National Park Service might charge climber for his removal from Mount McKinley
by Molly Rettig / mrettig@newsminer.com
Jul 14, 2010 | 4242 views | 23 23 comments | 14 14 recommendations | email to a friend | print
FAIRBANKS — The National Park Service might seek reimbursement from a climber who was removed from Mount McKinley by military helicopters in an operation last week that cost tens of thousands of dollars.

The Park Service enlisted two Army helicopters from Fort Wainwright to evacuate Andrew Randolph, a 25-year-old solo climber from Pennsylvania, from the 14,200-foot camp after doctors there deemed him unfit to be on the mountain.

Randolph believes he was removed a different reason: for bringing his paragliding equipment on the mountain.

A federal regulation forbids paragliding and powerless flight from Mount McKinley, according to the Park Service. Before the climb, Randolph signed an affidavit with the park service promising not to use a paraglider on the mountain.

He brought the paraglider with him, though.

“It’s not illegal to have,” Randolph said during a phone interview from Pennsylvania.

The regulation and affidavit did not specify he couldn’t take the paraglider. He claimed he wasn’t planning to use it unless he faced a life-or-death situation and was caching it at 14,200 feet.

“Taking a paraglider up to the summit is absolutely ridiculous. That wasn’t the idea,” he said.

Randolph had a right to bring the paraglider onto the mountain, he maintained. Yet he promised park rangers on at least three occasions that he wasn’t taking it, including the moment his gear was loaded on the McKinley-bound plane in Talkeetna, said John Leonard, South District ranger for Denali National Park and Preserve.

“He swore to rangers that he didn’t have his paraglider with him. But that doesn’t have anything to do with the fact of why he was removed from the mountain,” Leonard said.

The reasons were strictly medical, according to the park service.

“He was removed from the mountain because medical professionals deemed he was a threat to himself and others,” Leonard said. “It was not a law enforcement issue.”

To justify the evacuation, doctors at the 14,200-foot camp had to certify probable cause that Randolph was mentally ill or disabled and likely to cause harm to himself and others, said Leonard.

Randolph showed up at the camp with a body temperature bordering hypothermia and was treated by camp doctors. Meanwhile, rangers found and confiscated Randolph’s paraglider. He stayed at the camp for about four days, Randolph said.

Before his condition deteriorated, rangers encouraged Randolph to descend the mountain under his own power, Leonard said. But then the climber demanded an emergency flight off the mountain, saying he lacked the gear or experience to get down, he said.

In a phone interview, Randolph said he had a broken snowshoe and didn’t trust the park service backup gear or support offered for his descent, which included traversing Kahiltna Glacier.

On July 7, he was strapped to a backboard and picked up by two Army Chinook CH 47 helicopters from Fort Wainwright, accompanied by two Denali law enforcement rangers.

Randolph has climbed four peaks of the Seven Summits, the highest mountains in each continent, he said, and never had a bad experience until now. He believes he was discriminated against because he was a solo climber.

“I don’t think this would have happened if I was with a small group,” Randolph said.

McKinley sees only about a dozen solo climbers a year. They encounter higher rates of trouble than groups, Leonard said.

“Climbing solo is not something that’s considered within the acceptable norms of climbing a glaciated peak such as Denali, because there’s no way to protect against a lot of the dangers, especially in the summer,” said Leonard.

The park service is investigating whether criminal charges or the climber’s insurance could help cover the cost, which was picked up by the Department of Defense.

Contact staff writer Molly Rettig at 459-7590.
Comments
(23)
Comments-icon Post a Comment
bumpo
|
July 15, 2010
Doesn't sound harsh, or unreasonable, to me.
deepbreathnow
|
July 14, 2010
As far as I'm concerned anyone who climbs into a plane and does not file a flight plan should pay all costs incurred to retrieve their sorry fannies and belongings. No excuses.

Why does this statement sound harsh when we're talking about a regular-Joe pilot but not a climber?
ChenaSteamer
|
July 14, 2010
As far as I'm concerned anyone that goes out on that mountain should pay all costs encured to retrieve their sorry fannies and belongings. No excuses.
Pearl=W
|
July 14, 2010
1st, RE: the expense of this rescue/removal, whatever it was. The actual extraction was done by military [the SugarBears, as one proudly posted] chinook chopper. Yes, that's a Fed expense, and very expensive. HOWEVER, those guys need to train to be good at what they do, and they are very good at it because they train a lot. There is money specifically budgeted for training exercises [it's not cheap], and this extraction was used as training for the chinook crews involved.

That doesn't address the additional time/expense of the NPS in dealing with the situation prior to extraction. At this point,and from this article, it's kind of hard to know how much of that 'dealing with' was mandatory [base camps and their services are not cheap, and are heavily used by climbers who are capable], and how much the rangers took upon themselves. It seems to be a pretty convoluted and confused story.

