Man found after 5 days

[WhichDawg]

here's the story, it's near me; http://www.yakimaherald.com/stories/2008/10/17/lost-climber-brought-down-from-mount-adams
or; http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008281288_climber18.html

Now I am glad they found him, and my hat's off to the brave, smart, diligent Rescuers who did (and the dog!), but... why do others have to pay for his/others "adventures and quest of glory?" Why do Rescue people (and other emergency agencies) have to sacrifice their life, time and expense so this guy and others can have a kick or push their limits?

Some people who know him said; "he would often tackle strenuous activities alone because few were able to keep up with him." It is said he is an experienced climber (so experienced that he was lost for 5 days in fact), maybe experienced means something else now-a-days, and this time of year I start hearing about other "experienced" people getting lost and worst in my area, more and more. 

My point and question is do you think it is right/valid/reasonable that some want to do dangerous activities and others have to sacrifice for it? When you do "high risk" activities, why do others have to pay for your choices and mistakes? and what can be done about it? (besides let em rot, because we still have to take care of that!)

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

The link no workie, workie

But I do agree with you , I hate when people go off to the country totally unprepared so others have to risk there lives to save them

[WhichDawg]

thanks it seems to work sometimes, sometimes not!?
I put another link. (have this also going at BF, maybe "they" broke it!)

[I'm Still Bison]

 I don't know why it is,but it seems like there's a lot of people that get themselves of need of rescue in the Pacific Northwest.One idea I heard once was for hikers and such post a bond before going out in government managed wilderness areas,the thought being that the bond would help recoup the costs of rescue efforts,if needed.

[WhichDawg]

I don't know why it is,but it seems like there's a lot of people that get themselves of need of rescue in the Pacific Northwest.One idea I heard once was for hikers and such post a bond before going out in government managed wilderness areas,the thought being that the bond would help recoup the costs of rescue efforts,if needed.

I really think it's going to lead to that. The more rescue and support is needed, the more the public will get fed up.
Now I'm not talking about the general hiker or climber, but those that take more risks (like alone or in bad conditions)

Some people seem to think their actions are their own "only" and they effect no one else, but that's not true, family, public
servants (payed and volunteers), tax payers have input in this too.

[WhichDawg]

here's some more information I just found;

Authorities believe he has climbed a few mountains but does not have extensive alpine experience.
They also believe he has never before climbed Mount Adams.

He was wearing a fleece, a cap and either wind pants or jeans -- clothing that ill prepares him for an extended stay on the mountain's upper elevations, where nighttime temperatures have dipped into the 20s this week.

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

here's some more information I just found;

Authorities believe he has climbed a few mountains but does not have extensive alpine experience.
They also believe he has never before climbed Mount Adams.

He was wearing a fleece, a cap and either wind pants or jeans -- clothing that ill prepares him for an extended stay on the mountain's upper elevations, where nighttime temperatures have dipped into the 20s this week.

So in a word idiot 

[jzmtl]

My point and question is do you think it is right/valid/reasonable that some want to do dangerous activities and others have to sacrifice for it? When you do "high risk" activities, why do others have to pay for your choices and mistakes? and what can be done about it? (besides let em rot, because we still have to take care of that!)

What else can you do, leave them to die? Well actually if I was in charge I'd leave these idiots to die but that's not gona happen any time soon.

I've read that Canadian navy spend millions each year looking for and pick up dumb asses who think they can cross atlantic on a raft, most of them aren't even Canadians or in Canadian water but we still gotta spend the dough to cover their butt.

[Grant Lamontagne]

Send each individual a bill for the rescue costs.  That way, even if they don't bring adequate clothing to survive, they'll be darned sure to bring flares, smoke bombs etc to ensure they are found quickly!

Def

[AndyTiedye]

According to the article,  he was injured,  so he would likely have needed some rescuing no matter how well-prepared he had been.

[Gareth]

I agree to an extent.  I have seen and meet far to many people who are woefully ill prepared for walking in the Scottish Highlands.  Our damp climate always catches people out.  Cold and wet is much worse than just cold.  Far too many “experienced” climbers seem to get caught out, let alone the pillocks who just don’t know what they are doing.

