Why didn't they? Totally asinine. Why wouldn't they be required to have them? I'm not a climber, but don't you have you have a permit to climb the mountain? If so, require them at at stage. Sad, sad, sad................
I feel bad, because I have a friend whose husband died some years back, but... if you go mountain climbing I think you should be kind of on your own. Or you should buy climbing insurance. It's a dangerous fucking activity and society has enough people who have serious problems (feeding their kids, paying their electric bill) for us to be flying helicopters up and down the mountain, looking for people who chose to partake in such an endeavor. Ed O.
Maybe they didn't know about them? I don't know. Pretty stupid though. There was someone who called The Game saying he was an expert Mtn climber and that no real climber would take one because it shows they don't know what they are doing. I doubt that is why they didn't have one... but that opinion is out there.
Apparently the mtn rescue people are AGAINST people carrying them...weird. I only heard a little of the discussion, but they said it would encourage people to take more risks and result in even more deaths/injuries. I understand what they're saying but respectfully disagree.
....uh huh, and like a radio caller sarcastically rhetorted................."So, then, it's a bad idea for people to wear motorcycle helmets because they'd be tempted to ride more dangerously?"
That's like not having people wear seat belts, right? Because you drive more carefully without one on? Ed O.
If you ever read Ed Viesturs' or Jon Krakauer's account of the Everest disaster of 1996, they both go into great detail of the "code of the climber" and it really is focused on self-preservation. You know the risks and you take your chances. If you get yourself into trouble you can't get yourself out of, you're on your own.
I read Krakauer's book a while ago... That may fly in totally inaccessible locations like Mt Everest, but on MT. Hood it's not in our ethical make-up to let people die without spending some reasonable effort to save them.
Don't mistake my post about the climbing code to mean we shouldn't try to find them. I was talking about the code within the climbing community.
LOL, I kind of thought it was a reach...haha...me confused! I lived in the mountains in Colorado for a long time. It was pretty normal for people to carry shovels and avalanche beacons when going into the back country...seems like it would be really easy to make a very small/light weight transmitter that would help in these situations...I'd be willing to bet they're available already. As close as Mt Hood is to Portland, seems like a good idea to mandate them...
I engaged in high level mountaineering for about 12 years and I never once took a beacon like the ones they want you to use on Hood, but that's because the places I tended to go, a transponder (other than a local, short range avalanche beacon) was essentially worthless and was nothing but 15 pounds of dead-weight (too remote). I've always felt that people should be fully aware of the risks and be prepared to self-rescue or face the consequences without expecting external help. The trouble with Mt. Hood is that it masquerades as an approachable "easy" mountain and lures a lot of people to it which necessitates the need for search and rescue services, mostly because incidents always get so much pub. It's weird, whenever I hear about people dying on a mountain I barely react, part of that might be because I worked for a little while doing S&R in the Rockies on a reach and treat team as an EMT. Because most of the people that do this kind of work are avid climbers themselves it's rare to hear searchers bitch about having to rescue climbers, unless they were green or violated the "rules" which has less to do with putting themselves in danger, but more to do with failure to read terrain, or failure to be technically proficient.
As a former S&R guy it makes a lot of sense. Anytime people are encouraged to lower their guard in the mountains because of a false sense of security (and I think transponders do that to a degree) it means more frequent rescues, because more people will be encouraged to push limits thinking that if things get too dicey they'll just "pull the chute" and somebody will be by to pick them up. From personal experience I can tell you that I'd much rather rescue a competent self-sufficient mountaineer (because they are usually better at helping me help them), than some of the jack-asses I've seen relying too much on gadgets and electronics who usually have no business being on a mountain.
I can see both sides. But there are several elements involved. I think that most really experienced climbers would be able to analyze risk and not think to themselves "Ohh what the hell I have a transponder on let's go for it". And people who aren't at a real high level of skill should wear them. Then again accidents do happen even with experienced climbers. Maybe people should get licensed at a certain skill level in order to not have to wear them. I think one thing is to provide a fairly detailed route plan to someone as a prerequisite.
Let's run the breakeven analysis. Total cost of all searches (for a period like a year) = hours spent in all searches X cost per hour Hours spent in all searches = average hours per search X number of searches If beacons are required, average hours per search decreases and number of searches increases (due to false confidence) Plug sample numbers into the variables. Before = without beacons. After = with beacons. Assume hours per search after = 1/3 of hours before Assume number of searches after = 2 X as many as before Assume cost per search after = 1/5 as much as before (no search really, they know where to go) Using formulae above, Hours spent in all searches = average hours per search X number of searches Hours spent in all searches after = 1/3 X 2 = 2/3 as many hours as before Total cost of all searches (for a period like a year) = hours spent in all searches X cost per hour Total cost of all searches (for a period like a year) = 2/3 X 1/5 = 2/15 the cost before
I agree to an extent. I've been around S&R as well just by virtue of living in a relatively remote area of Colorado. I didn't do serious mountaineering, but I did hike 14'ers and had to make difficult decisions about turning around when the weather looked to be going bad. The fact is, though, that Mt Hood already attracts a fair number of people that are only marginally qualified (no idea in the current case) and there are light weight devices that could help in searches like this. You're right, there would probably be an increase in number of people trying to "pull the chute", but my guess is fewer people would end up dying...that's the crux I guess...some people believe it would lead to more people dying...I disagree.
I see an error in my reasoning. Can you see it? The conclusion comes out the same, though. Transponders still greatly decrease the total cost of the searches per year.
jlprk - Feel free to ignore this. It is really a stupid personal mental exercise as much as anything... The math nerd in me objects a little... You are taking a cost savings based on 1/3 of the hours as well as 1/5 the cost ...that implies that the cost per hour is 1/5 of current. That could be the case if you think rescues will take 1/3 of the time and only 1/5 of the search cost per hour. But, I think the primary cost per hour of searches is helicopter and I think they only have 1, so I don't think cost per man*hour would be nearly so reduced. They'd see some very minimal labor savings, but I don't think it would be much...so I'd suggest ignoring that piece for simplicity... My more conservative calc would be: So instead of 2/15 the cost, I'm seeing it would be 2/3 the cost...totally dependent on the variable amounts you choose to use...
