Just read the story

http://www.kptv.com/news/21949650/detail.html

Seems to happen every few years ... esp. with the early (sudden) winter storms. Hopefully they will be OK.

Reminds me though ... I need to practice building snow caves.

the other Pete

It is happening EVERY year! And sometimes more than once a year. There are still bodies up there that they haven't found.

If they are such experienced hikers, why are they there when this weather was predicted a week ago (at least)? Why are they calling for help? Why are they putting rescuers lives in danger to retrieve them?

Personally, I'm getting tired of these idiots. They're just bozos from the It Won't Happen To Me School of Fools.

If people insist on climbing mountains in winter, they can darned well be responsible for themselves. You go up, you get yourself down, and stop whining.

Sue

Strovink also said the climbers had not rented an emergency locator beacon which would indicate their location for searchers.

He said it costs $5 to rent a beacon.


Crimeny. Heck of a thing to cheap out on.

I wish them, and the rescuers, well. Mt. Hood is as alluring as it can be lethal. Seems every year that a few people, and their loved ones, find that out the hard way.

I had the option to rent a PLB for a few dollars a day, I wouldn't even blink. Sign me up! It's the big up-front outlay that makes me hesitate.

And the possibility of ever-changing standards threatening to making units obsolete.

One climber has been located, deceased. Still looking for the other two... sad.


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/three_climbers_reported_missin.html

Sue, can I appeal to your better nature and ask that you don't call these climbers idiots, bozos, and fools? They went for a climb up an accessible summit adequately equipped, in a normal climbing season for that summit, they are experienced, and they are not as much endangered by adverse weather as by the possibility that they have taken a fall. If they have fallen, even if they had a PLB they might have lost it in the fall, or be incapacitated such that they couldn't activate it.

These climbers are human beings and deserve better than you've given them. My thoughts are with them and hoping for their safe return, and with their families too. And besides, I don't know any weather advisory issued a week ago that is any good in the states of Washington or Oregon. Weather forecasts are generally good for 72 hours tops, beyond that they are not very reliable.

SARSAT PLB standards do not change rapidly. There are significant international obligation entanglements that give the system considerable inertia.

Also there is a substantial investment in the private and public sectors in beacons and many people to oppose unnecessary changes. If you're forced to replace your SARSAT PLB there be a lot of unhappy airplane and boat owners, and the Navy won't like it either. Not to mention that satellites are expensive and incompatible satellites difficult to fund.

To give perspective, the SARSAT system went live in 1982 and I believe every beacon that worked then would still work until February of this year when some older frequencies were cut off: 26+ years.

There are likely to be advancements and extensions that will be desirable. But a PLB purchased today is likely to be usable, as specified when sold, for the life of the unit.

I would add that there is not yet enough real information to critique or evaluate this incident. Normal news channels, barring the exceptional in depth journalistic effort, will not provide enough data to support a rational analysis.

Well ... it's sad news that at least one of these climbers has died.

I spent many years climbing mountains when I was younger. At that time I belonged to the "old school". I never expected S&R to come and get me. So for that reason I would try to be meticulous in my planning - so that my team could always extricate ourselves if something went wrong. Still, I must admit that there is always a fair amount of "luck" that is involved in mountaineering. Anyone can have a bad day.

I think what goes wrong (commonly) these days is that climbers try to do these peaks "alpine style". It has become in vogue to attempt summits by moving fast and light. The technique works out fine providing the climbers have excellent fitness, great skills, use good judgment about weather, and don't encounter bad mishaps. But it gets people in serious trouble if things go badly wrong. They are generally not carrying a lot of gear for an extended stay on the mountain.

I agree with people on this forum about the locator beacons. A PLB, or a SPOT tracker system, would have helped S&R locate these people a lot faster. It seems like a small price to pay for a human life ... and frankly these units just aren't that expensive (or that heavy to carry in a backpack).

the other Pete

Body found on Mount Hood; 2 climbers still missing Note that S&R hasn't found the other two yet, so it might get worse.

Watch for beacons to become mandatory to step foot on the mountain.

I am not sure I understand why you would say that, perhaps you could explain why you believe that to be an issue. While standards are changed regularly in an effort to make new beacons better and more reliable, there is no plan to change the standards for 406 MHz beacons in any manner that is not 100% backwards compatible and current plans look out way beyond the useful life of any PLB or EPIRB bought today. For commercial beacons such as SPOT, there may be questions that arise more on the order of is the company going to be around, but still not anything I would worry a lot about.

Mt. Hood is an extremely accessible and popular peak. Probably no one appreciates Mt. Hood's allure more than those who volunteer to rescue people who get in trouble on it. We don't read about the thousands of successful climbs every year.

It's estimated that 10,000 people attempt the summit annually. It's remarkable that more don't perish.

God bless the families and the rescuers. And the deputy who had the grim duty of telling the families that avalanche danger has to restrict the rescue effort.

The article at this link is being continually updated with the latest info:

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/ground_search_for_missing_mt_h.html

"Rescuers did not head out on foot Sunday because of avalanche danger, a decision made late Saturday night by Portland Mountain Rescue and Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office officials.

...The body was found at about the 9,000-foot level on Reid Glacier. However, photographs taken from a digital camera that was found near the body indicate the climbers reached perhaps as high as 10,000 feet on the headwall, said Rollins.

The conditions on Reid Glacier, the west side of the peak where the search has been focused, are particularly susceptible to avalanche....

A Clackamas County deputy explained the decision to family members of the climbers at about 7 a.m. in a gathering near the stone fireplace of Timberline Lodge, where the families are staying."

Nolan has traveled to several parts of the world -- Nepal, South America, Israel -- on behalf of Christian causes. In one part of the globe she has worked "rescuing young women from the slave trade," he said.

"She's been all over the world," he said.

Some great pictures and descriptions of where the search is being concentrated -- Reid glacier (on the west side, toward Portland, Timberline Lodge is on the south side).

I take great interest in Mt. Hood because I lived on the 2200-foot level in the Hood River Valley. Hood was our center of recreation and the view out our living room window. A magnificent peak. The even taller and more massive Mt. Adams was the view from our kitchen. Lovely as the U.S. Capitol and Washington Monument are, I'd much rather be gazing at the Cascades....

http://www.summitpost.org/route/157640/reid-glacier-headwall.html

and more interesting info on the mountain:

http://www.newworldencyclopedia.org/entry/Mount_Hood

...hundreds of thousands have scaled Oregon's highest peak. Today, it is the most frequently climbed glaciated peak in North America.

There are treacherous conditions involved in the climb with more than 130 people losing their lives in climbing-related accidents since records have been kept on the mountain.[12]

Its status as Oregon's highest point, a prominent landmark visible up to a hundred miles away, convenient access, and relative lack of technical climbing challenges lure many to attempt the climb, which amounts to about 10,000 people per year. On average, one to three lives are lost annually.[13]

Gentle winds and warm air at access points transform into 60°F temperature drops in less than an hour, sudden sustained winds of 60 mph and more, and visibility quickly dropping from hundreds of miles to an arm's length. This pattern is responsible for the most well known incidents of May 1986 and December 2006. One of the worst U.S. climbing accidents occurred in May 1986, when seven students and two faculty of the Oregon Episcopal School froze to death during an annual school climb. The accident in December of 2006 involved three very experienced climbers. Cascade Range weather patterns are unfamiliar to many, even nearby residents. The two major causes of climbing deaths on Mount Hood are falls and hypothermia.

Another reason for the danger in Mt. Hood climbs is the shifting of travel routes. Even experienced climbers can be surprised by unexpected differences from previous experiences on the mountain. One example of this shift was reported in the spring of 2007, relating changes in the formation of the popular South Route. Reportedly, the Hogsback, (part of the South Route), shifted west, increasing the difficulty of the climb. Another change occurred when a technical "ice chute" formed in the Pearly Gates, increasing the difficulty of that climb. This change pushed some climbers to choose the "left chute" of the Pearly Gates, however; in this alternative route there is a technical ice wall 30 feet or greater in height, and with fall exposure of over 500 feet.[14]

The distinctions between alpine and expedition styles dissolve in a one day ascent, as this one apparently was intended to be. The differences between these styles appear when what is normally a multiday trip is contemplated with (or without base camps and intermediate camps).

Everest is typically attempted expedition style - doesn't seem to have depressed fatalities noticeably.

Sorry, Lono, I don't have a better nature.

These people refused to take a PLB, and couldn't even be bothered to take a small shovel, so exactly how well equipped are they?

Over 135 have died on Mt. Washington (NH).

130 climbers have died on Mt. Hood (OR).

About 100 have died on Mt. Rainier (WA).

95 climbers have died on Mt. McKinley (AK).

76 have died on K2.

Over 175 have died on Everest.

Like I said, if people want to go up, let them; and let them get down by themselves, too. How many would venture up there if they didn't know someone else would go after them? Why do you think they carry cell phones?

Sue

I can't tell you - but I regard all regular media coverage to be wildly inaccurate on such details. My rule is simple: If it is in the regular newspaper/radio/TV, just take for granted that they don't have a friggin clue what they're talking about. Modern media emphasise speed over accuracy - and who but us (and their relatives) gives a squat about their equipment anyway?



That list covers so different conditions it is almost incomprehensible. Only the very best elite climbers dare to try climbing K2. Mt hood has how many thousand visitors each year?



For climbers above a certain level of expertice and climbs above a minimum challenge, I am absolutely certain it would make no difference what so ever - they will climb that mountain anyway. (As a side note, I'm pretty sure if the official SAR service stopped going after them, their climbing friends - or unknown members of the climbing community - would go after them. Pretty much what happens anyway - ground based search and rescue after climbers must be done by climbers, right? Of course the government has stuff like helicopters that are too expensive for most spontaneous friends-and-friends-friends initiatives...)

