Oregon may require locator beacons for Mt. Hood expeditions

The recent death and disappearance of three climbers on Oregon's 11,249-foot Mt. Hood has revived debate about requiring mountaineers to carry personal locator beacons on the mountain.

Following an eerily similar incident in 2007 -- one climber was found dead and two others never located -- the Oregon Legislature considered a bill requiring winter climbers to carry the device, though it never passed the Senate.

Backers of such a stipulation contend that locator beacons would help search-and-rescue teams pinpoint lost climbers, reducing the risk for those searching, and saving time and expense.

Those opposing such a requirement believe it could lead to climbers taking excessive risks because they assume they will be located and rescued.

As a casual hiker, I would never attempt to ascend mountains such as Mt. Whitney or Mt. Hood -- locator beacon or not -- knowing they are out of my league.

But I'm curious what readers' thoughts are. Would personal locator beacons be a good idea to help track down the lost and reduce risk to rescuers, or would hikers and climbers attempt more difficult paths, believing that if they got stuck or lost someone would come save them?

-- Kelly Burgess

Photo: Trees in the foreground belie the immensity of Mt. Hood as early morning sunlight glints off the mountain peak. Credit: Don Ryan / Associated Press

Comments

[Ridahoan]

Some of us venture into the wilderness for a bit of self-reliance. We may choose not to register on a trail or tell anyone else where we are going precisely because we have made a choice to rely on ourselves and not be a burden to society if we screw up or have bad luck. That may or may not be a selfish choice, but it is ours, and it is part of what makes us American.
Rescue beacons should be available, and their use encouraged along with substantive education about the hazards of locality, perhaps with a tax that goes toward funding the search and rescue of those that end up relying on the beacon. However, we should be allowed to opt out. And those that carry them and venture into the wilderness should not expect to be rescued if they are in too dangerous a position.

I find it interesting that SoCal residents tend to be in favor of mandating beacons. Has the pioneering spirit been buried here under the suburban sprawl?

[Natalie]

Saying that requiring the beacons to be carried would increase the likelihood of a climber to take more risks is like saying that requiring seatbelts to be worn by drivers causes them to drive more recklessly. Safety precautions rarely increase a person's drive to do things that are more dangerous. Requiring climbers to carry locator beacons would give family and friends of climbers some peace of mind about their loved ones in these situations. As an avid horseback rider, I do not wear a helmet because I know I want to do something risky, but because you cannot account for the unknown, only prepare for it.

[Jim]

Requiring all climbers wear locator beacons would result in more risk taking due to climbers feeling they had a safety net. Government mandates only compound themselves. What's next? Lawsuits for rescue mishaps or failure to rescue.

People must be free to take risks, enjoy the outdoors at whatever level they chose and deal with the consequences. That's life or death. Harsh, yes, but life can be harsh and government involvement won't help change that. Having climbed Hood, Rainier, McKinley, Whitney and others, I love the mountains and feel I have a good perspective on this subject. Every time I go out, I assume responsibility for myself and my team. Whatever the environment throws at me and if it's my time to become a goner in an avalanche or blizzard, so be it. I do not expect anyone to risk their lives to rescue me.

[Jeff Scofield]

I think they should be required. They ether need to be made affordable for the hikers or purchased by the mountain parks and rented to the hikers. I'm not sure that people are going to take more risk because their wearing this devise. Just because you have a home security system are you going to leave you doors unlocked so an intruder can come in and kill you.

[No More Spin]

Bad idea folks, bad, bad, bad. Big Mother gov't will not eliminate risk from dangerous activities like climbing, bathing or cooking. Think its a joke? Add up all the climbing deaths versus bathtub slip & fall deaths, or kitchen burns, and then tell me how climbing is more dangerous.

Why stop at radio beacons? Make a gov't list of all required equipment and force rangers to inspect climbers like cars at the DMV. Cotton underwear & not water-wicking polyester? Normal sunglasses & not wrap-around glacier types? Standard fluid lighter & not pressurized butane? Off that hill!

Requiring grab bars in bathtubs, crash helmets in cars and face shields/rubber gloves in home kitchens are much more cost-effective areas for safety police with no lives of their own. However, average people won't like the intrusion, and so it won't be done. Give climbers the same space, please.

PS: I sent in something similar yesterday that was never posted. I wonder why, since others are much tougher on the author?

