PMI July Webinar: A Guide to Compliance and Safety in Post Fall Rescue Industry

As I mentioned in PMI Webinar on how to use and retire a rope PMI provides tons of information and great webinars on using ropes and gear.  Here is information on PMI’s next one scheduled for July 6, 2010.

If you are part of the ropes, SAR or rescue industry I would strongly urge you to attend.  Sign up here.

Yuppie 911

Technology created in labs is creating headaches for SAR in the backcountry. Personal Locator Beacons are being used to ask for drinks of water.

Last October three hikers in the Grand Canyon used their Personal Locator Beacon (PLB) three times. The first time they activated their PLB because they ran out of water. The second time because the water they found was salty. The third time a helicopter was dispatched, the group triggered their PLB, and they were evacuated and charged with creating a hazardous condition for the rescue team.

This is no longer an extreme example, it is becoming the norm. See Alpine Rescue Team needs your help – PLB false alerts in Berthoud Pass (Colorado) area, This is starting to become stupid, Well they found him. He thought his PLB was an avalanche beacon. and Avalanche Beacons and other electronic items.

These stories just encourage legislators and others to charge for rescues. The theory is it will discourage these idiots from going in the backcountry and generate revenue. However, that creates other, greater problems. See So I do not plan to die, but I am stupid so the law says I have to spend $500 so you can find my body….. and Charging for Search and Rescue rears its Ugly head again.

The article surmises that the technology encourages idiots to go into the backcountry. One of the Grand Canyon hikers was quoted saying “If they had not been toting the device that works like Onstar for hikers, “we would have never attempted this hike….“

SAR professionals agree that the technology encourages the idiots to go into the backcountry.”In the past, people who got in trouble self-rescued; they got on their hands and knees and crawled out,” says John Amrhein, the county’s emergency coordinator. “We saw the increase in non-emergencies with cell phones: people called saying ‘I’m cold and damp. Come get me out.’ These take it to another level.“

Rocky Henderson of Portland Mountain Rescue had this comment on 8 hikers who triggered their PLB on Mt Hood when the weather turned bad: “The question is, would they have decided to go on the trip knowing the weather was going bad if they had not been able to take the beacons,” asks.”

The head of California SAR has labeled PLB’s Yuppie 911.

See Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com
Keywords:
outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, SAR, Search and Rescue, Grand Canyon National Park, Personal Locator Beacon, PLB, Mt. Hood, Portland Mountain Rescue,
Technorati Tags: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, SAR, Search and Rescue, Grand Canyon National Park, Personal Locator Beacon, PLB, Mt. Hood, Portland Mountain Rescue,,Yuppie,recreation,adventure
Windows Live Tags: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, SAR, Search and Rescue, Grand Canyon National Park, Personal Locator Beacon, PLB, Mt. Hood, Portland Mountain Rescue,,Yuppie,recreation,adventure
WordPress Tags: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, SAR, Search and Rescue, Grand Canyon National Park, Personal Locator Beacon, PLB, Mt. Hood, Portland Mountain Rescue,,Yuppie,recreation,adventure
Blogger Labels: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, SAR, Search and Rescue, Grand Canyon National Park, Personal Locator Beacon, PLB, Mt. Hood, Portland Mountain Rescue,,Yuppie,recreation,adventure

What about idiots lost in the backcountry?

Yellowstone planning on banning cell phone signals in the backcountry.

Yellowstone National Park has created a plan for cell phone towers in the national park. The plan will move cell phone towers from sensitive and aesthetically valuable areas to less aesthetically pleasing areas. The plan will effectively remove internet signals in the back country. The plan will also prevent cell signals in several of the old lodges in the park.

Of course the biggest concern is rescuing lost and endangered backpackers in the wilderness areas.
However, only idiots rely on cell phones to save them in the backcountry, (See The Interview provides a lot of information on why the @#%(@ got lost.) es, there have been tons of rescues because the person in need had a cell phone. BHowever,are they in the backcountry and in trouble because of their reliance on technology?

Maybe if people are told that their cell phone can’t be used, they won’t do stupid things or need rescued? Is that wishful thinking?

