Cost of Rescue ... Opinion/Not Judgement

[BigWaterBigFish]

Let me qualify - I fish the ocean in my small boat (conditions permitting) and this summer will wed the love of my life on the summit of Mt. Hood (conditions permitting). I'm a safety conscience boater/ fisherman/ hiker/ mountain climber. The joke is my boat will sink under the weight of the safety gear and I better not fall while hiking as I won't be able to stand up with all the stuff I carry, "just in case".
Recent events on the mountain have brought to focus the cost to local tax base for these rescue operations. Aside from generating a potential unrealistic expectation of rescue, I've noted a one-sideness to who and who doesn't get the dollars spent on them - out of state caucasian professionals who are thrill/adventure seekers get the attention ... local hispanic minor female goes missing on the way home from school and you don't see the sheriff's department calling out for search teams, choppers and heat-seeking C130s.
At this time, it is my understanding, that the state of Oregon does not have a reimbursement system to defer the cost of the searches. I carry a PLUP (personal liability umbrella policy) that would cover some costs associated with search and rescue/recover that I might be liable for, costs me about $25/month for $1,000,000.00 in coverage.
Would be curious as to whether other sportsmen/women would be in favor of an initative to make parties who willfully undertake an exercise in the wild (woods or water) (hiking, hunting, fishing, boating, rock climbing, mountainering) liable for the cost of their rescue? People who take wrong turn (like the Kim's in southern Oregon) would be excluded as certainly not their intention to go off-roading.
My opinion is that we search at all cost till the reasonability of rescue becomes nil using every resource available, but if you set foot off the pavement then you should bear the cost that the rest of the community bears to come find you.

[Swamp Puppy]

good idea, but at the end of the day i wouldn't support it. i do agree with your assessment that serch efforts vary for different situations. i think it is probably more media driven than anything else. once the "word" is out..people have to do SOMETHING or government agencies look like they don't care. which, they probably don't in the big picture.

[Irish Pennant]

This is my opinion:
I to would not be in favor of a mandatory personal responsibility insurance. The people who stay behind when a hurricane is headed in their direction are not asked to pay for their rescue and they are not required to carry mandatory rescue insurance. In a perfect world, as a community we pool our resources together during a time of crisis, even for the people who's judgment we question.
Yes there is a type of personality that will get off the couch and get out and take a risk. These people set the bar for achievement not the couch potato. The benefit that society gains from the risk taker out weighs the sometime cost of having to rescue them. As for the news coverage, the 2 recent events were human interest/tragedy stories that sold air time. I don't know why one particular tragedy is deemed more news worthy than another, it's not the public that makes those decisions.

[jvp]

Originally Posted by BigWaterBigFish

My opinion is that we search at all cost till the reasonability of rescue becomes nil using every resource available, but if you set foot off the pavement then you should bear the cost that the rest of the community bears to come find you.

then only the wealth outdoors type would be able to go off the pavement but worse is they wouldn't pay for the ins. either they have entitlement right. heck i'd rather see health care and education be manditory that would be more for the good of the people

[garyk]

I guess the way I see it.... as a US citizen I ought to be able to rely on receiving some services in return for the 40% of my income that is paid to the State and Federal government in taxes. Here's a deal, I'll pay for my rescue insurance if Donald Rumsfeld et al pick up the tab for their war. Fair's fair!

Really, I don't think you can separate out these sorts of expenses from all the other expenses we expend on various elements of the community, it's just that these rescue stories are so dramatic, while the daily social service expenditures go unnoticed, even as they total in the billions of dollars.

[PGJPJ]

Removed -spud-

[Birdnest]

I would support a system where people engaging in some of the high risk activities, ie a summit attempt, would pay for a permit that included a insurance fee. The insurance would be limited to that one trip which would keep the cost down.

However, Gary's post strikes a chord with me as well, Lord knows I have paid for more than one helicopter ride with my taxes.

Joe

[foxer]

Make it mandatory to take a locator on all trips up the mountain.

