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!

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/