But why does it keep coming up with respect to climbing?
Because climbing is seen as inherently stupid by so many people. They do not understand choosing to engage in something they see as both useless and pointless, as well as dangerous.
In the previous Mt Hood rescue thread I posted an article about hearings on a bill like this a few years ago, and the folks presenting the case were troubled by the attitudes they faced from legislators right at the outset, which were along the lines of 'what are these nutcases doing climbing mountains in the first place'.
Fighting the entrenched attitudes of folks who don't engage in poorly understood activities ties one hand and one leg behind you at the outset. Climbing is seen as a pointless fringe activity to begin with.
Good points - and true. However there are many inherently stupid things people do like, DUI, drugs, daredevils stunts, darwins in general, grossly overweight cardiac case etc... My point is we still pay to rescue these people from their troubles - and we use paid, non-volunteer resources to do it.
If we're going to require insurance let's require it for everyone and base the premium on risk. How many climbers are rescued a year compared to say drug overdoses? Gang violence? Jet ski accidents? Highlining snowmobilers?
-------------- "There can be no greater issue than that of conservation in this country."
Teddy Roosevelt August 6, 1912
Why is is unreasonable to require insurance to cover the possibility of the likelihood of a needed rescue on these big mountains?
Hey I think it makes perfect and logical sense! They require car insurance... why not insurance to hike/climb big mountains? Enough people get themselves into trouble on them...
Joined: 15 May 2003 Posts: 12260 | TRs | Pics Location: Truth or Consequences, NM
Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:29 pm
I think the definition of "big mountains" or "extreme risk" in each state would hang this up in the respective insurance boards for generations.
Then what do you do if only some of your team has insurance and there's an accident; the insurance companies subrogate against each other, those with no insurance get sued...repeat offenders (multiple incidents) would have to get an SR-22 insurance policy for climbers, only it'd be called a Summit-44 policy, or Lake-22 policy.
Insurance companies will then someday require insureds to take classes, or obtain certificates of some sort - that only raises the standard of care, and in the event of an accident the loser will lose more than if he or she were just a regular joe on the mountain.
"Mountain climbing" will be on a list of Associate degrees that Sally Struthers hawks on those odd ball TV stations: "get your degree or your certificate! Choose from business Associate, dental assistant, bookkeeping, mountain climbing..."
Everybody will be hanging their shingle out for giving classes.
I'm desiging my logo tonight.
-------------- "The next couple of miles smelt like burnt turkey and kept reminding me of thanksgivings with my ex-wife. "
chris-mbhc, NWHiker's Bulwer-Lytton contestant for 2011
Hey I think it makes perfect and logical sense! They require car insurance... why not insurance to hike/climb big mountains? Enough people get themselves into trouble on them...
Actually your analogy makes no sense.
The mandatory car insurance is not for covering your own body/car/rescue but rather liability insurance for any harm/damage to other people/property.
Joined: 12 Dec 2006 Posts: 1921 | TRs | Pics Location: Kirkland WA
Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:49 pm PLB's saved the day?
gyngve wrote:
Here are some facts (from Cluck's cc.com post):
They never went above 10000 ft (above 10k could be considered a summit bid or is where the law demands an MLU).
They had a GPS, cellphone, MLU, and FRS radio.
A question:
How did they manage to got lost despite having a GPS?
They did NOT get "lost" per se, but after sliding off a "ledge" for 100-500 feet straight down (depending on the source for that distance) and by the time they recovered and got to a stable spot, they were then in that realm of "misplaced" due to weather and visibility and terrain, especially for anyone to find them that didn't see them go down.
They seem a bit recalitrant (or embarassed) to share the details of the "fall", which makes me WONDER if they were just "hiking" this overnighter and didn't bring snowshoes or ANY traction devices along for icey ledges? ....since its pretty hard to get crampons on a dog anyway. I would GUESS they figured on it being less icey....haven't we all, but they decided to scramble across the ledge and of course it would be even worse if they were coming back....thanks to Murphy's law.