[Artwo]

I think the USFS should implement a mandatory permit system for climbers on Mt. Hood. Also it should be mandatory that each climber carry a locator that is rented from the USFS. Some type of locator technology should be implemented that can cover the entire mountain. I'm not a climber but I find it hard to believe that there isn't some technology out there that will work. The money generated from the rental of the locators can be used to fund the permit process. The permit process would not be to limit the amount of climbers, rather a sign out/sign in process with additional information such as route, gear and experience level. In my opinion there has just been to many accidents up on the mountain the last few years to not have some type of locator policy.

All this form a not climber, what do you think?

JK

[lumberguy]

First, I do feel terribly for the families of the lost hikers. I can not imagine the pain and emotions that they are experiencing.

However, I do not understand the thinking that the expense of doing this search and rescue is similar to other "normal" government expenses. This activity is inherently dangerous and is one that is elective on the part of the participants. I don't think most people, in comparison, ever makes a decision to participate in activities that need the help of the police and fire department. I think that we all can and should expect "normal" service from our government. I just have a really hard time seeing how this can be construed as a "normal" service. Choosing to climb Mt Hood in the winter puts you in a level of jeopardy that must be known by the participants and is at such a level that we, as the people, should not have to bear this financial responsibility.

IMHO, our government is here to provide some basic services for all of us. When one CHOOSES to participate in activities that but yourself in additional risk, some personal responsibility for one's actions must come into play. I would highly be in favor of climbers, etc having to have a some type of insurance to cover these, hopefully very rare, occurances

[El-Kabong]

Most search and rescues are not for climbers. so lets not go targeting one group just because they happen to be in the spotlight.

should the Kim family have carried a MLU because they were traveling over to the coast? should anyone going anywhere be required to have a MLU or PLB?

should all kids be microchipped with homing devices in case they are kidnapped? should all people on a boat carry a PLU. should all boaters pay more money to offset the cost of the coast guard?

these guys left pretty detailed information as to where, what and when.

EK

[DGindlesperger]

Face it I think we all would agree, it would be stupid to go climb a mountain in this weather without a locator. Look at the number of people killed every year climbing mount everest...but they still do.

[ehunter]

But when they climb everest and get hurt they leave them .

Ok in all honesty this is a good question but then what would be required of every hunter, mushroom picker, hiker, dog walker ect?

I do like the idea of carrying the locator on climbing Mountains I think that is legit but what happens to the person who decides to climb part way up the mountain at the last second. Or the skier who goes out of bounds???

I am not sure that requiring insurance will cover the lack of common sense and then what happens when these people are not saved who do they sue?? Who pays for the failure the tax payer???

[croation2]

i'm curious about the umbrella insurance, I have a liability umbrella because of some rental property but don't know if it would cover rescues! I did read on there that it only kicks in after everything else is used up! In other words if you hit a pedestrian, the car insurance has to be used up first, then the umbrella kicks in. Thanks for bringing it up and I will check it out,sorry for the hijack!

[Bartman]

Originally Posted by El-Kabong

Most search and rescues are not for climbers. so lets not go targeting one group just because they happen to be in the spotlight.
EK

this is what people are talking about, not hunters ,anglers or mushroom pickers.
granted, most S&R isnt for climbers, but there is no way that you can say, with a straight face, that the S&R for a lost mushroom picker, comes ANYWHERE close in the danger department, as S&R for a lost climber at 11,000ft.
As far as insurance,when fishing, I pay a registration fee every 2 years for my boat and a fishing license every year. hunters pay for tags and license, and I may be wrong, but dont mushroom pickers have to get a permit ???, now I know that these fees arent exactly "insurance", but at least we have to pay to play, and through those fees help maintain our activitie of choice, and "officials" to monitor it.

[PapaHog]

I would hope that if I am hanging onto a water cooler with two friends 25 miles out in the pacific that the powers to be expend all resources to rescue us with out checking to see if we have rescue insurance.

The same goes for these three men.

If we require insurance to use our public resources we limit the use of such resources to the boys with the most toys and money.

