Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
FRUMY
Trad climber
Bishop,CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 09:13am PT
|
Does that really matter? His ideas are still living.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 09:20am PT
|
it is, unfortunately, an outdated concept which is impossible to practice as it was once... largely because of the number of people that inhabit the Earth.
The world's population has doubled or tripled in my lifetime. The number of people "roaming" has increased quite dramatically, and the impact of all that "roaming" has been felt by those wild places we all seek the "right" to roam in. Thus, our responsibility "not to trash the place" cannot be met.
Even if we all are impeccable in our practice of roaming.
This was not a problem 100 years ago, or even earlier than that... there were not many of us, and those of us who did "roam" probably were able to go places that few people would travel to at that time. So our insults on the "wild" which were noticeable would eventually be "healed" by the natural process.
At this time, our constant, repeated insults are such that the "wild" we wish to "roam" in are no longer so wild.
When I first went to he Bugaboo's we traveled up a dirt logging road, windows open, straining to hear the sound of a logging truck... the last time I was there we drove up a paved road most of the way, and listened to the sound of heli-hikers being taken into the back country.
When Conrad Kain went in, it was epic, they killed their food and took a huge amount of time getting there. I consider the Bug's to have been "wild" in 1985, it was far from Kain's "wild", and far from my 1996 trip's experience.
I had the feeling at some point that I could fly to anyplace in the world and set foot on a "wild" adventure in 24 to 48 hours... very convenient, but far from any concept of "wild."
To make a "right to roam" flies in the face of common sense, there is little to "wild" to roam in.
As close as it gets is to take a sail boat out into the ocean and make a passage across those seas. Still a far cry from those first journeys.
If we have a "right to roam" in the wilds, what protections is there to keep those places "wild"? It is a paradox with no resolution.
|
|
couchmaster
climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 09:30am PT
|
Tami asked: "feralfae you do realize Doug Buchanan died in 2012........ "
Tami, feralfae was Dougs significant other. More than the rest of us I'm sure she understands that Doug passed on. That doesn't mean she has to forget the issues Doug was passionate about. Perhaps the reverse?
Take care
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 10:11am PT
|
and the impact of all that "roaming" has been felt by those wild places we all seek the "right" to roam in.
You prompted me to think about one of the major things that has changed in that last 100 years, as described in "The Graduate":
Plastics.
Prior to that time, pretty much everything was biodegradable in a relatively short time. But not so with plastics.
As for that "roaming", and the right to pollute, I'm in mind of a golf club and golf balls at the base of Obelisk, left for decades. How "funny".
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 02:18pm PT
|
Hi Tami,
Doug and I would have celebrated out 10th anniversary this past May, if he were still here. Thank you, though.
ff
Generally, I was trying to frame the specific issue of delineating the responsibility for rescuing climbers, and solicit input on this very narrow issue of who is best responsible for the rescue of climbers.
Ed, I have spent time in several countries (England, Scotland, Scandinavia) where the right to roam is not only alive and well, but people are wonderfully respectful of the land and its life. But I suppose that perhaps those countries must have far less population density and more responsible people than Ed points out is the case here in the United States, although on the paths, trails and waterways through private lands in Montana and Wyoming, I have not seen any of this "trashing" although I have certainly noticed more paving and painted parking lots put up by government.
A part of being free to roam has always been taking responsibility for preserving the land. I know there are problems in some areas - Asia and S. America - with this practice, where people cut trees and kill game. That is why we hire land stewards: to protect the life of our common land and private land where there are public pathways or waterways. And mountains.
Ed, I think that to posit that there is some tipping point number at which we surrender our basic civility and responsibility to government enforcement deprives us of a maturation process we are woefully lacking in much of our engagement with public lands. But to expect the government to nanny us through our adventures, rather than planning for our outings and taking reasonable measures, is to abdicate our freedom by refusing to abide within the limits we need to impose on ourselves. To dismiss such responsibility as an impossibility due to population growth is bring into a narrowly-defined discussion a broad problem that can be cited as the source of problems in everything from public schooling to flight paths.
Which is why I asked for ideas rather than excuses.
And how about "There are now enough people to find excellent solutions to these problems!"
rather than "There are too many of us and this problem is impossible to solve without intervention by government."
