"... people pay attention and do the smarter thing..."

Some do, some don't. As you enter the Kern River Canyon, near Bakersfield, CA, there is a sigh saying how many people have drowned in that river (Meryl Haggard even made a song), yet every year more people go in and don't come out. But, since that place is a posted hazzard, survivers (there are a few, from time to time) should be charged for the cost of the rescue.

Signs are often ignored, but their presence can shift liability...

I guess it's not the $5 item aspect of it that bothers me, a Jet Scream whistle, Star Flash signal mirror or roll of orange surveyors tape all cost about $5 and can make the difference between getting found or not, it's the fact that the government will be making it a crime NOT to carry one that gets my goat.

I think it's a great idea to carry one when climbing and would encourage anyone who asked my opinion to do the same, but to make it the law? Do we really want to go down this road?

I mean sure, Hillary, Barak, Rudy and Mitt are all highly experienced climbers and outdoor survival experts, but after seeing the great progress they've all made on securing our borders, fixing public education, bringing down health care costs, etc., etc., I'm not so sure I want them or their local variety getting involved in this arena at all.

Again, you're right, it's cheap insurance but let's us who do this stuff and are passionate about it, police our own so big brother can handle the more "impotent" issues.

We pay for the military, the military likes to do rescue work... fine.

But those people in SAR who are slogging through the snow, in 80 mph winds, and low windchill temps, who are LOOKING for the fools so the Blackhawks can pick them up are usually not paid. From what I understand, they even have to foot the bill for their own equipment and much of the travel costs.

Why shouldn't the fools causing the problems for 'sport' foot at least part of the bill for their rescue? Then divide the money between the participating SAR teams.

BTW, insurance companies aren't likely to go for this kind of 'high risk' policies, because the only people who would buy it are the ones who would be likely to use it. Insurance companies are in the premium-collecting business, not the claim-paying business. Most types of polices are spread over a wide user base, and the insurance companies have calculated to the .000001 degree the likelihood of any premium holder causing the company to pay off. The many payers who never use the insurance are paying for the few who do. Joe and Jane Average aren't likely to be climbing Mt. Hood in the middle of winter with minimal gear, Joe and Jane know it, and they won't be buying the insurance, just to be paying for Bozo and BooBoo HiRisk to do it.

Sue

Hey, I know them!

We agree that making a new law is often not the way to solve anything. But if I recall correctly, the three who died on Mt Hood a few months ago were suppsed to be experienced climbers, maybe even passionate about it, yet they apparently didn't have one with them. So countless people hours and public dollars were spent trying to rescue them, to no avail. What are the other passionate climbers gonna do about that? Maybe, if they had carried that $5 gizmo, at least their families could have gotten the bodies back.

But I think that this topic has been beaten to death, no one is going to change their minds, so I'm not gonna play on this one anymore. Happy climbing...

Tossing my 2¢ worth...

1. I am fundamentally opposed to any and all "nanny state", "it's for your own good" laws on principal. As such, I also oppose mandatory seatbelt use laws, child car seat use laws, motorcycle helmet use laws, etc.

2. A wiser person than I stated "Survival favors the prepared..." This forum exists as a gathering place for those who agree with that statement. Not taking the advantage to be properly prepared invites a "less than optimum outcome".

3. An MLU would be a useless item if, as someone has stated, the authorities don't constantly monitor for signals. If that was in fact true, we wouldn't be having this discussion.

More later???

JimJr

Quite right, and if Bozo and Booboo could find someone to insure them, the premium would be atrociously high I am sure. This is why I recommended posting a bond instead. Bonds are pretty cool tools for this sort of thing. If Bozo and Booboo make it up the mountain and back without incident, the cost of the bond is relatively insignificant. If they get hosed, then the Bondsman pays whatever the rescue costs are up to the limits of the bond, and they pay him back the rest of their lives. I like that idea a lot. If Bozo and Booboo are rich, then they can forgo the bondsman and just put a big bag o' bucks in escrow with the SAR crew (maybe a little oversimplified, but I think the point is made).

This idea that the tax kitty is there as insurance for reckless and/or irresponsible behavior is a bad precedent, both for individuals and for groups. New Orleans is a prime example of this sort of thinking on a grand scale. It stinks.

Just for the sake of argument, child car seat laws are not "for your own good" laws, they are for the good of your child laws. Some can argue that if you do not want to buckle up or wear a helmet it is your life (I can come up with a pretty good argument to that too, but won't here). But you do not have the right to endanger any other person, 'specially a child...

I agree on requiring a locater beacon. I like the idea they are using on the bear containers (refundable deposit). Where I've got a problem is with the system they want to use. For less than two ounces more a PLB WILL cut down on the time. If the GPS can pick up enough satellites it also won't require triangulation to locate you. With the extra receivers that will be needed, the cost for the systems used in one rescue will probably be as much or more than a PLB. They could cut down on the expense by also operating as a dealer by selling PLB's & servicing them (replacement batteries at dealer price for the rental/loaner units).

I am not entering this debate, but I do want to correct what appear to be some misunderstandings you may have about PLBs.

You are correct that PLBs have proprietary batteries. Some PLBs do have user exchangeable batteries. In either case, it's really irrelevant. The batteries in PLBs are lithium based with a 10+ year functional life. They typically have a 5-year service interval in keeping with the conservative nature of the industry, though in most cases I expect by the time you need to replace the battery, you'll probably just purchase a cheaper, smaller, lighter PLB. PLBs also include a self test feature and the latest PLBs check that the batteries have not been discharged beyond a set limit that ensure they will still meet their transmission specs at the end of battery life.

Your comments regarding reliability are simply unsupported by fact. Compared to any other signaling device, 406 MHz distress beacons, including PLBs, are simply the most reliable means of declaring distress and summoning help, far more so than a cell phone or sat phone which have much more significant operating limitations. In many scenarios where a cell or sat phone may not work, a PLB will get a signal out and provide distress alerting and location.