[pearl]

Make it mandatory to take a locator on all trips up the mountain.

Can anybody who climbs tell me why climbers don't rent one for a few bucks and take it with them?

Is it a thrill like riding a motorcycle with out a helmet.

I don't get it?

[Chrome Bumper]

Originally Posted by garyk

. Here's a deal, I'll pay for my rescue insurance if Donald Rumsfeld et al pick up the tab for their war. Fair's fair!

Shame shame Garyk, you will feel so bad when the find the WMDs.

A $300 fine for not renting a beacon for $5 might help.

[fish_on]

I think if we are still being forced to keep paying the housing costs of lazy relocated post Katrina New Orleans residents who sue to keep their welfare instead of getting jobs and moving on, then the cost to look for a few hard working folks with some bad luck on a mountain is OK with me.

[ampersat]

Alright folks. The political references need to stop. Let's stay on topic, please.

[Duckwheat]

You are talking about attempting to legislating intellect. A tough task that a fair number will not be up to.

I have mixed emotions about the lost and those who search.

I always want the right to end my life by doing something stupid. It keeps the experience worthwhile. I have had those experiences in a boat, airplane, floating down a river, flying a kite (not kidding)...... You have the moment of lucid thought and say to yourself, "I have got to use my noggin, or this can kill me".

I don't resent the military getting to do their thing. It gives them the practice to use their equipment and hone their skills. Then one day they can use all that to find someone really worthwhile.

I feel sorry for the families that have to get face time on the media to ensure their relatives get a fair shake.

I do not feel sorry for the three guys who chose to climb. Life is about choices. Some kill you fast, others will kill you slow.

I do worry about the volunteers who are asked to risk their necks in the conditions someone else chose to recreate in.

Thoughtful in Idaho, Duckwheat

[ehunter]

I agree in this day and age with all the technology that we should do what ever we can and is possible. I feel for these guys and their families. Reasonable precautions are legit and good but when those fail I don't want sombody to not look for me because my insurance got dropped because I needed to feed my family. Who decides ones worth is it the amount of money one is worth.

We pay taxes and to me this has a lot more value than some of the other things the gov throws money at...

[ampersat]

So, does anyone know what the actual cost of this or any other rescue effort is?

The people on the ground up there are volunteers. Chances are good if they weren't up there searching for these guys, they'd probably be out climbing something else. Net cost: $0, or so.

The military folks up there flying around would likely be out flying around somewhere else using their high-tech enhanced infrared imaging cameras to count elk out in eastern Oregon somewhere (otherwise known as honing their craft/training). Considering they wouldn't be sitting around letting their boots get dusty, I'd call that a net $0 cost too.

I scanned this thread and if the actual cost per day, or some rough approximation, has been covered, sorry I missed it. To count the cost of groups (and associated gear, fuel, etc.) who would likely be out doing what they're doing now but somewhere else and without the three folks in question being involved is a little misleading.

Those chinook 'copters burn fuel whether they're circling hood or out somewhere in eastern Oregon circling empty fields.

[happybrew]

I have no idea about the cost of rescue, however not every rescue needs enormous resources. When I was fifteen, two kids in our scout troop made a wrong turn at the end of our 50 mile hike. A helicopter was dispatched, which made some passes before it got dark. They walked out the next day.

A thirteen year old hispanic girl missing in the middle of Salem is not going to be found by a helicopter with infra-red devices and teams of climbers. She is going to be found by contacting those who know her, saw her last, and tracing it from there. It is not discrimination in favor of rich white guys as the original post implies. It is apples and oranges. It is a police matter, and requires different methods. It is, by its very nature, lower profile. The rich white guys on Mt. Hood are more unusual and thus attract media attention due to the novelty.