NPS does have a small chopper, and they do use it for a variety of work, including some rescues, but it apparently won't make the altitudes needed on the Mt. itself, and doesn't have a lot of room for extra crew, caring for someone who might get rowdy in flight.

I leave aside the question of whether this man needed to come off the Mt for medical reasons or for his own safety or that of others, or whether it was a police action simply because 'he didn't mind the rules', and wouldn't co-operate with voluntary removal. There seems to be some debate about the actual facts of that.

BUT I can see perfectly well why the NPS rangers might not have trusted him at that point, because of his previous behavior, and might not have trusted his ability to take care of himself further, because of his condition on arrival at camp. They do not have the means, nor were they intended, to nursemaid or enable climbers to keep ascending past the climber's own physical limits.

I think that possibly the NPS needs to clarify their rules, more clearly define and state what's 'not acceptable'. And I do quite agree that short term 'trip insurance' should be a requirement to ascend past a certain level.
deepbreathnow
|
July 14, 2010
Those climbers are bankrupting our nation!!! Plus, they come to our parks with one twenty dollar bill, and one pair of underwear and don't change either one the whole time they're here. I refuse to pay the nickel that comes out of my federal taxes for these people's lives to be extended.
schmekel
|
July 14, 2010
great idea Doc.

Same applies to anyone that choose to live off the road system in Alaska?

Chooses to ride a motorcycle without a helmet?
doc_powmiariders
|
July 14, 2010
Why dont we just eliminate the rescue option all together. They are putting themselves at risk, let them think about the option of fending for themselves. They might change their mind. It would save billions across the country to eliminate rescues from back woods and sea high adventures.
bumpo
|
July 14, 2010
Isn't climbing Denali a team effort? I don't know. Are there a lot of solo climbers? Or is solo climbing for jerks who can find nobody who'll put up with them.

Reminds me of the story of the golfer who comes home early from a round. His wife asks, "Why are you home so early, honey?" He replies, "Well, would you golf with someone who always talks at the height of your back swing, cheats on where his ball lies, and shaves strokes off his score?" "Well, I guess not." she replies, sympathetically. "Yea, neither would Bob, James, or Fred."

Speaking of which, if the tax payers have to pay for mountain climbers, shouldn't they also pay my greens fees?
schmekel
|
July 14, 2010
he he he

snip the snop

very orginal and nomeclature relative

so now "we" are going to judge who is and who isn't prepared?
wayuphere
|
July 14, 2010
It seems logical to me that short-term trip insurance should be required of anyone who braves the Mountain. Out-of-pocket costs are fairly low, and that way our state and the rescuers would be reimbursed.

Why is that such a difficult concept for our legislators to grasp?
41yrsinFbx
|
July 14, 2010
I do not deem climbing stupid, just that there are some people not equipped for the rigorous journey.

Remember too, its the children of today that will be providing for tomorrow. So don't patronize any stores, read any papers, go to the doctor, use any goods....and get a vasectomy Schmek. Do us all a favor.
schmekel
|
July 14, 2010
yup I'm in full agreement 41yrsinFBx,

any user group that gets more from what they pay in should pay a surcharge:

parents, lost fisherman, rescued climbers, smokers,drinkers, folks born with special needs,

you deem climbing a stupid choice, I deem having children when you are over 40 a stupid choice.

where do we draw the line?
41yrsinFbx
|
July 14, 2010
People who go up the mountain but cannot get back down should be charged for a "I'm too stupid, too scared, or not smart enough to know my limitations" fee along with all the other costs. This guy also lied repeatedly and should be charged a crime for that.

schmekel, your parents had you and people paid taxes so you could go to school, eh? Otherwise you wouldn't be able to read, write and post your opinions on here. I would say that was a BIG waste of your parents' time and money as well as a waste of the taxpayers' money who put YOU through school. Your prejudice against the better part of the population and their children is unreasonable given that you were provided the same educational services yourself -- too bad they didn't do you any good.
schmekel
|
July 14, 2010
you and if you live far from town

you should get charged more for

newspaper delivery, ambulance services, road plowing.

and if you smoke or drink you should get charged more for health insurance.

and if you have kids you should pay more in property taxes to cover school expenses.

on the topic, why should I pay for your kid to get educated?

stop living off your neighbor and volunteer to pay more property taxes if you have kids.
doc_powmiariders
|
July 14, 2010
schmekel, I agree with that statement. People might think twice about properly preparing for a trip ordecisions in their lives. Charge them for stupidity and the government might actually come out in the black for a change. People who get bailed out that are really in trouble and appreciate the help should be more than willing to pay back the stae or gov for the help.
Newsminer.com encourages a lively exchange of ideas regarding topics in the news. Users are solely responsible for the content. Comments are not pre-approved by News-Miner staff. Please keep it clean, respect others and use the 'report abuse' link when necessary. Read our full user's agreement.