pair of boots with crampons. You have the money to pay for your own helicopter rides, many of the rest of us don't.

The Chief wrote: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.

That's fine, I'm just saying if they make the wrong decision, and overdo it, that isn't the fault of the victim and the victim doesn't need to be the one that pays for it.

When I first started out in climbing my gear was very cheap. I have only recently (past three years) obtained the more expensive gear. Mostly due to the fact my climbing gets stepped up each year in difficulty due to obtaining more experience and training. Believe me, I don't have the money for a helicopter ride. But it's like any sport or hobby, you don't do it if you can't pay for it. If the only thing you can afford is tennis shoes, then you don't climb to the top of a mountain that is 14,000 feet covered in ice. When I had cheap gear I wasn't going to the top of these big cascade volcanoes. I did go up Mount Whitney with cheap gear, and too much gear when I was starting out, but it is not at the same level as Shasta. You don't go up a big mountain with absolutely no knowledge of weather and how to climb. I'm not on here saying a person needs to bring expensive ropes and all sorts of bells and whistles. A person just needs to bring what they need for what they are doing. Climbing an ice covered peak, in running clothes, and no gear for survival in early June, is just not smart. I'm not saying that all hazards with climbing can be taken out. I put myself in dangerous positions a lot. However, I'm not going beyond my current level of experience, which has been gained gradually, and I bring basic stuff to ensure I can survive should something occur.

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?

Going out on ones first venture up a big hill like Shasta (The OP) in Winter like conditions when the local authority has posted strict recommendations based on the conditions and then making the choice to go out in shorts, t-shirt and t-shoes, meets that criteria?

Why do you insist on complicating this point?????

mrchad9 wrote:

The Chief wrote: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.

That's fine, I'm just saying if they make the wrong decision, and overdo it, that isn't the fault of the victim and the victim doesn't need to be the one that pays for it.

Each SAR Units response protocol is different. As a retired SAR Operator, I can tell ya that it's far better to have more on hand than less.

The Safety of the victim and team mbrs is paramount.

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?

Going out on ones first venture up a big hill like Shasta (The OP) in Winter like conditions in shorts, t-shirt and t-shoes meets that criteria?

Why do you insist on complicating this point?????

mrchad9 wrote:

The Chief wrote: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.

That's fine, I'm just saying if they make the wrong decision, and overdo it, that isn't the fault of the victim and the victim doesn't need to be the one that pays for it.

Each SAR Unit response protocol is different. As retired SAR TECH, I can tell ya that it's far better to have more than less.

The Safety of the victim and team mbrs is paramount.

A good example: 911 gets a call of fire alarm at a school. They role out with five fire trucks. When they arrive, they find it's only a false alarm. Two weeks later the fire department gets another school alarm call. This time they choose to role with only one fire truck. When they arrive they find a fully involved structure fire. Now they have to wait for more assets to arrive. Same thing likely happens on a SAR incident. The call comes in of a climber who has fallen an unknown distance. Emergency command, or the local incident commander will dispatch many assets not knowing how badly the person is injured or what it will take to remove the person. This guy on Shasta obviously was showing symptoms of possible injury. So based on the info obtained it was decided a helicopter was needed. I would hate to be involved in a car wreck and only have only a police officer show up. I would rather have all assets needed for a car wreck sent immediately. I guess if a person has never worked in an emergency service then they wouldn't understand how things really work. I'm really not sure why SAR is getting all of the negative talk on this post and not the people who are being ignorant. Seems like the people who are being ignorant want to somehow justify their ignorance.

Bombchaser wrote:

The Chief wrote:

mrchad9 wrote:

The Chief wrote: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.

That's fine, I'm just saying if they make the wrong decision, and overdo it, that isn't the fault of the victim and the victim doesn't need to be the one that pays for it.

Each SAR Unit response protocol is different. As retired SAR TECH, I can tell ya that it's far better to have more than less.

The Safety of the victim and team mbrs is paramount.

A good example: 911 gets a call of fire alarm at a school. They role out with five fire trucks. When they arrive, they find it's only a false alarm. Two weeks later the fire department gets another school alarm call. This time they choose to role with only one fire truck. When they arrive they find a fully involved structure fire. Now they have to wait for more assets to arrive. Same thing likely happens on a SAR incident. The call comes in of a climber who has fallen an unknown distance. Emergency command, or the local incident commander will dispatch many assets not knowing how badly the person is injured or what it will take to remove the person. This guy on Shasta obviously was showing symptoms of possible injury. So based on the info obtained it was decided a helicopter was needed. I would hate to be involved in a car wreck and only have only a police officer show up. I would rather have all assets needed for a car wreck sent immediately. I guess if a person has never worked in an emergency service then they wouldn't understand how things really work. I'm really not sure why SAR is getting all of the negative talk on this post and not the people who are being ignorant. Seems like the people who are being ignorant want to somehow justify their ignorance.

That is a good example, a great one, and goes to our point. We are not criticizing the SAR folks, we are talking about who is responsible for covering the cost.

In your example, both the false alarm and the full structure fire, who pays the salary of the firefighters, the fuel for the trucks, wear on the equipment? When they overdid it on the first call... who paid for the cost?

