- Posts: 914
- Thank you received: 0
PLB Legislation introduced in the Washington House
- Andrew Carey
-
- User
-
Less
More
16 years 1 month ago #189886
by Andrew Carey
Replied by Andrew Carey on topic Re: PLB Legislation introduced in the Washington H
If such a bill makes any headway at all it must be revised to include an avalanche transceiver as a PLB; it is actually better than a PLB because it can be used as a locating receiver vs. satellite guidance for search teams.
The bill smacks of corruption and deception to me as well.
The bill smacks of corruption and deception to me as well.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- davidG
-
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 764
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 1 month ago #189887
by davidG
Replied by davidG on topic Re: PLB Legislation introduced in the Washington House
Good point, Marcus. Joe, you might want to incorporate this into your letter.. david...
It's worth noting that many mountain rescue and SAR organizations around the country are opposed to the mandatory PLB laws. Lots of false-calls which could put rescuers in harm's way unnecessarily.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Joedabaker
-
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1012
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 1 month ago #189888
by Joedabaker
Replied by Joedabaker on topic Re: PLB Legislation introduced in the Washington House
Thanks David,
I stole what Marcus said about the SAR and slightly revised the letter.
Thanks Marcus.
There is also a great series of articles in the new Backcountry discussing SAR in backcountry settings. I have not read them all, but it sure does put some more insight into the unheralded dedication of the SAR member, (I know he is to humble) But guys like Marcus.
Thanks to all SAR!
I stole what Marcus said about the SAR and slightly revised the letter.
Thanks Marcus.
There is also a great series of articles in the new Backcountry discussing SAR in backcountry settings. I have not read them all, but it sure does put some more insight into the unheralded dedication of the SAR member, (I know he is to humble) But guys like Marcus.
Thanks to all SAR!
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Marcus
-
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 1230
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 1 month ago #189889
by Marcus
Replied by Marcus on topic Re: PLB Legislation introduced in the Washington House
Thanks Joe -- there are a ton of folks (many on this board) who are more experienced than I am. I'm just getting started.
Great letter -- I'll put my thoughts together with yours and send it along as well.
Great letter -- I'll put my thoughts together with yours and send it along as well.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- snoqpass
-
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 252
- Thank you received: 0
16 years 1 month ago #189894
by snoqpass
Replied by snoqpass on topic Re: PLB Legislation introduced in the Washington House
Good thing it doesn't say anything about skiing above the timberline.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.
- Charlie Hagedorn
-
Topic Author
- User
-
Less
More
- Posts: 913
- Thank you received: 1
16 years 1 month ago #189895
by Charlie Hagedorn
First they came for the climbers, and I did not speak out....
Also, PLB Rentals is trying to downplay the cost of PLBs by making them available for $5/wk to users in the Cascades, when the usual weekly rate is more like $60. I do believe that the availability of inexpensive beacons is a positive thing for anyone who may choose to use them - I simply don't want them to be legally required. If they're a sensible thing to have, sensible people will voluntarily adopt them in the end.
If it is true that PLB Rentals is trying to get its business legislated into profitability, it will make me, as a citizen, not a backcountry user, a very unhappy man.
Either way, I feel that a letter to my representatives is warranted. I also think that the issue of requiring PLBs in the backcountry is more important than any possible run-of-the-mill political scummery.
Replied by Charlie Hagedorn on topic Re: PLB Legislation introduced in the Washington House
Good thing it doesn't say anything about skiing above the timberline.
First they came for the climbers, and I did not speak out....
Also, PLB Rentals is trying to downplay the cost of PLBs by making them available for $5/wk to users in the Cascades, when the usual weekly rate is more like $60. I do believe that the availability of inexpensive beacons is a positive thing for anyone who may choose to use them - I simply don't want them to be legally required. If they're a sensible thing to have, sensible people will voluntarily adopt them in the end.
If it is true that PLB Rentals is trying to get its business legislated into profitability, it will make me, as a citizen, not a backcountry user, a very unhappy man.
Either way, I feel that a letter to my representatives is warranted. I also think that the issue of requiring PLBs in the backcountry is more important than any possible run-of-the-mill political scummery.
Please Log in or Create an account to join the conversation.