[Major Major]

I have thought about this issue a lot lately, since I and several members of our climbing team were likely the last group to ascend via the Reid/Leuthold glacier headwall just five days prior to the accident. As such, I am personally affected and disturbed by the incident. It is beyond my knowledge how a group of three - with at least one of them being highly experienced - could become involved in such a tragedy. The fact is, every climber chooses to face a series of choices on the mountain, as oxymoronic as this sounds. It's a choice that leads to a risky choice. Analogies of seat belts or other such examples fall short of understanding the reality of climbing, which can only be explained by doing, not theorizing. Thus, non-climbers simply cannot understand why a climber would choose to take certain risks so close to a summit and so far away from help. Again, metaphorizing with the likes of heroine addiction or seat belts just doesn't accurately describe the situation. It is my firm belief that risk is the only variable that causes a climber to second-guess the next step on the mountain. A MLU or some other device reduces the perception of that risk for most, but not all, people. As a corollary, I would suggest that in order for beacons or any other electronic device to be effective, it must arrive with education, training, and/or experience on the mountain. An inexperienced yet ambitious climber will almost certainly use a locater device as a safety net similar to an ice screw and rope; an experienced climber would most likely never need to resort to outside help. Here lies the conundrum. If we mandate beacons, we WILL see more accidents from inexperienced climbers. And, yes, we will expedite the recovery of these acolytes. From where I stand, we all have two choices. More educations or more anodyne.

[KB]

While I agree with earlier comments that experienced climbers would not take more risks because of the beacons I don't think that is the argument trying to be made in the article.... I bet most of you remember the party in the Grand Canyon this past November that was made famous by activating their beacon on 3 seperate ocasions and this quote,

"If they had not been toting the device that works like Onstar for hikers, "we would have never attempted this hike," one of them said after the third rescue crew forced them to board their chopper."

http://www.2news.tv/news/local/66070692.html

This is a simple example of someone without the proper experience who is reckless with their party's safety due to the safety blanket of technology.

[GT]

Here is a link to West Marine which has a nice video segment explaining three types of devices which they offer. The first two are personal the third is primarily for vessels in distress. The cost across the board, in relevance to some expensive professional climbing and hiking gear is reasonable and really how much is ones' life truly worth?

http://www.westmarine.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/producte/10001/-1/10001/352495?&cid=chanintel&ci_src=14110944&ci_sku=352495

As I do a good amount of weekend wilderness hiking in the early summer and spring; mostly in the desert and occasionally in National Forests, I am considering purchasing such a device in the coming year.

[Mike B]

While some have said that having Personal Locator Beacons will not make one more reckless, I believe that is an overly optimistic assumption. As a professional guide and avalanche safety instructor, I realize that these subjective hazards are real and prevalent. There are statistics for devices such as Avalanche trancievers and avalungs. People that use these devices often (unfortunately) admit that they are more willing to take greater risks. I sometimes fall into these heuristic traps as well.

My 2 cents

[E Miles]

People are terribly misinformed about the capabilities of the mountain locator units (MLUs) that have been suggested as a requirement. These simple radio devices are based on technology over 30 years old, operate solely on line-of-sight for very short ranges, and require independent activation of search and rescue.

Please see comments by montys61361 of Portland Mountain Rescue with a summary of their experience with these units:
http://www.oregonlive.com/opinion/index.ssf/2009/12/no_sign_of_common_sense.html

Please note that PMR does not seem to be concerned that mountaineers will increase their level of acceptable risk, but that the general public will (and they have several documented cases of this happening following the 2007 incident!), meaning more incidents involving naive and inexperienced individuals.

I also must comment that there are not many parallels between this recent SAR and the 2007 incident involving Kelly James. That party ascended into poor weather conditions and dug several snow caves in an attempt to withstand the storm. This party climbed into clear weather, suffered an unknown accident, and eventually perished due to exposure. The weather did not worsen until after SAR activities had begun.

I am loathe to consider that a public or senate that is so misinformed about MLUs and about climbing in general will vote on regulatory actions in the near future.

[GT]

The locator beacon seems like a needed piece of equipment and if the Legislature passes such a law for this solitary peak so be it. Perhaps beacons could be rented by climbers, saving them the additional expense of another piece of lifesaving equipment? Purchasing such an item for a single peak seems needless, but if this were to become an internationally sanctioned requirement for the safety of all climbers then it would be essential to own one.
It seems unlikely as stated in your article that; "...it could lead to climbers taking excessive risks because they assume they will be located and rescued." Professional climbers are not of that 'ilk' and amateurs should never attempt such climbs without a skilled companion and if such teams are climbing then all members of the party would wear these devices.
Though I am not a climber, I am a frequent single hiker into remote areas of California wilderness and am considering in the coming year of purchasing such a device as mobile phone signals are spotty at best and GPS devices are generally only good if a hiker can extricate himself from an area if uninjured.
I belive that if climbers were to have a beacon we would see fewer of these stories of them missing until the thaw.

