Adirondack Forum  
Rules Membership Donations and Online Store Adkhighpeaks Foundation ADKhighpeaks Forums ADKhighpeaks Wiki Disclaimer

Go Back   Adirondack Forum > General Forum Related Topics > "By the Fireside"
FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
Old 03-15-2007, 05:01 PM   #1
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Mandatory Locator Beacons

There is a push in Oregon to require that all climbers carry locater beacons as a result of the contrast of results in the two recent incidents there. Part of the argument of the proponents is that it also makes it much less dangerous for the rescuers.

What do you think? Should safety gear like locater beacons be mandated or not?

Why? ("I don't like being told what to do" is not a reason)

Hawk
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 05:41 PM   #2
ElectricMan
Member
 
ElectricMan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Manchester, NH
Posts: 32
Trying to stir it up a little?

Me thinks
If the expectation is that some else is going to rescue you, then I don’t think it’s unreasonable to have to play by their rules. If that includes a requirement to carry a locator beacon, so be it.

If on the other hand you’re out in the woods without an expectation of rescue then I don’t think someone else should be telling me what/how/when to do things.

My question for people apposed to locator beacons like what is being tested on Hood, Rainer, Whitney, Denali and others is…
If you don’t want to carry a beacon, would you be willing to forfeit your right/expectation of rescue by park personnel or anyone else? If you get in trouble you better call a for-profit rescue service.
__________________
Enjoy Your Best
ElectricMan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 05:49 PM   #3
Ordin Aryguy
or·di·nar·y
 
Ordin Aryguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Travelers Rest, SC
Posts: 670
Nope. It's just more dictatorial feel-good regulations from Big Brother... "I'm doing this for your own good."

But on the other hand, snowshoes and crampons are required for High Peaks winter climbs, and few seem to have any problems with this rule.

Life is full of contradictions, isn't it?

My take on the whole deal? Relying on electronic devices for your own backcountry safety means you're just one dead battery away from your own demise. That statement is aimed sqaurely at all those gomers that believe a GPS and cell phone means being prepared.


Ordin
__________________
They speak of my drinking, but never of my thirst...
Ordin Aryguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 06:44 PM   #4
Dick
somewhere out there...
 
Dick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: avatar: Patagonia
Posts: 2,822
Redhawk trying to stir things up? What would ever give you that idea?

I think we’ve been down this road before.

I can understand the argument of less danger to the rescuers, as they would be able to pinpoint the location, saving time and having to look in potentially dangerous areas. I'm sure the rangers know the statistics of people needing rescue better than many of the hikers themselves. Also, some hikers may believe their skills to be better than they actually are.

“I don’t like being told what to do” is a reason for some, but it can apply to backcountry rescue, helmets, safety belts, speed limits, and a host of other situations that affect other people as well as the person in question. I’m not sure what the “non-expectation” of rescue means? Does it mean that I don’t expect to be rescued, or does it mean I DON’T WANT to be rescued?

Is snowshoe rule vs. beacon really a contradiction? Many snowshoe users “obey” because they see the immediate need and benefit, unlike a beacon which only “pays off” when needed.

“Relying” on electronic devices is not the issue. The question was about being REQUIRED to use one.

Dick
Dick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 07:16 PM   #5
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
I don't think they should be required equipment. I think they SHOULD be carried, but not mandated.
ken999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 07:21 PM   #6
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick View Post
I can understand the argument of less danger to the rescuers, as they would be able to pinpoint the location, saving time and having to look in potentially dangerous areas. I'm sure the rangers know the statistics of people needing rescue better than many of the hikers themselves. Also, some hikers may believe their skills to be better than they actually are.
Which explains why 90% of all Recoveries are of "experienced" hikers and not neophytes.

And I agree about the rangers being the best judge.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick View Post
Is snowshoe rule vs. beacon really a contradiction? Many snowshoe users “obey” because they see the immediate need and benefit, unlike a beacon which only “pays off” when needed.
But is that really the case? What about the better sense of security it gives to family and friends if someone is carrying one?

of course, the other side of the argument is that with a sense of security in being rescued, some of the danger is eliminate, and then people who make an attempt that they mike not make otherwise, and they may not be prepared to do it either physically or exerience wise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dick View Post
“Relying” on electronic devices is not the issue. The question was about being REQUIRED to use one.
Dick
Exactly, one would assume that if carrying a locater beacon, the batteries would be good and since it gets turned on only in an emergency, it different from something that is turned on for the duration of the hike.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 07:29 PM   #7
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordin Aryguy View Post
Nope. It's just more dictatorial feel-good regulations from Big Brother... "I'm doing this for your own good."
Actually in this case, it's being requested by the people who have the job of rescuing you.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordin Aryguy View Post
Life is full of contradictions, isn't it?