A missing kid does not necessarily require calling out the armed forces and mustering every able bodied man. My fourteen year old was missing last week. I got up for work very early, and he wasn't there. I searched the house. Nowhere to be found. I was completely freaked out. It was about 5:30 in the morning. On a hunch, I got into the car, still in my bathrobe, and there he was at the bus stop in his JROTC uniform waiting for the bus at 5:30 in the morning. He had messed up his alarm clock setting his alarm, got up a couple of hours early, and thought he was right on time for school. :blush: Did this require a 911 call? It ended up with a very simple explanation. That's what usually happens when a kid is missing. By the way, he thought I was the one who was late!

happybrew

[Bartman]

Originally Posted by ampersat

The people on the ground up there are volunteers. Chances are good if they weren't up there searching for these guys, they'd probably be out climbing something else. Net cost: $0, or so.
.

the county sheriff and his deputies arent volunteers, 2 county planes arent free.
someone wouldnt have to be a card carrying rescue insurance holder. get your permitt to climb, which covers your locater and helps purchase epuipment for Mt. rescues. If not,then at the vey least sign in and pick up
a locater.
If someone gets a thrill by putting their life on the line,great, I,ve participated in risky activities also, but if the risk your going to take, puts countless other peoples lives in above average danger, do all you can to help keep them safe.

[happybrew]

Originally Posted by Bartman

but if the risk your going to take, puts countless other peoples lives in above average danger, do all you can to help keep them safe.

[ampersat]

All I'm saying is, if we're arguing over the cost of something we should probably have some idea of what the cost is. The real cost, too, not the "I bought a sandwich at the store so I could sit down and watch the coverage on the news" cost. My point was that if the SAR folks weren't involved in the rescue, chances are pretty darned good they'd be expending some comensurate amount of money engaged in roughly the same thing somewhere else, albeit with perhaps less risk.

Don't get me wrong though. I'm all for having locator beacons be "highly recommended, if not mandatory" for climbing our local mountains. These guys spend $100 for an ice axe, $125 for crampons, (average prices from REI) and who knows how many thousands of dollars on the rest of their gear. Even if a locator was a little beyond their budget to own, rentals would be far cheaper and that business would quickly spring up if they were required gear. In this case, it probably wouldn't have mattered in the rescue efforts given the weather conditions, but it would certainly shorten the recovery effort.

[Bartman]

Originally Posted by ampersat

Don't get me wrong though. I'm all for having locator beacons be "highly recommended, if not mandatory" for climbing our local mountains. These guys spend $100 for an ice axe, $125 for crampons, (average prices from REI) and who knows how many thousands of dollars on the rest of their gear. Even if a locator was a little beyond their budget to own, rentals would be far cheaper and that business would quickly spring up if they were required gear. In this case, it probably wouldn't have mattered in the rescue efforts given the weather conditions, but it would certainly shorten the recovery effort.

were on the same page ampersat, I believe that no cost is too big or too small when it comes to saving a fellow human beings life, so the cost thing really isnt the issue with me,I do believe however that the locaters should be mandatory."IF" they did do a permit type thing, the money could help furnish locators for all, not just one per climbing party, the process would also be helpfull for knowing who has and who hasnt come off the mountain.

[garyk]

Reality check folks.

ODFW must sell something like 1/2 million or more licenses and tags a year. With that quantity sold, I challenge you to go out right now, at 10PM, and try to buy one.

Now if you can't service 500,000 clients at 10am, do you really think they'll have a system to serve a handful of thousand folks who show up at Mt. Hood at midnight to start their climb?

They're not going to put those MLU's in vending machines.

Conceptually attractive but tough to implement.

BTW, there is a climb registration in the Day Lodge as part of the wilderness management.

I will concede that with today's technology, each person ought to have a cell phone...and I carry a gps as well.

[BigBull1]

I heard on the news tonite that the cost was up around 100,000 dollars and rising. I just wonder if they would not have been better off with the 10.00 dollar rental locater that is available for climbers to rent?

[lucky2]

I don't think a locator transmitter would have helped much in this particular case. The weather prevented an expeditous search from taking place. Although it could have helped locate the remaining two climbers.

