Hmmm. Seems like much of this is missing the point. The risk for the climbers is not hugely relevant. Everyone here is right, the much cherished right to get hurt or even be stupid is still intact. It's the risk to the SAR people -- their right NOT to get hurt or injured trumps everything else. As was noted above, someone is going to come to find you, that's just the way it works. Anything that helps pinpoint the location of someone in trouble is a major help to a SAR and reduces the risk to the people responding.
I'm still mulling over the use of PLBs or SPOT devices in general, but Mt. Hood in winter (or Rainier etc), which is the only place this is proposed as a requirement, is a special case. The problems have been in having no clue where the person is because they're buried by snow but, not inconceivably, in a snow cave and quite possibly alive. Narrowing a search area and looking for clues is the most frustrating thing about a search. I'm definitely not convinced that because "only" one SAR person had died there that requiring locator beacons is not justified. If ANY SAR team injury or death can be prevented by a pretty simple gizmo, then I'm for it.
Arguably, having a winter ranger hand you the thing and giving you explicit instruction on how and when to use it as well as what may or may not happen when you do so, seems like a major improvement over just pulling it out of a box, tossing the instructions and heading off to the mountain.
Hmmmm. Too much thinking: I'll spin this a step further, before you even carry one of these things on your own, you've got to listen to a short pep talk on respective responsibilities: yours and the agency who may come to look for you. That would even be a question when getting your permit -- do you have a PLB or SPOT device with you?
Some of you might also remember the case of the kids who dug in in the mid-80s. Nine people died -- including 7 kids. Since time was lost trying to locate them, I think some might have been saved had a beacon been in use.
George