If something goes wrong in the wild, YOU ARE ON YOUR OWN! Search and rescue is a bonus you shouldn't take for granted. Your predicament may be so quick that everything else is a funeral service. Or all sorts of mishaps such as foul weather may put you beyond the reach of even the worlds best SAR resources. You can push all the magic buttons in the world, if it blows too hard neither that helicopter nor those on the ground will be able to do anything for you. You maximize the odds by preparing (which is what this site is all about, right?) but nothing can guarantee that you can't die out there. All climbers know this. They climb anyway.


Susan, you raise a very important ethical question. Where is the limit for the communitys life saving efforts? At what point does the community stop reaching out the helping hand? What level of danger is inexusable? What level of stupidity, boldness and thrill seeking behaviour is so flat out dangerous that we as a society will refuse to risk our resources when it goes wrong?


My own take on this: I start with the basic premise that I will not impose my judgement of "too dangerous" on other grown ups. Their life, their thrill seeking, their level of adrealine addiction - and they have to live with whatever happens as a result. I'm not a high risk thrill seeker, by the way, but I still enjoy doing stuff that some of you may consider flat out ridiculous dangerous. That's OK, by the way - if you think something is too dangerous you probably should not be doing that anyway. (Moving those "too dangerous" boundaries by proper training is one of the true joys of life, but each to his own).

From this premise I am led to a very practical solution: Since I have this "live and let live" approach to whatever dangers people choose to expose themselves too, I can't let those choices dictate wether saving them is appropriate or not. Sometimes it is not possible - too bad, stuff happens. But for me it is unacceptable to say to another fellow human: Sorry, but you are so stupid I will not save you even if I could.


Another take on this: It saddens me to hear of human stupidity having totally pointless mortal consequences. Trying to minimize that loss by searching and rescuing those who still can be saved seems to me to be a pretty good investment.

Then it is I who am sorry, Sue.

I hope you never have a friend, acquaintance or member of your family who dies in the woods - god forbid on some lonely mountain slope - and then encounters a person in a forum so callous as to call them an 'idiot, bozo or fool' for a presumption that they were 'ill equipped.' I can think of a hundred scenarios that might have happened to these climbers, and not half of them would involve their being able to activate a PLB.

And this may interest you, the climbers in question were not carrying Mountain Locator Units (MLUs), a form of distress signalling device specific to Mt Hood - the MLU broadcasts a signal at 168.54 MHz, and local responders can attempt to track a climber's whereabouts when they believe a party is in distress. Yes, it would be good if the climbers had rented an MLU for this ascent, but there is no guarantees that SAR could capture a signal even if they did - and if only one MLU were rented, it might have also only signalled where the deceased climber ended up. I agree, it seems a worthwhile investment, and I can't explain why they didn't make it, but the plain fact is they didn't, and SAR, the climbers families and friends need to continue on and make their best of the situation.

We're all bozos on this bus, Sue.

At $5, each climber could afford to have their own MLU.

You hit the nail on the head with these statements. In my SAR experience, we had two major outcomes - 1)People were delayed and proceeding on their own - we merely made things a little easier, but they would have gotten out of their predicament without our help, if necessary. 2)We could have been standing right next to them and they would have died anyway.

That actually happened to one of our members, a physician. The team on the rock next to him suffered a severe fall, and despite his efforts, "all the king's horses and all the king's men couldn't put Humpty-Dumpty together again."

In fact, we were on scene one Sunday afternoon, treating a fall victim, and a flash flood swept through the drainage, killing nine people. Our efforts did materially aid some folks, but it was a full week before we recovered all the bodies.

What good would would PLBs, MLUs, or whatever, have been?

We did encounter the situation where SAR intervention actually saved lives, but it was maybe 10% (a very rough estimate) of our operations. Wildly exhilarating when it happened....

People is the woods must learn to depend upon themselves in emergencies, not on any outside agency, not matter how competent they might appear to be.

SAR people are bozos on the bus, too.

It can happen to the best trained/equipped.
A few years ago an entire team of SAR experts were nearly killed on Mt Logan in the Yokon.

The pioneer movement west has been an interest of mine for many years. During the heavy movement to the west in the years 1849 through 1850 or even a bit later, the people who went west didn't expect help. Sure, they would help each other when wagons got stuck, and there was some assistance among them for some things, but it wasn't really expected.

Today, it's considered #11 of the Bill of Rights. No matter how stupid or how unprepared they are, people EXPECT to be rescued. If they knew no one would come after them, how many of these people would do what they do?

And Lono, my friends are the ones who do the rescuing. All of us are in our 60s now, all of us have been involved in hiking, camping, canoeing, whitewater, etc, and none have ever had to cry for help. Luck? Maybe. Good sense and preparedness? Maybe more likely.

If a rescuer of these winter mountaineering twits is killed during the rescue, if a helicopter crashes, do the ones who caused the problem even think of them again once they get home?

Sue, She of Little Patience with Twits

A climbing forum discussion with input from some who are very familiar with Mt. Hood:

http://www.summitpost.org/phpBB2/viewtopic.php?t=50408

Interesting thread at summitpost.org, lots of (pent up) emotion between the lines. Personally, I have no problem with climbers doing what climbers do and s*** does happen. But the courtesy of assisting the search effort by carrying a beacon of some sort (whether a local MLU or a global PLB) to tightly define the rescue/recovery area is a small request. A beacon may or may not save your life, but it could save the life of a rescuer. Just let everyone know that the rescue/recovery teams are available, but they don't do windows (search).

Aircraft fails to find missing Mt. Hood climbers

Thanks, Dagny, for this source. Some worthwhile comments by people who have forgotten more about Mt. Hood than any of us know about the mountain.

Particularly relevant was the comment that the weather forecast gave them good conditions during the projected period of their climb, degrading in the afternoon when they would have finished.

Expectation of rescue? How in the world do we know what their attitude about this might have been? (reference is to Susan's post).

In the last fifty years, SAR capability has advanced significantly. It is primarily a citizen volunteer effort, significantly akin to the efforts made by pioneers as they worked their way west. Even at Yosemite NP, scene of some very well conducted and competent rescue operations, the teams have been a mix of park rangers and civilian climbers (who were paid, however while on the job - a good way for climbing bums to make some money).

There is a SAR paradox resulting from this increasing competence. Some, but not all people, will go out without adequate preparations, because they have heard of well conducted operations. I personally heard this from a victim who stated as we were treating his multiple injuries, "I wouldn't have tried this trip if I didn't know you guys were operating." We were high in the mountains, ten miles from the trailhead, and he had NOTHING with him - literally. The flip side of any SAR group should be public education so that people understand the reality of the outdoors.

Susan, I understand that the fatality rate among pioneers in the early days along the Oregon trail was something on the order of 30% - primarily from accidents and illness. That is pretty tough. At least on Mt. Hood, with 10,000 summit attempts a year, and roughly three annual fatalities, the odds are much better. But statistics are irrelevant when you wind up in the crosshairs.....

You got the comments right with that one ... "But statistics are irrelevant when you wind up in the crosshairs....."

Regarding "alpine style": I should probably have elaborated. In this case I was referring to the amount of gear that they have tried to jam in their packs. It's always a tradeoff between light-and-fast, or heavy-and-slow. Knowing that they had a time window of 2-3 days of good weather, they may have figured on moving quickly.

If they were delayed at the summit (e.g. by an accident) and were then overtaken by the storm - then they would be in fresh wet snow, possibly very limited visibility and strong winds. It's very easy to get lost under those conditions. The mountains become very dangerous when people get off route.

The fact that one climber was found at a lower elevation - may indicate that the strongest member of the team tried to move ahead and seek help. One of the others may be injured, and that pair could be in a snow cave.

Should personal locator beacons be made mandatory? That's an interesting issue to debate. One of those PLB's could just have offered hope in this situation.

other Pete

I say mushroom collectors should have to carry beacons.----



"Just to put this into perspective:
Mount Hood climbing accidents are mountain climbing- or hiking-related incidents on Oregon's Mount Hood. As of 2007, about 10,000 people attempt to climb Mount Hood each year.[1] More than 130 people have died climbing Mount Hood since records have been kept.[citation needed] One of the worst climbing accidents occurred in 1986, when seven teenagers and two school teachers froze to death while attempting to retreat from a storm.[2]

Despite a quadrupling of forest visitors since 1990, the number of people requiring rescue remains steady at around 25 to 50 per year, largely because of the increased use of cell phones and GPS devices.[3] 3.4 percent of 2006's search and rescue missions were for mountain climbers. In comparison, 20% were for vehicles (including ATVs and snowmobiles), 3% were for mushroom collectors, the remaining 73.6 percent were for skiers, boaters, and participants in other mountain activities.

NOTE: only 3.4% of all 2006 rescue missions were for mountain climbers in this area. 10,000 people attempt Mount Hood each year. There will be an accident with so many climbers, statistics alone say there will be an accident. Out of 10,000 cars on the road how many people were hurt in crashes???? This is one of the most climbed peaks in the United States. I live in Oregon and there are SAR missions everyday, only rarely are they for climbers. Lets step back and look at the big picture here."

I may well be mistaken in this, so please correct, but I understand that they were on a one day trip, leaving at 1-2 AM and planning to return mid afternoon (say 2 PM) that same day...At most, then, you would probably carry only emergency bivouac gear, not the load than would accompany a planned overnight.

Our deft attempts to analyze this situation are hampered by a lack of real information and an abundance of speculation and assumptions (including mine!)

If that's the case, then you are very likely right. It would make sense - from those "facts" - that they were attempting to climb the regular route on Mt Hood, and it sounds as though they planned to climb quickly. Therefore ... not a huge amount of gear in their packs. Probably they did not carry shovels because they expected to return before the storm, and probably no locator beacons because they never expected any serious difficulties on the way.

