The Chief wrote:What happens if one suddenly succumbs to an altitude physiological ailment (HAPE/HACE/AMS etc) that totally impairs their capability to immediately descend

Weren't you advocating that lacking the proper acclimation was the climber's fault not too long ago?

So what is the solution Bombchaser? I don't think we should flip out because the public has a reaction, who cares? A week later they forget. You think this guy should pay his costs, but to determine if he should or not you have to have regulations, to define the line, so you are for regulation even though you wish it wasn't necessary. I simply don't support it regardless, because the line between reckless and unfortunate can be too subjective.

mrchad9 wrote:

The Chief wrote:What happens if one suddenly succumbs to an altitude physiological ailment (HAPE/HACE/AMS etc) that totally impairs their capability to immediately descend

Weren't you advocating that lacking the proper acclimation was the climber's fault not too long ago?

Apparently you are not well versed on how HAPE/HACE/AMS CAN STILL totally incapacitate a thoroughly acclimated individual.

According to Dr. Houston in his book "Going Higher" (Chapt Six), 38-41% of all HAPE/HACE/AMS victims are well acclimated yet still succumb to them due to genetic physiological inadequacies that will not present themselves till the individual reaches a certain altitude.



Many Nations where a Mountain Rescue is necessary, the costs are passed onto the victim/s.

Thus, "Global Rescue Insurance".

Seemingly I am not as well versed... Point taken!

But to the addition, we don't have to do it one way just because other countries do, that isn't a solid justification.

No... we should do it to hold those that need to be, ACCOUNTABLE for their NEGLIGENT BEHAVIOR.

Just as they are in many Counties throughout the U.S. if one is found to be INTOXICATED and gets into a TA, hurts or kills others or themselves. They indeed are charged by many local Emergency Services for the Rescue/EMT Op Costs.

mrchad9 wrote:

The Chief wrote:What happens if one suddenly succumbs to an altitude physiological ailment (HAPE/HACE/AMS etc) that totally impairs their capability to immediately descend

Weren't you advocating that lacking the proper acclimation was the climber's fault not too long ago?

So what is the solution Bombchaser? I don't think we should flip out because the public has a reaction, who cares? A week later they forget. You think this guy should pay his costs, but to determine if he should or not you have to have regulations, to define the line, so you are for regulation even though you wish it wasn't necessary. I simply don't support it regardless, because the line between reckless and unfortunate can be too subjective.

For the most part they do forget. Clackamas County (Mount Hood) is trying to do somthing over the latest incidents. They are considering posting a law enforcement officer at Timberline Lodge to ensure people are doing the right thing and possibly to issue out beacons. I don't support this, but it may need to happen based on recent incidents.

I think in cases that are so gross negligent the person should be charged. The article said basically he had no reason to be on that mountain. No experience, and no gear at all. I would never have dreamed of climbing a major peak like that in the current conditions, without gaining some sort of experience and gear first. I take big risks myself, but the one difference is I always, always go prepared. I do not want to have to call SAR. Some people go up there knowing that someone will come and get them. If you climb a major cascade peak in tennis shoes, shorts, and a tee shirt, then you are basically saying you are relying on others to get you down if something should happen, or your going to call on your cell phone. Why not take some personal responsibility to have what is needed to help get yourself down if something happens? I passed a guy on a 12,000 peak who was heading up at 1:00pm with only a water bottle wearing shorts and tennis shoes, with thunderstorms building. Is this really smart? What if that storm had laid down several inches of snow? Obviously he didn't have a clue about anything. He must have thought he was at the gym working out.

As DMT said it is very diffult to reach a general consensus of who should pay and who shouldn't. It's basically impossible. Of course nobody should tell you what gear is required for a particular mountain or route.

In my opinion it is not the gear that is important but the trained and experienced person with the proper gear. A list of required items would just put many people in false security. I saw that too many times that people wear the most expensive and state-of-the art equipment and tools but had no idea of how to use them. An ice ace in untrained hands can be more dangerous than not carrying one in many instances.

