I mean, as much as can be regulated/enforced? I'm watching a PBS program on Mt. Hood. They had a small piece on the Oregon Episcopal School tragedy. That could have been prevented if they had been using transmitting devices. just saying
no, just as long as they accept not spending money to go look for them when they get stuck up there. Or foot the bill if they need to be rescued.
It would be more effective to require that they had a combination of education, experience and common sense. But to require that a citizen who climbs mountains report his exact location to the government while not requiring it of bicyclists, shoppers, joggers, old people, rafters, hikers, churchgoers and paperboys seems unbalanced and unfair. While great for headlines, not very many people actually die mountain climbing, and less still because they were lost.
No, but they should at least carry current topographic maps. Its amazing how the GPS is still not perfected or updated with the latest changes in roads, topography, etc. We always hear stories on the news that climbers, hikers rely more on electronics than the basic maps that the USGS uses.
Should it be illegal to smoke? I mean we know smoking is related to lung cancer. That costs thousands in treatment.
PS was this the piece about the history of summiting mt Hood? With footage of the original Mazamas? And the people that rode a bike down Hood?
Why has it just become accepted that the public will foot the bill to go save these people? Maybe instead of requiring locating devices, they should be required to buy insurance.
And the Fire stations should require insurance, along with the police require safety insurance! Addressing your snark, business suggested Americans should be mandated health insurance, and businesses benefit the most from it.
Fire stations and police do require insurance... it's called taxes. Additionally, home owners are required by their loans to hold fire insurance. Additionally, police exist to protect peoples' basic rights. Searching for somebody who chose to mountain climb doesn't fall into the basic human rights category. So that was a big swing and a miss. But mountain climbing is a choice, like driving a vehicle, which requires insurance.
Anyway, the serious answer I was given by mountaineers is that it becomes an over depended upon crutch. Decisions are made that "This weather is sketch-ball. Well let's try anyway because if we get lost the beacon will save us." Or "I haven't climbed this face before, and neither has my partner, but the beacon will help us if we fall 200 feet!"
I want to say no, less regulation etc. But, to even climb most challanging mountains, you should or on some , are required to check in with a route ate departure time, as well as an estimated return date. some require permits to climb. With this in mind, if you can not provide a sat phone, then a locating device is not out of reason. A very strong arguement for it can be made.
I really cannot read this. Are you saying you are already required to check in, or that you should be required to check in?
wow, yeah, that is disjointed. some climbs you are required. some you need permits. some you need permits, and a route, complete with time of departure and ETA.
I agree with less regulation, but if we, as a society, have already made the decision to go save these people, then regulation is needed to recoup the costs. If we want less regulation, it has to come with the agreement that you are on your own if you fail as well. Again, you can't privatize gains and socialize losses.