I would be VERY interested to find out if they had any sort of traction devices for their hiking boots.
To ME, the main point out of this is the accounts I read implied they had Personal Locator Beacons in addition to their cell phones which kept it from becoming a needle in a haystack search for them in worsening weather and seems to have saved their lives.
Now if only enough people start buying PLB's so that the price comes down to a point where I can rationalize affording one....
I do like stories with happy endings. I am glad they came out ok, in spite of any lapses of judgement that got them there, and THAT is worth "studying". Also this was a relatively "cheap and quick" rescue compared to the last few debacles.
-------------- Just because it sounds good, doesn't mean its the truth.
Joined: 13 Jul 2006 Posts: 854 | TRs | Pics Location: on the couch
Mon Feb 19, 2007 8:56 pm
I have nothing good to say about these folks, sounds like what they did was pretty stupid....until they had the brains to cuddle up together with their dog!
-------------- guns don't watch your back...
our dogs have shown us the way out when we were lost...AND kept us warm...
for us its ALWAYS a two dog night!
To ME, the main point out of this is the accounts I read implied they had Personal Locator Beacons in addition to their cell phones which kept it from becoming a needle in a haystack search for them in worsening weather and seems to have saved their lives.
They had a GPS and could say their coords on the cellphone, making the PLB redundant.
It's obvious that boats should not be allowed to climb Mt. Hood without insurance as well. What?
About 15 years ago the government of Austrailia got so fed-up with people doing stupid things in the Ocean in sailboats that they made all sailors be required to have all kinds of $ equipment - or risk a huge fine.
It could happen here someday for hiking.
Oregon has laws on the books (fines) for people who do really dumb things and need to be rescued. It's a judgement call, I suppose.
If James and Kati Kim can get away without a fine in Oregon then anyone can ..
They don't enforce the fine law in Oregon.
Joined: 04 Mar 2006 Posts: 2411 | TRs | Pics Location: Between a rock and a hard place.
Mon Feb 19, 2007 9:27 pm
gyngve wrote:
The mandatory car insurance is not for covering your own body/car/rescue but rather liability insurance for any harm/damage to other people/property.
And that makes sense to me. You get behind a heavy moving metal box and you can do some serious damage to another person through no fault of their own if you make a mistake. But what sort of insurance would they be requiring mountain climbers to carry? If it's a liability policy, who would it be paid to in the event that it's needed? When you go up the mountain you are putting yourself at risk. You may be putting your roped partners at risk through your actions, but they voluntarily tied on to you, hopefully for a good reason and trusting your skills. If you have an accident, say break a leg after a fall, you are the one who is injured, you haven't caused any harm to another person. If a volunteer rescue party comes to aid you, and one of them is injured, is that then your fault? Sure they're coming to help you, but they put themselves in danger to do it likely without your knowledge. And if it was a paid search and rescue crew, that would be part of their job description. They would have the state behind them.
If the whole issue is cost recovery I think insurance is a lousy way to deal with it. A whole level of beaurocracy would be created and probably cost ten fold what just paying for the rescues themselves would cost. I think just sending a bill, if the party did something realistically preventable, would be the easiest way. Then if there's a dispute, take it to small claims court.
I think people should be required to have at least $50,000 insurance if they are foolish enough to leave the house. Its dangerous and scary out there!
I agree with Toonces.
boot up wrote:
They did NOT get "lost" per se, but after sliding off a "ledge" for 100-500 feet straight down (depending on the source for that distance) and by the time they recovered and got to a stable spot, they were then in that realm of "misplaced" due to weather and visibility and terrain, especially for anyone to find them that didn't see them go down.
How the hell do four people slide 100-500 feet without being roped together? Or getting injured? Was the dog tied in?
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum You cannot attach files in this forum You can download files in this forum
, and I shudder at the idea of wilderness travel insurance. 
