Lots of Rescues - Taking Stock

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
marty said:
Wu - I am not sure I understand this comment given the recent rescues. Please explain further.

Thanks, Marty
Here's my take: If we never aged, we'd be able to hike forever, which would inevitably lead to an accident or worse as it's only a matter of time before something happens to every hiker.

In terms of actual usage and injury statistics; males aged 22 to 35 (or there abouts) are the largest segment, plurality or whatever.
 
Kevin Rooney said:
I was talking with an friend a few days ago who's a longtime winter hiker, and were in agreement that a key factor in all these incidents is that the Northeast is experiencing what was, up until about 10 years ago, a more 'normal winter'. The lack of snow and moderate temps may have created a new 'crop' of winter hikers who have not experienced the extremes of weather that can be produced in the Whites, Greens and ADK's. .

An excellent observation! Perhaps all the global warming stuff plus the few relatively mild winters of late has skewed perceptions of reality.

"Bad weather" does not really exist. This is not to nitpick because I know it is generally used to describe the opposite of calm, bluebird conditions. Cold, wind, rain, sleet, snow, blowing snow, freezing fog, etc., are all simply ordinary conditions that should be expected. An arctic front should come as no surprise in February, especially one that is forecast days in advance.

I hope we can always discuss these tragedies because they can be very instructive while being respectful of the victims. I don't like to read comments belittling victims, but I also disagree with those who insist that a civil discussion is out of line due to the feelings of the victims. Hikers must be sufficiently thick-skinned to endure respectful analysis.

happy trails :)
 
Loss of driver's license is craziness! The victim has shown no recklessness on the road, and they need it to work to pay the fine!
 
They had better make the definition of "negligent" pretty clear in advance. I think that most contributors here would not qualify as negligent. I might, I don't bring a winter bag or winter bivy as I don't own either.

I think a lot of costs should be passed on to the incurrer. At a minimum, a portion should be. Not just rescue costs either. When you make people financially responsible for what things costs, they make better decisions. Hence the trend towards HSAs in the health care sector.

Tim
 
I've always been a supporter of paying for rescues, in theory. However, I do not know how you can point a number on negligence. As I mentioned in my original post, I have done things that some may consider negligent, and others consider the same things commonplace.

I feel for SAR, and have an incredible amount of respect for them. Hoo-boy, I don't have an answer. :confused:
 
"The law requires the Fish and Game Department to meet a high legal threshold to recoup its costs, and lawmakers want to make it easier."

If I was plucked off a mountain by a Black Hawk, I'd expect a bill. If I failed to pay that bill, I'd expect and accept the consequences. There have to be ways to enforce laws. If you want to support the system, buy a Fish and Game Department license for whatever they offer them for. If you want consequence free, financial burden free, hiking - you are trying to shift the costs to someone else.

I'm in favor of paying for parking passes and Fish and Game Department licenses for access to the forests. This is the current infrastructure and not an unreasonable expense.

I also have joined the American Alpine Club, whose small membership fee includes coverage that might reimburse my costs for a rescue.
 
Chip said:
If I was plucked off a mountain by a Black Hawk, I'd expect a bill. If I failed to pay that bill, I'd expect and accept the consequences.
The Black Hawk is already paid for by your taxes--it is in the crews training budgets. The crews have to train and real rescues are better training than are exercises.

And most of the ground searching is done by volunteers.

If you want some real info on rescue costs, the American Alpine Club has published some studies on the cost of rescues in the national parks.
http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pdfs/MRreal.pdf
http://www.americanalpineclub.org/pdfs/MRcost.pdf

The issue also has come up recently in Oregon:
"according to the state of Oregon, only 3% of search and rescue monies expended per annum are applied to mountain rescue"
http://ors.alpineclub.org/

The searches are the biggies. Little kids wandering off tend to be a common cause...

Doug
 
Last edited:
Law Would Make It Easier to Recoup Rescue Costs sounds good to me.

A significant portion of the income from my labor and capital is lost to deadbeats who insist that their neglegence is something for which I should be responsibile. (I'm a dentist, and believe it or not, some folks do not floss :confused: ) So I try to collect, many run and hide, and we report them to a collection agency. Eventually, a few need to borrow money, or feel a need to square up their financial situations and send me a check or credit card number. I've learned to laugh at the snarky commentary that often accompanies payment.

Recouping for rescue costs will never be the Coke machine situation where the consumer in need says "I'll pay that.", deposits the money, and out comes the product. However, society will get some remuneration quickly, some others will pay up eventually, and (most importantly) others will think twice before putting themselves and SAR in peril.
 