It is probably a balancing act, some people in greater trouble because they can’t call for help versus less people in trouble. For the rest of you, who understand the issues and how to prepare for a backpacking trip, you won’t have to worry about the person in the camp next door reviewing the latest baseball stats.
See the badly named article Yellowstone Bans Cell Phones.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com

Keywords:
outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, cell phones, Yellowstone, Yellowstone National Park, SAR, Search and Rescue
Technorati Tags: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, cell phones, Yellowstone, Yellowstone National Park, SAR, Search and Rescue,recreation,adventure

Windows Live Tags: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, cell phones, Yellowstone, Yellowstone National Park, SAR, Search and Rescue,recreation,adventure


WordPress Tags: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, cell phones, Yellowstone, Yellowstone National Park, SAR, Search and Rescue,recreation,adventure


Blogger Labels: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, cell phones, Yellowstone, Yellowstone National Park, SAR, Search and Rescue,recreation,adventure

New Hampshire agrees not to pursue Scott Mason for Rescue Costs

However, they can still sue you if you get lost in new hampshire

The new hampshire Fish and Game and the new hampshire Attorney General agreed not to peruse additional search and rescue costs against Scott Mason. Scott was the injured hiker who after self rescuing and almost reaching safety was rescued and charged $25,000 for the rescue.

See Give me a break! Teen charged $25K for a rescue he did not need, Update: Give me a break! Teen charged $25K for a rescue he did not need and USA Today Updates Issues with New Hampshire Law Billing For SAR’s.

However, the ridiculous law that allows nh Fish & Game to charge for rescues is still in place.

The law, 206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery, allows the state to charge for any rescue if the department determines the rescued person acts negligently. No court, no hearing, just some bureaucrat sitting in an office, (hopefully with a window) deciding how much you should pay.

To stay current on these issues become a fan of No Charge for Rescue on Facebook.

To stay smart, stay out of new Hampshire.

See Reimbursement Request Will Not Be Pursued for 2009 Rescue of Hiker Scott Mason
For more discussions about charging for Search & Rescue see Search & Rescue and charging for it and Vermont getting serious about charging for Search and Rescue. For a great post on the right to do we want to do in the wilderness see Jon Heshka and the Right of the Individual to Die Doing What We Love.

Copyright 2010 Recreation Law (720) Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com

Keywords:
outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, new Hampshire, search and rescue, SAR, no charge for rescue,
Technorati Tags: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, new Hampshire, search and rescue, SAR, no charge for rescue,

Windows Live Tags: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, new Hampshire, search and rescue, SAR, no charge for rescue,


WordPress Tags: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, new Hampshire, search and rescue, SAR, no charge for rescue,


Blogger Labels: outdoor law, recreation law, outdoor recreation law, adventure travel law, new Hampshire, search and rescue, SAR, no charge for rescue,

Charging for Search and Rescue rears its Ugly head again.

The three missing climbers on Mt Hood two weeks before Christmas raised the issue of charging for search and rescues. Numerous commentators online and in print added their opinion. See A Mountain of Bills, National Park Search and Rescue: Should the Rescued Help Pay the Bills?, Search and rescue costs tapping out account or Hikers rescued for free in Arizona.


Most commentators though are not putting in anything thought to back up their two cents. If the idea is based on restricting or stopping people from going out into the woods, closing the woods will encourage more idiots to go get lost. (Whatever is off limits is always more fun so let’s hop the fence and see why we can’t go there.) Nor will it keep those of us who really do enjoy the wilderness from going.

If it is a monetary issue, again they have not thought through or studied the issue. There are three issues on the monetary side of the argument. (1) People will not ask for rescues if they think it will cost money, (2) rescuing sooner is cheaper than rescuing later, and (3) 99% of SAR’S are no cost to the public unless you are on federal lands.

I was amazed at the number of 911 calls to Summit County where people did not want to be rescued because of the cost. 911 calls are recorded so there are verifiable real records of people on a phone saying no do not rescue me I can’t afford it.

It is getting to the point that SAR groups are posting on their website that they don’t pay for SAR: Palisades Search and Rescue Dog Association, Inc., Central Massachusetts Search and Rescue Team, Inc. and the Mountain Rescue Association to mention a few.

To assist in that endeavor, there is a new Facebook page No Charge for Rescues. If you are a member of Facebook please go become a fan to support this idea.

Uhhh it was the books fault!

Your little brother was not around so obviously it was the books fault.

Here we go with another you have to be kidding me. If you do not have enough brains to figure out a guidebook, you should not be leaving the city, with or without a guidebook. In an article, Guide Contributes to Hikers Becoming Overdue the reporter bought the story told by four lost hikers that blamed their lateness on their guidebook. The guide book said the hike could be done in 16 hours. The group could not navigate the drops and swims and took a lot longer prompting friends to call for SAR.

The books described boulder hopping and deep-water pools. You do not know what that means, but you do know you can do the hike in 16 hours. When that goes wrong instead of admitting you don’t understand the guide book, you just blame the guidebook.

Do we need a test before you can buy guidebooks now?

See Guide Contributes to Hikers Becoming Overdue and YCSO: Hikers found after misleading guidebook gets them lost.

