I'm reading a book called 'Mountain Rescue Doctor" by Christopher Van Tilburg. He describes lots of daring rescue missions with the Crag Rats SAR group in Oregon. He talks about going to one particular waterfall several times a summer, to help people injured while jumping into the pool, and also several rescues on Mt. Hood in the winter.
Here's what gave me the "lightbulb going off" moment - he talks about how people say: there should be a warning sign at the waterfall, Mt Hood should be closed to climbing in the winter, people should be required to carry avalanche beacons, etc - but the reasons that SAR, the parks, and ski resorts actually resist these ideas for safeguarding is so interesting. Basically, if you put a sign up that says "don't hike beyond this point", you legally create a situation where you imply any other place (in front of the sign) is safe. If you close Mt Hood in the winter, you're saying it's safe to climb in the summer.
And...if you require rescue beacons or if you pass a law saying people are responsible for paying for their own rescue - you imply that rescue is always available and effective. They fear the lawsuit where someone says "hey, I paid an extra $30 on my permit for rescue insurance (or to rent this PLB), but rescue didn't show up for five days!" There is suddenly an obligation not only to attempt a rescue, but for that rescue to be successful.
The author thinks the best solution is for people to realize there are dangers everywhere.
Maybe I'm the last one to realize this....but it just made a lot of sense all of a sudden. So, you could put a sign at Eaton Canyon saying don't climb steep cliffs, but then you'd need a sign saying don't trip over rocks, don't get bit by a snake, don't drink shampoo..etc. etc....
Rescue Liability
eons and eons ago. there used to be a sign and fence at the big falls below switzers. i went a year ago and they are both gone.......So go fig!
as far as prevention there at to many options and one can just start to think too much. I think people just being cautious and not dumb is the best way to go.
as far as prevention there at to many options and one can just start to think too much. I think people just being cautious and not dumb is the best way to go.
I think that is why I think my Death / rescue toll sign would be acceptable
It's not saying it's unsafe it's just saying there have been X # of deaths & rescues here
It certainly implies it's unsafe though
No doubt there is extensive case law on this subject
I learned long ago applying logic to the legal system is a very foolish thing to do.
It's not saying it's unsafe it's just saying there have been X # of deaths & rescues here
It certainly implies it's unsafe though
No doubt there is extensive case law on this subject
I learned long ago applying logic to the legal system is a very foolish thing to do.
I read this book - very, very good.cougarmagic wrote:I'm reading a book called 'Mountain Rescue Doctor" by Christopher Van Tilburg.
And I have no opinion on signage.