Rescue on Mount Shasta

by **The Chief** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:31 am

mrchad9 wrote:So WHO is the one determining if they were negligent? The sheriff? The DA? Who?

Whomever the authority is who does the ensuing investigation. In most cases, it is the lead agency responsible for the SAR Op.

In these Shasta cases, the local County Sheriff.

by **The Chief** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:52 am

Gary Schenk wrote:
mrchad9 wrote: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)

And we might not particularly like their decisions. They sure won't be looking at it from our viewpoint. Most will see no difference between a kid in tennis shoes and Alex Lowe.

The USFS has absolutely nothing to do with any ensuing incident investigations in the Shasta cases... nada.

Only the info i.e. posted warnings/recommendations etc. which the agency conducting the investigation requests from the USFS will have any bearing on their final decision.

Like I posted above, the agency which is in charge of the SAR Op oversees the entire incident investigation procedure.

Thus the two above posts are both moot points.

by **The Chief** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:28 am

ALL HELO RESOURCES ARE TAX FUNDED.

The ensuing recoupment of funds would be primarily for the SAR OP agency actually doing the SAR.

The Agency doing the transport can in fact go after the individuals for the cost of the ride if they are found negligent, regardless of the outcome.

by **mrchad9** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:45 am

Gary Schenk wrote:
The Chief wrote:ALL HELO RESOURCES ARE TAX FUNDED.

The ensuing recoupment of funds would be primarily for the SAR OP agency actually doing the SAR.

The Agency doing the transport can in fact go after the individuals for the cost of the ride if they are found negligent, regardless of the outcome.

I'm sure her husband would gladly pay the bill.

Given an alternative of having a rescue and not paying the bill, he might select the alternative.

by **The Chief** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 3:49 am

Gary Schenk wrote:
The Chief wrote:ALL HELO RESOURCES ARE TAX FUNDED.

The ensuing recoupment of funds would be primarily for the SAR OP agency actually doing the SAR.

The Agency doing the transport can in fact go after the individuals for the cost of the ride if they are found negligent, regardless of the outcome.

I'm sure her husband would gladly pay the bill.

Just like anyone else would have to do after any ambulance transport..right Gary.

Remember folks, the Helo in most SAR cases, is just the transport vehicle to the hospital or the awaiting ambulance.

by **Bombchaser** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 5:43 am

Bombchaser wrote:
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/

http://www.redding.com/news/2010/jun/23 ... 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. Sounds more like they were just too lazy too descend!!

by **kevin trieu** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:05 am

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?

by **The Chief** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 6:13 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?

These two women needed a helo to get them down the soft snow...

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?

Rescue on Mount Shasta

Who is online