Dingus Milktoast wrote:If you take risks you bear the responsibilities eh? So you agree ALL rescues should be billed, then?

DMT

No, I said something quite different. Read the post where I talk about responsbility for the rescue. A tougher question.

With respect to the responsibility for rescues, there are countervailing considerations: governmental hindsight analsyis, and the chilling effect that might cause people not to call for help. So I think that a mere negligence standard doesn't work. As I said, I think a higher standard (recklessness/gross negligence) is a better balance.

John Duffield wrote:Brings me in mind of a family trip where we stopped by the Devils Tower in Wyoming. Seems the old guys would climb it with nothing resembling modern gear. Even put a ladder up part of it and threw parties on the top. So what was with those old guys? Didn't get bent out of shape with a little danger? A few deaths?

That was then, they used the top/best gear which was available at the time and now is now when the top/best gear is available today.

Dingus, you are trolling dude.

Again:

It's not the tennis shoes. It's the moron that is wearing the tennis shoes (with no axe/crampons which were the prescribed eq to be carried and used for the current conditions at the Summit Permit Station and were readily available to rent right down the street) on a 20-30 deg snow/ice slope that has ZERO experience on this type environment and then slips and slides for 400 feet where he and his other inexperienced friends IMMEDIATELY call 911 on their cell phones requesting a RESCUE.

Now, if you can't fathom that concept of irresponsible choice making to head out and up into an environment when one has absolutely no experience in and is totally ill prepared when in fact the equipment and training that is readily available prior to heading up, than many you Dingus should get a hold of this group and go tie into a rope with them and get on Jolly Roger with em.

Bottom line,

DON'T GO LOLLI GAGGING INTO A MODERN DAY TANK/GROUND WAR BATTLE WITH A 2" POCKET KNIFE EXPECTING TO WALK AWAY UNSCATHED OR EVEN ALIVE WITH THE EXPECTATIONS THAT WHEN YOU DO GET YOUR ASS KICKED, ALL YOU HAVE TO DO IS CALL 911 AND ASK TO GET YOUR ASS RESCUED. (That one is for you Gary which I know you will have a difficult time understanding as you have a difficult time acquiring the current maps for areas in which you are climbing in.)

All rescues should be evaluated as they are today by the ensuing investigation to determine whether or not the party was in fact negligent in their choice and actions which caused them to get into the situ which resulted in the ultimate rescue.

Gary Schenk wrote:Someone who decides he's going to climb a 3000' vertical to overhanging sheer cliff face, is he being reckless? Reckless enough to have to pay for any rescue?

That's your generalization, not mine.

Whether someone is being reckless depends on a lot of factors -- experiences, skill, equipment, etc. There are situations where climbing up a 3000 foot cliff would not be considered reckless, and there are situtations where it would.

kozman18 wrote:

Gary Schenk wrote:Someone who decides he's going to climb a 3000' vertical to overhanging sheer cliff face, is he being reckless? Reckless enough to have to pay for any rescue?

That's your generalization, not mine.

Whether someone is being reckless depends on a lot of factors -- experiences, skill, equipment, etc. There are situations where climbing up a 3000 foot cliff would not be considered reckless, and there are situtations where it would.

In Gary's Case, it would.

Hey Dingus,

I seem to remember that you were siding with the young chaps family that attempted to sue the NPS a couple of years back for not putting up warning signs below Glacier Point after he got nailed and killed by falling rocks.

kozman18 wrote:

MikeTX wrote:i recall being taught that it was my responsibility to not climb directly below another climber above me. if i'm climbing directly below someone and they take a slide and hit me, i'm pretty sure that i'm mostly responsible for getting hit.

Good point, if you see a climber above you and chose to climb below, then you too are taking a risk.

Since it's my hypothetical, I'll change the facts to make my point. Mr. Tennis Shoes was above a ridge, unseen from below when he falls and kills your spouse. There was no way to know he was there.

What if Mr. Tennis shoes was in fact, on the same ridge above your wife, was in fact wearing crampons, but, slipped, as he was a newbie, wasn't quite profiicent yet, and made a mistake, slipping and falling into your wife. Still negligent?

Dingus Milktoast wrote:

kozman18 wrote:

Dingus Milktoast wrote:If you take risks you bear the responsibilities eh? So you agree ALL rescues should be billed, then?

DMT

No, I said something quite different. Read the post where I talk about responsbility for the rescue. A tougher question.

With respect to the responsibility for rescues, there are countervailing considerations: governmental hindsight analsyis, and the chilling effect that might cause people not to call for help. So I think that a mere negligence standard doesn't work. As I said, I think a higher standard (recklessness/gross negligence) is a better balance.

Partner Liability Release forms cannot be far off in this brave new world, where only some climbers are entitled to a free taxpayer rescue, while others are expected to foot the bill, if their shoes are not up to snuff.

I read your posts. You say the other guy should be held responsible for his actions.

Mountaineer's Liability Insurance and Rescue Insurance all rolled into one convenient monthly payment. Hmmm, I wonder if I can negotiate a co-pay out of my employer???