Again, in my eyes it comes down to have appreciation and respect for the outdoors, knowing the risks, and preparing for it. That person will have the proper equipment with him (her) and does not need anybody to tell him (her) what he (she) should wear.

SoCalHiker wrote:As DMT said it is very diffult to reach a general consensus of who should pay and who shouldn't. It's basically impossible. Of course nobody should tell you what gear is required for a particular mountain or route.

In my opinion it is not the gear that is important but the trained and experienced person with the proper gear. A list of required items would just put many people in false security. I saw that too many times that people wear the most expensive and state-of-the art equipment and tools but had no idea of how to use them. An ice ace in untrained hands can be more dangerous than not carrying one in many instances.

Again, in my eyes it comes down to have appreciation and respect for the outdoors, knowing the risks, and preparing for it. That person will have the proper equipment with him (her) and does not need anybody to tell him (her) what he (she) should wear.

I agree the training is important. I see many people packing shiny new ice axes and have no clue what to do with it. I also see people who's frist ever attempt at a glissade is on the side of a big peak like Saint Hellens! Again, it comes down to doing the right thing so we don't need regulation. If everyone is questioning a persons actions, even people in the same field or sport, then something is likely not right with those actions.

SoCalHiker wrote:In my opinion it is not the gear that is important but the trained and experienced person with the proper gear. A list of required items would just put many people in false security. I saw that too many times that people wear the most expensive and state-of-the art equipment and tools but had no idea of how to use them. An ice ace in untrained hands can be more dangerous than not carrying one in many instances.

Agree with that as well. On the Teton Crest trip I keep using as an example, one passerby made the same comment, that she didn't see the point of carrying an ice ax because she didn't know how to use it, had never even seen one. Yet the route was perfectly safe for her using poles.

Bombchaser wrote:I think in cases that are so gross negligent the person should be charged.

I can agree that there are some situations where you could be negligent enough to where reckless endangerment criminal charges should be filed, if you directly endanger other climbers. Don't think this should rise to the level of applying to SAR, if it is that dangerous due to the conditions the SAR should be delayed, and certainly in this case the rescuers were not in any special danger. If this fellow had slid into and hurt someone else, he should be fined or jailed, but not billed for the chopper. If you are out there on your own, with no other climbers around, that couldn't be reckless endangerment to others even if he did it barefoot.

Dingus Milktoast wrote:But Shasta gets climbed in tennis shoes every year.
DMT

Not at this time of the year during an ABOVE AVG SNOW YEAR nor in a year when the snow melt has been long delayed as this one has.

Much of the Sierra as of today, above 10K, is still under a blanket of the past Winter's snow.

Again, COMMON SENSE.

mrchad9 wrote: If this fellow had slid into and hurt someone else, he should be fined or jailed, but not billed for the chopper. If you are out there on your own, with no other climbers around, that isn't reckless endangerment to others even if he did it barefoot.

He would be billed for the "chopper" and/or Ambulance if he was in a vehicle and found to be at negligent and at fault on I-15 in Shasta County heading home.

This argument is an old one -- the subject of at least one thread that I remember, maybe more.

When your exercise of freedom puts others at risk (SAR personnel, or other climbers who are duty-bound to come to your rescue), then you also take on the responsibility to not act like an idiot. You may be free to act as you please, but you should not be free from the consequences of your stupidity.

This guy in tennis shoes is a perfect example of the obvious end of the spectrum. He ends up taking a ride down an ice field because he is an idiot. As a result of his idiocy, he puts others at risk coming to his rescue (flying a chopper in mountainous terrain). What would you say if the chopper pilot died on the flight in? Gee, too bad for the pilot -- his family will have to do without him because Mr. Tennis Shoes decided it would be fun to tackle Shasta in his Wimbledon outfit. Mr. Tennis Shoes creates the risk, the pilot dies, and no repercussions? Hey, he was just out enjoying the freedom of the hills, and everyone believes in the freedom of the hills right?

As for financial responsibility, if you reach the conclusion that Mr. Tennis Shoes is responsible for the consequences of his stupidity, then why is he exempt for paying for his rescue? Because the pilot lived? That’s not logical.