[ehunter]

I think though that the locator needs to be added to to carry list for all climbers especialy in the winter not sure how much they weigh but they are certainly worth their weight in gold if your hurt or lost on the mountain. If it becomes a requirement most of the people will take it. I have never climbed Hood but I don't think it is one of the those things you decide at 10 pm and start climbing at 3 am. Generaly there must be some thought process and planning so adding a locator I don't see as major drawback???

I am still confused as to how well they were prepared to climb in the winter months I am thinking you need to be prepared to stay over night every time you climb in the winter?? Even if I am snow shoeing I am prepared for a night or two out...They talked about what they were carring but in the last interview I heard they questioned just how prepared they were?

As to the cost I am with you guys that say there is no cost too high if we can save some one.

[El-Kabong]

I think it was on channel 2 last night, they had a segment on the "cost"

they had the Hood River sherrif and the guy who was the leader or spokesman for the air guard or the military (I think his name was Brisbian? something liek that - my apoligies to him)

anyway they said the 90% of the people helping were volunteers. The Sherrif said that his people are working whether they were on Mt. Hood or not, so what is the cost? The military guy said they consider this training. I think he said "we could train on a simulator or on a real life situation". so all this talk about the "cost" is misleading at best.

The sherrif summed it up best when he said something like - these are real lives we are talking about.

Worth watching if you get the chance.

FYI - joining all you "who gets the bill" folks is Rosie O'DOnnell and the fine crew of the View.

EK

[lucky2]

Definitely a locator should be on the list of equipment to take when climbing the mountain. But I also believe that it is only a part of preparing for the conditions one might face in such an undertaking.

Just as important would be packing for several nights (even when only one is anticipated), checking weather forecasts, and then making an informed GO-NOGO decision. Going with "just enough" of a weather window was probably not the right thing to do.

As to cost, I sure hope they come looking for me if I am in the same situation. I don't think you can really use this as a metric when it comes to saving a life.

[jvp]

Originally Posted by BigBull1

I heard on the news tonite that the cost was up around 100,000 dollars and rising. I just wonder if they would not have been better off with the 10.00 dollar rental locater that is available for climbers to rent?

remember the the beacons only go off if you activate it in an emergency usually after some accident. do you think that they would be activated while plummeting off a cliff in hurricane force wind? my wife thinks everyone should have one and all should be active always. it would make quite a mess to have beacons going all the time and then you have to figure out who is going to monitor this 24/7. Next let us figure out who is camping for the night and who is lost and who is just spending an extra night and then etc etc etc.

also is every person going to have a beacon?? or 1 per party? or maybe just a sat phone? or more cell towers on the mountain and everyone carry a cell?

One thing is for certain most of the volunteers are working men and women and they are not at their jobs so their jobs don't pay if they are not there. Also most employeers won't give free time off for rescue activities they charge you like a day of missed work. It was a big grip of the people wanting to help that are search and rescue in SO. OR when the boy disappeared at Crater Lake, their employer would allow them to go with consequenses. I don't know about the rest of you but i get 2 weeks a year and after that I can lose my job. There to me is the real cost. the cities, counties, states and the feds find plenty of way to waste our money so I don't think it is really a big deal they spend it trying to help someone.

so let us pork barrel in pay and job protection to the resuers for their efforts like national guard are.

[Tagster]

remember the the beacons only go off if you activate it in an emergency usually after some accident. do you think that they would be activated while plummeting off a cliff in hurricane force wind?

I'm guessing that the only reason that I would even be close to falling off a hundred foot cliff in hurricane force winds is if I was moving. I would only be moving if I was trying to find help for someone that was critically injured.

If I had a beacon on hand so that help could find me, I would in fact be safer not moving. That would probably limit my exposure to this sort of danger.

There are auto send beacons out there that are activated after an event triggers them...whether it be exposure to water, rapid change in elevation, preset elevation, etc.

When I drove home from California after Thanksgiving, ODOT had check stations established on I-5 coming into Oregon. If you did not have a 4wd with snow tires and chains on hand, or chains installed on a non 4wd vehicle, they turned you back.

Why couldn't all hikers be asked to check in with the local Ranger Station to have their gear inspected for necessary equipment?

