Posted on 12/14/2006 9:40:35 AM PST by randita
Search stymied, but families hang on
Hood - With harsh conditions, crews discuss the difficulty of survival for the three climbers
Thursday, December 14, 2006
MATTHEW PREUSCH and STUART TOMLINSON The Oregonian
GOVERNMENT CAMP -- No one went far up the slopes of Mount Hood on Wednesday, and nothing came down but wind, rain and snow.
Searchers looking for three climbers missing since last week were unable to get far above the tree line because of knock-down winds and blinding snow. And it's expected to get worse today.
"We're limited," said Bernie Wells, search coordinator for the Hood River-based Crag Rats mountain rescue team. "Mother Nature is holding us back."
The National Weather Service issued numerous watches and warnings for Oregon and Washington late Wednesday, as a potentially dangerous storm began to bear down on the region. It was expected to slam into the region late this afternoon.
Sustained winds of 90 miles per hour are forecast for the mountain, with gusts as high as 130 by late today, according to the National Weather Service. As much as a foot of snow could fall.
(Excerpt) Read more at oregonlive.com ...
If you take O'Reilly's position, think of all the sports and hobbies that should be banned because of risk (sky diving, hang gliding, hot air ballooning, football, race car driving, cliff scaling, scuba diving, spelunking... on and on.
O'Reilly was really off the mark on this one.
The cost of the search is yet to be calculated, although it's probably costing Hood River County between $5,000 and $6,000 a day, said sheriff's Sgt. Gerry Tiffany.
"think of all the sports and hobbies that should be banned because of risk (1.sky diving, 2.hang gliding, 3.hot air ballooning, 4.football, 5.race car driving, cliff scaling, scuba diving, spelunking... on and on"
I agree with you in part. The part where the participant is putting only himself at risk. i.e. 1 thru 5. The other activities require rescuers to put themselves at risk when things go horribly wrong.
If, as you state "fellow club volunteer responders (and the rescue equipment)absorb the costs of these rescues", then they should not be banned.
However, if the circumstances are so dangerous and wrecklessly life threatening - can we ask that participants take all necessary precautions to ensure their own survival?
i.e. Race car drivers have to follow safety checks before being allowed on the track. Sky divers have their chutes and the weather conditions checked.
I wish only success for the rescuers and grieve for the families' nightmare.
I'm not sure about banning winter climbing. I'm all in favor of idiots competing for the Darwin Award. But you know O'Reilly, he's got a quick, snappy answer to all the worlds' problems.
But unless they got a bunch of millionaire retired hobbyists with helicopters just sitting around waiting for some excitement, I doubt that the cost of this will fall solely on volunteer effort.
The survivors should have to pay in full for all rescue expenses, and should have civil liability for the safety of any rescuers who may be injured or killed in the process. Let's face it, this situation was brought on by their collective stupidity and nothing else.
This isn't really like skydiving (which I did for 112 jumps), because you need people to put themselves at risk to rescue you in inclement weather conditions. With skydiving, all you need is a clean-up crew with strong stomachs.
"But you know O'Reilly, he's got a quick, snappy answer to all the worlds' problems".
Lighten up Kenton;0
Poor Bill only has an hour to solve the world's problems - he has to make the solutions snappy.
Much like us on FR.
teehee
Don't ban climbing. Just rescue those who have prepaid for their rescue. Think about it. The participant decides how close to a hospital they will engage in their sport. If they choose to leave the population to go play, fine. Live with the obvious consequences.
If you have to be rescued from the Grand Canyon (i.e. carried or helicoptered out), you have to pay thousands of dollars out of pocket. To me, mountaineering (hiking in the most extreme season of the year) is similar to hiking into the Grand Canyon in the summer where temps usually exceed 100º and there is limited water supply. People aren't banned from doing that and I'm sure far more people hike in the Grand Canyon than take off climbing Mt. Hood in the winter.
I could certainly go along with those who need to be rescued having to incur the cost of the rescue.
It's quite probable they did. They were said to be experienced mountaineers. No matter what precautions you've taken and what supplies you carry to meet any challenge, accidents can happen which require more than what you have in your arsenal to meet or equipment which tests out perfectly fine can fail on you.
I've heard that when you hike down into the Grand Canyon in the summer, a ranger will prevent you from proceeding past the last water source, unless you have water bottles filled with adequate amounts of water. But still people get sick or injured and have to be rescued. I've hiked there in spring and fall and this wasn't the case, but temps are not severe then.
There should be a simple insurance policy that climbers could buy that would cover expenses up to $50,000 a day for 10 days.
