Mountain climbing: Taking risks, accepting responsibility

Rugged individualism and a penchant for adventure have long characterized the American persona. Our longstanding folklore and contemporary mass media glamorize such traits, and many Americans continue to dabble in dangerous risk-taking behaviors for personal gratification.
But sometimes, such risk-taking infringes on the safety of others or requires costly and time-consuming intervention by public and private entities. That's when it's critical for the state to take all necessary actions to protect the adventurers and itself.
Mount Hood rescue
And so it was last week when a large rescue party worked over four days to find eight climbers who challenged wintry conditions and rugged terrain on Mount Hood, the tallest mountain in Oregon at 11,237 feet and considered the state's volcano most likely to erupt.
Talk about extremes. Winds gusting up to 85 mph created white-out conditions, making visibility all but impossible. Temperatures dropping to zero late in the day can make freezing to death a distinct possibility.
As the veteran climbers were descending, they slipped off a ledge at about 8,300 feet. Someone in the party used a cell phone to place an emergency call to authorities.
Thankfully, all were rescued safety. Not all climbers have been so lucky. Over the past 25 years, more than 35 climbers have died on Mount Hood, one of the most frequently climbed mountains in the world.
Still the rescue carried a price tag of about 6,500 per day, according to local authorities, and that figure does not include volunteer services of the military and of several trained mountain climbers.
Permits and insurance
Last week's rescue, coupled with a similar rescue effort in December on Mount Hood, reinforces concerns about safety and individual rights versus the duty of the state to protect its residents and its interests. As the popularity of dangerous and extreme sports increases, the time for action is now.
As a start, a state legislator in Oregon is introducing a bill to make it mandatory for mountain climbers to carry an electronic monitoring device, such as those worn by last week's climbers that facilitated their rescue. The legislation represents a solid start, but more broadsweeping regulations and precautions ought to carry the force of law as well, most notably requirements for climbing insurance and state-issued permits.
Some nations, including Nepal, require permits issued only after passage of mountain-climbing safety exams. That nation is aggressive in its prosecution of violators. In the United States, some local authorities require permits, such as those venturing 4,800 feet or higher on Washington state's Mount St. Helens.
Few, however, require insurance that would cover at least part of the cost of a rescue. Mountain climbing, particularly during harsh winter months, is a more dangerous activity than driving a car, but states routinely require motorists to take the preventive initiative to protect themselves and others.
Of course, no amount of stringent permit processes or rigid insurance policies can take the place of common sense by those climbing high mountains or participating in other extreme sports and risky avocations. Mandatory permits and insurance do, however, offer needed protections for both the daring adventurer and the state.