These dudes remind me of our patients

[cattail]

---

Members don't see this ad.

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/science/earth/22parks.html?_r=1&hp

Last fall, two men with teenage sons pressed the help button on a device they were carrying as they hiked the challenging backcountry of Grand Canyon National Park. Search and rescue sent a helicopter, but the men declined to board, saying they had activated the device because they were short on water.

The group’s leader had hiked the Grand Canyon once before, but the other man had little backpacking experience. Rangers reported that the leader told them that without the device, “we would have never attempted this hike.”

The group activated the device again the next evening. Darkness prevented a park helicopter from flying in, but the Arizona Department of Public Safety sent in a helicopter whose crew could use night vision equipment.

The hikers were found and again refused rescue. They said they had been afraid of dehydration because the local water “tasted salty.” They were provided with water.

Helicopter trips into the park can cost as much as $3,400 an hour, said Maureen Oltrogge, a spokeswoman for Grand Canyon National Park.

So perhaps it is no surprise that when the hikers pressed the button again the following morning, park personnel gave them no choice but to return home. The leader was issued a citation for creating hazardous conditions in the parks.

Don't you wish we could issue citations to patients for creating hazardous conditions in the ED?

 

[Cerberus]

If it was our patients they'd then complain that it took so long for someone to come see them and because the water they were brought wasn't the brand of bottled water they like. Then they'd mention "well, I had to activate the emergency function and have a helicopter bring me water, because those greedy camping stores want me to pay for a water purifier kit, but this is free!"

 

[Stitch]

Absolutely insane. Why didn't they force them to leave after the first BS call. They endangered several lives, especially after the night flight. They should be brought into court and either pay a steep fine or have to give many many hours of community service to the park. 😡

Hikers/mountaineers/climbers who don't know what the hell they are doing really piss me off. They not only hurt themselves, but usually take others with them during a rescue attempt.

 

[docB]

Hikers/mountaineers/climbers who don't know what the hell they are doing really piss me off. They not only hurt themselves, but usually take others with them during a rescue attempt.

An excellent point. Does the exsitence of these helo rescue programs cause people to act stupidly ie. do they make them think they can get away with stuff they never should have attempted in the first place? Would we be better served to eliminate the helos and put more rangers on the gound to try to spot and educate the *****ic?

 

[Stitch]

An excellent point. Does the exsitence of these helo rescue programs cause people to act stupidly ie. do they make them think they can get away with stuff they never should have attempted in the first place? Would we be better served to eliminate the helos and put more rangers on the gound to try to spot and educate the *****ic?

Good question. In the case above it would seem that knowing such a service was available did make them more reckless. As a counterpoint, last year a couple of climbers were lost on Mt Hood, a generally 'safe' mountain. They climbed it in winter however, making it more dangerous, and they did not carry transceivers in case of avalanche. They died on the mountain and a large rescue attempt tried to locate them, endangering many more lives in bad conditions. People started saying that climbers should be required by law to wear transceivers since doing so would have made it easier to locate the climbers (still would have died, but we would spend less time and money searching for their bodies). The climbers and park services argued that requiring people wear such devices would embolden less savy climbers and endanger them.

For my part, when I climbed Mt Rainier last July, I went with a group of experienced climbers and planned our route carefully ahead of time. We carried transceivers. I also bought travel insurance, specifically covering emergency helicopter evacuation in case I broke my leg at 14,000 feet.

I think having a rescue system available is a good thing, though more park rangers on the ground would be great as well. People who abuse the system should pay for it very harshly IMO. Lives really are at stake.

 

[paramed2premed]

An excellent point. Does the exsitence of these helo rescue programs cause people to act stupidly ie. do they make them think they can get away with stuff they never should have attempted in the first place? Would we be better served to eliminate the helos and put more rangers on the gound to try to spot and educate the *****ic?

Well, maybe if they are shown the video of this Pave Hawk incident on Mt Hood, they might think twice about the benefit of calling for a evac!
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fhfJDq_I1HA

I would venture that most experienced climbers do not feel reassured by the availability of helicopter rescue, since the conditions that predispose climbers to the need for rescue (accidents during bad weather, at altitude, at night, or on steep aspects) often preclude helicopter use.

As for more rangers, I doubt that many people would disagree with increasing their numbers, or with augmenting their educational mission. The trend, however, is to eliminate taxpayer support of the National and State Parks, and move to "user fees" instead. That does not allow for many rangers.

 

[Apollyon]

For my part, when I climbed Mt Rainier last July, I went with a group of experienced climbers and planned our route carefully ahead of time. We carried transceivers.

This July, a guy got killed on Mt. Rainier, and he was a really experienced climber.

 

[Stitch]

This July, a guy got killed on Mt. Rainier, and he was a really experienced climber.

Yup. And you can still get killed while wearing a seatbelt. Nothing is without risk, especially not climbing. Any mountain, even an 'easy' one, can kill you. Period. Climbing is about minimizing those risks and doing so as safely as possible.

Ed Visteurs made the comment 'just because you love the mountains, doesn't mean the mountains love you.'

 

[Stitch]

I would venture that most experienced climbers do not feel reassured by the availability of helicopter rescue, since the conditions that predispose climbers to the need for rescue (accidents during bad weather, at altitude, at night, or on steep aspects) often preclude helicopter use.

As for more rangers, I doubt that many people would disagree with increasing their numbers, or with augmenting their educational mission. The trend, however, is to eliminate taxpayer support of the National and State Parks, and move to "user fees" instead. That does not allow for many rangers.

Agree.