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?

Going out on ones first venture up a big hill like Shasta (The OP) in Winter like conditions when the local authority has posted strict recommendations based on the conditions and then making the choice to go out in shorts, t-shirt and t-shoes, meets that criteria?

Why do you insist on complicating this point?????

I don't think Gary is complicating the point. He's pointing out that the line on who pays and who doesn't pay will have to be well-defined, and will ultimately be decided by someone other than us. The rangers on Shasta have posted recommendations, true. In my experience they are some of the best rangers I have run across, but they are more the exception than the rule. Most are needlessly conesrvative, to the point that some are even dangerously unreliable. Even if you assume the local authority is of the same quality we have on Shasta, do you think they are the ones who will be defining what is acceptable for the current decisions to avoid paying SAR costs? Or will it be someone with far less knowledge and possible other budget or interests in mind? a judge? a legislator? the district attorney? the Under Secretary for Natural Resources and the Environment (head of the NFS)? the county board of supervisors? (that would be unfortunate)

mrchad9 wrote:In your example, both the false alarm and the full structure fire, who pays the salary of the firefighters, the fuel for the trucks, wear on the equipment? When they overdid it on the first call... who paid for the cost?

Whole different enchilada.

Most SAR Units are manned on a volunteer basis with only a skeleton Full-Time crew to oversee the CINC aspect. Most if not ALL of the equipment is paid for by private entities and donations, not taxes. Recouping the funds for the use and time covers the SAR UNITS resources.

All HELO resources are based on local, State or Fed taxpayers funds.

That doesn't exclude the individuals from not being responsible for their negligent choices and actions.

This should really get this debate going again:

http://www.redding.com/news/2010/jun/23 ... mt-shasta/

BULLSHIT!

"She reported the snow is slushy and they keep breaking through,' said Susan Gravenkamp, a spokeswoman with the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Office.

Denney told dispatchers she was concerned her friend might develop hypothermia if they are unable to get off the mountain since Seale has circulation problems, Gravenkamp said.

The pair had food, water, climbing gear and emergency blankets with them, Gravenkamp said."

Should have never gone up in the first place. Had plenty of resources to make it through the night and get up early when the conditions would have made the descent stable and safer...etc etc etc.

Now they need to pay.

The Chief wrote:BULLSHIT!

"She reported the snow is slushy and they keep breaking through,' said Susan Gravenkamp, a spokeswoman with the Siskiyou County Sheriff's Office.

Denney told dispatchers she was concerned her friend might develop hypothermia if they are unable to get off the mountain since Seale has circulation problems, Gravenkamp said.

The pair had food, water, climbing gear and emergency blankets with them, Gravenkamp said."

Now they need to pay.

This looks like an example of having the gear but not the experience maybe? This makes something like 12 rescues in the past couple weeks that I know of just on this peak. If this continues, somebody is going to get pissed and something will be imposed on that mountain. This is exactly what ignorance and stupidity is doing. More and more stupid idiots going up. It's like lemmings following each other now. Do not be surprised if this forum ends up in the media again.

Here is a news article from Shasta from the previous incidents that occured a on June 15th. This is a good read, and points out why people got hurt:

http://www.redding.com/news/2010/jun/15 ... s-rescued/

But you two are the ones advocating some regulations be imposed on the mountain... not others!

That was a good post on the link though.

At this point I'm pretty stunned at the obvious frivolous use of helicopters on Mount Shasta. Stunned. Sounds to me like the only regulation they need is to make the pilots a bit more inaccessible so it takes a bit more serious of a situation to do this type of operation. They are going up all willy nilly just because someone broke a fingernail and asked for a ride down. No rule that they have to send someone up just because they get a phone call.

mrchad9 wrote:But you two are the ones advocating some regulations be imposed on the mountain... not others!

That was a good post on the link though.

At this point I'm pretty stunned at the obvious frivolous use of helicopters on Mount Shasta. Stunned. Sounds to me like the only regulation they need is to make the pilots a bit more inaccessible so it takes a bit more serious of a situation to do this type of operation. They are going up all willy nilly just because someone broke a fingernail and asked for a ride down. No rule that they have to send someone up just because they get a phone call.

I don't remember advocating regulation, just something to stop this stupidity. Is it really safer to try and extract someone via a ground rescue on a snow covered mountain if a person is having difficulty walking? Seems this could put more people at risk of falling. Again the helicopter use debate has been beat into the bush, not sure how this can be explained any differently. Something is obviously not right when there has been thi smany people in need of rescue in the past weeks. This mountain is not alone in this, has been happening up and down the cascades.

Then what are you advocating to stop the stupidity? If not regulation?

mrchad9 wrote:But you two are the ones advocating some regulations be imposed on the mountain... not others!

The only thing I am advocating is that if found to be negligent in any shape or form in the ensuing investigation, the victims need to be held accountable for the services rendered in order to get their dumb and/or inexperienced asses off the hill.

In the latest case, it is obvious that the lady with the established circulation problem had absolutely no business even attempting the hill....none!

So WHO is the one determining if they were negligent? The sheriff? The DA? Who?