Moni - May 5, 2007 9:39 pm - Voted 10/10
Great articleAs a volunteer ski patroller, I have never bought into the sympathy for the "great danger" in which rescuers are placed. We chose to be there and no sympathy is warranted. Yes, it is irritating if you are looking for or rescuing an idiot, but again, that's part of the gig you signed up for.
We are very fortunate that rescues are free to the victims in the US - that's not so in other parts of the world where I have climbed.
I actually believe that most climbers are more conservative and aware of the consequences of their decisions than most others. Hardly thrill seekers! Unfortunately, E coli happens and some haven't the depth of experience to see the entirety of the possible consequences, but "for the grace of God go I". I know I have screwed up and gotten away with it, but not everyone is so lucky. Hopefully we learn from those mistakes and don't become statistics. I hope others will be there for me, if I make the wrong choice.
However, there is a subgroup, who think that, hey it doesn't matter, someone will come and bail my butt out. Those are the idiots it would be nice to send a bill to.
Grizz42 - May 6, 2007 10:10 am - Hasn't voted
Re: Great articleWhen I was researching this article, I found that some places in the US are starting to charge for rescues. It's not much usually only a couple of hundred bucks, but it's mostly to cover the cost of getting equipment out to the site.
This could be a whole other article on the concequences of stupid descisions. I have made some stupid climbing descisions and looking back on it, I can't believe I got away. And it is disappointing that there are a group of people that believe that someone will bail them out.
Thanks for the great input from a patrollers point of view
Crashmoore - May 8, 2007 11:26 pm - Voted 8/10
A minor suggestionI just want to let you know that I agree with many of the points you made and I think it is good for the climbing community to discuss issues that we all face. I would say you have full support from the people here for trying to help the general public understand why we climb. The only real criticism you have received is not so much for the ideas presented but for some minor discrepancies in your writing, citing of sources, jumping around in your thoughts, ect. The only improvement that I would suggest before presenting this article to the mainstream public is find an English professor or teacher somewhere and have them edit it. After a few revisions you would have material fit for the New York Times.
brentonjweaver - May 11, 2007 7:19 pm - Hasn't voted
Nice ArticleBill O'Rielly truly does not understand the draw of the outdoors, not to mention that he is very opinionated and rarely listens to true reason. His show is near the top of the list of uncontrolled propoganda that showers the media. The company I work for was recently listed as being a recalled pet food by the media company that O'Reilly works for. We are all natural, and produce organic products. We are in no way involved in the recall, but the media group never showed a retraction to their original coverage. I think that companies and people like O'Reilly must present both sides of an argument fairly before they pass judgement. Isn't the news suppossed to be fair and unbiased, anyways? I'm no constitutional expert, but telling people when they can or can't use public lands, especially when they pose no threat to others, sounds like a breach on what the constiution is based on.
avidwanderer - May 12, 2007 10:37 pm - Hasn't voted
You are wrong...It does cost the taxpayers. I am in a Chinook course and there is someone in my class whose guard unit was involved in the rescue attempts of the late climbers. The guard unit utilizes CH-47 Chinooks. A Chinook flying at that altitude will be burning 2000+ pounds of JP-8 an hour. Thats alot of cash, and that doesn't even include maintenance.
This is nothing new, PJs have been plucking climbers off Denali for a long time in HH60s... Often the military is the only group with the resources to attempt rescues at these altitudes.
Don't fool yourself, you're paying for it.
Grizz42 - May 15, 2007 6:37 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: You are wrong...Yes I agree that we are paying for it but I have read and been told that it is coming from the military buget which taxpayers are already paying for. Therefore the cost of the personel on the ground from rescue groups doesn't cost taxpayers any additional money but the military helicopters cost comes out of the military budget, which taxpayers are paying for already.
avidwanderer - May 16, 2007 7:30 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: You are wrong...That is poor logic. A Guard unit has a specific amount of money allotted each year, which equates to a specific amount of flight time. If it is spent on rescues, it is not getting spent on training and preperation for deploying downrange to Iraq and Afghanistan. So, to get the proper training, more money must be requested. Increase budget. Increase taxes. Dude, you are paying for it.
Grizz42 - May 20, 2007 11:06 am - Hasn't voted
Re: You are wrong...Read Mark Trevors post below.
avidwanderer - Jun 21, 2007 6:25 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: You are wrong...Mark Trevors doesn't sound like he is in the military or has any knowledge of how a guard unit's budget works. One chinook, one hour of flight time equals 12,000+ dollars an hour. A rescue/recovery mission could easily add up to 20+ hours of flight time. 20 times 12,000 is 240,000 dollars. A quarter million. I will do some research, but I doubt that is .003 percent of a gaurd units stateside budget.
Stateside budget you ask? Let me explain. If a national guard bird is flying stateside it is coming out that unit's budget (the state's) budget. (unless funded by federal for special cases, i.e. Katrina) When a guard unit deploys downrange to Iraq or A-stan, it is FEDERALLY funded.
Keep rationalizing all you like.
sascha - Jun 6, 2008 8:26 am - Voted 10/10
Re: You are wrong...Military is the biggest money spender anyway. The question is: is it better to spend it in SAR missions or in some remote countries like Iraq and Afghanistan?
GEM Trail - May 13, 2007 10:19 pm - Hasn't voted
Must Respectfully DisagreeLet me start by saying I did not see the Bill O'Reilly show and don't think much of the guy or his opinions. But the title of this article is "Mountain Rescues: Climbers are Not to Blame." Well, who is? Those climbers on Hood messed up, pure and simple. If a climber messes up high on a mountain they ARE to blame (assuming you want to blame someone). There is no one else to blame!