You say that we can't legislate intelligence, but we already are.

I'm just saying.

[Sea Jypzee]

Personally, I would go for something like:

For high-risk activities, ie, Mtn Climbing, Offshore boating (beyond xx number of miles from shore), etc. If you are carrying a PLB, whether your own, or a rented one at departure, the cost of rescue/recovery is considered a covered expense. However, if you are NOT carrying a PLB or equivalant, you are personally liable for whatever cost/fines may be imposed in the event you require rescue.

[Mark Mc]

$650 worth of prevention (that is actually priceless)

http://www.acrelectronics.com/aquafix/

[Mark Mc]

Hi Nancy! Yea I think you're on to something. Kinda like.....if you have smoke detectors in your home hard wired to a security service, you get a discount on your insurance premium.

Give people an incentive to get the device (although saving your life should be incentive enough).

[jvp]

Originally Posted by Sea Jypzee

Offshore boating (beyond xx number of miles from shore), .

how about just going over the bar

[Chrome Bumper]

I they didn't ask to be rescued how can you bill them for services rendered?

[ehunter]

I like that idea as well if you carry it and need to use no cost and if you choose not to then there will be a penalty. I think the idea has merit.

[El-Kabong]

there in lies the rub.

where are you going to draw the line. personally I feel a lot safer climbing Mt. Hood then I do on a small fishing boat going out for tuna (I wouldn't even consider going that far off shore in a boat less then 30') but that is just me. does that mean those who do are participating in a highly dangerous activity?

EK

[jvp]

Originally Posted by Chrome Bumper

I they didn't ask to be rescued how can you bill them for services rendered?

same way you bill the person who accidentally starts a forest fire

[ehunter]

El-abong your right but need to start some where...

[BigWaterBigFish]

So last night I'm at home and Wing-nut calls and says Rosie O'Donnell high-jacks my Thread on Cost of Rescue ... jeez, like she ever gets of the couch to do something more strenuous than a protest for a particular special interest.
I do agree with some sentiment that if we require reimbursement of costs or at least some sort of contribution/insurance then we limit the # of people who go and do some of this ... but, I have hundreds of dollars into my climbing gear and thousands into my boat, cost of renting a locator beacon is cheap and overall the cost of buying one makes sense. Have you looked at the cost of the lift ticket lately, you don't see poor people engaging in these kinds of sports.
We are fortunate that we have so many qualified rescuers that are volunteers and the military is using this as training (we already or will, pay for that with our tax dollars) but the sheriff's office and OSP and such still have costs - - - one of the post brought forth a good thought - so you are in Hood River County and have an accident/crime occur and the reason you didn't get help is cause availabe personel were up on the mountain looking for lost individuals. How do you think these people, their families are going to feel when one of these volunteers get hurt or dies trying to rescue someone who intententally pursued an activity that risks life and limb.
We aren't (at least I am not) talking about John Doe Hunter that gets a flat on the road while hunting and gets stranded, or Bobby Boy Scout that gets turned around on a hike and needs to be found - - - I'm talking about activities that I myself enjoy that are above the normal conditioning and carry inherient danger.
... oh, about riding motorcycles without helmets, - - - you go down, your brains are scrambled, you think you are only hurting yourself but how many $millions$ are spent keeping you on life-support, who do you think winds up paying for your medicals after your family assetts are gone.

[corrirod]

So when I get a hang nail while doing my ascent and am in too much pain to come down can I still push the cool little red button on my PLB and get air lifted down to the lodge for some hot cocoa and muffins? Will the costs be covered for that since I had my PLB?

Thanks to the media these very few horrible situations take precedence over all the other troubles in our world. Anybody know the percentage of people that die from mountain climbing in a year? I don't know but if I had to guess based on the population of the United States I'd probably say less than .00000001 % probably? So your going to go thru the trouble of implementing all kinds of rules, regulations, and bureaucracy for .00000001% of people in the U.S. who get in trouble?