Last edited:
The debates/discussions/harangues on who/how to fund public rescues have gotten quite predictable, similar in their pattern as the the dog-bashing threads.

Thank god we no longer hassle each other over whether or not to carry a cell phone or GPS.

The best longterm solution is education, not punitive actions. While each of us needs to assume responsibility for the consequences of our actions, in order to reduce the incidence of mountain rescues, then organizations like F&G, USFS, SARs and clubs like the AMC, GMC, ADK, RMC and others need to ramp-up their educational efforts on mountain safety.
 
Kevin Rooney said:
The best longterm solution is education, not punitive actions. While each of us needs to assume responsibility for the consequences of our actions, in order to reduce the incidence of mountain rescues, then organizations like F&G, USFS, SARs and clubs like the AMC, GMC, ADK, RMC and others need to ramp-up their educational efforts on mountain safety.
It is very un-PC to disagree with your statement. However, why do you place the bulk of responsibility for mountain safety on this collection of organizations? It's like blaming the ADA for tooth pain. I have other responsibilities (and desires) besides showing up in every patient's bathroom at bedtime and scolding them for not brushing the buccal surfaces of their posterior teeth like I showed them in the office. Millions ignore the stark and blatant warnings on cigarette packages several times a day.

The organizations you (and I) mention have many educational programs in place and many people do not or will not take advantage of them. Hitting them in the pocketbook will make some pay attention and society will reap some benefit. IMHO its the only way to get more to assume responsibility for the consequences of their actions.
 
Kevin Rooney said:
Thank god we no longer hassle each other over whether or not to carry a cell phone or GPS.

That made me nostalgic. Anyway...

Someone should compile the Appalachia winter accident reports and figure out how many fatalities/near misses/rescues have been reported each year. Then, someone should get numbers on hiker group* visit days estimated for each year. Then, the incident rates could be expressed as a percent of the total visitation, and one could look for trends.

I think I know how this will turn out, but I'd like to be proven correct.

Anyone? Did that make any sense?

*It would have to be groups and not each individual because if one group gets into trouble with multiple people involved you'd have psuedoreplication.
 
cushetunk said:
Someone should compile the Appalachia winter accident reports and figure out how many fatalities/near misses/rescues have been reported each year. Then, someone should get numbers on hiker group* visit days estimated for each year. Then, the incident rates could be expressed as a percent of the total visitation, and one could look for trends.
cushetunk you are a committee of one. Go get'em Tiger!
 
Paradox said:
It is very un-PC to disagree with your statement. However, why do you place the bulk of responsibility for mountain safety on this collection of organizations?
Simply because most, if not all of them, have an educational component, and some do it already.

And speaking of education - a friend pointed out that the AMC puts a daily recreational report, and that it rarely stresses the need to carry snowshoes. So AMC ... if you're reading this - STRESS THAT SNOWSHOES SHOULD BE CARRIED AS SAFETY EQUIPMENT, EVEN WHEN HIKING ON PACKED TRAILS.

There, I've said it.
 
Kevin Rooney said:
And speaking of education - a friend pointed out that the AMC puts a daily recreational report, and that it rarely stresses the need to carry snowshoes. So AMC ... if you're reading this - STRESS THAT SNOWSHOES SHOULD BE CARRIED AS SAFETY EQUIPMENT, EVEN WHEN HIKING ON PACKED TRAILS.

I could not agree more. I'll put it every post.
 
forestgnome said:
An excellent observation! Perhaps all the global warming stuff plus the few relatively mild winters of late has skewed perceptions of reality.

"Bad weather" does not really exist. This is not to nitpick because I know it is generally used to describe the opposite of calm, bluebird conditions. Cold, wind, rain, sleet, snow, blowing snow, freezing fog, etc., are all simply ordinary conditions that should be expected. An arctic front should come as no surprise in February, especially one that is forecast days in advance.

I hope we can always discuss these tragedies because they can be very instructive while being respectful of the victims. I don't like to read comments belittling victims, but I also disagree with those who insist that a civil discussion is out of line due to the feelings of the victims. Hikers must be sufficiently thick-skinned to endure respectful analysis.

happy trails :)


Interesting thoughts.

I agree with pretty much everything you say, I consider snow squalls great weather, to be honest. :) To hardcore hikers, bad weather does not exist. Mother nature will do whatever she wants. But I wonder, when someone looks at a forecast that says.... a chance of snow showers high 32, south wind 10-20 mph, becoming northwest late in the day, do they know that means there is probably a cold front moving through? Do those same people then look at the higher summits forecast, that says.... in and out of the clouds with snow squalls, highs in the upper teens, dropping to near zero by late afternoon. Winds southerly at 25-40 mph increasing to 40-60 mph with higher gusts later in the day. Of course, there is always some uncertainty in these forecasts, but you prepare the worst. We assume this. But I guess the reality is, many don't prepare the best they could.