Why do we climb? For most of us I'd guess a big part of the lure comes from venturing into some big wild place ON YOUR OWN, TAKING CARE OF YOURSELF THROUGH EVERY SITUATION, conquering the challenges you face knowing that your collective skills and judgement are ALL that stand between you and death. I hate to put it so bluntly but if I mess up high on a mountain I deserve whatever happens. And so does anyone who climbs.
Would you want it any other way? Would you want someone holding your hand. pointing out the right route to take cos you can't figure it out yourself, helping you up the hard parts cos you can't do it yourself, carrying that heavy pack all those miles cos you can't do it yourself, saving your ass cos you can't do it yourself. What would be the point of that?
Grizz42 - May 15, 2007 6:52 pm - Hasn't voted
Re: Must Respectfully DisagreeAs I stated in my article, overnight hikers and day hikers are the main drain on rescue bugets, around 30%, where climbers are only about 3%. So climbers shouldn't be to blame for being rescued because climbers aren't the only ones that need to be rescued, climbers just get the most press becasue they are the most interesting.
I agree that if someone messes up then they are to blame, but that is a whole other topic of discussion. But rescue groups are there to rescue you when you get hurt or are hopelessly lost. They are not there to hold your hand and point you in the right direction.
Danger722 - May 15, 2007 11:43 pm - Hasn't voted
CMRUI am a member of the Corvallis Mountain Rescue Unit. Our unit was called out for both searches on Hood mentioned in this article. I've heard of Bill O'Reiley's rants and I think his opinion is garbage. This article is fantastic. Something that isn't stated in this article is that the 2nd party that was rescued with the dog went on to talk shows such as "Ellen" and others to raise awareness of how critical it is to have mountain rescue units. They then went further to show their gratitude by sponsoring a large fundraiser that took in thousands of dollars that was distributed throughout Oregon to needy rescue units like ours in Corvallis. I climbed Mt. Hood on Sunday, the night after yet another search for a group of 5 lost kids. Portland Search and Rescue were able to pull them all off the mountain safely. As a member of a rescue unit I take offense to Bill O'Reiley's comments. He has no idea what he is talking about.
lilmantis - May 16, 2007 1:26 am - Voted 10/10
Great reading!What does Bill know anyway? Sometimes he should just shut his pie-hole! This has to be the best response to Bills assumtions that I have heard or read! Thanks alot!
herbie - May 21, 2007 5:15 am - Voted 10/10
Bill O’ReillyPeople like Bill O’Reilly exist all over the world.
They have no clue what they are talking about, and their thinking is based on a materialistic worldview, which puts money and the cost of things as the most important measure of everything.
As a member of the Austrian Mountain Rescue I'm confronted with views like that nearly every day.
Have mercy with people like him, their narrow mind does not allow them to think in other terms than economy, stocks, printed paper and coins.
kilimanjaro1 - May 25, 2007 12:00 pm - Voted 10/10
Rescuee Pay?Intersting article and thread. I wonder how many people that are rescued then donate to the non profit organization that rescued them. Anybody have any figures on that? Nothing is free except maybe the air we breath,and I'm not even sure about that. Rescue costs come out of somebody's pocket no matter how you look at it-- even if the rescuers are volunteers. The fee to climb many mountains, like Everest, includes a portion to offset rescue expenses. Perhaps those that climb the "riskier" mountains that require hiring a guide or a permit should have a "rescue insurance premium" that would be given to the non profit rescue groups as a somewhat forced, but hopefully willing, contribution.
paulraphael - May 25, 2007 1:23 pm - Hasn't voted
The issues are really pretty simple.You could easily make a case that climbers should be responsible for paying for their rescues (through insurance or out of pocket). This is the standard in Europe.
But if that's your position, you need to be prepared to apply the same standards to other groups--including the hikers, backpackers, swimmers, picnickers, and even drivers, who in fact account for the much larger portion of rescue costs.
This isn't an outrageous idea, actually, but I bet the public wouldn't stand for it for a second. Rescue is one of those services we've gotten used to expecting from society, and it would take a big shift in thinking to change that. It would even be seen as classist, because so many people would no longer be able to afford to do things safely. Including leaving the house.
This article addresses the heart of O'Reilly's problem (which is a propblem for a lot of people): inaccurate perception of what groups get resucued the most, how much it costs, and who's paying.
kilimanjaro1 - May 25, 2007 8:09 pm - Voted 10/10
not to make a mountain out of a molehillbut continuing along those lines--- I am sure data is available on what type of people get rescued most and what it costs... fees could be adjusted accordingly. I am not necessarily advocating this, but it might help people to think a bit more before they just call 911 for a rescue and put others in peril. Sometimes the best of climbers need help and the dumbest of hikers have no problems. But I basically believe that those that use the services should be the ones paying for them and not counting on others generosity to bail them out.
Darth Rob - Jun 1, 2007 6:16 pm - Hasn't voted
The Mountain is calling you?"Nature’s peace will flow into you as sunshine flows into trees. The winds will blow their own freshness into you, and the storms their energy, while cares will drop off like autumn leaves."
The cost of rescuing a few climbers now and then is negligible compared the cost of rescuing all the drunken pinheads who get lost when they wander away from their campsite, or idiot skiers who ignore the "Avalanche Danger" signs. However, all this "The Mountain calls me" stuff is only going to make people think you're all a bunch of careless stoners.
Comments
Post a Comment