It's possible they got off route during the ascent - and went off in a wrong direction. That might have put them in difficult terrain and caused an accident. Hence, one climber stayed with the injured team member and the other one descended to seek help. Unfortunately, the climber descending quickly was subsequently killed - possibly because he moved down into difficult and hazardous terrain.

This is all very speculative.

other Pete

Aren't locator beacons for the unexpected, almost by definition?

I join the discussion late, but I advocate Sue's sentiments.

I've been beaten about the head and neck on this forum in the past for posting similar opinions about people and their responsibility for their own actions. Seems on a regular basis we are seeing posts of events where someone did not prepare adequately for a given endeavor. Seems these people figure that if things go bad, someone will be there to come bail them out of their troubles. It seems that the same mistakes get made repeatedly at much the same locations, under much the same conditions, by people regarded as "experts", who nonetheless head up the hill, or down the trail, or wherever they want to go, and make at least one poor decision that bites them in the backside.

That these experts are now in a bad way and suffering (yet again) is tragic or at least sad in that it was needless, and compounded by the stress being put on the would-be rescuers, family and friends of those missing, and the finances allocated to the effort to save these people. Any who die in this event are candidates for the Darwin Award to be sure. They all deserve an honorable mention at the least.

The premise of our advocacy here is that people need to be equipped to survive the situations they place themselves into. While I long to be compassionate on the matter, I have no problem pointing out that not being properly equipped is not only ill advised, but inexusable, as no one is being forced to climb any mountain, hike any trail, run any rapids, or jump from any airplane, at least not without the opportunity to properly prepare for such events. Doing so is no different than driving down the road at night without your headlights on, or not using the safety on a firearm. There's no good excuse, and anyone who would do such a thing is a fool, or just plain stupid; too stupid perhaps to be allowed the privilege any longer.

My compassion for such individuals if further diminished when such foolish acts are undertaken without due consideration of the consequences for others. My compassion approaches non-existent when I am the one who has to continually pay a price for repeated foolish events without any due benefit on my part.

Life is fragile, and we've managed to mitigate in time many of the challenges that made life a lot more difficult than it is today. That is not to say we shouldn't challenge ourselves in other ways, as this is what helps keep us healthy. Making something difficult doesn't mean you have to intentionally introduce risk into an equation where it is not needed. Variables can be introduced that provide for adventure, challenge, and reward without incorporating a greater than ambient likelihood of danger.

If we can gather anything positive from this experience, as with it's myriad predecessors, let us then refer to it as an example of a situation all of us should endeavor to avoid.

Hi.

I know one of the people on Mt. Hood and it really saddens me to no end to see how so many can be the Monday morning armchair expert and jump to so many wild conclusions without all the facts. The use of words such as bozo, fools, Darwin awards is unwarranted, callous and smacks of the poster's ignorance of facts and truth.

And truth be told that these facts may never be known except to those who are there and may never be found to tell us what really happened. I can say this, they were experienced and prepared for the climb and like so many other mountaineers around the world, know full well the risk involved and would never ask that any one put themselves in harms way to attempt rescue.

As an experienced mountain climber myself, I know that a PLB, SPOT etc is no guarantee of rescue and I have seen first hand where climbers had such equipment that injuries have prevented them from using the equipment to signal for help.

I have lurked here for awhile and this is probably my first and last post. I apologize if I offended anyone here with my remarks.

Sorry if your friend is missing and at risk. I have lost friends myself in the mountains. It's no fun.

I took a quick look at posted pictures of the climbers. The body recovered so far belongs to Luke Gullberg - who appears to be the oldest male and the strongest member of the team. It would make sense for him to try to descend in the storm to get help - if his friends were in danger. There is good reason to be concerned about the long-term endurance of his other two companions.

You can have the satisfaction of knowing that Mr Gullberg tried to do what was best to save his friends.

other Pete

It is different when it's one of your own. I know. I regret that you seem to have taken offense. My thoughts and prayers are with the climbers and their families.

As a group dedicated to surviving emergencies, sometimes we make rather harsh judgments about those who find themselves in harm's way. Often, we fail to distinguish between those who know and weigh the risks but choose to accept them in pursuit of sport and recreation, and those who blindly stumble into danger. Also, our group's purpose is not to condemn, but to derive useful lessons about avoiding and surviving emergencies. Moreover, it's true that only few here have extensive specific experience in the various aviation, maritime and wilderness environments that may be discussed. So I hope you'll contribute your expertise and educate us, rather than bow out.

Your post is welcome - a much needed antidote to some very callous, unfounded speculation .

I hope they are found safe and we eventually learn the full story.

Here's a map of the mountain showing where the climber was found in relation to Timberline Lodge, where they parked.

To Teslinhiker: my condolences on being in this situation of worrying about your friend. It is admirable that you speak up on their behalf. It must surely be difficult to read criticisms but try to take heart in the countless prayers and good thoughts being expressed here and elsewhere for your friend's safe return. The caring far transcends the criticism.

With 24/7 media coverage and instant Internet feedback, private citizens at the center of news stories are suddenly thrust into the public eye and discourse in a manner they would not have been in years past. The glare of the spotlight is often harsh and not always fair.

If I ever get in a situation where rescue is required and I survive, I'll need to remember not to Google myself.

After working in ER's for a long time, docs, nurses, techs get burned out, and start to think that the patients are fools who pursued bad habits and made bad choices, and richly deserve their gunshot wounds, heart attacks and strokes. In fact, ED staff are ED staff by choice, and can stop doing it whenever they choose to do so. It is hard to get the burnouts to quit the ER, so they stay there, being and angry at the patients that are the reason for the ER's existence, and much less effective at their jobs than they once were. It is tough to recognize the symptoms in oneself, and scary to make the move out of the ER into some other employment setting. Happened to me. Probably happens to SAR personnel and survival listserv participants, too. The take-away might be: If I am really angry at folks lost in the snow on Mt Hood, maybe it says more about me than about the lost folks.

Society has leaned towards Susans thoughts on dealing with idiots. Insurance is needed for operating cars, owning a home, maintaining ones health, protecting ones wealth and covering ones liability. If you create an expense for someone else, you pay the bill. A beacon will minimize the bill.

I don't care if the idiots hike nude or with snow camo on. If an idiot needs a wrecker, he or his insurance pays for the wrecker. If the idiot wants to minimize the wrecker bill, take whatever precautions necessary to guarantee not having to make the call.

If you bill them all, few will need rescue. None will need rescue twice.

Update: the climber who was found yesterday died of hypothermia, not trauma.

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/post_76.html

Gullberg died of hypothermia, said Dr. Chris Young of the state medical examiner's office.

Young said his post-mortem showed what the search team who found him surmised: Gullberg survived "a long, slow" fall and then was able to walk and crawl several hundred yards before expiring.

Hypothermia is an abnormally low body temperature that leads to confusion and lethargy. If untreated it can lead to death.

"He had minor trauma, but nothing lethal," Young said.


"They are extremely physically strong individuals, all three of them were" said Teri Preiss, Vietti's aunt. "I think they're strong enough that they're still alive, But today is our day."

Preiss said she introduced Vietti to Nolan because they both loved climbing and sometimes climbed alone.

Searcher Nate Thompson said climbers hope to search the mountain above 10,000 feet today after finding no sign of Vietti and Nolan at lower elevations. But he stressed that the avalanche danger at that elevation is "extreme."

"We're going to do what we can for as long as we can," said rescue worker Nate Thompson. "We're not putting a cap or a time limit on this."

Dagney, well said. As smart as I think I am, I know things I do would appear completely boneheaded to others.

To Sue and Ben, I understand your frustration. I've felt that myself in other lesser situations.

I so sorry to hear that one person didn't make it, and I just hope the other two are found safe. After all, that is why we come to this forum - to learn and share about being equipped to survive the unexpected.

Ken

The latest news tonight (Mon) says that Mr Gullberg's body was found at the bottom of a 1500 foot headwall, and that he had taken "a long, slow fall". He was killed by hypothermia, and not by the fall. Since he was unroped, this continues to fit the scenario that he was going for help - but took a bad route down the mountain. The other team members have got ice axes and could presumably have carved out a snow cave. But this is 4 days now without good insulation, and unless they've got a stove and lots of fuel (for making hot drinks) their body energy is at serious risk.

other Pete

Teslinhiker, I respect your comments.

Perhaps you should consider sticking around. I think you could add value.

In this forum, it's acceptable to call "BS" when you see it -- as long as you can back it up of course.

The temptations of the armchair opinion are many; I'm guilty of a few.

But in my experience, the people around here defer to "boots on the ground" experience, and aren't too proud to say "I was wrong, I spoke too soon." That's how it should be.

Tell us more of your colleagues, and of your experience.

Regards,
Doug

I'm sorry that I sound so callous to some of you, but I have been seeing things like this happening for multiple DECADES.

Around this forum, the usual attitude is "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best".

But some of the ice climbers (not all) seem to have reworded it a bit to "Prepare for the worst, hope for the best, unless we want to make a fast trip up a dangerous mountain, where we shall just assume that everything will be fine and we'll just trust to luck."

Now, I am not saying they shouldn't go, or should be forbidden to go by anyone else. Everyone has to die sometime, and I guess some want to pick their own time.

But it's getting others involved that is where I am having the problem. When a mother decides to sit out a Category 4 hurricane with her three toddlers, who's to blame for their deaths? When a too-fast driver sails off into a canyon with two dogs aboard, who do you feel the most regret for? When Harry Truman (of Mt. St. Helens fame) literally committed suicide on the mountain, he kept his cats with him. $#&%$ Harry Truman, it was his decision.

