Backcountry incidents this past weekend

CONTENTS DELETED

Jeff thanks for this link.  

It's hard to know what actually happened based on a short newspaper article. I remember last year's SAR off the Chatiemac side of Gore - what was published, was reasonably correct, but only a small part of the story.

Still - as an experienced 46er - I'd like to hear your take on the various levels of personal responsibility taken in these three incidents.

To me, it looks like Scott Molnar made some mistakes, but did take responsibility for his own survival.

Of course this once again raises the issue of insurance. What are the arguments against requiring it?

Agree.  Sounds like Molnar took responsibility for his own situation, which is commendable.  Of course, hiking those peaks (Emmons and Donaldson) solo on a winter weekend of brutal weather conditions is not the best judgement, but I've hiked more than a few remote peaks solo myself...

As far as the 3 climbers stranded in the Trap Dike, it sounds like they were in completely over their heads and had no business being there.  I liked the ranger's response to the request for a helicopter rescue:  "Dude, it's not happening."  People in the wilderness need to take responsibility for themselves, and relying on a cell phone to call for help when the shit gets too deep just reflects poor judgement from the very start.  When people start carrying cell phones rather than The Ten Essentials and common sense, they put themselves and others at risk.

Harvey44 wrote

What are the arguments against requiring it?

"Hello, 911, I'm stuck in the Trap Dyke on Mt. Colden and it's dark ... can you send me a helicopter?"

Requirements for ordinary individuals to have insurance should be either contractual in nature (homeowners, auto collision and comprehensive, etc.) or for compelling public policy reasons (auto liability and - some say - health insurance).  I don't think an insurance requirement for outdoor adventures meets the latter test, considering the relative infrequency of rescues compared to all outdoor adventures.  If rescue costs are imposing excessive burdens on government resources, then a statutory liability should be considered.

Why would you want to impose an insurance requirement on the overwhelming majority who go into the outdoors without incident and how do you determine the adventure threshold at which rescue insurance would be required?  What about moral hazard - would people be more prone to take excessive risks (oh, I'm insured for the helicopter)?

Michaeltokyo wrote

Why would you want to impose an insurance requirement on the overwhelming majority who go into the outdoors without incident and how do you determine the adventure threshold at which rescue insurance would be required?  What about moral hazard - would people be more prone to take excessive risks (oh, I'm insured for the helicopter)?

I guess it's an emotional response. I mean if you light your house on fire by mistake the fire department comes, it cost the taxpayers money, and rescuers are put in harm's way. It's not really any different. (?)

Like I said, we don't know the story, but it sounds like the backup plan was the cell phone. It would never occur to me to request a chopper if I was up the creek.

<quote author="Harvey44">

Michaeltokyo wrote

 It would never occur to me to request a chopper if I was up the creek.

You can never tell when people will order up a chopper.  

Several years ago I kayaked the Grand Canyon of the Colorado River on a raft supported trip.  A kayaking friend brought along his wife as a rafter who suffered a scorpion sting on her finger on the third day of our 2-week trip.  Convinced her trip was over, she asked the trip leader about calling in for a helicopter (almost relieved because she really didn't want to be on this trip to begin with).  The trip leader looked at her and grinned, opened one of the food chests, and gave her a piece of dry ice, saying, "no helicopter, just put this on the sting and keep it elevated.  You'll be o.k. by tomorrow."    And she was.

I agree with Mike - insurance isn't the answer.  Creates an expectation that they will be bailed out.  People will continue to rescue and be rescued, but because it's the human thing to do, not because there's a contract.

So the solution is more organic - education, signage etc?

Who bares the cost of rescue?

If it's the state, I guess you can look at it as the cost of doing business in the tourism industry.

Does SAR ask for a "donation" when the incident is done?

CONTENTS DELETED

It's a sticky wicket, accentuated by the volume of people nowadays and stretched government budgets.

7 billion souls will inhabit planet Earth by the end of this year. Over 9 billion by 2050. The strain of all that will change life very dramatically.

It is not a good idea to charge for a rescue. A money based delay can make things much worse for both the needy and the needed. Decisions in the wild should be based on survival and rescue, not money. I understand the anger we develop for the unprepared, but even the best of us can get caught in a bad situation. Most of the population might say any winter hike in the Adirondacks is  a bad choice.

x10003q wrote

It is not a good idea to charge for a rescue. A money based delay can make things much worse for both the needy and the needed. Decisions in the wild should be based on survival and rescue, not money. I understand the anger we develop for the unprepared, but even the best of us can get caught in a bad situation. Most of the population might say any winter hike in the Adirondacks is  a bad choice.

I definitely agree with you. Your point about even the best can get caught in a bad situation is a good one ... accident's happen, even to the most well-trained, well-prepared people.

One approach to this problem might be to require people to register and go through some sort of a certification process. For those who have been certified, if they get into trouble and require a rescue, they would not be charged, based on the assumption that they know what they're doing. For those who venture into the back-country without any sort of "training" or "certification", they would do so with the stipulation that if they should need a rescue, they will have to repay the costs of that rescue.

I'm not saying it's a perfect solution, but it might help to weed out the true Darwin Award candidates who venture forth with no clue what they're doing, and quite frankly, should pay to be bailed out, from those who have at least some basic level of understanding of what they are undertaking.

Just my two cents.

With every fish/game license purchased in CO, you get a free Wilderness Rescue.  The license's are a bit more expensive, but well wort it if you're putting yourself out there

Harvey44 wrote

Still - as an experienced 46er

Do tell.

Harvey44 wrote

Of course this once again raises the issue of insurance. What are the arguments against requiring it?

Where do you define requiring it and not require. I ride my bicycle, should I be required to have insurance. Go hiking, where is insurance required, small hill in NJ? Adirondacks? They could both be equally dangerous depending on how adventurous you are. As they both can be fairly safe also depending on how adventurous you are.

The thing that cracks me up...of all the rescues (and Scott obviously had the knowledge and experience to be out there) is that the folks on the Trap Dyke had all the necessary equipment...But DIDN'T Know How to Use it.  Why have the extra weight if it is useless and who was the brains of the group to choose the Trap Dyke.  There are easier ways up Colden.