Two reasons are usually floated against a “fault system”: (1) it will prevent people from calling for a rescue until it’s too late, and (2) there are gray areas where the government will substitute its judgment for the individual (a good example is the kid in NH who got a $25,000 bill for being “rescued” while he was walking under own power out of the White Mtns -- a bad call IMO). Valid points, but the flip side is that a “no-fault system” encourages guys like Mr. Tennis Shoes (“if I get in trouble, I’ll just hit the panic button and get my ass choppered out for free”). We all get to chip in for the cost.

On balance, I think the standard for financial responsibility needs to be higher that garden variety negligence because findings of negligence are often based on hindsight. A higher standard, such as gross negligence or recklessness, would strike a better balance between personal accountability and the need to be free of a governmental, after-the-fact analysis of every action we take.

In the case of Mr. Tennis Shoes, it’s an easy call. He’s a complete idiot, and should pay for his rescue.

kozman18 wrote:This argument is an old one -- the subject of at least one thread that I remember, maybe more.

When your exercise of freedom puts others at risk (SAR personnel, or other climbers who are duty-bound to come to your rescue), then you also take on the responsibility to not act like an idiot. You may be free to act as you please, but you should not be free from the consequences of your stupidity.

This guy in tennis shoes is a perfect example of the obvious end of the spectrum. He ends up taking a ride down an ice field because he is an idiot. As a result of his idiocy, he puts others at risk coming to his rescue (flying a chopper in mountainous terrain). What would you say if the chopper pilot died on the flight in? Gee, too bad for the pilot -- his family will have to do without him because Mr. Tennis Shoes decided it would be fun to tackle Shasta in his Wimbledon outfit. Mr. Tennis Shoes creates the risk, the pilot dies, and no repercussions? Hey, he was just out enjoying the freedom of the hills, and everyone believes in the freedom of the hills right?

As for financial responsibility, if you reach the conclusion that Mr. Tennis Shoes is responsible for the consequences of his stupidity, then why is he exempt for paying for his rescue? Because the pilot lived? That’s not logical.

Two reasons are usually floated against a “fault system”: (1) it will prevent people from calling for a rescue until it’s too late, and (2) there are gray areas where the government will substitute its judgment for the individual (a good example is the kid in NH who got a $25,000 bill for being “rescued” while he was walking under own power out of the White Mtns -- a bad call IMO). Valid points, but the flip side is that a “no-fault system” encourages guys like Mr. Tennis Shoes (“if I get in trouble, I’ll just hit the panic button and get my ass choppered out for free”). We all get to chip in for the cost.

On balance, I think the standard for financial responsibility needs to be higher that garden variety negligence because findings of negligence are often based on hindsight. A higher standard, such as gross negligence or recklessness, would strike a better balance between personal accountability and the need to be free of a governmental, after-the-fact analysis of every action we take.

In the case of Mr. Tennis Shoes, it’s an easy call. He’s a complete idiot, and should pay for his rescue.

Well put.....you are the type of attitude that should be on the mountain, not Mr. Tennis shoes.

The Chief wrote:

mrchad9 wrote: If this fellow had slid into and hurt someone else, he should be fined or jailed, but not billed for the chopper. If you are out there on your own, with no other climbers around, that isn't reckless endangerment to others even if he did it barefoot.

He would be billed for the "chopper" and/or Ambulance if he was in a vehicle and found to be at negligent and at fault on I-15 in Shasta County heading home.

I don't see how that applies... With the health care system in the US, if you are in a vehicle and NOT at fault and NOT negligent you still have to pay for the chopper and ambulance.

And I think you shouldn't have to.

kozman18 wrote:As a result of his idiocy, he puts others at risk coming to his rescue (flying a chopper in mountainous terrain). What would you say if the chopper pilot died on the flight in? Gee, too bad for the pilot

I would say the pilot should assess the situation and determine if it is safe to do the rescue, and if it is not he shouldn't have flown up there. Plenty of other ways to get someone down from Helen Lake, no one said a helicopter is the only way. It's the pilot's call to determine if the risk is worth it.