Rescue on Mount Shasta

by **The Chief** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:46 am

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.

by **Bombchaser** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 1:51 am

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/

by **mrchad9** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:07 am

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.

by **Bombchaser** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:12 am

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.

by **mrchad9** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:14 am

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

by **The Chief** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:16 am

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!

by **mrchad9** » Thu Jun 24, 2010 2:20 am

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

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...

Rescue on Mount Shasta

Who is online