I know that I wouldn't attempt to go above treeline alone and in "bad weather"...or, unsavory conditions because I'm clearly not comfortable dealing with those kind of conditions. Plus, I don't have the gear, and, mentally, I would probably have a panic attack if I got lost above treeline. I always have a good feeling of where I am on the trail, so if I lost my way because of blinding snow squalls or fog, I'd lose my mind...

As someone who used to be a meteorology major....and still I have a very deep interest, and hobby for weather. Many might disagree with me here, but getting better forecasts out, and more often, might make a small difference. Also, make sure the forecasts are readily available and easy to understand so someone can read it and make a decision. We have a lot at our fingertips at this day and age with the internet, and links are just a click away. So, why not raise the bar higher?

Obviously it is up to the hiker to find these forecasts, read them and make a good decision. That's one thing that can be done.

Another thought....

Winter hiking seems to have become very popular as of late. Has it always been as popular as it is now? I hear more and more about people summiting 4000 footers during the winter, and I have participated a couple of times. It really was thrilling!

I'm not ready to say that these accidents are because we are having a "normal" winter this year. Perhaps its a large number inexperienced hikers that have had bad luck in a short amount of time.

I'd like to hear more about what to do with training to hike 4,000 footers, esp above treeline. I've had a little experience with it in winter, and from what I remember, adrenalin really kicks in and any "training" that I had kind of went out the window, and I was reacting out of instinct. Perhaps more trips above treeline and more training will make it easier for me to know what to expect.

grouseking
 
The accuracy of weather forecasting and its ease of access are already invaluable assets for hikers that didn't exist a few years ago. This should support a decline in these ordeals but isn't. Forecasts of weather events contributing to the recent rescues were there for all to see with the click of a mouse. Safe to assume these were ignored, as opposed to the parties being unaware of them.

I think these so newsworthy events will also ultimately give political traction to other use-based fees. Watch out kayakers in NH!
 
Chip said:
"The law requires the Fish and Game Department to meet a high legal threshold to recoup its costs, and lawmakers want to make it easier."

I'm like Dug in that I agree with making rescuees pay for the effort, in theory.

Thought 1:
I just have to wonder how much of the recouped costs are going directly toward the legal expenses to recoup them? So they charge this Davis guy $3K; how much did they spend on legal fees to meet the "high legal threshold"? Frankly, it seems like a big waste of time. The legislators in Concord can't figure out how to come up with $3K? I'll bet a quick perusal of the state budget could find $3K that isn't being used very productively. I'm willing to bet reckless drivers cost society more (in more ways than one) than reckless hikers. Same goes for those who lead unhealthy lifestyles and thereby put stress on the healthcare industry for which we wind up paying.

Thought 2:
I wonder how long it will be until someone is charged for a rescue they didn't need. What if an [experienced/hardcore/capable] hiker spends an unplanned night out, but is quite alright and prepared, but they send in the SAR and helicopter to pluck him off the mountain? If the hiker never asked for help and didn't need help and was quite willing and planning to hike down on his/her own power, should he/she be charged just because they (needlessly) sent in those resources? I have a feeling some overzealous state official will, and it will sour people's peace of mind when going hiking.

I guess it just annoys me that they wrangle over how to pay for saving hikers when a) there is plenty of money to fund it if they would be willing to cut out the pork, and b) hiking, in general, has far less of a cost to society than so many other behaviors that are explicitly or tacitly condoned.
 
blacknblue said:
Thought 2:
I wonder how long it will be until someone is charged for a rescue they didn't need. What if an [experienced/hardcore/capable] hiker spends an unplanned night out, but is quite alright and prepared, but they send in the SAR and helicopter to pluck him off the mountain? If the hiker never asked for help and didn't need help and was quite willing and planning to hike down on his/her own power, should he/she be charged just because they (needlessly) sent in those resources? I have a feeling some overzealous state official will, and it will sour people's peace of mind when going hiking.

Well, I can see the future evolution of a "DNR" form--"Do Not Rescue"--that you fill out, notarize, and leave with rescue agencies so that their hands are tied when your family and friends call you in missing. I am being facetious, of course, but what are authorities to do when your loved ones want you found because you are overdue, the weather is bad, etc? Can you imagine the outrage if they turned a deaf ear--and were wrong?
 
Top