I don't see this being any different than the state trooper at the bottom of a snowy mountain road that won't let you start up the hill unless you have a 4x4 and snow tires. SAR is expensive. Anything that takes the search out of search and rescue is money well spent. Anybody that thinks they are too good of an outdoorsman to get into trouble is an idiot. S%*t happens! People take a tumble and break a leg. Why should the taxpayer pay for their mistake when taking a little bit of personal responsibility (carrying a PLB) would greatly reduce the cost of saving their skin.

I'm sorry, this is not a big brother issue to me, but just plain common sense. If you are going to engage in extreme sports and expect government resources to pull your fat out of the fire when you get in trouble, then the government should be allowed to enforce reasonable steps to preserve its resources.

Craig.

I have heard the same "causes passivity" argument applied to the concept of requiring personal locater beacons (PLBs) as well. So, in my humble opinion, why not just apply the concepts to prevent PLB abuse here as well.

When a climber may be in trouble, try to contact the climber to find out exactly what the climber's situation is. If contact is unable to be made and the climber is rescued, simply fine their butts into oblivion if their rescue situation was inappropriate. Nothing like a hit to the wallet to get people to take things seriously. After all, it's not like SAR couldn't use the money!

When the system works out the way it was intended, praise it. When the system is abused, abuse the abuser.

The real risk is that a people who have no business on a mountain like Hood will but up there becuase they think a ride home is a pin pull away.

That being said, I think they are a good idea, but I'd rather see a requirement that allows the park system to require you to pass a basic skill and equipment test to climb, and make an MLU part of that. "You must be this clued to ride this ride", ya' know?

There's a great article by Lloyd Athearn, the Deputy Director of the American Alpine Club, at:

www.americanalpineclub.org/pdfs/MRreal.pdf

It helps to put the whole issue into perspective (for me at least), I especially liked the statistic on pg.3, under "All Oregon Rescues" for the year 2003:

Climbing = 3.8%
Mushroom Picking = 3.3%

That settles it, lock up all the mushroom pickers and the problem is solved!

I have served in both roles, as a climber and as a rescuer. While the case seems clear to many non-climbers, it is not as acceptable to a climber when it comes to a "beacon" issue. As a climber, I would not particularly want the extra weight and responsibility of a beacon and in the case of the recent Mt. Hood rescue, the beacon is similar to ones used to track animals in wildlife studies, it does not alert anyone that you are in trouble, it merely sends a signal that can be tracked and triangulated. That requires a phone call or some other means to let potential rescuers know you need to be located.
A simple $99 GPS unit and the phone together can accomplish the same results faster, since you can identify your precise location.
I can see issues where a climber may have a "beacon" and expect rescue and no one can get a strong enough signal to arrive at a location. Again, the type they are suggesting requires some form of notification to alert rescuers to start looking. What if the party that was on that particular climb had divided gear differently in the party and the beacon ended up with the group that did not fall and continued off the mountain? Rescuers would then not known what area to look in perhaps. The reality of this situation was that the beacon provided some assistance, but they already knew the approximate location from the other half of the climbing party. Had it been another group with a "beacon" that all stayed together and needed assistance, the rescue party would have had to try to locate the signal with the entire mountain as a search area. It could have taken days to attain a signal and narrow down the position. The "beacon" that is being discussed is not a PLB, it is a radio transmitter like the ones used to track animals in studies, that is a really different item with very different possibilities.
My personal take on the beacon requirement is that it is a bad idea not so much because of false sense of security, but because there is no truly positive potential. It is merely an aid to rescue parties and not a guaranteed locator.
My personal take on the PLB is that it is much more effective but because it takes a proprietary battery that is not user or field serviceable, the PLB is not a device that can be relied on that much either. There are circumstances that I could see taking one with the understanding that it may not work if needed.
I also would rather take a sat phone and a GPS if I was worried about needing a rescue. Reason; calling someone and actually talking to a live person and providing a GPS plot to them would do wonders for my morale in a bad situation. Turning on a PLB and wondering if anyone was getting the message and wondering when the battery and signal was going to die would not do a lot of positive things to my thought process.
I think the locator is great for aviators and mariners, as has been proven many times. It is also a requirement on most vessels and aircraft. There are also many instances when boats and planes go down and no signal is ever received.
I hope all this makes some sense, bottom line it should be your choice and not someone legislating it to you!

Statistics, being statistics, can be built to fit just about any situation. For example, on Table 4, it is stated that "Rock climbing (all forms)" only accounts for 3.3% of all NPS rescues. Nowhere (and I will admit that I did not read the whole thing) did I see a figure showing what percent of all USERS of the NPS facilities are rock climbers. From my personal observations at Yosemite, climbers are a much smaller percentage of total visitors than 3.3%. I have seen hundreds of people on the valley floor watching two or three climbers on El Capitan, with thousands driving by at the same time. So I fail to see what that particular figure (and others) in the article has to do with much of anything.

As for requiring climbers heading higher than a certain altitude during certain months of the year, what does it hurt? Only costs $5, weights next to nothing. If needed and it doesn't work, what is lost. If needed and it does work, much can be gained. Many of us never really need our seat belts or auto insurance, but when you need it, you NEED it...

"...who will protect us from ourselves if not our beloved and trusted government..."

I am not one to propose a new law for everything in the world, I see that far too often. And I am a big believer in being independent, and responsible for your own actions. But in most cases, when "we" get in trouble, be it a traffic accident, plane crash, sinking boat, or injured mountain climber, who do we call to come save our bacon? Why the government of course, in the form of city, county, state, or federal governmental agencies. And we, the taxpayers, all of us, foot the bill for that. So why not, in instances that have more inherent risks than driving to the corner grocery store, require an inexpensive, light weight, readily available, item that MIGHT cut down on the time, cost, and risk of a rescue? Yosemite and Wrangell St. Elias NP's, for example, now required a bear proof food container (not a bag and a rope) for all back country overnight hikes. Why? Too many backpackers just about starving to death after one of those really smart Yosemite bears got their stash and ate it, miles and miles from the nearest stop and rob. Don't own one, no problem, they can be obtained free, with a deposit, from the NPS. No one seems to yell too loudly about that one...

My wife used to be a cellular 911 operator, and where she worked she got most, if not all, of the 911 calls from Yosemite. After transferring those calls to the NPS in Yosemite she was required to listen in, in case the NPS lost their end of the call. The rangers evaluated each call, if it was not, in their opinion, a "real" emergency ("mister ranger, it got dark, we don't have a flashlight, and we ran out of candy bars, come get us"), the ranger would tell them to stay put for the night and walk out in the morning when the sun came up. No cost to the taxpayers on that one...

Bad things can happen to experienced, level-headed climbers also...

I've got a far, far better solution I think, much more practical.

Require anyone intending to climb the mountain to register, and show proof of posting a $1 mil bond against the possibility of needing rescue.

That way if something happens, your fault, their fault, nobody's fault, at least the rescue attempt(s) get paid for by those who took the risk, and not by the gen pub. That seems much more responsible to me.

Can't get bonded or insured? Fine, then post the amount in escrow from your own account. Haven't got the $1 million up front, then don't take the risk. I grow tired of being forced to bail others out for their foolish or reckless behavior.

The alternative is to close the mountain down, then climbers will become trespassing criminals, or to abolish funding SAR with tax dollars.

Pick one.