I brought up Lloyds as an option to government intervention in mountain activities. Pollution of public and private lands, on the other hand, should be punished and restitution required to the land owners, which most often are the public, at least in this nation. But I do not see it as a part of this discussion, but rather as simply another red herring.
Why should climbers be exempt from self-insuring while climbing any more than drivers would be held exempt while driving? And why would either group not want to be insured? And why should the government be held responsible for rescuing anyone, anywhere?
The article to which I provided a link, which I provide again here, is a rather extensive survey of existing freedom to roam traditional and more contemporary practices, laws, and discussions on that freedom. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_to_roam
If population pressure is an issue associated with the cost of rescue of climbers, then I have found no data to support that assertion, Ed. I would appreciate your source for your statement "The number of people "roaming" has increased quite dramatically, and the impact of all that "roaming" has been felt by those wild places we all seek the "right" to roam in. Thus, our responsibility "not to trash the place" cannot be met." (While I was speaking of the right to roam as it relates to mountain climbing, I understand that you have chosen to broaden the issue to pollution of pathways and wild places for some unspecified reason, stating that the problem of trashing can no longer be left to the responsibility of individuals thus engaged. I can only assume that you somehow extrapolate from climbing rescues to trashing, but I am unable to see how you relate this to climbing rescues.)
Why can climbing rescues, whether five or five hundred, not be met? What data do you have to validate this statement? If this is personal observation, rather than validated data, I would also appreciate knowing how you find it applicable to the issue of climber rescues and the responsibility of climbers for insuring against same; the basic issue being whether or not government should be involved in or paying for these rescues, or if climbers need to provide their own rescue insurance and arrangements.
Freedom to roam in no instance (that I have been able to find) implies the freedom from responsibility to provide for rescue and restitution. Nor does freedom to roam, for purposes of this discussion, extend beyond discussing the freedom to roam in the mountains.
This is a very narrowly-focused discussion, the issue at hand being one you, Ed, appear to have side-stepped with great flourishes and pronouncements. Perhaps your own presence here is a proper example of over-population in a narrowly-defined discussion. :) Quite possibly. I proposed that climbers should be insured and arrangements for rescue should be made prior to undertaking any climbing. I suggested the option and example of Lloyds. I asked for additional input.
This is a discussion about options for insuring climbers in case of needed rescue, toward removing such activities from the government's scope of operations so that Park Rangers can return to their stewardship work.
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
atchafalaya
Boulder climber
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 02:27pm PT
|
Thanks Doug, for changing my thoughts on a few climbing related issues. I miss your posts... Hope all is well Ferelfae.
|
|
climbski2
Mountain climber
Anchorage AK, Reno NV
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 02:34pm PT
|
The only time I ever talked to a US senator face to face was due to this exact issue. It is NOT a simple issue. This was shortly after the fee initiated by the park service for just climbing Denali. One I opposed and still do. Infact A buddy of mine was the first person to climb on Denali after the fee was imposed and he did not pay it and we had kinda set up a showdown with the park service and had the AP lined up for the story in order to fight it.. Park service simply ignored the violation and continued with the questionable practice and it is now simply accepted.
Then Senator Murkowski had invited a discussion with Denali Guides regarding rescue costs and possible implementation of fees for such on Denali. I missed out on the meeting due to work.
Later that evening I tracked Murkowski down in downtown Anchorage and spoke with him privately. My first comment to him I hrad somewhat rehearsed and it went like this. The purpose of government is to preserve life liberty and the pursuit of happiness, I have never been happier than when climbing Denali. This elicited a real smile from the man and a several minute conversation.
I talked about the fact that I was a volunteer mountain rescue member and a guide on Denali. That in many cases the guides on Denali took it upon themselves to assist in rescues with no financial compensation. I mentioned how the coast guard rescues recreational boaters no questions asked. I even conceeded a willingness to pay an affordable fee (perhaps a few hundred) for actual insurance but only if that covered medical costs as well. I felt that getting medical costs covered would actually make the fee worthwhile, compared to the fees already being paid. Fee's I felt robbed by.
Murkowski listened and asked a few questions here and there. In the end nothing occurred, I'm not sure why but my guess is that there was not sufficient customers for an affordable, profitable or break even insurance scheme to work on Denali.
Our nation has some great traditions when it comes to rescue... the coast guard, the national guard and in extreme cases of disaster the full armed services for example.