The bottom line is, I don't care about people who deliberately make the decision to put their own lives in danger. I just don't. It's their victims who get my sympathy. Sorry.

Sue

I know that Mt. Hood has quite a reputation. I don't have the facts to comment on this specific situation.

But I do know that I accept certain risks and hazards in my outdoors trips. I try to prepare for any reasonable contingency, including being prepared to turn around and go home. And I certainly try to avoid any situation that puts others in danger.

But sometimes, the bear gets even those who are adequately prepared. And that's when we have no choice but to ask for help from the fine LEOs, Park Rangers, and SAR members who stand and serve.

So, I don't thing generalizations are helpful. Each situation should be judged on its merits.

Just read some of the CNN coverage etc and had a quick look at the contour map for the area. There are a couple of things I find a little baffling about this story.

Timberline Lodge is on a 5900 feet contour and one of the climbers bodies was found at 9000 feet and it would appear from the media coverage that Mr Gullberg could have been above 10,000 feet.

So we are talking possibly a 4000-5000 climb in winter with a known storm front predicted for the area yet the group left at 1.00 pm in the afternoon. I'm not aware that the group were equipped to spend the night out on the hill. This seems extremely late in the day to have started their climb especially if their aim was for the summit.

This sounds like another all too typical mountaineering incident of not knowing when to forget the summit and just turn back when time has run out or conditions begin to turn for the worst. Unfortunately I'm afraid that the chances of Miss Nolan and Mr Vietti being found alive are virtually non existant. Certainly a tragedy for all concerned.

Although it is easy to speculate but I suspect that Miss Nolan's body will be found at a considerably lower altitude on the mountain than Mr Vietti's body.

There a lot of misconceptions, false reporting etc. My friend and the other 2 climbers are experienced and would never attempt a climb at such a late hour. They started their climb out at around 1:00 am PST Friday morning...not pm.

From cnn.com.

When the three hikers set out at about 1 a.m. PT Friday (4 a.m. ET), they were planning a fairly easy, "semi-technical" hike in which they would come down the south side of the mountain, said Deputy Scott Meyers of the Clackamas County, Oregon, Sheriff's Office.

Thanks to many of you here who have written many gracious comments. It is refreshing to see that not all are so callous and judgmental here.

Hi Teslinhiker.
Weather is unpredictable at the best of times. Mountain weather is even worse. It seems they got caught by an extreme case.
I don't think anybody was really expecting this weather system even with the weather warnings.
It has been a record setter.

The question for me is this one, "Is there anything we can learn from this while we are here?"

There's a book I just read, Mountain Rescue Doctor, that talks about SAR from a MD's perspective.

Seems the 1am hike on Mt Hood is a common theme/occurance. Kind of similar to the 6pm assault on Whitney, hoping to make the peak by sunrise.

I haven't followed this story, or this thread, enough to make any worthwhile observations. But from the initial story, it seems that climbing this time of year isn't unheard of or necessarily a death sentence. Perhaps the only real mistake was the weather forecast?

So the groups aim was actually for the summit getting to the summit around or just after daybreak in the morning after a 7 or 8 hours arduous climbing in the dark, in the middle of winter during the extremely cold night/early morning hours at altitudes over 10,000 feet on snow slopes greater than 45 degrees, which are subject to the obvious avalanche risks.

From the same CNN story;



And the news media call that a semi technical hike!!, the reality I'm afraid is more likely to be characterised as extreme mountaineering considering the risks they were taking on such a long and difficult climb.

I believe this is a common tactic.

The point is to do the difficult and dangerous parts in bright daylight, especially with sunlight shining *down*. That's usually the parts near the summit, both before and after. Since you want a margin for error you start on a track to arrive well before noon local time. Under no circumstances do you plan to get to the summit at noon: you'll have no dwell time, no rest before the descent and less margin for error.

The first and last parts of the climb are usually not risky or arduous, so it's not a major issue to do them by flashlight. The idea is to plan everything around the most difficult parts and to make sure those parts are done under best possible conditions.

If conditions at lower elevations don't permit a nighttime hike then that means a multi-day expedition - the schedule at high elevations is not shifted to accommodate such.

PS. If their intent was to watch sunrise from the peak that's a different matter.

Departures on climbs just after midnight have been standard strategy on snow covered, glaciated peaks since the mid nineteenth century. It gets you off the route before avalanche and rock fall from sun warming makes travel dangerous. "Dark" is a relative concept, even on a moonless night, on snow and at altitude. A candle lantern was used for years to cover this kind of terrain.

There is even a standard saying for this strategy, attributed to the famous French alpinist, Gaston Rebuffat (who was renowned for his lyrical description of abominable, beastly bivouacs in the mountains)- "you will always regret starting too late, you will never regret starting too early"

It has worked for me....

I took a look at photo's of the mountain, combined with detailed relief maps last night. It's very hard to put together an analysis given the sparse facts. Here's one possible take on the events ...

It looks as though the trio tried the ascent on the Reid Glacier Route of Mt Hood. Given that they had previous mountaineering experience, this route selection makes some sense. This route is harder than the standard route. They were roped on the ascent at some point (according to photo's recovered). They seem to be doing well in the pictures.

My guess ... and it's a big one ... is that they did succeed and make the summit area of the mountain. But it took a lot longer then they planned, and somehow one of them became injured or sick at the top of the mountain. The three of them then dug a hasty snow cave, and the strongest team member (Mr Gullberg) decided to descend back down to get help. In order to move quickly, he did the descent with light gear and no ropes. However, he was overtaken by darkness and the storm, and therefore attempted the descent under very difficult conditions. He may have tried to re-trace his ascent route. Or just as likely he may have tried to go down the ridge on the side of the Reid Glacier. The ridge would be a safer choice if there was any avalanche danger. Unfortunately, that ridge starts out with reasonable downwards slope, but becomes risky and steep a little lower down on the mountain. A fall from the ridge (or a fall from the headwall) would place his body at about the location where it was discovered.

If I was S&R, I would try to get a team onto the summit area to probe the snow near the summit for a snow cave. But this may not be possible if clouds and winds do not cooperate on Tue morning. Frankly, it will be very difficult for the remaining 2 climbers to survive, if they don't have much fuel. They will be unable to melt snow to get drinking water, or provide any kind of heat from external sources. The combination of cold, low oxygen, fatigue, and dehydration is very harsh.

Just some thoughts ... and could be wrong given that few facts have been reported by the media.

My prayers to the friends and family members involved.

other Pete

Hopefully the two climbers are snuggled up in a snow cave. Continued sympathies for their loved ones who have to keep hoping and praying.

Anyone here ever built and hung out in a snow cave for any amount of time?


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/day_four_on_mount_hood_avalanc.html

Officials with Portland Mountain Rescue and the Clackamas County Sheriff’s Office are expected to make an announcement at 10 a.m. about future search efforts.

Conditions on Mount Hood remain treacherous. Dave Elson, a meteorologist with the National Weather Service in Portland, said the forecast calls for 50 mph winds and heavy, steady snow.

"It's pretty crummy this morning," he said.

He said searchers may get a break in the weather -- as they did Monday morning -- about 11 a.m.

Overnight, Government Camp got about a foot of snow. Temperatures in the upper elevations plunged into the teens. That area of the mountain also was pummeled by strong winds overnight.

The risk of avalanche remains high. The Northwest Weather and Avalanche Center has issued avalanche warnings for today on Mount Hood.

Yes, they are marvelous! Quiet, well insulated, and calm. The base temperature is about 32F, usually much better than outside temps.

They can be time consuming and difficult to dig, but there are procedures for handling that. That would be a major problem in this specific circumstance on Mt. Hood. You also need the right conditions and appropriate depth of snow. A vent hole or two is essential.

I spent a couple of nights in Arizona in one, and also in Alaska on Denali. On the standard route on Denali, snow caves were preferred over tents. They were dug early in the season, and were usually continuously occupied for the duration.

And then there was the makeshift cave I tried to dig in an emergency. The snow was deep, but too fluffy and unconsolidated to hold a roof, so a tarp had to do. Not as warm as it could have been, but barely adequate.

I have a friend who survived the Mt Hood tragedy with the high
school group in the 80's. What it boiled down to is that coastal
volcanoes can have very sudden, extreme weather that is not
predictable. Occasionally true blizzard conditions with wind chill at -50 F. and white-out can happen in just a couple of hours. Even SAR cannot go out with any amount of equipment and
function or even survive.

So we have a mountain that is nearly a walk-up, near a large population center, with generally good weather that thousands
of people climb each year. Once in a while a mind blowing storm
occurs and if folks are out in it, the roll of the dice --

Note the other thread on all the people stranded on
the HIGHWAY
when conditions turned bad. Are they any less irresponsible
than these climbers?

I say, if not for the grace of God, there go I.

If you have time, pile up the snow, then wait a few minutes,
the moved snow will consolidate enough to shovel out
and make a firm roof.

Just like how avalanche debris or the snowplow berm sets up
after moving.

Tried that. Good in theory, but in practice, it didn't work. It was a very cold night (well below zero), resulting in minimal consolidation. I was also exhausted after fifteen hours of solo climbing - talk about young, foolish, and lucky!

