Mt Whitney Zone Forums General Discussion Who is gonna pay for the SAR?

Interesting data. I'd be curious what the definitions are of "climbing" versus "hiking" as they roll-up the numbers. Is climbing based on technical routes versus established trails, or do winter conditions come in to play? If you head up the MMWT in January with full winter climbing gear and have to be SARed, is that a hike or a climb? As with most statistics, the devil is in the details. It seems to me that it would be a very fine line in many cases whether a hiker was climbing or a climber was hiking since they're so closely related.

I in no way advocate charging for rescues of any kind. My only quibble is the possibly increasing use of gadgets to call for help which may be leading to an increase in unnecessary responses by the agency. But, I'm not happy with the above statement -- seems more than a bit disingenuous. A National Guard helicopter does, in fact, cost a lot of taxpayer money whether they "charge" the SAR account or not (I think it's usually figured in most cost accounting, just not payed by the agency). Only a very few parks charge a climbing fee and I doubt they come anywhere near paying for more than 1 seasonal ranger position -- certainly not a SAR effort.

But a really interesting article. Somewhere around here I have a costs by park of SARs. Both Yosemite and Sequoia are near the top in costs, though Sequoia Kings is, I think, only in the top 10 for number of incidents. Since it's so remote, I think there's a higher proportion of helicopter medivacs, which would raise the cost quite a bit.

g.

I find it interesting that this topic is about to merge with the "Mt Hood to Require Locator Beacons" thread, because I ended my post by expressing my concern that requiring the beacons might give folks a sense of back pocket security.

B

Not shown. Dumped for some celebutard.

The January issue of Meridian, the Mountain Rescue Association's quarterly newsletter is just out. The lead article is by Howard Paul, whom I've quoted before on this subject.

Really good article.

Thanks!

g.

Ditto thanks

Here's another interesting article. A breakdown of costs and numbers of SARs per park in the NPS:

Dead Men Walking: Search and Rescue in US
National Parks
Wilderness and Environmental Medicine, 20, 244-249 (2009)

Dead Men Walking Article

George

I believe that statistically driving your car to the trailhead is far more dangerous and therefore far more fool hardy than hiking or climbing. If you are in a car accident driving to the trailhead you would expect the sheriff etc to come to your rescue. The other option is to never leave home. If someone has a heart attack at home they come and take you away in an ambulance. The actual danger of SAR mountain rescues is born by volunteers mostly, who are mostly people who enjoy mountain activities and WANT to GIVE of THEMSELVES to HELP OTHERS who engage in these activities. PS - The number of hiker rescues in Yosemite far exceeds the climber rescues.
just my $.03 worth.
Jim

Probably because the number of hikers far exceeds the number of climbers -- just a guess.

CaT

CaT
that was the point I was making was abut the numbers. The actual number of hikers needing rescue and therefore the money spent, far exceeds the climber rescues, not only because of the number of hikers and their relative lack of training/knowledge/preparedness, but because climbers can generally effect self rescues as well, so rescuing climbers is a tiny bit of the Yosemite SAR work so why should people get overly upset about it?
Jim

The point is everyone thinks that they can walk up a mountain without training or equipment. Most people are smart enough to not try to climb without training ,experience and equipment.The very nature of hiking being taken for granted as something anyone can do verses climbing which most people know they can't do without the requsite training/experience.That is why there is a huge number of hikers verses climbers.As the saying goes "There are old climbers and there are bold climbers but there are not any old bold climbers."

I'm not sure I accept that. Both climbers & hikers get themselves out on their own. I don't have a great feel for it, but I suspect there isn't much of a difference and perhaps a slight tilt to climbers needing assistance more (as a percentage of climbers vs. hikers). As mentioned above, there's tens of thousands of hikers out there and maybe only 2,000 climbers per year (in Yosemite).

Still, it doesn't matter. The point of the article, I think, is to show the costs involved with all SARs and that climbers don't account for a dramatically different cost. The problem seems to be that whenever there's some level of seriously technical response (climbing, winter conditions), the newspapers or comments often question the cost based on the "weirdness" of the activity. Also, of course, many hiker rescues are too mundane to receive coverage and the public perception is skewed... .


g.

Good points, George.

The interesting thing to me in the article is the inclusion of suicides. Brings back memory of a suicide on the Whitney north fork in winter several years ago. After it was determined a suicide, all the posts and everything written about it was deleted from public view.

That is a very common practice when it comes to suicide, Steve. I have found in the business, that suicide conjures up all things negative: guilt,anger,fear and its bad for business when it takes place in a touristy area.

B

Although not statistically significant, another consideration too often overlooked is that a SAR might be a crime scene. In the early days, we didn't even consider that -- distraught family, moderate chaos, trying to get or find person as quickly as possible. Maybe the last 15 years, NPS looks at that possibility a lot more carefully. After investigation, there's been a few (Yosemite and Sequoia Kings) that have, in fact, been crimes. Where a fall was actually a push... .

g.