If there are 3 guys in the group they could split the premium.
"No matter what precautions you've taken and what supplies you carry to meet any challenge, accidents can happen which require more than what you have in your arsenal.."
The following are excerpts from The Oregonian paper.>>>>
The locator units are worn on a sash across the chest and can be rented for a fee of $5 for unlimited use. The three climbers, who were climbing fast and light, were not carrying the units.
"People who climb this way cut weight any way they can," Portland Mountain Rescue President Steve Rollins said. "They trim down straps on their gear -- we're talking grams."
There is a trend toward ultralight backcountry travels, but you should always take what you need to survive, albeit in the lightest form you can find it. Trimming straps is no big deal, but not taking a locating device certainly is. I'll bet those locating devices weigh mere ounces.
Some people think there is safety in numbers and others just plain think they are resourceful enough to deal with any adversity.
The way this thing seems to be going, it looks like they're going to pay a steeper price than that. Lighten up.
The problem with a reimbursement scheme is that people won't call when they need help, or wait until the problem is even worse. We don't charge for police and fire service, even when the problem is brought on by the people themselves.
There is a certain amount of parental anger on this thread from those of us who are asking; "how could they have been so wreckless?" watching the poignant vigil by their family members.
Then we question how the climbers could have placed themselves in such jeopardy...not giving pause for any rescuers who might be called in to find them.
Some of us were angry with Mr. Kim for setting out with his young family into uncertain territory in poor weather.
It's just a human condition - helplessness and grief.
I know some folks there, that place lives and breathes outdoor sports and recreation.
Nordic skiing, cross country, wind surfing on the Columbia, hiking and camping.
There wouldn't be more than fifty cents in that part of the world if not for the tourists and sporters.
And btw, I hope only for the best for them, but as it stands now, it would take a miracle.
The thing that surprises me is they were supposed to be experienced, like I said on another thread, you go above 5000 feet or so this time of year, you're playin Russian Roulette.
Here is a good thread to follow the situation, including info by the rescue team members themselves:
http://www.cascadeclimbers.com/forum/ubbthreads.php/ubb/showflat/Number/616247/page/1/fpart/1
Sounds like the guys WERE experienced climbers and as long as they were not seriously injured and kept their wits about them, they could have dug snow caves and wait it out until weather conditions improve. People have survived for surprisingly long periods of time in well constructed snow caves as long as they had sufficient food and the ability to stay warm. From anecdotal evidence, it seems as if the guys did have warm sleeping bags and bivy sacks to keep dry. It's not known how much fuel or food they had, but they had been planning for a quick ascent, so it's not likely they took lots of food. But look at the Kims - they survived more than a week and they weren't even what you'd call experienced at wilderness survival - nor did they have the tools for that survival. In a snow cave, the temp can get above freezing due to body heat and respiration, so they could melt snow in there for liquid without a stove. A person can survive for several weeks without food as long as they're not undertaking strenuous activity.
Way too soon to write them off.
I really do admire your optimism and knowledge.
My opinions and concerns are those of a couch potato.
keep the faith randita and thank you for your links
sp
If I were hiking and camping at several thousand feet in a blizzard I would NOT expect someone to come find me.
The problem with a reimbursement scheme is that people won't call when they need help, or wait until the problem is even worse.
You're entitled to your opinion, but I don't believe that for a second. If you are stuck in such a situation and have any way of communicating with the outside to get help, you will do it, and concerns about the cost will be something you deal with when you are safe back at home.
These individuals seem to be fairly prosperous and able to afford help, but if you think that inability to pay will stop someone from seeking public help, just go on down to your local emergency room and see how many uninsured moms are sitting around waiting to get treatment for a kid with a cold.
We don't charge for police and fire service, even when the problem is brought on by the people themselves.
As someone pointed out to me a few postings back, hikers who venture down into the Grand Canyon and can't get out pay thousands of dollars to be rescued, either by being carried or helicoptered out. And even though they have park rangers at the rim giving people explicit instructions not to hike on foot more than 100 yards down into the canyon, many people still are foolish enough to require emergency evacuation.
And the principle of being charged for public assistance doesn't just extend to extreme rescues. If your local fire department has to send out an emergency vehicle to act as an ambulance to take you to the hospital, you will be billed for it.
So I don't think it's unreasonable to apply the same principle to people who voluntarily take extremely foolish risks where there is a very real possibility of death or injury, accompanied by a need for others unrelated to your venture to risk their own lives trying to rescue you.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.