Are you wanting to do this to save $$$$$$$ or to save lives? Either way I'm pretty sure if you want to impose more laws there are better places to start that would be more effective to save both. I know, about 90% of drunk driving accidents occur in the nighttime hours so let's close all the streets after 9pm? Imagine all the law enforcement costs we would save, as well as the deaths themselves!

NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!

So, lets be realistic. People will always do things that will get them killed. Sometimes it's stupidity that causes it, sometimes just bad luck. Last time I checked "Driving Under the Influence" was illegal, but that doesn't stop the stupid now does it?

AS was mentioned by Ampersat, most of the resources expended on these climbers were either completely volunteers or used as training. The dollars were spent either way.

As for the non-insured, or non-PLB carrying victims paying their bill, which one of you would be the person who would bring that bill to the widow's doorstep or accept the check from them? Not me. I'm pretty sure they've paid enough.

Just like those volunteer climbers, when I'm on the ocean and I hear a distress call that is reachable from my location, I won't ask them if they can cover my fuel costs first.

[El-Kabong]

the reality is that in the event of a major search and rescue regardless of where it happens could quickly exceed the ability of any individual to cover the expenses.

should we disallow any activity where the possiblity of needed such assistance is great then 0? I don't think so. it would be a sad state if life was like that.

I say, forget about it. People live different lives and sometimes we need to help each other out, that is what we do.

if the families can and think of making a contribution to the volunteer orgs. god bless them. if they don't think of it, god bless them just the same. there are a lot more important things in life them money.

I will hug my wife and kids and thank god we are safe. I will think about these poor guys and what happened to them, and I will think about the ones they left behind, and hope that they will be okay in light of what has happened to them.

EK

[MattPark]

Originally Posted by BigWaterBigFish

I've noted a one-sideness to who and who doesn't get the dollars spent on them - out of state caucasian professionals who are thrill/adventure seekers get the attention ... local hispanic minor female goes missing on the way home from school and you don't see the sheriff's department calling out for search teams, choppers and heat-seeking C130s.

How effective do you think those tools would be in a rural situation in finding the individual? Is the heat seeking C130 going to find someone tied up in a basement?

Don't play the race card when it has nothing to do with the situation. If race was the issue, James Kim wouldn't have been on the news.

[Green Willie]

Very interesting discussion, and some positive and insightful posts--some not, in my opinion. A couple of my thoughts, from a public safety perspective.

We all pay taxes in a myriad of categories. These taxes are designed to offset the cost of government providing basic services. Over time, there has been a considerable amount of changes to the requirements that government agencies must fulfill in providing "basic services." These changes generally take place because of increased frequency of specific problems, or a great deal of pressure/demand by those whom are served. Search and rescue is one such area. Search and rescue, in the olden days, really only amounted to family, friends, and community members rallying to aid a fellow community member (much like barn raising of old). As we have become a nation with more disposable recreation time, the need for organized rescue entities developed. The continued sophistication of equipment and techniques has enhanced this need.

In Washington, the law designates the chief law enforcement official as being responsible for search and rescue operations in their jurisdiction. (RCW 38.52.400

Search and rescue activities — Powers and duties of local officials.


</B>(1) The chief law enforcement officer of each political subdivision shall be responsible for local search and rescue activities. Operation of search and rescue activities shall be in accordance with state and local operations plans adopted by the elected governing body of each local political subdivision. These state and local plans must specify the use of the incident command system for multiagency/multijurisdiction search and rescue operations. The local emergency management director shall notify the department of all search and rescue missions. The local director of emergency management shall work in a coordinating capacity directly supporting all search and rescue activities in that political subdivision and in registering emergency search and rescue workers for employee status. The chief law enforcement officer of each political subdivision may restrict access to a specific search and rescue area to personnel authorized by him. Access shall be restricted only for the period of time necessary to accomplish the search and rescue mission. No unauthorized person shall interfere with a search and rescue mission.

(2) When search and rescue activities result in the discovery of a deceased person or search and rescue workers assist in the recovery of human remains, the chief law enforcement officer of the political subdivision shall insure compliance with chapter 68.50 RCW.)

