Beacons Required?

seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews...1463_beacons20m.html

OK, so now the "monday morning quarterbacking" starts anew with the possibility being raised of Oregon State Legislator again trying to pass a law requiring beacons in areas such as Mt Hood wilderness.
A few weeks ago I saw an article in the Times about the overuse of a satellite beacon that, when activated, would immediately send an alert signal to the various rescue agencies. The article mentioned two dads with their two sons who had ran out of water in the Grand Canyon and had activated their beacon twice (twice!) because the water they found didn't taste good. It made a good counter point to this article.
I guess I'm starting this thread for a couple of reasons:
1. personal responsibility, should there be consequences to not using a beacon? I was against helmet law requiring helmets for bicycling, yet I wouldn't ride without one. I don't wear a helmet when I ski in or out of bounds, yet I wouldn't go out of bounds without a beacon or with someone who doesn't have and know how to use one, yet I would go into the backcountry solo.
2. How far do we go with this? If we charge users/skiers for rescue, do we then charge those who willingly live on flood plains (Skycomish, Duval) or below mountains (Orting, Enumclaw) for rescue?
I have my thoughts on this but obviously there are inconsistencies.

I couldn't find recent statistics, but according to the following source:

www.wsdot.wa.gov/planning/wtp/documents/EconomyJobs.htm

Washington’s Top Three Economic Clusters

Ranked by Gross Business Income 2000

Aerospace - $37.81 billion
Health Care - $13.2 billion
Tourism - $10.2 billion

Based on these figures, it seems that organised rescue is a worthwhile investment. After all, it's not just the hard core that benefit from rescue. Like everyone else, I've seen the typical arguments against no-charge organised rescue: "they don't have to go climb mountains", "they should be prepared to die", "they should have known better", and so forth.

The fact is that all of us, to a large extent, in our daily lives engage in risky behaviour in one form or another. Therefore, for most people, the possibility exists that someone else ( family, friends, taxpayers ) will be forced to pick up the tab for what amount to individual choices, whether driving at high speed or living in a flood plain or going backcountry skiing. The arguments against no-charge organised rescue are a fallacious: cost-sharing and resource-pooling are why most people live in societies. The people who don't like shared resources are free to remove themselves from society.

The argument made by some people against rescue beacons ( the risk homeostasis argument ) is inane. Of course people should carry rescue beacons, because whether or not they make poorer choices, rescue becaons makes life much easier for the searchers.

Arguing against requiring people to carry rescue beacons is the same as saying that you like looking for a needle in a haystack. It's moronic.

Out of curiousity, how many people carry rescue beacons? (Like SPOT, not avy beacons).

I don't (yet), but it is a recently delivered spousal mandate due to the Hood coverage, that will be put into effect as soon as SPOT takes care of their recall and gets solid new units out.

Yay! A flame war! .... erm, discussion.

The people who don't like shared resources are free to remove themselves from society.

In general, they're not. See what happens if you move to a patch of dirt you own, become completely self-sufficient, and stop paying property taxes....

Making beacons available is a good idea. Requiring them isn't. It'd be interesting to find out how many of the rescues on a comparable peak, like Mt. Rainier, recover their costs through donations from rescued climbers. I know some climbers do. I'd like to believe that all who can afford it do so.

Our mountains can be safe without beacons. It's possible to move safely through avalanche terrain without avalanche beacons. Whether or not you should be a personal decision. It's worth considering family and friends when making such decisions.

One of the beautiful things about our wilderness is that you really can put yourself days away from society and from rescue, leaving you only with the resources in your head, in your companions, and on your back. That kind of commitment is hard to come by in our modern world. It's an opportunity to take complete responsibility for one's self. Please don't try to take that away. Some people will never understand why it's so important.

Please don't allow anyone to make a statutory definition of acceptable risk. There are a great many people who would rule that the risks that some TAYers take on are unacceptable.

On a certain level, any sane person when in trouble would reason with themselves, "If only I had that beacon?" But the more I think about this, the more I worry about putting personal responsibility in the hands of government. There is no limit to the amount of laws you can write to keep someone safe. With beacons, perhaps one person must have a beacon, then every member in your party. Does it reach a point where you have to take a test to go into the outdoors at all? Is there a point were kids can only go outdoors with a licensed individual who must go through expensive licensing to get certified to take kids outdoors? I know it sounds insane? But it isn't out of the realm of possibility. Every time something bad happens, it is human nature to ask, "Why?" There is no limit to what we can do to make people safer. Law is not the answer, but education and personal responsibility for one's actions. This does not mean responsibility for rescue costs, these are minuscule compared to the cost of drunk drivers and lost hunters and fisherman. I like how CookieMonster spoke about his bit about society. We are in a society! Costs are shared and risk is something that is inherent to humanity. It is how we progress and discover. Without risk I think we lose a bit of our humanity. If there should be a law, there should be one against those parents who overfeed their kids and don't take them into the mountains. More of them die from diseases like diabetes which cost 100's of dollars a month for the rest of their lives, not just a few thousand dollars for a rescue that happens a few times a year.

Anyhow, LOL, this makes sense to me late at night, and is just a few thoughts thrown out there. Some I'm sure many agree too. Most of all, I don't want the government telling me what I can and can't do. They already do enough of that IMHO.

I'm a little ignorant as to how much these things cost, so maybe this point is moot if it's not too expensive, but I worry that we are getting to a point where outdoor recreation becomes only a pastime for the rich. It's kind of the same as the $30 NW whorest pass or $15 to get into Mt. Rainier etc...

I realize that my view might be simplistic, and that charging the people who actually use something does make some sense on some level. I just think that providing recreation for poor people is the most just and noble use of our public lands.