Joining late, a few thoughts (my $.02):
1) With regards to comments about the locator beacons, reread the article.
"Strovink said the three climbers were well-equipped and experienced but were not carrying a locator device. Search leader Rollins said a locator device would not have helped in this rescue."
'This is not a case where beacons would have made a difference,' Rollins said."
2) With regards to Sue and Ben and others who have spent entire careers rescuing the "bozos" of the world, a few thoughts. It is easy to get burnt out and become very negative over the course of one's career, especially with regards to the "bozos" you encounter. Everyone is guilty of it. I have been in insurance for a little over seven years now and already have similar attitudes towards the people who are t0o stupid for insurance or just shouldn't be driving. Ours are knee-jerk reactions to what may at first appear to be stupid situations, but often turn out to be ordinary citizens who have made a bad decision or just run into really bad luck. Everyone is guilty of making not so good decisions and having bad luck, like the people who ride around on motorcycles with no helmets (organ donors we call them), the person who has three accidents and a speeding ticket in one year, the folks who still drive around without a seat belt, or in this case, experienced climbers who thought they could get in and out before being caught by bad weather or unfortunate circumstance (maybe you will admit to yourself a time you went on an unexpected hike without your survival kit or pack "just this once" because you knew the terrain and figured nothing would happen). That doesn't make them bad people or any less worthy of our assistance than anyone else. However ...
3) It still seems they should have made some better decisions (like turning back or not going in the first place), or at least been more prepared. As others have mentioned, we can only speculate that they were thinking in and out, one day hike and climb so no additional gear required. I am not a mountain climber and not sure how much room the gear appropriate for the climb would take but it is fairly easy to assume they had room for some emergency gear as well. For all we know they may have been carrying some. That said I am sure we would all be appalled at the number of climbers who tackle Mt Hood every year without so much as an emergency blanket, bivy or survival kit. On the other hand, we don't really have any evidence to show that they were not so equipped. Again we can only speculate.
4) As with any good thing, in this case Personal Locator Beacons and Search and Rescue, there will always be people who will abuse and take advantage of the services. As I like to say often to get through the day, you can't fix stupid. However, the services are invaluable to those who end up truly needing it. To those who now serve or have served in any capacity related to SAR, many thanks for protecting and serving and putting your lives on the line for those in need of assistance. Please don't be discouraged or disgruntled by the "bozos" of the world.
5) With hopes and prospects dwindling I add my positive thoughts that perhaps the other two climbers are huddled somewhere nice and warm awaiting rescue.
6) Lessons learned:
- make better decisions
- be better prepared
- Luke Gullberg, the hiker that was found, should have had a note on his person describing in detail the events that had transpired and the location(s) of the other two hikers. Generalized, if you go for help and leave someone behind, don't assume you will make it and have a detailed note on your person.
- If forced to take shelter out of sight of rescuers, mark it somehow
I suppose I could go on but I won't. I am also wondering if any thermal imagery would be helpful. Just a thought.

We call 'em "donorcyclists".

Hi Teslinhiker,

Your input here is appreciated. While I can't agree with your perspective entirely, I heartily welcome your input here and hope you will continue to participate.

As I said before, I am saddened for the condition your friend and the others have found themselves in. I hope for a successful rescue of those that have not been found yet.

The use of colorful adjectives is done to better emphasize my point, which is that people who desire adventure should realize and anticipate the risks inherent with their planned activities, and adequately prepare for such known risks ahead of time, and not trust in the good will and ability of others so much if some predictable hardship does materialize. I would and have said the same to friends and family in counsel and correction, though there is no question in their mind that I love them dearly. I find the use of adjectives to be more effective with people who don't like to hear that something could or did go wrong. It seems to be more motivational than simply stating the obvious.

As I remind my daughters from time to time, there is a big difference between an accident and a mistake. IMHO, this trip up the mountain was a big mistake, one far too common to warrant a simple statement. If my use of the vernacular helps in some small way to prevent future repetitions of similar mistakes, then I will continue to insert it into my dialogue.

Most people really don't like to hear that they screwed up, especially when it involves the welfare of loved ones. I include myself in that classification. It might seem callous and insensitive, but there's the truth of it. Whatever the facts that remain to be discerned, we already know that one person is dead, and two others might be, for something that never needed to have happened.

I do not know enough of what transpired on Mt Hood to judge the climbers, so I won't. Any activity like this needs discipline to know when to abort. They may have had that discipline but their back-up plan failed with Luke Gullberg's fall. We do not know what transpired to put Luke in the position of retreating solo. Lots of unanswered questions.

From the article:
If he is referring to the recovery of Luke Gullberg -- fine. But I don't understand how he can say that for the group as a whole since he has yet to find two of the hikers. The jury is out as to whether a beacon would have helped, but it couldn't have hurt.

There may have been some misunderstanding regarding beacons. It's possible that the S&R folks interpreted "beacons" to mean locating devices for avalanches.

But in this case we are debating the merits of satellite-based services, and it seems to me that these devices would have been tremendously helpful for finding the missing climbers (if at least one was carried in a pack). Perhaps I am missing something - but otherwise I don't understand the comment from the S&R team.

Sadly, things don't look good at this stage. If the 2 missing climbers were still alive in a snow cave and able to move, they could have signalled for help during the clear weather break on Monday. No movement on the mountain is a very bad sign.

From this incident, there is a very good lesson that the following three pieces of equipment could be real lifesavers in a sudden-storm weather emergency:

1. A locator beacon or a SPOT tracker.
2. A light device, such as a handheld laser or a very bright strobe.
3. A lightweight stove with good heat output, several spare containers of fuel, and some mugs.

BTW, I'm not saying that the laser would shine through the storm. But it could be enormously useful once the clouds pass and S&R folks begin their search with full activity.

other Pete

It is not just theory. I've used this many times, especially
when the snow is very shallow. Perhaps well below zero is
the issue.

I feel sorry for the climbers and hope the remaining two are successfully rescued. It sounds like they were better prepared and experienced than normal idiots.

However, I feel that the families/friends/survivors who requested the rescue should be billed for the costs. UNLESS this is a normally taxpayer funded operation (e.g., like a town fire department - your taxes pay for them, not individual bills for those who actually have fires), or the climbers had some kind of "insurance" (e.g., here in Colorado when you buy a fishing license, a certain protion of that fee - which is mandatory - goes for "rescue insurance"). But barring these caviots, you put the burden of survival on yourself when you undertake any activity. If you ask for help with no previous arrangements to cover the cost of that help, you should be responsible for paying for it.

I do not agree that people should be forced to buy or rent personal locators. In many situations it might be stupid not to. But you can't legislate something to stop stupidity. If the lack of locators causes the SAR folks to have to search for 3 extra days, then the cost billed should reflect that extra search time. If SAR folks are injured/killed while trying to help, then that should be covered the same way as anybody else you contracted for work. If you hire someone to put your TV antenna on the roof and they fall off, even if because of their own error, it's YOUR insurance that will be footing the bill. Or you may even be sued. Heck, people are being sued by burglars who injure themselves while trying to break into your house!

Good idea with the stove, they may have one. As for the beacons,
having one may not make any difference as the weather it too
bad for searchers to reach the sight.

If you have a fix provided by a beacon, even if you can't effect the rescue immediately, once the weather breaks you won't need to waste time conducting a Search; you can go straight to the Rescue part of S&R.

At some point a beacon is like the cowboy with the $100 bill
in the 6th hole of his revolver cylinder - helps others
deal with the body. A convenience for the searchers and a comfort
for the family.

This seems like a reasonable guess, and personally, I think we can even simplify somewhat.

A team member other than the one found became injured, the injured party and another dug in and the other goes for help. He is overcome by weather.

Doesn't have to be more complicated than that. They need not have been running late, or have made mistakes. You don't have to make a mistake to be injured.

Sometimes the best decisions and the best effort are not enough to avoid a bad outcome. I think sometimes we over estimate our ability to control the outcome.

The only real question I have, is if a PLB might have helped out. Of course, we don't even know they didn't have a PLB. It certainly is possible if they had a single PLB between them it could have been lost or damaged in whatever happened to them.

-john

I strenuously disagree.

The rescue teams on Mt. Hood are predominately volunteers. The helicopter and plane flights are factored as training that the National Guard, et.al. need anyway to maintain readiness.

We all pay taxes for services we'll never use that are intended for people in situations we pray that we and our friends and family will never find ourselves in.

These climbers engaged in a high-risk activity. One at which they are very experienced and were apparently reasonably well equipped (we're all being presumptuous here) .

I don't think their climb up Mt. Hood was higher risk than James Kim's ill-fated drive into the coastal mountains a few years ago. Or the trips all kinds of people take in dangerous conditions, often driving poorly-equipped or maintained vehicles.

I have one bad knee and two bad ankles, yet I hike in areas where if one of those joints gave way, I would probably require assistance beyond my hiking buddies (who neglect to carry a gurney or crutches). I've hiked on Mt. Hood and have a particularly vivid memory of a treacherous traverse of a river that was raging because of glacial melt we could have, and should have, avoided. Had to carry my dog across, which was especially exciting (the power of rushing water indelibly etched in my mind). Perhaps it's reckless for me to hike in remote areas, given my knee and ankle problems.

I've paid a small fortune in taxes for schools that the children I've never had won't ever attend.

I don't smoke so the cigarettes I don't consume won't ever cause a fire that requires the fire department to respond. And I'm not the fool on the next block who dumped hot briquettes next to a propane tank resulting in a five-alarm fire that burned several homes.

In the universe of taxpayer-funded services, search-and-rescue is a few molecules in a drop in the multi-trillion dollar bucket.

If everyone was content sitting in front of their televisions and computers all day, then society would spend less on search-and-rescue.

But then there'd be more heart disease straining our health care system.

I get the sentiment, but the reasoning doesn't hold up under examination. There's so much else going on far more worthy of getting excited about and demanding restitution for.

So my vote is for people not to have to worry about going bankrupt if they or a family member needs help because they get lost in the woods or stranded on a mountain or their car goes off the road because they cheaped out on their tires or neglected to put chains on.

And if a kitten (that the owner should have kept inside the house) gets stuck at the top of a tree or stuck in a drainage pipe, I'll applaud the fire department for the rescue.