Thank heavens Search and Rescue is free!

Colorado bill to make sure Search and Rescues are Free

A new bill was recently introduced in the Colorado House of Representatives. This bill would prohibit charging for search and rescue in the state of Colorado.

This bill will need your support.

To stay current on the bill contact your local SAR unit or go to the Facebook Page No Charge for Rescue. The red capitalized text below is the changes to the Colorado statute that will be made.

Support House bill 10-1095.

32-1-1002. Fire protection districts – additional powers and duties

(1) In addition to the powers specified in section 32-1-1001, the board of any fire protection district has the following powers for and on behalf of such district:

…..

Alpine Rescue Team needs your help – PLB false alerts in Berthoud Pass (Colorado) area

These guys and gals are volunteers who get up in the middle of the night to save your butts for free. If you don’t know how to use your PLB, throw it away.


Over the past two weeks, the Alpine Rescue Team has been notified of three PLB activations in the Berthoud Pass (Colorado) area between Winter Park and the Jones Pass area. These PLB false alarms have occurred on three different dates, December 14, 23, and 24, and all involve the same PLB.


If anyone has recently started to use – or knows someone who has – a ACR PLB-300 Microfix (RescueFix) and visits the Berthoud Pass area, please contact the Alpine Rescue Team. You can send me a private message or call me directly. Right now there are no violations, penalties, laws broken, etc., however, we would like to talk with you so you can understand how your PLB works and does not work. If you don’t want to talk, at least keep your PLB turned off until you are in an actual life-threatening emergency.


Each detection of the PLB’s signal starts a cascade of rescuers beginning with the US Air Force, the Colorado State Search and Rescue Coordinator, the local sheriff, and finally the local mountain rescue team, which in these cases has been Alpine Rescue Team. Each false alarm requires significant effort and time by many people. On Christmas Eve, rescuers from three different mountain rescue teams spent the afternoon trying to directional find the intermittent signal.


You might be wondering why a PLB is so hard to pinpoint, especially if you have read any advertising or promotional materials about these devices. This unit is not registered so no simple phone call to the owner can be made to verify the alert. Also, this unit is being turned on and off and moved between activations, so the search area cannot be well defined giving a search area up to 10+ miles in radius. When used properly these new digital PLBs can usually be identified and located in minutes.


Again, if you have been in the Berthoud Pass area on these three dates and have an ACR PLB or know someone who has, please contact us via private message, or call Dale Atkins directly at 303.579.7292. There are no legal issues or laws broken; we very much would like to talk with you. As always the services of Alpine Rescue Team are free.



  Copyright 2010 Recreation Law 720 Edit Law, Recreaton.Law@Gmail.com

USA Today Updates Issues with New Hampshire Law Billing For SAR’s

Continued coverage of a Stupid Law. For Background see:

Update: Give me a break! Teen charged $25K for a rescue he did not need

Give me a break! Teen charged $25K for a rescue he did not need

USA Today in a great article Warning: Don’t get lost in New Hampshire brought out some interesting facts about new hampshire’s law that bills rescued people for their SARs.

• 13 other people have been billed for their SARs
• The average fee paid is $203

A new hampshire state official is quoted as saying “Bogardus says Mason was negligent because he did not turn back on the trail after he was injured.” Lt. Todd Bogardus, is the head of search and rescue for new hampshire’s Fish and Game Department However the lost teen attempted to take a short cut when he sprained his ankle. At what point does a shortcut not make sense when injured.

I cracked the frame on my Colnago road bike a couple of months back. It was a long walk back in bike shoes (with no friends answering their phones) so at one point I cut across a field. It was a shortcut. It was easier on my feet because it was shorter and softer than the concrete bike path. That shortcut worked for me.

Bogardus also admitted the actions of the state in billing Mason had placed the state on a hot spot.

Bogardus stated “And almost half of those hikers are from out of state, department records show.”

So let’s save new hampshire money and not go there.

Update: Give me a break! Teen charged $25K for a rescue he did not need

My recent post Give me a break! Teen charged $25K for a rescue he did not need
has been read by a lot of people, which is cool. I’ve also learned a lot from the responses. Here are some examples of what I’ve learned:

The National Association For Search And Rescue (NASAR) has a statement about billing for Search and Rescues (SARs) entitled Billing for Searches and Rescues Endangers the Public and Rescuers.

NASAR states that billing for SAR’s is a dangerous practice. It places rescuers at great risk as well as those being rescued because of the delays in calling for help. The delay is caused when people fear they are going to be charged for the rescues.