However it is abysmal in it's medical coverage system. Any person may require rescue in their lives. All will require medical care. In my mind this is a set of services so universal and critical that it should be funded by a nonprofit single payer system. In order to take best advantage of basic insurance economics and buying power.
Perhaps even a highly regulated or even socialist provider system. That part is more problematic and I'm unsure if it is advisable for best care.
It comes down to the first and most fundamental purpose of government. The preservation of life.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 03:56pm PT
|
It is IMPOSSIBLE to fully fund the .. insatiable National Park Service bureaucracy
Nicely reasoned and well phrased tautology. Well sure since they're insatiable it stands to reason that it's impossible to satisfy them .. that checks out .. must be legit!
Thanks for speaking for all actual climbers (and not treading on the perspectives of the theoretical climbers) but climbing without government hassles and not fully funding the parks are not actually primary goals of this actual climber.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 04:19pm PT
|
rBord,
I am not sure Doug is reading this thread any more. :) But who knows? :)
Yes, by the definition of those words, one cannot possibly satisfy that which is insatiable. It was good rhetoric in its day.
But off the point of the present discussion: as one real climber to another, are you willing to accept responsibility for funding your own rescue when you decide to undertake to place yourself in a situation with perhaps a higher actuarial risk than, say, the family of four having dinner at the local lodge?
Do you think the better choice is to pull Park Rangers away from their usual work, or better to have arranged with private rescue professionals—who would no doubt require a signaling device to be in use by your team and who have all the needed equipment because this is their work—because you chose to undertake this adventure, which you might also refrain from doing if you are not willing to accept responsibility for your actions?
Those are the questions now before the house, so to type. :)
As a tiny further comment, I am sure Lloyds (and other insurers) have experience and data on rescues and medical expenses during such activities. They are rather canny at that sort of thing. :)
Thank you
feralfae
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 05:17pm PT
|
Thanks feralfae. I like the tone of your rhetoric :-)
I think that the excellent solution that humans have found as our population has increased is called "government". :-)
|
|
donini
Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 05:47pm PT
|
Yep....if it weren't for the development of "government" in human evolution we likely wouldn't be on this forum having this discussion.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 09:52pm PT
|
I was focusing on the "freedom to roam" which I think is a quaint anachronism.
As far as climber rescue is concerned, I have recently been involved in two rescues, one in which we self rescued to the SAR cache where we obtained expert opinion about the degree of the injuries and decided to evacuate to a hospital on our own.
It is true that we spent tax payer dollars tying up YOSAR personnel for about an hour. We would have used the clinic were that an option, presumably using the victim's health insurance to cover the costs. Had we been billed for the time that YOSAR spent we would have gladly paid it.
In the other case we evacuated the victim to the ground, but required people and equipment to make the transport from the cliff base to the road. This involved YOSAR also, the victim paid for the ambulance costs from YNP to an area trauma center. I do not believe that the victim was charged for the rescue.
In many places I have climbed, external rescue was unlikely because of the impossibility of communications. In those cases we were aware that we had to act with recognition of the consequences of our actions, and that we were fully responsible to get our asses out of a bad situation with no expectation of external aid. Insurance in those cases was irrelevant since we could not call for aid at all. I tend to behave like that everywhere... however, if there is the possibility of obtaining help, I won't hesitate to ask for it in an emergency. I also don't hesitate to provide it when I can.
Independent of my insurance status, if I have a serious accident on the road I will be "rescued" whether I have explicitly requested it or not. I am probably not going to pay the cost of the actual rescue since the agencies responsible (police, fire, etc.) have, as part of their "mission," rescue response. As a society we have chosen to have those public agencies respond. This is not a stretch for climbers and rescues.
The logic isn't one of the "nanny state" but of the role of public agencies promoting the public welfare. The vast majority of YOSAR activity in YNP is aiding tourists in need. One might require of anyone traveling to YNP an insurance policy that explicitly funds "rescue" costs, and have the insurance companies provide private rescue for their clients.
Anyone not able to provide verification of such an insurance policy would be turned away at the gate. This avoids the problem of who pays for rescues. I suppose that people evading the verification and who were involved in a mishap would not be helped and be left to their fate. For climbers we have the image of Kurz hanging dead on his rope... no one to pay for taking him down, he didn't have any insurance.
