Mt. Whitney Portal Store & Hostel Forums General Mt. Whitney Portal Store Message Board Inyo SAR on Mt. Whitney

What about a 15-20 question multiple choice test that the group leader is required to take prior to receiving the permit. When they show up at the Interagency Center, they must complete the test and then they could be given an answer key afterward to see what they missed. After completing this two-step process, regardless of how you score, you would be issued your permit. At least, if nothing else, it would be an eye opener to the unprepared person and hopefully educate them before they head up. Who knows, maybe if someone is really clueless and poses an obvious risk based on the lack of knowledge, the permit could be withheld.

I don't think that the rangers can legally do that. That is the interpretation in Yellowstone. It is also more regulation than I personally would like to see.

Ken,

We went over a lot of this during our conversation about the trash in Whitney Portal. It seems to me the Forest Service is not interested in going the extra mile here to protect the invincibly ignorant, I will add they seem to be invincibly ignorant, too.

Per our discussion from my memory plus a few other things...

The INF should...

Seasonalize their information packet which go out with the reservation notices. The dangers in May are didn't than during the monsoon season we are now in.

Replace the signage at the "patio cover". Way too many falsehood for my tastes. Bring back the "People Die Here" sign and add a you get to pay for your rescue sign like they have at GCNP.

Refer those with reservations in May through Mid-July to providers of basic snow skills courses.

Refer reservation holders to this website and a handful of other Whitney sites. This something I suggested to more than a few management type at the INF in letters.

Do daily safety presentations at Whitney Portal between July 1 and Labor Day.

Start a volunteer ranger program for the Main Trail.

Have rangers turn people back who are not geared properly.

Fred, the subject of glissading into icy conditions might be a good addition.
Steve,
That certainly is a good topic to associate with Ice. Today, I quickly scanned the board for possible topics and I believe that I got at least one of those threads. You should have a copy of my quick list in your email.

Here's an article on survival, with emphasis on *perception* - our tendency to ignore or otherwise not see what lies beyond our expected model of reality within any given set of circumstances.
Andy,
That is a great topic on misperception.

This is a bit much. We can't hold everybody's hand. If people choose to be ignorant and unprepared, that is their right and their choice. We don't need regulate everything to death.

Fred,

I think developing another information thread/source has value but only to those that frequent this board and will read and heed the information you have so thoughtfully gathered.

The real need is to get this information to people and then let them make the choice to raead it or not.

I like the idea of a test but I think there is a better way of administering it than suggested above. For those of you that actually get a California fire permit, you have no doubt taken the 4 question test which you must answer successfully before getting the forms. The test is a little hokie but it does stop and make you think for a moment.

The idea is the test must be taken to gain access to the currrent year lottery application form. The problem I have with the test at the Interagency Center is it takes up resource time of the FS personnel and the on-line test can be programmed into the web-site. This is a more cost effective manner to administer the test.

Another step is to modify the lottery application to have the trip leader sign an attestation to having read information on the Inyo Website on Mt Whitney and then holding them liable for any violations or rescues (this is somewhat implied already). I realize the FS already has quthority to charge for rescues but this attestation would make applicants think about that possibility.

Fred,

Glad you found that article interesting. When I catch myself doing something similar now, it just makes my hair stand up--it's the creepiest feeling.

Applied to the MWT, the theory offers an intriging explanation as to why so many people seem so clueless to Whitney's hazards:

They're not on Mount Whitney--not in their minds, at least.

Their minds are processing "trail" "dirt" "trees" "rocks" and putting them on a nature hike in their favorite park, where threats like sudden blizzards and AMS don't exist.

Banks,

It is everyone right to be stupid and ignorant but at Mt. Whitney they are asking volunteers with families to put their lives on the line to save them from their stupidity and their seeming invincible ignorance.

There was a grea article in the Wilderness Medical Society Journal that I came across last year. I printed it out for WTC, but never saw any copies distributed... hmmm... interesting.

I think it is quite applicable for the topic: article

-L

How about: You will be charged for the cost of emergency services operating on your behalf, unless it is determined that the emergency occured due to circumstances outside of your control.

E.g. objective hazards such as rockfall hitting someone would not be charged for; incidents involving not being prepared for adverse weather would be (because one can plan for and prepare for that contingency).

