Bob, I'd like to hear a little more than those few words why you feel that way.
There are two parts to my answer.
First, it's the idea of a broad-brush reaction to a problem that barely exists. Every year, about 10,000 people climb Mt. Hood, with an average of 1.3 dying from all causes. Comparing the deaths from falling and avalanches to those who go astray, what small fraction of that 0.00013 would have been saved with PLBs?
Regarding SAR fatalities on Mt. Hood: Apparently
one, in the early '90s, an avalanche victim.
Other technology such as transceivers and helmets can ameliorate risk, too, and behavior can as well; but again the fractions are miniscule. Common sense can go a long way to keeping it that way. Don't mandate them.
We all assess risks, and act accordingly. I eschew some technology and conventional wisdom that would arguably make me safer, because it gives me the freedom I so enjoy. My decision. By the way, my wife accepted long ago that I will probably die up there. But she knows what I get out of mountaineering, supports it one hundred percent, and our family is stronger because of my passion and immersion in it. She sleeps well at night.
So the second part is about what Helen Keller said:
"Security is mostly a superstition. It does not exist in nature,
nor do the children of men as a whole experience it.
Avoiding danger is no safer in the long run than outright exposure.
Life is either a daring adventure, or nothing."