DMT

I don't understand your point. I am not advocating what you say.

I take responsibility for what I do. I don't expect anyone else to pay for my fuck ups, or put themselves in harm's way when I do something stupid. If someone came to rescue me from my stupidity, I would feel 100% responsible if anything happened to them. That's as clear as I can make it -- if you want to turn that into something else, that's your choice.

dskoon wrote:

kozman18 wrote:

MikeTX wrote:i recall being taught that it was my responsibility to not climb directly below another climber above me. if i'm climbing directly below someone and they take a slide and hit me, i'm pretty sure that i'm mostly responsible for getting hit.

Good point, if you see a climber above you and chose to climb below, then you too are taking a risk.

Since it's my hypothetical, I'll change the facts to make my point. Mr. Tennis Shoes was above a ridge, unseen from below when he falls and kills your spouse. There was no way to know he was there.

What if Mr. Tennis shoes was in fact, on the same ridge above your wife, was in fact wearing crampons, but, slipped, as he was a newbie, wasn't quite profiicent yet, and made a mistake, slipping and falling into your wife. Still negligent?

I don't know the answer -- negligence is a much grayer standard. Negligence is always a question of fact, whether it's an auto accident, medical procedure, etc.

Conceptually, I don't see why a different standard should apply in the mountains. Maybe those of us who climb do not want to be judged by those that don't. I think a non-climber would have a hard time judging what is acceptable in a climbing situation, and so the application of a negligence standard becomes very difficult due to lack of perspective.

A lot of people who don't climb think I am reckless, per se -- I have been pre-judged, even though I consider myself pretty conservative when it comes to risk.

How's that for dodging your question?

Gary Schenk wrote:

kozman18 wrote:Whether someone is being reckless depends on a lot of factors -- experiences, skill, equipment, etc. There are situations where climbing up a 3000 foot cliff would not be considered reckless, and there are situations where it would.

You and I might not consider it reckless in certain situations, but I'll bet you dollars to navy beans the great majority of the general taxpaying rescue bill footing public thinks it is sheer insanity under any circumstances.

Yeah, that's the problem -- read my post above.

Dingus:

There is an obvious difference between a PREVAILING CHOICE (Having total Control over and then attempting an action when one is not prepared to do, physically, mentally and materially) and a NON-PREVAILING CHOICE incident (Natural event in which an individual had absolutely no control over the ensuing event yet was totally within standards as far as experience, eq availability and tech know how) which is the criteria that the normal investigating board utilize in these matters.

I believe that this criteria is valid and very fitting.

Once again, COMMON SENSE must prevail.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:Pay one, pay ALL.

DMT

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

Got it.

kozman18 wrote:

dskoon wrote:

kozman18 wrote:

MikeTX wrote:i recall being taught that it was my responsibility to not climb directly below another climber above me. if i'm climbing directly below someone and they take a slide and hit me, i'm pretty sure that i'm mostly responsible for getting hit.

Good point, if you see a climber above you and chose to climb below, then you too are taking a risk.

Since it's my hypothetical, I'll change the facts to make my point. Mr. Tennis Shoes was above a ridge, unseen from below when he falls and kills your spouse. There was no way to know he was there.

What if Mr. Tennis shoes was in fact, on the same ridge above your wife, was in fact wearing crampons, but, slipped, as he was a newbie, wasn't quite profiicent yet, and made a mistake, slipping and falling into your wife. Still negligent?

I don't know the answer -- negligence is a much grayer standard. Negligence is always a question of fact, whether it's an auto accident, medical procedure, etc.

Conceptually, I don't see why a different standard should apply in the mountains. Maybe those of us who climb do not want to be judged by those that don't. I think a non-climber would have a hard time judging what is acceptable in a climbing situation, and so the application of a negligence standard becomes very difficult due to lack of perspective.

A lot of people who don't climb think I am reckless, per se -- I have been pre-judged, even though I consider myself pretty conservative when it comes to risk.

How's that for dodging your question?

I think your non-answer answers it. . .

The problem is that more and more people go in the mountains without any knowledge and respect for nature. It seems to be trendy to go hiking or climbing. I've seen so many times people on and off trails who have absolutely no business there. Some are within groups where the leader seems to be the only one knowing where to go. If something happens to the leader they would all run around like chicken in the farm not knowing where is left or right.

More and more people I encountered here in the local SoCal mountains are shirtless (!), carry no water, have no "trail etiquette", are loud, and so on. I got so sick of seeing them on the trail that I now pick more remote and other mountain ranges where I definitely will not see them. People need to get educated about the moutains. I am advocating a particular system of how to do it, because I don't know of any.

But as long as people think they can do anything anytime without any consideration about risks and consequences, there will be accidents like that on Shasta. It's just lucky this time that nothing more serious happened. These are mountains with inherent risks for you and others, You have to be aware and knowledgeable about them. It's not a neighborhood playground.

Each incident needs to be evaluated in a case by case basis as has been done here in the State of CA by the local authorities for the past 20 or so years, in order to determine the validity of the Rescue.

The current process which is in place seems to be working just fine.

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.