The taxpayer-funded rescue.

The humanity of saving a life is something I'm okay with my taxes paying for. Those are the news stories that make me smile.

Several good comments there. Maybe the S&R team was just saying that they were frustrated because bad weather would not let thm go on the mountain. That would make sense.

A beacon would have helped for several reasons:

1. If the climbers knew they had a beacon, then there was no necessity to send a team member to reach the outside world. That was particularly risky ... descents off mountains in bad weather often claim the lives - even for the best climbers.

2. The beacon would cut S&R costs, and total search time, tremendously.

3. In a worst-case scenario, yes the beacon becomes a body locator. But that still brings closure to the families.

However, this raises a question in my mind.
Are these PLB's designed so that you must manually turn ON the emergency signal? If that's the case, and you happen to be killed by a sudden accident while travelling in the wilderness, then the beacon can never activated. Hence no signal, and no body recovery.

It would be smart for these devices to have a special "countdown mode" as one possible option. You set the electronics working (but not broadcasting a distress signal), and then you activate a clock so that it will automatically send a distress in 12 hours - unless you intervene and say things are OK. That way if you are killed outright, the unit still turns on later and somebody can recover your body. This idea could generate some false alerts. But it would allow bodies to be found much more quickly.

other Pete

Yah, my feeling is a PLB would help, and was thinking along the lines of your comment #1, but figure it was worth a discussion in the context of mountaineering.

I certainly don't see how it would hurt.

-john

"Luck" is not a random event. "Luck" is a combination of preparation seeking opportunity, both good and bad.

"Good Luck" in this case might have have been bringing along extra/extended shelter gear since a front was known to be moving into the area later that day and any problems delaying their return from the mountain could easily result in a stay of a day or two (until SAR was able to deploy after the weather passed).

"Bad Luck" might be not bringing along a couple of day's worth of fuel "because we'll be back before the front gets here", i.e., failure to prepare for a scenario meets an opportunity...

Either way, random chance is not the key component of "Luck".

I'm not trying to point a finger at them but rather identify how they would up in trouble, since "but for the grace of God, there go I". At this point the clearest lesson for me to take from this is that "we'll be home by dinner" - which I'm guilty of too - isn't a viable plan.

PS. Even if they had a PLB the batteries might be dead by now if they activated it the first afternoon.

PPS. I*'m not sure a PLB would have saved them. If SAR can't go due to weather, then SAR can't go and you need to shelter for some time. There's a delay between turning on a PLB and the rescue, and if you're on a mountain in weather, that delay might be measured in days.

I think your assumption is correct - SAR was saying the presence of a tracking beacon would not make any difference in this case because they have been unable to mount a rescue from very early in the event. Knowing where a beacon is transmitting from would have no effect on the climbers until they can fly or climb to attempt a rescue.

As I said earlier, the Mountain Location Unit is unique to Mt Hood, a pretty good description of it is available at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mountain_Locator_Unit.

"...Even if they had a PLB the batteries might be dead by now if they activated it the first afternoon. There's a delay between turning on a PLB and the rescue.."

In this situation, If they had activated it the first afternoon, they would be on Jay Leno tonight.

Grim update. Conditions make search impossible for foreseeable future.


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/day_four_on_mount_hood_avalanc.html


...women are more likely to survive then men....

"Water is more important than food," she said. "Water is more like seven or eight days and in this situation that means fuel."

"a beacon would not have made a difference in this situation. It is not a matter of beacons."

...1 percent chance of finding climbers alive after 48 hours.

...believe there was some kind of accident....

A base of about 1,000 calories a day would help them function. Fewer than that and “you get really weak,” he said.

With the body heat in an enclosed space, temperatures in a snow cave can reach up to 40 degrees while a winter storm could be raging outside.

I understand that if it is impossible to mount a rescue that a beacon doesn't change that fact.

But the statement seems odd considering that when the weather breaks, they still need to know where they are, and it seems a PLB would be extremely helpful toward that end.

Regarding PLB batteries going dead -- I don't think it matters, esp. if it has GPS capability. Basically the message would have gotten through and they'd have the location unless they had moved from that location.

That said, could a white-out block the PLB signal? How about GPS?

-john

Well very sadly ... as someone already posted. They have called off the search. And the S&R team confirmed that they just could not get off the ground - no way to even reach a location up on the mountain.

About PLB's and batteries. Climbers have problems with batteries for other reasons as well - for example cameras. You need batteries to take pictures (something almost every climber wants to do!). The solution is to carry the batteries taped onto the skin on your chest or belly. Body heat keeps them warm. This works even in the Himalayas.

About my earlier "analysis" above ... someone asked why I needed to be so specific. The answer was not obvious because of how the answer played out. My goal was to see if the descent route of the 3'd climber (Mr Gullberg) could be figured out, based on the few facts reported in the press. If someone could do this, then you could backtrack his descent route and work out where the other 2 climbers might be located. As noted above, by another reader, if Mr Gullberg had carried even a small hand-written note explaining the situation of the team trapped on the mountain, it could have helped. Ironically, to do that he would have needed to admit to himself that he could die while making his way out in the storm.

Anyway, back to my analysis. I started while working off the proposition that the climbers took the standard route up the mountain. That raised a big discrepancy about why Mr Gullberg's body was recovered on a glacier that is quite some distance from the standard ascent route. One possible explanation could have been that he lost his bearings while descending off the summit, and came down the wrong ridge on the mountain by mistake. Analyzing the pattern of his fall would give the ridgeline that he actually descended. Tracing that ridgeline back up the mountain gives a very valuable clue at to his early starting point. Hence the possibility that his companions could be stranded near the top of the mountain. That logic would have given S&R a place to look for life, if they had a short time window on the mountain on Tue.

Unfortunately, the climbers took a different route and it was not so easy to tie the logic together. Insufficient data. The media often forget that when they fail to report facts accurately, they may be screening out a solution to the problem that is taking place. The news is not about writing "stories" ... it's about getting the facts.

other Pete

Yeah, if they don't their facts straight people on the web can't make the right assumptions. Obviously the writers are idiots and candidates for the Darwin awards, they shouldn't be allowed to write any longer, I don't care about the writers, I care about the families they've left behind...

I realise that everyone is an expert after the fact but can't we even wait til the bodies are buried before deciding how everyone else should have behaved?

Facts are tricky, that's why some people wait til they get more of them before making assumptions.

If the batteries are dead, how is a message going to get
through?

Some people are fixated on beacons, second only to knives,
probably neither would have be of use this time.

What agency or agencies will do the official, in-depth report of this incident? Are their reports available online?

Thanks.

An excellent point. This has been the situation for the last fifty years in most western states, at a minimum.

Another point is that something like only 3.4% of the victims of this particular unit, the one that typically gets the calls for Mt Hood, were engaged in mountaineering. 3% were mushroom collectors! This is pretty typical for other mountain rescue units as well, who often deal with motorists who fail to negotiate the curves on mountain highways, to name another victim group.

In a recent thread we discussed the impending demise of volunteerism, specifically with reference to volunteer fire units, due to increasing demands for training and certification. It is a shame, because volunteerism is an important part of our past (think the original Minutemen and barn raisings). SAR volunteers provide a great bargain for the tax payer.

Well, I'll refrain from calling them fools (even if they are), if they refrain from expecting a rescue. I think that it's high time to start charging for S&R, and if people can't/won't agree to that, then simply designate areas such as this "no rescue zones". Enter at your own risk.

Works for me.

Absolutely, right after we start charging for fire and police services we can start charging for SAR. And lets not forget boaters, have a problem out at sea, the Coast Guard will be there with their credit card scanner in hand. Car trouble, sorry the highway patrol doesn't take cash, bring a card.

Given that no one here has the slightest idea whether the folks on Mt. Hood expected, demanded, would have accepted, or otherwise asked to be rescued lets just keep assuming that we know it all.

In the meantime, I sure hope no one here ever makes a mistake and pays the ultimate price for their error, those of us left will be so busy condemning their actions we'll probably forget that it was someone we might consider a friend.

My point was that the batteries don't have to last forever. If the location is determined, SAR will likely to to the location even if the device stops transmitting.

-john

News today is first and foremost about speed. Accuracy is neglected. On cases like this, my basic assumption is that media won't be able to get ANY technical details correct. Doesn't matter if some detail is repeated in every news channel - it is the same misinterpretation of the same source, repeated by every paper and TV station because it makes a great story. Repetition doesn't make it any more true.


Luckily SAR operations is not run by media. Leaders of ongoing SAR operations will have a much better and updated picture and know a lot of stuff that never reach the media.


I disagree with those whose gut reaction it is to claim that SAR services should be restricted or paid for. Rescuing people seems to be a pretty good investment (and yes, that includes saving someone whose choices may have been negligent, stupid or uninformed). It is among the things I am most happy and willing to pay tax for.


And please don't tell me that experienced climbers don't know the risks and dangers of climbing and weather. All climbers above some minimum level know perfectly well that if they're stuck and the weather is bad, they will be on their own. The presence or absence of SAR services won't have any effects on climbers decision to climb or not to climb.


My deepest thoughts and sympathy for the climbers, their family and friends...

You will want to look at the annual issue of "Accidents in North American Mountaineering," authored by the American Alpine Club. It is one of those paper things....

What you are describing sounds like an avalanche beacon, which, indeed, the two climbers might be wearing. It is a small device that is activated once you enter possible avalanche terrain and is typically worn around the neck (although I am sure those who don't like jewelry can attach the unit to their car keys). In the event of an avalanche, those not inundated or the arriving rescuers can turn their unit to "receive" from send and scan the area for the signal from those who are buried. There is a bit of expertise in running a proper pattern. The technology often results in the more efficient retrieval of bodies, but it has saved many lives. The batteries will transmit for weeks.