That said, I have had to get our Mountain Rescue chaps out once because one of the people I was walking with put her foot down a rabbit hole and ripped her ligaments apart.  No way were I and the third chap able to carry her out the eight mile trip to get her to civilisation without help and so hats off to the volunteers how came to help us out.

I think a big salute to all the volunteers and rescue workers who save lives every year is in order.

[WhichDawg]

I so agree Gareth, they are true Hero's
and don't forget the dogs!

[Smitty44]

The link worked OK for me,I also agree he was an idiot,and believe that people that do foolish things like that should have to pay back the cost of the rescue.

[1stcavmp77]

just goes to show you should always be as prepared as you can possibly be when you go to the woods 

[Mike, Lord of the Spammers!]

just goes to show you should always be as prepared as you can possibly be when you go to the woods 

Damn right

[1stcavmp77]

in my book, even if you are a very accomplished woodsman it never hurts to take some good gear that you can use to save your butt in case you have a twisted/broken ankle or leg or you can only use one hand/arm because of injury. and know how to do at least a couple thins one handed.

[Mr. Whippy]

I wasn't an MT.org member when this thread first came round, but I'll give my 2 cents here.

1.  I've been on Mt Adams close to a dozen times.  I have not yet summited it.  It is not a technical climb--even in the slightest.  Many people walk up with skiis on their backs and ski off.  The biggest problem with Adams is sudden unpredictable changes in weather.

2. Climbers climb for the challenge, not the glory.  It is hard work and "glory" consists of an assortment of reactions ranging from "Why would you want to do it?", "It doesn't sound like much fun to me...", "Wouldn't you rather just sit on a nice warm beach?" and "That's great! I once climbed....(insert the name of a hill, large bump or peak that can be reached by car)."

3.  The majority of rescuers are volunteers and they are all mountaineers themselves.  Sort of a "Pay it forward" sort of a thing.

4. Yes, the State/County/City cover the costs for helicopter service, communications and medical support.  However, when a boater gets in trouble, a motorist has an accident, someone falls on the ice, etc, the State/county/City covers the costs of the emergency also.  It's paid out of the taxes we all pay and is part of the social network.

You may not want to pay for rescue of a fallen climber, there may be others who don't want to pay for people in car accidents or pay for rescue resusitation for someone with obesity and diabetes who has a heart attack.  Thankfully, as community, there are certain community services which are administered without a vote on "worth of cause".

JMO.

[nuphoria]

I don't agree entirely although I totally subscribe to the idea of pay it forward. When I get in my car I am legally obliged to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents so why shouldn't it be the same when people go off in to the wilds? It's the same as medical insurance in the US I guess - either you have it or you pay out when sh*t hits the fan.

It should be up to climbers etc to cover their own arses IMHO, so any costs incurred by their activities don't fall to others to pay. Taxes should be for essential community costs (which are hugely overburdened already), not for individual optional leisure outings - which is what this comes down to - choice. If you choose to take risks, choose to pay for it too.

[WhichDawg]

I'm not against climbing or adventurous activities, I understand the "drive" and pleasure of such things,
the skill and sense of achievement felt, but some people take unnecessary risks, like lack
of safety equipment and clothes, or not telling others where they'll be,
or going alone in dangerous places when they don't have too (like this guy).

Boating accidents are usually drinking related or inexperienced drivers and I do not like my
tax dollars paying for that kind of recklessness. Driving is necessary to our way of life, for work, getting
food etc, we have to do it; apples and oranges.

Dangerous sports and leisure puts people who yes love the outdoors and want to give back,
at danger unnecessary and uses my tax dollars for others dangerous play time.
You play, you pay.

[Mr. Whippy]

I don't agree entirely although I totally subscribe to the idea of pay it forward. When I get in my car I am legally obliged to have insurance to cover the cost of accidents so why shouldn't it be the same when people go off in to the wilds? It's the same as medical insurance in the US I guess - either you have it or you pay out when sh*t hits the fan.

It should be up to climbers etc to cover their own arses IMHO, so any costs incurred by their activities don't fall to others to pay. Taxes should be for essential community costs (which are hugely overburdened already), not for individual optional leisure outings - which is what this comes down to - choice. If you choose to take risks, choose to pay for it too.