Therefore, along with the duty, comes the responsibility and ultimately the liability. Thus, the local Sheriff could be responsible and held accountable via a civil suit for failing to fulfill their mandated duty. The challenge becomes, when do you stop? We all have a strong desire to come to the aid of our fellow human when they are in times of great need/danger. The decision to stop a search for someone is very difficult, and in my opinion, should not be based solely upon cost.

There, also, is a huge difference between an at risk missing/involuntary missing and a voluntary missing/runaway. If you look at the systems in place you will see that a lot of effort is expended towards the locating of a involuntary missing, whereas the voluntary missing is another matter. The development and implementation of the Amber alert system is an example. My agency routinely activates our search and rescue component for at risk missings/involuntary missings.

As for expense. It all costs, period. Even using on duty personnel is expensive in that you end up paying unplanned overtime (backfilling posts, etc.), food and housing expenses, transportation and equipment rental, etc. Again, when it comes to human life, what is expensive?

I think requiring the locators is a good idea. Failure to obtain could result in a fine, but not the cost of the rescue as I don't believe society would support that severe of a sanction.

As for the media attention, it's all about readership/viewership--make no mistake about it. I've spoken with enough programming directors, who when candid, confirmed the bottom line is the bottom line. That being said, the media attention actually does some good. As an example, it highlights the needs for change--like the Amber alert system that we now have, or perhaps a legislative move towards requiring the locators for climbers. They also serve to educate the general population very quickly and very broadly, thereby elevating the overall awareness level of the public. I would venture to say that many will take some additional precautionary steps before venturing out on motor trips because of the Kim family tragedy, and we can thank the media for that.

Sorry this has been so long, and I also apologize that my discussion is not as exhaustive as a discussion on this topic warrants, but I wanted to weigh in with some of my concerns and observations.

Everyone have a great Christmas and New Year's holiday--by the way, how much do you think public safety/health care spends each year cleaning up and patching up from the automobile accidents caused by those who knowingly and willingly climb behind the wheel of a motor vehicle while intoxicated? But, that's a whole different can of worms.

Mike

[Abalone]

These climbers are from out of State are they not ? So we could call them Tourists. Oregon spends a lot of money to get Tourists to visit our State. Simple....it's a Tourists expense. By all means the State or local Government should make all efforts at any expense to rescue people and call it overhead. In the eyes of businesses in Oregon we are all Tourist and we support the tourist industry.

[exlonestar]

Not to Hijack the post but in my day to day work we sell Aircraft ELT (Emergency Locator Transmitters) similiar to PLB. If an aircraft goes down the ELT is triggered by the forward motion of the aircraft hitting something. The ELT puts out a signal that has an initial search area of 20km radius. 40km Diameter. Unless the PLB has a better search grid someone in a snow cave setting off a PLB would still require a live body to hoof it either on foot or dropped from an aircraft to find the person. No doubt it would save time but would not lessen the resue danger. IMHO

[rimrock]

Cost of Rescue who pays? It's a service that should be provided and funded by the agencies charged with that duty. Meaning taxpayer money, it's a public/volunteer service afterall.

[MarshBum]

I almost started a new thread but figured this just HAD to already come up (I read most of the thread, not all of it, so apologies if I'm repeating stuff here).

To suggest that these individuals owe us, the tax payers, something is silly. In climbing circles, what they were doing with the experience they had... it's not really that uncommon. Mt. Hood is the second most climbed mountain in the world. Not like they were headed up K2 or something. They had a weather window... they left notes (how many do even that?). They were prepared.

Mountaineering is inherently safe, but it is absolutely unforgiving of mistakes.

I'll happily support requiring MLU's for all climbers just as soon as life jackets are required for all fisherman. Life jackets would save more lives than MLU's, and that's what matters, right?... saving lives? MLU's aren't the silver bullet and would most likely just aid in recovery efforts. How would an MLU helped to save lives in this situation?

Risk is a funny thing... it's only risky if something goes wrong.

My thoughts and prayers are with the families of these men.

Geoff