[Dane Koncan]

Hood climbers in the winter should have locator beacons. I spent the 1st half of my life in Colorado and we never hiked to our winter cabins without beacons. Mt. Hood has always been a popular mountain to climb and the amount of injuries, deaths, and perfect days turned tragic makes Mt. hood no walk in the park. No doubt about it, people without access to beacons are "novice hikers" and should not be winter climbing Hood in the first place. This is a no brainer. Thanks for reading my thoughts be safe out there.

[ruben]

I think its a great idea. Hikers can rent the beacons from visitors center and register their route and length of time they will be hiking with any other relevant information needed in case they are lost or injured.

[John]

Actually, rescue costs are quite high, and yes, they are borne by taxpayers. So if the amount of time needed to search is cut down significantly, and a rescue is possible in a shorter time, then by all means, require them for Mt Hood. Not necessarily for other mountains because they are less risky. There are those who use these devices as dive rescue or as boating rescue devices as well, but fortunately nobody has suggested making them required equipment.

[SWxSW]

If the costs of search and rescue are significant and borne by taxpayers, why not require a mandatory 16 hours minimum of avalanche education & training for those who wish to lead themselves in extreme backcountry environments?

Because that would infringe upon mountaineers and backpackers rights.

[Jess]

Being from Oregon, I would be shocked if they ever pass a bill requiring locators. It just won't happen here. I personally would probably carry one in a situation like this, as would most of the people i know. I do find it very intriguing however that MLUs have become such a big to do when they would not have made much of a difference in this situation.

[Taggart]

You've got to be joking, comparing Mt. Hood and Mt. Whitney. While Whitney is taller, it's more than 1,000 miles further south, and has a well-worn footpath all the way to the top. It doesn't require any technical climbing and it doesn't often experience the sort of weather, even in winter, that Mt. Hood climbers need to be prepared for. There's no need to carry a locator beacon up Mt. Whitney because you're never out of sight of other hikers, even if you're making the trip alone.

[TracieB]

Accidents happen, unfortunately, even to those most skilled. One would hope anybody who chooses to attempt Mt. Hood in winter condidions have learned from their lost predecessors the value of a beacon - without being required to to carry one.

[ben]

The article says that the bill would be for winter climbers, which I agree with. The risk associated with snow (avalanches, extreme cold, getting lost easier, blizzards, etc) is much greater. However, in the summer many less experienced, perhaps moderately experienced, hikers could successfully complete Mt. Hood just as tens of thousands do Whitney each summer.
Also, those devices aren't cheap; would the law require individuals to carry one or by group?

[woodstock1969]

I wonder whether people who take huge risks, ever ask, "now why am I doing this?" My neighbor's boyfriend, a (32 year old) famous professional mountain climber, fell off a famous mountain (20 years ago and whatever it was I forgot), along with 2 fellows attached to him, and at his funeral it was said over and over, "he died doing what he loved". If it was my son, that is definitely not good enough. I sense that taking this beacon somehow detracts from the purity of mountain climbing..it just makes it not as life threatening.

[brian]

they cost $300 and fit in your hand. so i can't see why this is a matter
for debate.

[Rod Murphy]

I once found myself off trail in a geographical mountian location where I could not retrace my steps due to extreme elevations drops and had to keep desending dry waterfalls in an attempt to reach the trailhead where I was to rendezvous with friends. While I did not consider myself lost due to daylight visibility of landmarks and the rising of a full moon later that night, I would have had to hunker down overnight during a new moon condition. This would have delayed my arrival at the trailhead and alarmed my friends (I ended up being 10 hrs late). A beacon under these conditions would have shown a search party that I was moving and in what direction and that I was more then likely unhurt. I will carry a beacon in the future.

[Ben]

I'm a recreational hiker, non-climber and am one of many climbers to climb Hood without much experience. But I went with experienced friends, was in great physical condition, and we went in optimal summer months. We also spent a few extra bucks renting beacons from REI. I can't fathom why any climber wouldn't spend a little money and just buy or rent a beacon. It's very cheap insurance, even if it doesn't guarantee a rescue or any communication.

[Michael Y]

How about this: If you choose not to carry a locator, you legally agree to release S&R teams from having to find you. It's unfair and stupid to place S&R teams in danger because of one's ego. If the technology exists, use it. Otherwise, forfeit its benefits (like getting saved.) I agree with and support personal choice but you must accept the consequences of the same.

[My Social Relevance]

The reasons for not mandating locator beacons because it would cause people to take excessive risks seems dumb. Climbing a mountain in itself is life threatening as we have seen. Now if people want to go beyond normal risk and do something stupid, at least it'll be easier for search and rescue to locate your body if you turn up missing.