Well, in response, I'll point a few things out:

1.  Your car insurance doesn't cover the cost of the rescue or medivac if needed (ie, your insurance isn't billed for a helicopter ride to the trauma center).  This is true in the US and I suspect the UK as well.  Your car insurance pays for the damage to your car and the other motorist's car (and possibly his medical costs).  

2.  In in the British NHS, those who live unhealthy lifestyles (obesity, smoking, etc) are not penalized by paying for the long term extra costs of their poor health decisions.  (Although there was a NHS study a year or so ago which debated if they should have to pay a percentage of their health costs).  One could argue that general society shouldn't have to pay for poor decisions of the individual.

3.  In the Pacific Northwest, most of the rescuers are purely volunteer.  They are climbers who do it for the community.  I have several friends in Search and Rescue--their operations cost the general public exactly nothing.  The National Guard helicopters are an expense, however.

4. One could make the same argument for citizens who are victims of floods or wildfires.  They live in areas that they know are at higher (or extremely high) risk.  Yet, because we are community, we accept that we help those who put themselves at higher risk (Southern Californians for wildfires, mudslides and earthquakes, Louisianans in New Orleans, those who live along coastal areas at risk for hurricanes, those who live in flood plains, those who live in regions at risk for blizzards, etc).

5. Finally, most search and rescue is not for climbers;  it is for average folks who get lost on a day hike or when mountain biking and can't find their way out.  Places like Yellowstone, Yosemite, Glacier park.  The last data I saw was somewhere between 50 to 100:1  (Rescues of day hikers and mountain bikers to climbers/trekkers/multiday hikers).

[Mr. Whippy]

Dangerous sports and leisure puts people who yes love the outdoors and want to give back,
at danger unnecessary and uses my tax dollars for others dangerous play time.
You play, you pay.

Not living in the high country, away from hurricane/tornado/wildfire/earthquakes, puts people at unnecessary risk.  You pay, you pay?  It's not how we as a society choose to act--at least not yet.

[jzmtl]

4. One could make the same argument for citizens who are victims of floods or wildfires.  They live in areas that they know are at higher (or extremely high) risk.  Yet, because we are community, we accept that we help those who put themselves at higher risk (Southern Californians for wildfires, mudslides and earthquakes, Louisianans in New Orleans, those who live along coastal areas at risk for hurricanes, those who live in flood plains, those who live in regions at risk for blizzards, etc).

Funny you mentioned that, I think if one knowingly build/buy a house in areas that flood every damn year should deal with it himself.

Right now there's flood problem in Manitoba/North Dakota (well every year really), there are plans to build dike that would solve the problem once and for all (like those in Holland), yet there are people dead against it and even threatened volunteers working on it because it would block their river view/decrease their property value...

[David]

just goes to show you should always be as prepared as you can possibly be when you go to the woods 

Damn right

    

[nuphoria]

You raise some good point there mate, and I'll throw a few answers to them back if that's ok.

Having to drive and buy insurance isn't exactly the same as choosing leisure activities which put you at risk, although my insurance does cover both legal and medical costs. There are a lot of unmet costs for rescue organisations here (even with all the volunteers in the world) which are scraped together from fund raising and charitable donations - they often get no government funding at all and could benefit hugely from people having to contribute who end up using their services. I understand that the insurance culture is far more endemic in the US and perhaps us Brits are a little too used to getting things for free, however, the NHS resources are spread hopelessly thin and receiving fast treatment often depends on what we call the "postcode lottery".

There has also been a lot of debate as you mentioned about refusing treatment to certain people who live higher risk lifestyles - this isn't something that can easily be implemented but I think it's probably inevitable that cuts will be made using such criteria eventually. Certain surgeries are already withheld to clinically obese people due to the higher risks and chances of lower efficacy involved. As regards to smoking; the majority of people dying from smoking related cancers at the present time weren't necessarily educated to the truth about the risks. Those truths were not available mostly due to false studies funded by tobacco companies (namely Phillips if memory serves), and that propaganda perpetuated a habit which people weren't convinced would harm them. Too add to which, the government revenue created from tax on tobacco products funds a huge amount of NHS resources! (an argument still held in high esteem by smokers).