My take on the whole deal? Relying on electronic devices for your own backcountry safety means you're just one dead battery away from your own demise. That statement is aimed sqaurely at all those gomers that believe a GPS and cell phone means being prepared.
And the contradiction can be, that you were just one live battery away from being saved.

My take is that

1: one should do everything they can to ensure their own safety. It's just common sense.

2. Since the longer it takes to make a rescue, the more other people who are at risk and the more costly it is to the taxpayers or the agency affecting the rescue. it's just common courtesy.

3. If people just don''t have enough common sense to ensure their own safety, or enough consideration to be concerned about the safety or cost of their potential rescuers, then the equipment needs to be mandated.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 07:30 PM   #8
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken999 View Post
I don't think they should be required equipment. I think they SHOULD be carried, but not mandated.
You haven't stated your reasons for that conclusion.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 07:48 PM   #9
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
Reasoning? I think that there are too many laws on common sense issues as is.

Whether of not a person has a beacon shouldn't have any bearing on how rescue personel approach a situation, right?
ken999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 08:10 PM   #10
Ordin Aryguy
or·di·nar·y
 
Ordin Aryguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Travelers Rest, SC
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
1: one should do everything they can to ensure their own safety. It's just common sense.
We agree 100%. No argument from this side.


Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
2. Since the longer it takes to make a rescue, the more other people who are at risk and the more costly it is to the taxpayers or the agency affecting the rescue. it's just common courtesy.
In the case earlier this year, out in Oregon, the rescue beacon's sole purpose would have been to lead the way for the body recovery team. Three climbers knowingly went out with an approaching snow storm. They broke your first rule regarding common sense. A truckload of rescue beacons can't fix breaking rule #1.


Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
3. If people just don''t have enough common sense to ensure their own safety, or enough consideration to be concerned about the safety or cost of their potential rescuers, then the equipment needs to be mandated.
Recently a body had to be brought down from Mt Marcy. Coronary arrest. An AED surely might have prevented this tragedy. Should they now be mandated? Sounds like it from here.

Lots of twisted knees and sprained ankles occur annually, too. Some, not all, requiring rescue from the backcountry. Orthopedic braces might prevent these incidents. Incidents, I might add, that cost the taxpayers money to haul these individuals out of the woods when they're all damaged from not being equipped with devices that would prevent their injuries.

Helmets. Imagine all the cracked coconuts they'd prevent... It's a never ending list.

End result. Their is inherent risk in being outside. Making it "safer" through legislation is impossible.


Ordin
__________________
They speak of my drinking, but never of my thirst...
Ordin Aryguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 08:10 PM   #11
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by ken999 View Post
Reasoning? I think that there are too many laws on common sense issues as is.

Whether of not a person has a beacon shouldn't have any bearing on how rescue personel approach a situation, right?
Read what you said that i just bold faced.

And then explain to me why it wouldn't change the approach the rescue.

if the individual has a beacon, you home in on the signal.

if the person doesn't then it's a whole different approach.

So yes Ken, if a person does or does not have a beacon makes all the difference in the world how the rescue personnel approach the rescue.

As for why the beacon helps the rescue personnel, If they know where the person is, they don't have to take chances looking in places that may be dangerous and they don't have to be out in the elements as long and they don't need as many personnel.

So I guess the reason there are so many laws on common sense issues is because too many people do not use it (common sense) and then it becomes mandated for the rest of us.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 08:16 PM   #12
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ordin Aryguy View Post
End result. Their is inherent risk in being outside. Making it "safer" through legislation is impossible.
Ordin
Not true. It can be made safer, it can't be made 100% safe.

Examples, Seat belts. How many lives do you think they save each year, many more since they have become mandated and the law enforced.

I agree there is always a risk in being outside. However, there are some things that are much higher risk then other. Ad bringing someone down off the high peaks does not pose as much of a threat to rescue personnel as having to search on Mount Hood or McKinley or others.

And I think that since everyone agrees what a wonderful and unselfish job the rescue personnel do, we should mandate whatever will help to keep them safer and do their jobs easier.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 08:26 PM   #13
Ordin Aryguy
or·di·nar·y
 
Ordin Aryguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: Travelers Rest, SC
Posts: 670
Quote:
Originally Posted by redhawk View Post
And I think that since everyone agrees what a wonderful and unselfish job the rescue personnel do, we should mandate whatever will help to keep them safer and do their jobs easier.
Cell phones, GPS's, EPIRB's, AED's, knee braces, helmets, elbow pads... This is mighty big list. There goes any hope of keeping my packweight below 100lbs.


