I think the rule is if they die you need to show respect and solace, but if they just get injured you can laugh at them and call them idiots... :lol: :lol: :lol:

I think the rule is if they die you need to show respect and solace, but if they just get injured you can laugh at them and call them idiots... :lol: :lol: :lol:

But, I will say that this accident, and other incidnets like this, just reinforce the old climbing addage...There are old climbers and there are bold climbers, but there are no old bold climbers.

timstitch - The biggest thing was they had one static for 2 people with no backup, which is totally unsat aswell as only one anchor.

As long as the money isn't coming out of my pocket in taxes - fine.

I know it's blunt, but whatever happen to taking personal responsibility for your own actions?

They sure as F**k do!!!

As a fireman/Emt who has run on countless medical calls(and plenty of OD's) I can tell you everytime we step foot on that rig to go on an emergency run we are risking our lives.

The case of a herion OD is even riskier. Ever been in the residence of a herion user?? Ever "patted" one downand gotten stuck with a dirty needle?
They risk a slow and painful death from things like Hepatitis and HIV.
Or they might risk getting shot by the druggy in the next room....
These are all VERY real situation's that happen to ambulance crews every day....DON'T EVER TAKE WHAT THEY DO FOR GRANTED!

josh

I'm with Phil. The rescue guys I know love to get out and have an adventure. It's either that or not get paid, or give traffic tickets or something boring.

It doesn't cost enough to hurt your poor tax bill either. I'd complain about the hundreds of billions going down the drain in Iraq for nothing.

When do we stop offering a rescue? Cause it's a soloist? Cause it's a rockclimber. How about motorists? Should the Fire Department conduct a responsibility interview before they put your house out. I guarantee that most fires and car accidents are every bit as stupid as some guy falling climbing.

It's easy to be cold and say screw the soloist, until it's your bro out there, Then you care

Peace

karl

Regarding taxpayer dollars and rescues. . .

last I looked, all the climbers I knew (self included) pay a F*&k load in taxes each year, since none of us are millionaires.

what about bridwell? or bacher? or donini? or any of those crusty old bastads in Alpinist?

Bouldering is free-solo...

The interesting thing here is that when I was at Eldo, there were a number of climbers freesoloing. One appeared to be an instituion there (Flamer can tell you his name), if *that* guy had fallen, you all would be a lot more sympathetic.

Yes, he did everything wrong in terms of "climbing" that is, minus a rope . . . but was he an idiot? Nah. Think about how many soloers there are out there and how many accidents you hear reported. I'd wait to judge.

Managing Risk on Mount Rainier
Guest Editorial by Jon Jarvis
Superintendent, Mount Rainier National Park


The most recent tragedies on Mount Rainier and Mount Hood remind us that climbing season is here and with it comes risk. Also come the questions of “how could this have been prevented, who let those people climb to their deaths, and why should the tax payer foot the bill for the rescue? As the Superintendent of Mount Rainier National Park, I respond to these questions each time we activate our highly trained teams to either rescue or recover those who get into trouble on this great mountain. These good questions deserve thoughtful answers.

First, let me speak to prevention. We expend a great deal of effort in educating the prospective climber about the inherent risks of mountaineering. We talk with them during their permit registration, we gain some understanding of their experience, their plans and their chosen route. We inform them of specific risks of the route, of current snow and weather conditions, of proper equipment, and the skills they need. If we sense they may be attempting a route well beyond their skill, we will recommend a different route. If they are a true novice, then we steer them to one of our concessioner guided trips or training days with groups such as the Mountaineers. But ultimately, it is their decision, and we will not deny them the right to climb, for the mountain is public land and we believe our responsibility is to educate them about the risk but not deny access.

The second part of the question often posed is something like “if the mountain is so risky, why don’t you just close it, particularly during big storms?” As a 14,410 foot glaciated peak, Mount Rainier is always dangerous regardless of the weather. Mount Rainier even creates its own weather. If we did “close it” (which would be practically impossible) for some set of safety considerations, under what circumstances would we reopen it, since it is always dangerous? By the act of “reopening” the mountain that has been closed, we would be implying to the public that it is now “safe” to climb.

The last question, and perhaps the most frequently asked is “why the taxpayer should foot the bill for rescuing those people who, by choice, subject themselves to a known risk?” The first part of the answer is to examine for whom we, as public land managers, spend most of the taxpayers’ money searching. Statistically, on a national scale, and even here at Mount Rainier, we spend more money searching for the lost hiker in the forest, or the child who walks away from a drive-in campground, than we do for the mountaineer. The most expensive search in Mount Rainier’s recent history was for Joe Wood, Jr., the writer who disappeared in the lower forests of the park in 1999 (and was not found). The risk mountaineers face is often one they have calculated, trained for, experienced in the past, and have brought along a lot of equipment to specifically help them survive. A visitor who heads off into the forest without even a jacket, food, water or any of the other ten essentials is actually taking on a higher risk than the risk faced by the mountaineer. Poorly equipped to survive a dramatic change in weather, subject to hypothermia, this hiker is also facing a risk by choice. We cannot single out any one group, such as the climbers, and say that they should pay for their rescue and not apply the standard to everyone who is lost.

The second part of the answer, is that as the responsible officials for initiating the rescue and also for making the very tough decision to stop a search before a person has been found, we do not want “ability to pay” to be a factor in those decisions. Nor do we want “ability to pay” to be a factor in the visitor’s decision to ask for our teams to rescue them. Imagine the scenario of a visitor in the forest, out of food, cold, wet and lost, with a cell phone, worried that they may be facing a bill for tens of thousands of dollars, reluctant to call for help, waiting perhaps until it is too late. Imagine too the climbers in trouble, worried about the bill for a rescue, waiting until their physical condition and the weather get horrendous to call for help, forcing our teams to respond in the worst possible situation. We use many factors to both launch and to suspend a search, and they are all about risk, probability of survival, probability of success, our teams’ capabilities and fatigue, and the capabilities of our cooperators like the military helicopters. But not cost. To put cost into the formula would require that our teams search harder and longer for those that have the money than those who do not. Mount Rainier is a great equalizer, the risks are shared by everyone, regardless of their financial status.

Mount Rainier National Park is a gift to us all, set aside for our preservation and enjoyment over 100 years ago, still wild today, offering a range of risks for each of us to experience. It is your responsibility to learn about those risks, whether they come from a day hike to Comet Falls or an independent summit bid, and it is our responsibility to help you learn how to experience the park with an appreciation of those risks. But also, should you get in trouble, whether by your own fault or the tricks of nature, one of the finest rescue teams in North America will be gearing up and we won’t be asking for your credit card number.

However, soloing at, or anywhere near, your limit should be left to experienced climbers who have been around the block; those who can recognize the illusory feeling of control and stop themselves from being seduced into getting in over their heads.

This will bring "some" flame on me - isn´t it quite evident that soloing (almost always) per definition means that you CAN´T resist the illusory feeling of control and CAN´T stop yourself from being seduced into getting into something where some "unexpected" will tip the balance into something that is over your head?

Same old story again and again and again. Who decides what our limit is or whether you have been around the block. I have that illusory feeling of control every time I step on the gas pedal - but something unexpected and out of my control can change things quickly. I have never gottten that "heart in my throat" feeling from climbing - ever.

Excellent post Hugepedro- do you have a link to the original article?