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.