Mandatory Locator Beacons

[redhawk]

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

[ElectricMan]

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.

[Ordin Aryguy]

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

[Dick]

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

[ken999]

I don't think they should be required equipment. I think they SHOULD be carried, but not mandated.

[redhawk]

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.

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.

“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.

[redhawk]

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.

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.

[redhawk]

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.

[ken999]

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?

[Ordin Aryguy]

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.

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.

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

[redhawk]

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.

[redhawk]

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.

[Ordin Aryguy]

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

[Hobbitling]

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.

[Adirondack_hunter]

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.