The Mountain Rescue Association which is composed of groups that do SAR’s in extreme terrain is also opposed to billing for rescues. The MRA position paper on this subject can be found at Mountain Rescue Association Reaffirms Its Position Opposing Charging Subjects For The Costs Of Their Rescues

Due to the influence of these two organizations and the Colorado SAR the City of Golden Colorado changed its position on charging for rescues. The report states the city has received a lot of negative press on top of additional problems in SARS caused by the policy. You can find the report at No Charge for Rescue. (It is nice to live in an enlightened state with such great cities! Thank heavens I don’t live in NH.)

Colorado Search and Rescue Board, a statewide organization of Colorado SAR also has a position paper on charging for SARs: The Colorado Search and Rescue Board’s Policy on Charging for Search and Rescue Services

But this was the shocker. Colorado Search and Rescue Board has compiled list of times when people in need of help did not request it or waited too long for rescue because of a fear of cost. You can find this paper at Examples of endangered persons refusing SAR help, waiting to call for help or hiding from help because of fear of large bill! It is scary to see that people put their lives at risk over money, but it obviously happens all of the time.

It is ironic that the people, who volunteer their time, energy, and money to go out in all kinds of weather to help people for FREE, also have to spend their time and energy fighting stupid governments.

Wake up New Hampshire you are only putting your citizens and visitors at greater risk.

Jon Heshka and the Right of the Individual to Die Doing What We Love

Thinking before Acting – Applies to Outdoor Recreationist and the Governments

Jon Heshka has written a very thought provoking op-ed piece for the Kamloops Daily News about the true cost of skiing out of bounds and how to deal with it. See High Cost of Chasing Powder.

Jon is one of the bright minds in the outdoor recreation community. He is on the faulty of Thompson Rivers University in the Adventure Studies Program. This program is the only program that can lead to UIAGM certification in climbing, backcountry skiing, ice climbing and other programs. Undoubtedly the best college program in the world if you want to become an outdoor recreation guide or business.

I am a fan of Jon’s, so much so he is the only person not a lawyer to have an article published in the Outdoor Recreation Law Review. See Assumption of Risk and Inherent Risk in Higher Outdoor Education.

Thanks Jon. It is a great article and I appreciate your thoughts and perspective.

Search and Rescue and charging for it

Every year skiers, hikers, and hunters become lost while running around in the backcountry. Some are experts who temporarily find themselves in area they did not expect. Others are tourists who have no idea of the dangers of their actions and venture out to become victims. It is this last group who generates dollars and press time as helicopters circle the last known sighting and satellite trucks keep the couch sitters informed in the warm homes. In the winter the problems and entertainment value are magnified.

At the same time the agency responsible for the search and rescue, (SAR) after either a particular costly SAR or a particularly stupid one, informs the public that they are going to charge for SAR costs.

In Vermont, SAR is directed by the State Police. The State Police has announced they “may” start charging for SAR costs in the future. They will charge for skiers that are lost after skiing out of bounds. Vermont law specifically allows for agencies and others to charge for SAR costs when a person skis off the designated trails at a ski area. 12 V.S.A. § 1038(c) states:

§ 1038. Skiing off designated ski trails; collision; duty to report; recovery for rescue expenses

(c) Civil action to recover.—A person who uses the facilities of a ski area to access terrain outside the open and designated ski trails, shall be liable in a civil action brought by any person, including a ski area, rescue organization, municipality or the state, to recover expenses incurred to provide rescue, medical or other services to such person for circumstances or injuries which resulted from such use. The entity seeking to recover may also recover reasonable attorney fees and court costs. No ski area, its owners, agents or employees, individual or entity, municipal or otherwise, shall be held liable for any acts or omissions taken in the course of such rescue operations unless such act or omission constitutes gross negligence.

Not only can the state charge, but also the ski area, a rescue organization, or a municipality to recover all of the expenses in addition to reasonable attorney fees and court costs. Most states the sheriff is in charge of SAR and the sheriff is the only entity that can charge, if at all. The penalty for not paying for those rescue costs can add up in Vermont also. It appears that some ski areas do charge for any SAR they may undertake. As stated in the article that brought this news to our attention, one resort collects a credit card number from the rescued people. However testimony when the bill before the Vermont Legislature last year showed only a 20 to 30% recover rate.

At the same time, there is a hesitancy and fear to collect from the rescued because it may prevent people who truly need to be rescued from calling for help. The idea is either the person will not call and die, or not call and get into more trouble requiring a more difficult rescue. No one seems to have real evidence of this fact and it is probably impossible to determine, but for most states this is enough of a possibility to not charge for SAR or at least continue the discussion.