Ordin
__________________
They speak of my drinking, but never of my thirst...
Ordin Aryguy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 10:19 PM   #14
Hobbitling
spring fever
 
Hobbitling's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Location: Rochester area
Posts: 2,239
well, could it be required under certain circumstances:
above a certain altitude, during a certain season, in certain defined areas, etc...? the average dayhiker doesnt need a beacon in the Daks in the summer.
I know, I know, bad things happen even on short dayhikes, but seriously, like Redhawk said, some activities are inherently more dangerous than others, and it seems like it would be easy to apply the law to only those.
__________________
He found himself wondering at times, especially in the autumn, about the wild lands, and strange visions of mountains that he had never seen came into his dreams.
Hobbitling is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 10:30 PM   #15
Adirondack_hunter
Southern Adirondack Hunter
 
Adirondack_hunter's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Little Falls
Posts: 296
Easy one Hawk, NO!

When is the American public going to just get off this garbage to mandate safety for everyone?
Look at all the stupid people out there in America and think.....half of them are stupider than that!!!
You play, you might have to pay. There is risk involved and it's not the government's job to take all this risk away.
What next? mandating that you wear a condom when "sponsoring" a prostitute? Disease costs the tax payer millions yet do we mandate such garbage?
I'd much rather re-test every person over the age of 65 to continue driving and then if you are on any medication where the warning says, "may cause drowsiness" you aren't driving!!! How about a reaction test as well.
Oh, I got another such deal for people. Mandate if you wear glasses and your vision is non correctable to 20-20 your car only goes so fast!
Someone always wants to be the hero and enact legislation that fits their own personal need or needs that will get them re-elected. Most of these people have more than one screw lose yet only have a few screws left because they lost the other 39,897,489 on all the other lame brain ideas they put to paper.
Better yet than the personal locator beacon. Mandate people hiking wear properly fitting shoes. I'm talking a note from the Dr.! How many people have tripped while hiking and broke a leg all because their shoes fit improperly. More laws (rules) don't make things better. Don't we have enough laws that are hard enough to enforce as it is?
Do we really need to micro manage every American? Someday, someone is going to get the idea to make us all wear white skivies and wear all the same colored clothes and eat all the same foods. It's ideas such as these that made wacko leaders of the world commit terrible crimes against their own people. "You will conform" Freedom is great, unless you have a wacko with an agenda.
Enough said.
__________________
"Every piece of venison I eat reminds me of my forefathers and the joy the whitetail brought to them"
-- Adkhunter
Adkhunter Reflective Arrow Wraps
Rockclimbing.com NY Route Editor
Adirondack_hunter is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-15-2007, 11:14 PM   #16
dog
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Posts: 379
It is Oregon . Look at map . Other voices , other rooms .
BTW www.nwhikers.net/forums

Last edited by dog; 03-16-2007 at 01:16 AM..
dog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 12:36 AM   #17
ken999
Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Posts: 957
Hawk- What I was getting at was the search party is supposed to only assume a certain amount of risk, no matter if they are looking for a beeper or not.

Just becuase a lost party does not have a beeper does not mean that the search party MUST put themselves in any more harms way than not.

I certainly understand that beeper will cut down on the recovery time. That is not my point.


FWIW I don't approve of the seat belt law either...if someone wants to put there head through a windsheild, let them... I know people who refuse..they think that they have better chances and do not want to become trapped in the event of an accident.

It's kinda like telling someone who is cluastraphobic that getting into a a small confined space is the thing to do, then make a law that requires it.
ken999 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 01:23 AM   #18
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by Adirondack_hunter View Post
Easy one Hawk, NO!

When is the American public going to just get off this garbage to mandate safety for everyone?
Look at all the stupid people out there in America and think.....half of them are stupider than that!!!
You play, you might have to pay. There is risk involved and it's not the government's job to take all this risk away.
What next? mandating that you wear a condom when "sponsoring" a prostitute? Disease costs the tax payer millions yet do we mandate such garbage?
I'd much rather re-test every person over the age of 65 to continue driving and then if you are on any medication where the warning says, "may cause drowsiness" you aren't driving!!! How about a reaction test as well.
Oh, I got another such deal for people. Mandate if you wear glasses and your vision is non correctable to 20-20 your car only goes so fast!
Someone always wants to be the hero and enact legislation that fits their own personal need or needs that will get them re-elected. Most of these people have more than one screw lose yet only have a few screws left because they lost the other 39,897,489 on all the other lame brain ideas they put to paper.
Better yet than the personal locator beacon. Mandate people hiking wear properly fitting shoes. I'm talking a note from the Dr.! How many people have tripped while hiking and broke a leg all because their shoes fit improperly. More laws (rules) don't make things better. Don't we have enough laws that are hard enough to enforce as it is?
Do we really need to micro manage every American? Someday, someone is going to get the idea to make us all wear white skivies and wear all the same colored clothes and eat all the same foods. It's ideas such as these that made wacko leaders of the world commit terrible crimes against their own people. "You will conform" Freedom is great, unless you have a wacko with an agenda.
Enough said.
Actually some laws are necessary and so are many regulations, and some can be just plain stupid.