I have no idea if modern technology or the spook gadgets the military might employ could detect the signal from the air.

I haven't messed with this stuff lately.

Oops....Pete, I see from an earlier post that you don't need the avalanche beacon 101 discussion.....

If the PLB has no GPS, or the GPS couldn't get a fix, then the accuracy of SARSAT is perhaps .5 to 1 miles.

The problem here probably isn't "can the batteries last long enough" but "can the survivors last long enough".

Even if they had activated a PLB on the first day a rescue might not have happened then. If the SAR team leader gets a notice at 1pm with bad weather moving in at 3pm or 4pm, the rescue might be put off until the next day rather than put SAR personnel on the mountain in bad weather as it is getting dark...

Point being -- alive or not, rescue or recovery -- right now no one knows where the two remaining hikers are located. They're part of the mountain and may be for a long time -- No closure.

My position on SAR for what it is worth was stated in this thread (this not directed at you -you were the next on the thread addressing the issue of SAR):

Thread on Scout Rescue/Fine

Pete

Rescuing people is an iffy investment. The shock trauma unit in Baltimore was built as an advanced emergency services center; it was sort of assumed that it would save societally useful folks like poets, physicists and elected officials. Not so much. They found that they were taking care of alumni: folks who got drunk, crashed a camaro, got helicoptered to shock trauma, got saved, rehabilitated, got a new camaro, got drunk, and did it again. Sar folk, ice climbers, and er nurses do what they do because they want to do so. All the choices have consequences. It is unseemly for ice climbers to expect rescue. It is unseemly for SAR folk to gripe about rescuing ice climbers. It is unseemly for ER nurses to gripe about caring for SAR personnel and ice climbers who get hurt doing what they do. Everyone should stop whining and get on with it, or choose a different line of endeavor.

+1 on Dagny's comments on page 8. Although on the flip side of that, here, unless we pay annual fire dues to our responding fire department, there is a charge for responding to a fire. Same with ambulance. Not sure if this is SOP all around the country or not. No charge for police services though.

In response to James, perhaps "luck" is the wrong word, but what else would you call a string of unfortunate and unforeseeable events. Unfortunate event number one: "Preiss said the photos also appeared to show that one of the planned routes was too dangerous and that they were forced to try a different route." Unfortunate event number two: whatever event that occurred to force Luke Gullberg to head back down the mountain alone. Unfortunate event number three: Gullberg's apparent fall on Reed Glacier (from article in lazy Joe's post on page 1) while presumably going for help. Other events, such as no note on Gullberg's person, no visible marking of the location of the other two climber's shelter, going on a climb mere days before a severe weather front was anticipated, any lack of necessary survival gear, etc can all be attributed to lack of preparation and poor decision making but IMO the first three - bad luck. Call it by whatever you will, it is what it is.

In response to the other pete about beacons, it is difficult to say from the article what Rollins meant by his comment since we are not sure exactly what he was referring to (i.e. Gullberg or the other two hikers) or when the comment was made. The last update to the article was late (7:44pm) on Monday evening but the article also mentions "A storm is expected to move in Monday evening ..." so who knows what was said when. At this point it is all conjecture.

Another +1 to nursemike.

Another important lesson learned - bad weather will hamper S&R so don't go on an excursion mere days before bad weather is predicted.

Follow-Ups for all readers ...

1. I took a look at the data from the PLB folks. The beacon starts by locating its position to within an accuracy of 2 miles based on the SARSAT (much better if GPS is present!). But it also has its own radio homing signal to guide rescuers who get within that range of the source. So it's a good design. People just need to carry them! A lot of the debate about cost of S&R would be a moot point ... if wilderness travelers would carry these things on their person.

2. As someone mentioned earlier, you shouldn't only carry a PLB if you think things "could go bad". You need to carry the device every time you make any extended journey into the wildernerness. Life is unpredictable. If you want to get rescued, you need the right gear to make it happen.

3. Climbing mishaps are reported in "Accidents in North American Mountaineering" (American Alpine Club). The commentaries and analysis are generally excellent - but they can only report what is known. The resolution to this particular incident must wait until the missing bodies are found, and even then a lot of the circumstances will never be known for sure.

4. I completely agree with the comments on this forum about the trip planning situation where a "storm is expected". There are too many hikers and climbers who are going into the wilderness under the assumption - "I'll make it back out before the bad weather hits". That is a disastrous way to plan a trip.

5. If you ever find yourself "going for help" in an emergency while your other team members are stranded, it sure is a good idea to write a note explaining where they are and what happened .. and carry that note in your pocket.

cheers,
other Pete

+1

In mountaineering, hazards are broken down into subjective
and objective.

Things you can control or mitigate are subjective- IE the
equipment you bring, the time you start the climb, etc.

Objective are the hazards that you have no control over-
rock fall, avalanche etc.

So luck is a part of mountaineering, it is the avoidance
of the objective hazards through no doing of your own.
Grace.

While I understand that it doesn't do the climbers any good if SAR cannot get them, the bottom line is without knowledge of their location, additional time is lost searching, once they *can* mount a rescue.

-john

Didn't I say "UNLESS this is a normally taxpayer funded operation"?

And why should SAR not be a normally taxpayer funded operation?

If you're in another state, are you supposed to know whether SAR is taxpayer funded and to what extent it is taxpayer-funded, in that state or local jurisdiction?

Are you supposed to know in advance whether the National Guard helicopter that might fly looking for you can write that flight off as training? Or might they already have fulfilled their training requirement and so your rescue becomes a taxpayer burden?

Is the family supposed to know that?

Should they pick from a menu of SAR activity that they can afford? Go bankrupt to get some help? Should everyone have to buy SAR insurance? It's not just climbers and hikers who need SAR on occasion.

I never said it shouldn't. But if it's not, who will pay for it? The volunteers who did the actual SAR? I don't think volunteers would demand a salary, but there are a lot of equipment and other costs involved in a complex rescue.

If SAR is not taxpayer funded, for whatever reason, and there are no volunteers available to do it, would you suggest drafting people/resources against their will and force them to do SAR for free so that the victims wouldn't have to take any financial responsibility?

I don't like the ethics of making victims pay for their rescue. But I don't like the ethics of the alternative either. So, until SAR is fully taxpayer funded, universally, everywhere, what do you suggest?

p.s. - If you go on a trip, out of state or whatever, and drive off the road accidently ... ending up in the ER ... who do you think will get your bill?

The reality is that SAR is basically a volunteer operation and has been for more than fifty years. Most organizations charge their members dues and conduct fundraisers to allow what is clearly seen as a valuable public service. The public money involved is minuscule. Compare rescue costs with the price of maintaining one member of the armed forces abroad in either of our wars.

My former organization in Arizona just completed construction of a $750,000 station, all with donations. They have developed a highly competent volunteer membership, having served the community since 1959. Like most SAR groups, the majority of their victims have not been climbers or backpackers.

That's a non sequitur and ludicrous.

Apparently we're talking past each other.

Fundamentally, I don't think SAR expense in this country is something to get upset about or bother sticking individuals and families with.

And I'd bet that a majority of Oregonians would gladly kick in a quarter if it would make the difference in getting that young woman and her climbing partner off that mountain, alive.

The costs involved in S&R are greatly reduced if you can minimize the "S". With a good PLB GPS location, manpower and flight hour requirements can be reduced but more importantly lives can be saved. But this requires the rescue-ees to cooperate with potential rescuers and actually carry a GPS enabled PLB. Without that cooperation, I start to edge over to Susan's side of the discussion.

I don't know how things are in Oregon, but many States are having serious budget issues and while no one wants to cut S&R budgets, what are we getting for those dollars? Dagny's idea that helo flight hours can be written off as training only goes so far; training budgets are limited. Flight hours run in the thousands of dollars per hour, while a PLB costs a few hundred and is good for years.

A PLB can minimize search requirements within its limitations, but the alternative is what we're seeing on Mt Hood. With a GPS fix you can fly a team in to do a localized ground search -- a 100' CEP is much better than "somewhere above 9000' on the west side". Rather than "we're waiting for a break in the weather so we can start an air search", it could be, "we're waiting for a break in the weather so we can fly a team in and pull them off the mountain".

That about sums it up for me. If the only break in the weather is spent on (unsuccessful) search when it could used for rescue, everyone loses. Days later -- we're still here and they are still on Mt Hood.

Where my team operates, SAR has just started to get some government help, although we've been around for much longer. They began supplying volunteer teams with a given quantity of helmets w/mounted flashlight and custom-made orange SAR vests.

However, many people complain about the helmets : they are too heavy and overbuilt, as if they were made for urban rescue rather than wilderness SAR (which I agree). They come with "integrated" goggles, which are basically SWAT-type ballistic goggles... But hey, can we be fussy and spit on $300+ helmets that are supplied freely to all of us?

As for the vests, they're fine and will become mandatory, but what about these volunteers that invested their hard-earned money in custom cover-alls or vests? It never ends...

I think government should fund basic expenses (gas and lunch), and provide radios which operate on a few specific freqencies for SAR missions, and that's it.

Sorry, I didn't mend to hijack the thread. It appears that even though you take every precaution in the world when attempting things such as climbing Mt Hood, these accidents will always happen, regardless of what equipment you have available.

"taxpayer funded" and "user billed" are not mutually exclusive.

Ambulance service here is funded by the County Medical District - it's one of the property taxes. However, the patient is also billed about $500 (as of 3 years ago) per trip.

(I know fire and police are taxpayer funded but don't know if either ever bill users for services - I've never had to call on either)

The search is over (suspended).


http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2009/12/day_five_on_mount_hood_heavy_s.html

Clackamas County Sheriff Craig Roberts has announced that rescuers are suspending the search on Mount Hood for two missing climbers.