You are free to roam as long as you can prove that you will not "take" from the "owners" of the wild you're roaming on the costs that might occur because of some mishap to you or your fellow roamers. What a strange definition of "wild."
In antiquity, you roamed the wilds and if something happened to you it was very likely no one would know. You were fully responsible for what might befall you "out there." My point is that there is no "out there" anymore.
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
|
Jul 27, 2015 - 10:43pm PT
|
here's an example, I plotted the visits to Yosemite NP per year and the California population per year (polynomial interpolation between census years).
The California population has more than doubled since my birth...
the ratio of YNP visits to Cali pop. has been roughly 11% from 1960 to present... which means the number of visits has increased (more than doubled) in that same time period.
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2015 - 12:08am PT
|
I am puzzled by the discussion involving Rainier.
There IS an insurance program for SAR there. You pay the climbing permit fee, and the money is used to fund the Climbing Ranger/SAR system. Unlike off-site SAR that might end up in unknown terrain, the SAR program is made up of mountaineers with great knowledge and specific skills for that mountain.
The last time they increased the fee, the local mountaineering community SUPPORTED it.
Interestingly, the man who created that program is now the Chief of Staff in Yos, Mike Gauthier, author of the guide for Rainier.
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
|
Jul 28, 2015 - 01:00am PT
|
Thank you rbord, Donini, Ed and Ken.
I especially liked this, as it might apply to climbers, beyond normal recreation activities in parks:
Anyone not able to provide verification of such an insurance policy would be turned away at the gate. This avoids the problem of who pays for rescues. I suppose that people evading the verification and who were involved in a mishap would not be helped and be left to their fate. (I have taken this out of a larger context, see Ed's responses above.)
But as with drivers with no insurance, I doubt any climbers would be left to their fate, although probably heavily fined. I don't think our basic humanity would allow us to knowingly leave people stranded and facing certain death. How horrid. I'd certainly help to fund those rescue efforts. But climbing is not a "normal risk of life" and sets this activity apart from, say, having a picnic or peacefully kayaking along a waterway.
I have a reason for renewing this discussion, a reason which is related to the topic here. I do not know if it is a proper function of government to provide insurance or to rescue of climbers, or if we should take responsibility for that. We expect people to have car insurance if they are driving around in a car. I expect that people will have homeowner's insurance in case their dog knocks me off their deck. When I am driving in foreign countries, I make sure I have proper insurance. When I was scaling the limestone bluffs of the Mississippi and Illinois Rivers looking for petroglyphs, I made sure I had adequate insurance for falling into water, not my favorite element.
Government has many proper functions: I am not at all convinced that insuring and/or rescuing climbers is one of them. Helping people who are simply doing normal recreation seems proper, but for those of us who knowingly expose ourselves to additional risks, do we have the right to expect government to save our rowdy behinds? :) Or, as in skydiving and heli-skiing, should we be properly insured with proper rescue set up, if possible. (I hear you Ed, on being places there is no way to signal or obtain rescue support.)
Ken, SAR—of which I did not know—might make a good model for other heavily used locations. I am going to do some research on this. I am intrigued.
Thank you all
feralfae
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
After reading many of the SAR reports for Rainier, and also reading the duties of the attendant Rangers, it looks like a good program. I had been looking at some of the SAR programs in Europe, and the charitable funding of some SAR efforts in Switzerland and Lichtenstein.
Rainier has some particular issues of population pressure, and I think that the plan in place is working for everyone. As Ed pointed out, that population pressure will continue to grow as population grows. If one reads all that the Rainier Rangers are responsible for doing, it is apparent that their primary responsibility remains that of stewardship of the land, which is as it should be. Note the order of fund usage:
//Where does the money used to purchase my Mount Rainier Climbing Pass go?
The funds generated from Mount Rainier Climbing Pass sales are used to run the Mount Rainier Climbing Program. Funds are used to:
Protect the mountain's delicate and unique alpine environment
Staff the mountain's high camps with climbing rangers
Staff ranger stations with climbing rangers and other personnel to assist climbers in registration
Maintain a clean and healthful upper mountain free of human waste
Fly human waste off the mountain from collection points and dispose of it properly
Provide rangers who can rapidly respond to incidents on the mountain
//
Because climbing is an exceptionally risky undertaking compared to, say, a picnic at the base, I still think individual insurance is a prudent requirement. Yes, I'd make it mandatory for climbers to have insurance for their particular route(s). I also think that it is not the job of the NPS to manage that insurance. I am impressed with the interface of private, public, volunteer and paid personnel who respond to SAR on Rainier. I am still studying this issue, so my thinking is still shifting.