I do think however when your actions affect others, that if necessary regulations need to be put in place. Bear Canister are necessary because many people would not use bear bags, or hang them correctly or clean the food from their campsites resulting in putting others at risk as well as putting the bears at risk.

It's one thing if someone gets lost or misplaced here in the dacks, compared to some of the mountains that are climbed out west. The SAR people here do not have the same amount of risk as they do on Mount Hood or the others. So in order to give them better protection the want to mandate the beacons. makes all the sense in the world to me.

Mandating that the APA change their regulations to put up cell towers on the Northway so that there is cell coverage in case of an emergency does not. Especially since they are allowed now but the cell companies don't want to comply with the standards.

the mandatory seat belt law cut down on fatalities and traumatic head injury and resulted in a lowering of insurance rates.
Actually as I would favor driving and vision tests and physicals every one or two years for people 65 or over. If they have an accident, they can injure someone else, so it's in the communities best interests.

Personally, I think it;s a shame that there has to be rules and laws about some things, but the problem is that in many cases, if people don't do the smart thing, it effects others besides themselves. Sometimes indirectly like higher health or life or auto insurance rates. Or stricter controls on guns, no fault insurance, closing down trails for periods of time, etc.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 08:05 AM   #19
lumberzac
Beware of the Lumberzac
 
lumberzac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: country of the lakes and the crooked stream
Posts: 1,730
While I think carrying a locater beacon in some of the mountains in Oregon is a good idea, I don’t feel it should be made mandatory. This legislation is being pushed through to help protect climbers and save lives, but I think they are going about it all wrong. It focuses too much on the searcher and not the person(s) being searched for. If they are to make anything mandatory, I think it should be requiring climbers to go through some kind of climbing school were they would get some kind of certification. This would give climbers some knowledge of what to do when things go wrong and how to survive.
What good is it to allow rescuers to know where you are if you if you don’t have the skills to live a day or two while they try to rescue you? Things happen such as high winds and blizzard conditions that can slow or temporarily halt rescue attempts. Without survival knowledge giving a climber a locater beacon would just gives SAR teams a location to extract dead bodies.
__________________
A man needs to believe in something. I believe I'll go hiking.

http://community.webshots.com/user/lumberzac
lumberzac is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 03-16-2007, 09:40 AM   #20
redhawk
Senior Resident Curmudgeon
 
redhawk's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: In My Memories
Posts: 10,931
Quote:
Originally Posted by lumberzac View Post
While I think carrying a locater beacon in some of the mountains in Oregon is a good idea, I don’t feel it should be made mandatory. This legislation is being pushed through to help protect climbers and save lives, but I think they are going about it all wrong. It focuses too much on the searcher and not the person(s) being searched for. If they are to make anything mandatory, I think it should be requiring climbers to go through some kind of climbing school were they would get some kind of certification. This would give climbers some knowledge of what to do when things go wrong and how to survive.
What good is it to allow rescuers to know where you are if you if you don’t have the skills to live a day or two while they try to rescue you? Things happen such as high winds and blizzard conditions that can slow or temporarily halt rescue attempts. Without survival knowledge giving a climber a locater beacon would just gives SAR teams a location to extract dead bodies.
Zac the three climbers that died a short time ago were all experienced.

And actually, the more experienced the person is, the more the chance they;ll think they can take chances and the less likely they'll feel they need extra safety equipment.

And I am sure if all the locater beacon did was allow the rescuers to recover the body, the family would be happy.

And if the legislation does focus more on the searchers then the person being searched for it doesn't diminish the fact that it might save the rescuee's life.

This isn't a quick grandstanding type thing because of the recent two instances that have been in the national news. These instances happen on an all too regular basis out there and i would think that the SARS people would know whats best. It's taken quite a while for there be a push to mandate the beacons which would indicate tht some thought has gone into the pros and cons.
__________________
"If future generations are to remember us with gratitude rather than contempt, we must leave them more than the miracles of technology. We must leave them a glimpse of the world as it was in the beginning, not just after we got through with it." Lyndon B. Johnson
redhawk is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:06 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, vBulletin Solutions Inc.

DISCLAIMER: Use of these forums, and information found herein, is at your own risk. Use of this site by members and non-members alike is only granted by the adkhighpeak.com administration provided the terms and conditions found in the FULL DISCLAIMER have been read. Continued use of this site implies that you have read, understood and agree to the terms and conditions of this site. Any questions can be directed to the Administrator of this site.