The real cost is not money. In Alison Osius’s book Second Ascent she writes about a rescuer dieing in an attempt to rescue the subject of her book Hugh Herr. Nothing more tragic can occur in the lives of the rescuer and the rescued. Yet each time volunteers and employees put on the winter clothes and a radio, everyone understands that can happen.

The real reason behind the threat to collect for expenses is to prevent people from doing stupid things. However stupid for one group of people is great adventure the next. Nor has a fine or threat of monetary penalty or cost every stopped anyone from doing anything let alone anything stupid. (If you don’t buy this, next time you are on the freeway see if you are being passed as you exceed the speed limit.)

In just one week five people were missing, one dead in an out of bounds avalanche in Cottonwood Canyon, Utah. Utah is famous for the out of bounds skiing and to some extent encourages it. Our industry supports magazines that are based on the theory that “earning your turns” by hiking up hill and skiing ungroomed snow is the best way to ski. And it is. However any time you venture out of the controlled (ski patrol avalanche team scoured resort) you increase your chances of becoming lost or dieing.

The problem is, tourons (combination of tourist and moron) skiing out of bounds. If an expert skis abound they are prepared: avalanche transceiver, shovel, Black Diamond™ Avalung II and training, it is a fun time for the expert who was caught in a freak act of nature. If a tourist does it, they are idiots going where they should not go without the proper training, equipment or knowledge putting locals at risk.

However how many of us are willing to stand up and say I am a tourist or even a touron? Two magazines say out of bounds skiing is ok. Sitting in a bar you hear the locals talk about it. For the tourist who can run a mile in ten minutes where they live (altitude 685 feet) and known as an expert skier, why not? (Or as we call a friend, the “King of Wisp.”)

Then someone has to make a decision. Was the rescue a disaster such that we need to charge for it? What criteria are used to identify a reckless endeavor? What variables influence the decision: locals versus tourists, trained versus untrained, the cost versus the risk or the attitude of the rescued when they are finally found?

That decision process alone then provides a possible defense to collecting for the SAR costs. Court time and legal costs mount as the fine line for collecting for the rescue is argued and debated.

And will the collection of costs for rescuing lost reckless people decrease the number of rescues made each year? Doubtful. No study conclusively proves that any measure no matter how costly or draconian changes human behavior. For proof, look at your own driving record or the local prison.

View:

The Vermont statute 12 V.S.A. § 1038(c) also has a little hook in it protecting the rescuers from a lawsuit unless they are grossly negligent. That little threat alone would be enough to keep a lot of SAR help sitting at home watching TV. If I am willing to walk around during a frigid snowy night looking for a lost skier, no matter what I do, short of strangling the person when I find them, I should not be sued.

It is not going to get better. Until everyone at a resort or in some states, state wide wears a GPS locator the risk and cost of SAR will exists. In fact it will probably get worse. As the ability to communicate with rescue organizations increases, the chances people take will also increase. Grand Canyon river companies no longer tell passengers they carry satellite phones. They saw an increase in the “stupid human tricks” and resulting accidents when customers knew that rescue was a phone call away.

One View

Should you be charge for SAR, Yes, on a case by case basis. I have come out of the woods a day late, once because I did not want to come back to the “real world” and once because equipment issues slowed me down. I did not want or need rescued. However if I am lost in the jungles of Brazil or Peru, someplace I have not received a lot of experience doing in Colorado, it might be a different story. Plan your trip and the person who is going to notify rescuers accordingly.

The season is just beginning for summer SAR. I hope no rescuer is injured or dies in an attempt to save another. I hope all lost people are rescued and returned to their loved ones. I hope the tourons read these articles and reflect just for a second before placing someone else at risk. It’s ok if you want to push the limits, just don’t take anyone with you. I hope that each time a SAR team goes out the have the best and all of the equipment they need, and I hope it comes out of the pockets of the last person they rescued.

Reference

http://officer.com/article/article.jsp?siteSection=1&id=22067

Vermont getting serious about charging for Search and Rescue

Vermont allows rescued people to be charged for their search and rescue. (That sentence I’m not sure about, but it would be hard to charge those who did not get rescued?) Vermont also has the greatest determination to enforce the law. Recently four 19 year olds who wondered off the trail, “woefully unprepared” may be charged for their rescue.

The teens “had no water, maps or compass, and despite the cold weather, three were not wearing coats. After losing the trail, the teens ended up in a swamp. After their flashlight died, they called 9-11 around 2:30 a.m.”

The issue of course that is argued by most SAR groups is charging will discourage people from calling for help. It seems to me that waiting till 2:30 AM is a perfect example of this, or maybe just another example of lost being young.

See Teens lost in woods may have to pay for rescue and 4 teens may have to pay for rescue.