Thank you for the information. I am gathering data for a reason, and this discussion has been most helpful in a review of how SAR for climbers is presently perceived and conducted, as well as gathering some valuable opinions from some active and informed climbers.
Thank you.
feralfae
|
|
Ed Hartouni
Trad climber
Livermore, CA
|
|
your premise that climbing is "exceptionally risky" is a perception held by the general public which is unsubstantiated.
perhaps you could provide an accident rate for climbing, in terms of the total visits to the park... I believe you'd find that the rate is very small, smaller than the number of injury accidents due to traffic accidents, or to hiker "slips, trips and falls" and of the general "medical emergencies" that befall the public.
it is an important point...
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Ed, you may be right on the perception risk.
I wonder if you know of any studies of resources consumed by various activities. I would appreciate it if you do. Meanwhile, I will look as well. It could be that my perception is skewed in part by my own bad fall as part of an avalanche of boulders and debris, and the ensuring expenditure of resources required to get me to an emergency room and stabilized.
Thank you for that thought.
feralfae
|
|
feralfae
Boulder climber
in the midst of a metaphysical mystery
|
|
Ed, I think you are right. These statistics are old, and in some instances a bit fuzzy, but clearly, there are some units where SAR is a burgeoning activity and responsibility for Rangers.
Look:
"Wilderness Environ Med. 2009 Fall;20(3):244-9. doi: 10.1580/08-WEME-OR-299R.1.
Dead men walking: search and rescue in US National Parks.
Heggie TW1, Amundson ME.
Author information
Abstract
OBJECTIVE:
To identify search and rescue (SAR) trends in US National Park Service (NPS) units.
METHODS:
A retrospective review of the US National Park Service Annual Search and Rescue Reports from 1992 to 2007 and the SAR statistics for all NPS units in 2005.
RESULTS:
From 1992 to 2007 there were 78,488 individuals involved in 65,439 SAR incidents. These incidents ended with 2659 fatalities, 24,288 ill or injured individuals, and 13,212 saves. On average there were 11.2 SAR incidents each day at an average cost of $895 per operation. Total SAR costs from 1992 to 2007 were $58,572 164. In 2005, 50% of the 2430 SAR operations occurred in just 5 NPS units. Grand Canyon National Park (307) and Gateway National Recreation Area (293) reported the most SAR operations. Yosemite National Park accounted for 25% of the total NPS SAR costs ($1.2 million); Wrangell-St. Elias National Park and Preserve ($29,310) and Denali National Park and Preserve ($18,345) had the highest average SAR costs. Hiking (48%) and boating (21%) were the most common activities requiring SAR assistance. Hiking (22.8%), suicides (12.1%), swimming (10.1%), and boating (10.1%) activities were the most common activities resulting in fatalities.
CONCLUSIONS:
Without the presence of NPS personnel responding to SAR incidents, 1 in 5 (20%) of those requesting SAR assistance would be a fatality. Future research and the development of any prevention efforts should focus on the 5 NPS units where 50% of all SAR incidents are occurring."
I am looking for more data.
From what I am reading now, it appears that in climbing, being out of shape and overly confident of stamina are two overwhelming factors for SAR in climbing. The cost per operation may be misleading, however. I will research more and post here as I learn more. Thank you for your thinking on this.
feralfae
|
|
Ken M
Mountain climber
Los Angeles, Ca
|
|
perhaps you could provide an accident rate for climbing, in terms of the total visits to the park... I believe you'd find that the rate is very small, smaller than the number of injury accidents due to traffic accidents, or to hiker "slips, trips and falls" and of the general "medical emergencies" that befall the public.
Ed, I think that way of thinking is very misleading. That is because the "N" you want to use is of all visitors, NOT of all climbers.
For example, you might do the same analysis of "Waterfall divers", those who go over the top of waterfalls. As a percentage of park visitors, it is exceptionally small, and the deaths (although the rate is 100%)a tiny number.
Would one conclude that going over the top of a waterfall is very safe???
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!