I think there shouldn't be a ban on firearms anywhere in the forest and mountains. And I think that every equipped climber should carry a firearm. That way when an ill-prepared climber passes you (and they will because they are carrying less stuff) you can shoot them in the head. That way, they are taken care of. They don't need rescuing, and they sure won't be climbing unprepared again.

Problem solved!

Sunny Buns wrote:He paid for his own rescue. Every climber who bought a permit also helped pay by buying a government mandated climbing permit.

YUP, he may have been stupid and negligent, but he had paid in advance for the cost of any rescue.

Son, here's your bill for the rescue:

Chopper and Rescuers: $5,000
Forest Service Dispatch: $1,000
Subtotal: $6,000
Minus Rescue Fund Money: $6,000
Total: $0

So based on your figures, which may or may not be accurate:

10,000 people per year climb Shasta on average
I believe the fee is $20 per climber
10,000 x $20 = $200,000 in a fund (if this all goes toward rescues, I would think only a portion does)

$6000 per rescue average cost (this would be low end I would say)
10 rescues in past two weeks
10 x $6000 = $60,000 used up just the past two weeks

So to say the idiots have already paid for their rescues before climbing is not accurate. At this rate they will far exceed any money put aside for rescues the way I see it.

If someone else has a more accurate breakdown, then by all means post it.

tkoooooooooo wrote:I think there shouldn't be a ban on firearms anywhere in the forest and mountains. And I think that every equipped climber should carry a firearm. That way when an ill-prepared climber passes you (and they will because they are carrying less stuff) you can shoot them in the head. That way, they are taken care of. They don't need rescuing, and they sure won't be climbing unprepared again.

Problem solved!

That is funny....sick...but still funny.

Just got off the phone with the Mount Shasta Ranger Station.

THAT IS A BIG FLATASS NO!

The $15.00 USFS MT. SHASTA SUMMIT PASS DOES NOT COVER ANY COST OF ANY RESCUE nor does it state that anywhere on the Pass.

The local USFS has absolutely nothing to do with any TECHNICAL RESCUE OPS on Shasta.

The Local Siskiyou County Sheriff SAR and CHP B-19 and/or CANG HH-60 are tasked with all TECHNICAL SAR OPS and they can seek restitution for their incurred SAR OP costs if the ensuing investigation deems it necessary and valid to do so.

Bombchaser wrote:

Sunny Buns wrote:He paid for his own rescue. Every climber who bought a permit also helped pay by buying a government mandated climbing permit.

YUP, he may have been stupid and negligent, but he had paid in advance for the cost of any rescue.

Son, here's your bill for the rescue:

Chopper and Rescuers: $5,000
Forest Service Dispatch: $1,000
Subtotal: $6,000
Minus Rescue Fund Money: $6,000
Total: $0

So based on your figures, which may or may not be accurate:

10,000 people per year climb Shasta on average
I believe the fee is $20 per climber
10,000 x $20 = $200,000 in a fund (if this all goes toward rescues, I would think only a portion does)

$6000 per rescue average cost (this would be low end I would say)
10 rescues in past two weeks
10 x $6000 = $60,000 used up just the past two weeks

So to say the idiots have already paid for their rescues before climbing is not accurate. At this rate they will far exceed any money put aside for rescues the way I see it.

If someone else has a more accurate breakdown, then by all means post it.

You forgot one of their other sources of revenues. Not just permit fees. Taxes.

I see Chief's post above too... He's correct there of course... I never thought the permit fee was something to cover rescues, that would've made this discussion fairly pointless. And I've never seen anywhere where it claims that rescue is/isn't covered.

The USFS Ranger on the phone also looked right at the so called sign outside his window and told me that no where on the sign does it state that either.

Sunny Buns wrote:It may not say rescue is covered on the permit, but it does say it on the sign. I think I have a photo of it. If I knew how to paste it here, I'd try to find the photo.

email it to me. same user ID @yahoo.com
I'll post it if you cannot figure it out. Agreeing with the others- it doesn't say that.

Sunny Buns wrote:It may not say rescue is covered on the permit, but it does say it on the sign. I think I have a photo of it. If I knew how to paste it here, I'd try to find the photo.

I was up there a few years ago on a climb and I do not remember anywhere it saying that fees covered rescues. Please post pic if you have it. I would love to see that.

mrchad9 wrote: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.

I don't see how a risk that is created by Mr. Tennis Shoes can be transferred to the SAR personnel. He chose to climb in sneakers and slipped as a result. The direct consequence is a chopper rescue. The consequences of this decision fall upon him, not the pilot. The only way to break the chain of responsiblity is for the pilot to do something unreasonable under the circumstances -- but the measure of what is reasonable is different (much higher IMO) for the pilot because he is responding to the situation created by Mr. Tennis Shoes, he is not creating the risk in the first place. The pilot is expected/forced to respond to the call -- Mr. Tennis Shoes could have rented some crampons and an ice ax.

Here is the current Sign (scroll down to the Fourth pic) and the Self Service Permit Station (First Pic) next to the Ranger Station which the Ranger on the phone was speaking of and actually referred me to...

http://www.timberlinetrails.net/ShastaG ... arted.html

kozman18 wrote:The pilot is expected/forced to respond to the call

I guess we just disagree on that point. The pilot took the job of his own free will, the pilot is paid, the pilot can quit, the pilot can say it isn't safe conditions and refuse to go.

Damn right he's expected to (if the situation warrants, not for scrapes and bruises), as a result of his pay, but forced, no. And if he's a volunteer, then he's not expected to either.

kozman18 wrote:

mrchad9 wrote: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.

I don't see how a risk that is created by Mr. Tennis Shoes can be transferred to the SAR personnel.

They decide whether to use the chopper or some other, slower, less blingy, but safer means of non-urgent evacuation.

In SoCal we have seen air evacuations on summer days from the Santa Monica Mountains (max elevation less than 4,000 feet) for sprained ankles. Entirely at the discretion of the SAR guys.

They can certainly be a bit too gun-ho!

redneck wrote:In SoCal we have seen air evacuations on summer days from the Santa Monica Mountains (max elevation less than 4,000 feet) for sprained ankles. Entirely at the discretion of the SAR guys.

They can certainly be a bit too gun-ho![/color]

+1 and seems to be the case here. If these SAR guys are too blingy and gun-ho, they certainly have no right or business passing those costs on to others.

mrchad9 wrote:

kozman18 wrote:The pilot is expected/forced to respond to the call

I guess we just disagree on that point. The pilot took the job of his own free will, the pilot is paid, the pilot can quit, the pilot can say it isn't safe conditions and refuse to go.

Damn right he's expected to (if the situation warrants, not for scrapes and bruises), as a result of his pay, but forced, no. And if he's a volunteer, then he's not expected to either.

That leads to the illogical conclusion that no matter how stupid a person behaves on a mountain, there is no responsibility for his stupidity because the rescuer could choose not to mount a rescue (or use a different form of rescue). Whatever the rescuer does, it's his own choice and he assumes the risk. If he gets injured or killed, too bad for him. Free ride for the idiot.

I disagree with any system of responsibility, moral or financial, that reaches that result.