The former assumes that the individual did exercise due diligence and was wearing a helmet if in an area where rockfall normally can be a hazard, etc. If you were on the main trail, and a chunk falls off an overhead cliff, one could be forgiven, as it is not common for injuries to happen this way (even if rock does actually fall off all the time).

Counties typically cross-charge each other for SAR operations conducted on behalf of one or the other's citizens, so the accounting to calculate the charges is already well established and in place.

All I would add is that a certain percentage of the charges actually be given to the team to fund equipment purchases, training, etc. (Currently the very team members who volunteer their time doing rescues ALSO have to spend considerable amounts of time doing fund raising activities on their own behalf!)

If the point was strongly made that the primary permit holder would be fiscally responsible for his/her party, you can bet they would make sure everyone was prepared, and also actually take some steps to actually 'manage' the party, instead of leaving everyone to their own devices.

They volunteered to be put at risk. As a volunteer firefighter myself, I understand that I may be put risk. If I get hurt I'm not going to blame the ignorant person who got in over his head or the forrest service for not properly screening all hikers.

Volunteered for certain amount of risk. Each time a volunteer goes out there are family members who are wondering if I will see my loved one again.

I appreciate the service of our volunteers but I do want to see them put at risk because someone unwilling to take proper precautions.

wbtravis,
My point is that you can have a million websites, books, signs, ranger quizes, etc. There will always be unprepared people getting into trouble. There comes a point of diminishing returns for the money, time and effort. Resources can be better spent elsewhere. And again, volunteers already know the risk. You don't want them put at risk by unprepared people, but that is their job and what they signed up for. If it is such a strain and worry on loved ones, perhaps they shouldn;t be volunteering.

Does anyone know the percentage of people who go up to Whitney (or any other Sierra location) without proper preparation? I think the idea of a special area concerning emergency situations is a good idea, unfortuneately there will always be those who will heed no advice. All that we can do is just put the material out there and hope people will use common sense and use this board to the best of their ability. I know this place has given me good ideas and help.

That's their choice, isn't it?

Yes, it this the volunteers choice but it is silly to put people at risk unnecessarily. BTW, if they are deploying to take care of someone who did something that is easily preventable they are not able to deploy if something serious occurs.

As someone pointed out there is the rule of diminishing returns. Personally, I do not feel that level has been reached in the management of the MMWT based on what I have seen at other popular trails. I have pointed out in this thread, in other threads and in letters to INF unintrusive things that can be done to improve the safety of hikers and in turn the safety of SAR volunteers.

Don't count on it. I lived for years in Colorado, where some SAR jurisdictions charge people for rescue. It doesn't work -- either as a means for financing SAR teams or as a deterent. The problem is the collection of fees. Either the volunteer SAR team/fire department just doesn't have the resources to collect or the offending person can't afford to pay up.

In Colorado, fewer than 1 in 5 people who are charged for SAR ever pay. As one Colorado fire chief put it: "Do we go after them? Of course not. Nobody is going to lose their home because they can't pay a bill."

You can read more here: http://www.rockymountainnews.com/drmn/local/article/0,1299,DRMN_15_5590970,00.html

Speeding tickets haven't brought an end to speeding. And there's no reason to believe, nor any precedent to back up, the notion that SAR fines, higher permit fees, or any other form of increased bureaucracy will keep idiots out of the wilderness. We need more education in the backcountry, not more regulation!

How does that come about if people aren't interested in getting educated?

I don't think there is any doubt that there is an "uneducatable" group that exists, but my preference is to think that group is small. I think that most people want to know. I think there are issues with people not bothering to learn, and not knowing how to learn. For these, making it easier to learn will probably help. That's my target group.

However, I think that regulation does make a difference. I think without regulations, the average speed on 395 wouldn't be 76, it would be 96. And without regulations, no one would carry a bear can at all! Look at the difference in regulated and unregulated areas.

Therein lies the problem. In recent years I have been in Whitney Portal where there are warnings on cars that you've been bad, please don't do it again rather than here is a $250 fine.

If you put some bite in the rules and regs there will be greater compliance, not total compliance, thus making the job of forest management easier.

A sign on the patio cover that same we collected $200,000 in rescue/recovery fees in 2007, $10,000 in parking violations and/or $25,000 in fines for WAG Bag violations will get more than a few peoples attention.

You are never going to get the invincibly ignorant.