"Weather has not been on our side and weather is just getting worse," he said. "Unfortunately," he continued, his voice wavering, "it wasn't to be."

He and family members discussed the decision to stop the five-day-long search for Katie Nolan, 29, of Southeast Portland, and Anthony Vietti, 25, of Longview, Wash.

A sad situation indeed. Not the ending we were all hoping for. Our only consolation is the lessons learned and discussion generated by this event. Hopefully the lessons learned will not soon be forgotten.



I believe this depends on if it is a paid or volunteer fire department. Here the city fire department is paid (not volunteer) and taxpayer funded. In the surrounding area the fire departments are volunteer and funded by fire dues, fundraisers and other donations. All are able to take advantage of any grant money available. The volunteer fire departments will charge a fee for responding to a fire if you don't pay your annual fire dues. I am not sure if the city fire department also charges a fee. Many homeowners insurance companies in the state also have a coverage available to cover the cost of the fire department's charge. Our ambulance services also charge but most health insurance will cover that. Our ambulance services are a mixed bag, some run by individuals for profit, some run by a local non-profit hospital, and the ones run by the city fire department that are taxpayer funded. All of them bill insurance for services provided. Is it the same elsewhere? Perhaps the future of S & R services would be a similar charge paid by insurance via an optional (or mandatory) endorsement to insurance. That is in the event it is not all volunteer or able to be written off as training.

Some might be interested in a release by Portland Mountain Rescue, a SAR organization who actually responds to incidents on Mt Hood, and elsewhere in Clackamas County. It contains a statement on the advisability of carrying mountain locator units, and why the public should NOT be charged for rescue services. Argue against their stated postitions if you want, but there is generally more good sense in their press release than I am hearing in this thread right now.

http://www.pmru.org/pressroom/headlines/20091213PMRStatementRegardingMissions.html

I have known 3 climbers who died doing what they loved, before the interwebs and web forums, and I think of them every time one of these threads gets started, and people start speculating and pontificating, and how they would laugh at what people do with their time and thoughts. Willi, Erich, Steve - here they go again...

We can discuss and pontificate, its what we do in this forum - its just that in this thread about the Mt Hood climbers, it seems to me to be in very bad taste to do it about their experiences, which we really don't know very much about.

My sympathies are for the climbers, their families and friends, now at a very tough time. And I am grateful to SAR and mountain rescue, who had to make a terrible decision not to search this week. Everyone did their best, but they were up against it. Sometimes the mountain wins.

I agree with you. Just possibly their press release make sense because it comes from people familiar and experienced with the area and with the conduct of operations therin.

Considering reasons 1. and 2. of the PR for not mandating -- both should be handled through education and training. Any proposed legislation could stipulate that carrying an MLU or a PLB does not entitle the rescuee to immediate rescue. It allows the rescuee to be rescued when it is safe to do so (it is not an entitlement). (Carrying a beacon and hiking into a winter storm on Mt Hood entitles the person carrying the beacon to have their body recovered if they activate it and thus give their family closure.)

As for reason 3, that seems to be a personal problem for the individual who risks his/her life to avoid a small fine -- literally a Life or Death Decision over a couple of bucks, life is all about choices and free will.

My opinion.

Thanks for the article Lono.
I did get a bit out of it.
I seldom bother to comment on threads like this much anymore.
I find threads about incidents usually devolve into people pontificating about their ideology instead of actually discussing the event and what might be done to prevent it being so bad the next time.

Mountain weather is not predictable and sometimes being just a few hundreds of feet up a mountain makes you as hard to reach as if you were on the moon when a storm comes in.

While I hope for the best for the two young folks who are still stuck out there I will take the time now to extend sympathy if they have become part of the mountain.

I like living in a society that tries to take care of people when they're in danger. I don't want the fire department to present my neighbor with a credit card terminal before pulling him out of a burning car.

Driving drunk and caused the wreck? I have no problem with billing him or his insurance company for the rescue after the fact.

I don't have enough information about the hikers on Mount Hood, other than that I hope they're warm and will be found safely soon. Without regard to how foolish they are or are not, if I were there and had the right skillset, I would volunteer for the SAR team.

+1 on that. My favourite quote from that release:

PMR believes the best way to improve climber and rescuer safety is to stress personal responsibility, preparation, and sound decision-making.


I am sure that there are lessons to be learned from this tragedy. However, those lessons will have to wait until the facts of the case are known - which they will be, in due time. I repeat myself to drive this point home: Don't trust media to get ANY technical detail correct in an ongoing event.

Unless I'm mistaken, the main purpose of the equipped.org site as well as this forum is to promote better preparedness, in order to prevent and mitigate tragedies such as this.*

People who have been on this forum for years don't really need help in understanding the importance of preparation. We're here because we find the subject interesting, and perhaps because we want to help others by sharing our knowledge and experience.

The people who DO need our help are the ones being referred to as idiots, bozos, fools, and many other worse things. When a tragedy like this draws lots of media attention, and google searches, people run across this forum who know very little about preparedness, and we have an opportunity to share information and teach lessons that may one day save lives.

If the first thing a newcomer sees on this forum is members blaming, insulting, and mocking the victims, do you think they're going stick around long enough to learn anything?



*and I'm pretty sure Doug didn't setup this forum for us to debate SAR financial policies.

For the record: if I am ever in any kind of emergency or distress, I do not expect anyone to rescue me. Part of the joy of backpacking for me is knowing that my life and survival is entirely in my own hands.

If anyone does choose to help me, I will be grateful. But if a rescuer feels that I deserve a Darwin award or that my life is not worth taxpayer money, then I would rather take my chances on my own, and suggest that they find a different line of work. And if I ever get a bill for a rescue I didn't ask for, I will inform them where they can shove it.


I have volunteered as an EMT, worked with at-risk youth, helped people who were caught unprepared in the Alaskan wilderness, and currently I weatherize homes for extremely low-income people. I can think of numerous instances in which people make very bad decisions that caused or exacerbated their situations. Helping people isn't about pointing out someone's flaws or deciding whether they deserve help. It's about compassion. Thankfully I think there are more people who understand that than there are Susans and Benjamins in the world.

An interesting article found on MSNBC.COM discussing the debate in Oregon on requiring beacons for climbers above the treeline. Mirrors the arguments you raise.

My philosphy is that I make my life better by making it easier for others to do their jobs. So I would carry a beacon/PLB in the wilderness regardless of my expertise and experience. I'm on the fence about making it mandatory for others to do so.

Mandatory??

Perhaps we are proceeding toward a condition summarized by a phrase I encountered during my military service - "Everything that is not mandatory is prohibited."

I am waiting to see any reliable evidence that a PLB would have materially affected outcomes in this situation.

"I am waiting to see any reliable evidence that a PLB would have materially affected outcomes in this situation."

Maybe they could have located them? IF the weather had cooperated, and IF they had had a PLB, they might have been home by now. It's not going to be a very happy holiday for their families... ever... especially if they never find the bodies. I guess a PLB could be good for that, too.

It's a big mountain. Why tempt Fate? She doesn't have a very good sense of humor.

Sue

"It's about compassion. Thankfully I think there are more people who understand that than there are Susans and Benjamins in the world."

It is disappointing that some continue to confuse fiduciary concerns I and others have with lacking compassion for the welfare of those who make poor choices in life. It should be apparent that both Susan and I are compassionate, charitable people, who are willing to help those in need even to the debtriment of our own welfare. Sometimes the only way to help someone is through criticism and a certain amount of derision, especially when diplomacy and political correctness seems to have no effect on their foresight. Likewise, it is never prudent to continue to provide any form of assistance to those who demonstrate ambivalence and disregard for such effort, no matter the provisional cost being expended on their behalf.

Many of us on this forum, Susan and myself included, have volunteered to help others, often at great risk and expense to ourselves and those who support our effort. In voicing our concerns for those who's resources are taxed, who's fees are raised, who's access is restricted, we cite a common frustration. Those few who abuse a privilege by not assuming responsibility for their actions and the consequences that entail do so at the expense of the majority of the rest of us. One definition of insanity is to repeat the same behavior/action and expect different results. If people are making the same sort of mistakes repeatedly and ignore the predictable outcome, then someone ought to point out to them and the rest contemplating taking the same action the error in their reasoning, using whatever means necessary to make a suitable impression.

Compassion does not equal acceptance. I treat my daughters compassionately, even when I am critical of their actions. Does that make me a bad father? The results would indicate otherwise. Sometimes I criticize them harshly, like when the risk is exceptionally grave, or the pattern is becoming repetitive, but almost always with a positive result. Yes, it hurts their feelings, and I would prefer it didn't, but in my opinion it is far better than the alternative. So too the case then for calling someone out for making an avoidable mistake on the side of the mountain that costs lives and risks others, especially since I and many like me are responsible for getting them off the side of that mountain; everyone who pays taxes is being held responsible it, not just those making the rescue attempt.

There was a time in my life when I was responsible for no one and nothing more than myself. Now I have a job, a family, and social commitments that fairly preclude me from doing a lot of activities I would otherwise like, simply because the risk of my loss and my inability to cover said loss sufficiently is no longer acceptable. This is not to say I don't take any risks with my welfare, such as going to Baghdad or out to Elk camp, but I do my level best to mitigate those risks as much as possible. Life is all about risk, but it is also about accountability. No one should have one without the other, and that's been my whole point in this and other similar threads.

I've got nothing more to say about the subject anymore after this. It doesn't seem to matter how much explanation is given, some folks are just never going to accept the criticism, and being singled out and labeled for an opinion has been counterproductive to the discussion.

I agree with you Ben, in EVERY WAY!!!!!!!!!!!!