I am not suggesting for one second that people who are the victim of natural disasters due to their location should be made to pay - that's what public money and resources should be for. For instance, hurricane Katrina was an absolute travesty, and the residents didn't get the help that they deserved, certainly not fast enough.

Unfortunately the world is mostly governed by economics and perhaps the people with the money should be prepared to contribute beyond legislated taxes if they want to go the extra mile (pun intended)

Oh, and I only used climbers as an example - hence the etc. I am extremely capable of getting lost in the local park and needing chocolate to be airlifted in within hours  

[WhichDawg]

If I choose to live next to a Volcano (and I do!) and it exploded and wiped out all I have,
and I had medical issues, I would not expect you or anyone else to pay for that, that is
my choice and I would deal with it, the best I can.

I feel it's the same for other area's, hurricane, flood, tornado's, earthquake.
It's a conscience choice, you get insurance. If somebody decided to live there,  
they need to own up to that, We need to take responsibility for our actions and choices,
for someone to expect others to pay for their choices, right or wrong is not fair.

More and more people are living in such places, we can't afford to pay for all the disasters,
if and when they happen.

When some volunteer gets hurt or worst, it will be discussed and debated more,
why do we have to wait until then?

[Mr. Whippy]

If I choose to live next to a Volcano (and I do!) and it exploded and wiped out all I have,
and I had medical issues, I would not expect you or anyone else to pay for that, that is
my choice and I would deal with it, the best I can.

Well, we weren't talking so much about the material losses and medical expenses.  It was my impression we were more discussing the search and rescue costs.  In your example, it would be the expenses involved in sending in searchers to find survivors and rescue efforts.  IMO, it's what a society does to help the citizen (going in to find and rescue survivors). 

I don't think there's any concern about getting the climber's gear off the mountain or to pay for his healthcare.  His gear is gone and he's still responsible for his healthcare.

[WhichDawg]

True we were talking about high risk activities/adventures, not material issues or car accidents.

Some people take unnecessary risks, not only for themselves but others also, and I personally
will do whatever I can to stop untrained, unskilled, foolish "adventurers"
from putting others in danger and wasting my tax dollars.

Through voting, laws, awareness programs, threads like this, the internet and just talking about it.
I can't do it 24/7 but when opportunity comes, I will try.

What is a little surprising to me, is this past year/winter I hardly heard about search and rescue
operations in our area (PNW) looking for someone, nothing like last year!

Maybe I missed a few reports but even in Blade Forum I didn't see many threads about it.
Is it the economy or are people being more careful
I'm very glad for it and hope it continues.

[Gareth]

True we were talking about high risk activities/adventures, not material issues or car accidents.

Some people take unnecessary risks, not only for themselves but others also, and I personally
will do whatever I can to stop untrained, unskilled, foolish "adventurers"
from putting others in danger and wasting my tax dollars.

Through voting, laws, awareness programs, threads like this, the internet and just talking about it.
I can't do it 24/7 but when opportunity comes, I will try.

What is a little surprising to me, is this past year/winter I hardly heard about search and rescue
operations in our area (PNW) looking for someone, nothing like last year!

Maybe I missed a few reports but even in Blade Forum I didn't see many threads about it.
Is it the economy or are people being more careful
I'm very glad for it and hope it continues.

More likely a case of Darwin's natural selection. 

[Mr. Whippy]

True we were talking about high risk activities/adventures, not material issues or car accidents.

Some people take unnecessary risks, not only for themselves but others also, and I personally
will do whatever I can to stop untrained, unskilled, foolish "adventurers"
from putting others in danger and wasting my tax dollars.

Through voting, laws, awareness programs, threads like this, the internet and just talking about it.
I can't do it 24/7 but when opportunity comes, I will try.

What is a little surprising to me, is this past year/winter I hardly heard about search and rescue
operations in our area (PNW) looking for someone, nothing like last year!

Maybe I missed a few reports but even in Blade Forum I didn't see many threads about it.
Is it the economy or are people being more careful
I'm very glad for it and hope it continues.

Mostly weather related.  The icestorms made mountaineering less appealing but there was good ice climbing.  Most problems arise when weather comes on quickly in the Cascades.  This year, the weather was fairly predictable.