[quote=Pete


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.


...

+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.

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...

I strenuously disagree.

...

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.

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

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

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?