Mt.

Rainier National Park: Climbing “mountains without handrails:”

The National Park Service was written into law in 1916 by President Woodrow
Wilson under the Organic Act. The park service serves to “​promote and regulate the use
of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments and reservations…by such
means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks,
monuments and reservations” (“Quick History”). This idea developed with the foundation
and creation of new parks and monuments across the country and ultimately resulted in
the National Parks Service mission statement which reads, “​The National Park Service
preserves unimpaired the natural and cultural resources and values of the National Park
System for the enjoyment, education, and inspiration of this and future generations.”
(“Foundation Document”). The National Park Service also serves an important role in
recreation as “[t]he National Park Service cooperates with partners to extend the
benefits of natural and cultural resource conservation and outdoor recreation throughout
this country and the world” (“Foundation Document”). The Park Service serves then not
only to preserve these natural and culturally significant locations and features in the
United States, but also to promote recreation and enjoyment of these places. Mt.
Rainier National Park serves as a unique example as the main feature of the park, Mt.
Rainier, provides the opportunity for many types of recreation including mountaineering,
which is the topic that will be primarily discussed in this document. In the context of
mountaineering then, what role does the Park itself as well as the National Park Service
play? At the most fundamental level, the mountain itself serves to, “offer world-class
climbing opportunities that have tested the skills of climbers for more than a century”
(“Foundation Document”) and the Park Services serves to “support a legacy of climbing
and mountaineering” (“Foundation Document”). The question then becomes, what
specific role does the National Parks Service play in the maintenance, regulation, and
operation of climbing on Mt. Rainier. Where does the line exist between the
responsibility of the park and the responsibility of the individual climber, and does that
compete with the idea of the mission of the National Parks and the concept of
wilderness? Currently that line is blurred, and with an increasing number of climbers
vying for the summit, it is becoming important for that line to become more defined.

Section I: History of Human Interaction with the mountain

Mt. Rainier’s archaeological record demonstrates over 9000 years of human
interaction. Artifacts found in the park from stone tools and forks to cooking hearths,
rock walls, and storage pits are evidence of long-term human activity and use of the
mountain’s resources (“Archaeology”). Tribes that still benefit from the mountain’s
resources include the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe, the Puyallup Tribe of Indians, the
Nisqually Indian Tribe, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Squaxin Island Tribe, and the
Confederated Tribes and Bands of the Yakama Nation (“Foundation Document”). The
Mt. Rainier National Park Service maintains relations with these six tribes, and all but
the Cowlitz have signed treaties with the United States. The National Parks Service
recognizes Mt. Rainier as “a symbolic landmark and an important place for Pacific
Northwest Indian cultures” (“Archaeology”). While much of the literature on Native
peoples’ connections to Mt. Rainier concerns spirituality, in reality, this relationship has
been overly romanticized. This can partially be explained by the fact that in 1925,
Yakima Indians performed for tourists at Paradise Park, dancing and doing
demonstrations of various activities like horseback riding and spear-fishing. The overly
romanticized and performative perception of Indians greatly contrasted to the lifestyles
of Indians who continued to visit Mt. Rainier for resource purposes, for example,
collecting huckleberries. Conflicting perceptions have also historically created issues
surrounding Indian’s hunting rights on Mt. Rainier. Their rights to hunt were directly tied
to how the park administrators viewed Indian groups: as living cultures or as historical
artifacts (“Mount Rainier NP: Wonderland:An Administrative History (Chapter 1)”).
As Spain and England began to colonize the Americas and fight over territory,
their governments sent out sea captains to explore potential new lands. The first record
of a white person seeing Mt. Rainier was that of George Vancouver, a British officer of
the Royal Navy. During his trip of exploration through the Straits of Juan de Fuca, he
recorded in his log, dated May 8,1972, “The weather was serene and pleasant, and the
country continued exhibit, between us and the shores of the snowy range, the same
luxuriant appearance. At its northern extremity Mount Baker bore by compass N. 22 E.;
the round snowy mountain, now forming its southern extremity and which, after my
friend Rear Admiral Rainier, I distinguished by the name of Mount Rainier, bore N.(S) 42
E" (“Historical Highlights of Mount Rainier National Park”). And thus, Mt. Rainier
received its modern name. It was previously referred to by the Indians as Tahoma.
The Indians did not have a history of summiting the mountain. Instead, the first
recorded group to summit in 1870 were two white men: Hazard Stevens, ​son of the first
governor of Washington Territory,​ and Philomen B. VanTrump, ​secretary to Governor
Marshall F. Moore,​ who were guided by Sluiskin, a Yakima Indian.​ ​Sluiskin initially
advised that they don’t climb the mountain, claiming, “Your plan to climb Takhoma is all
foolishness. No one can do it and live. A mighty chief dwells upon the summit in a lake
of fire. He brooks no intruders" (“Early and Most Noted Ascents of Mount Rainier”). In
fact, he made the men sign a statement that would prevent the Indians from being held
responsible for their death(s). Not long after the first group of men summited Mt.
Rainier, in 1890 the first woman, Evelyn Fay Fuller, accomplished the same feat​ after
invitation from ​Philomen B. VanTrump. Fuller was a pioneer in female climbing and
went on to help found several climbing clubs.
Today, about 11,000 people attempt to summit Mt. Rainier per year. With the
abundance of knowledge and advanced gear presently available, it only makes sense
that the climb has become so much more popular. According to Tracy Swartout,
superintendent of Mt. Rainier National Park, “slightly less than 1/2 the ascents of Mount
Rainier are commercially guided. Of roughly 11,000 climbers, each year about 5,000 go
through a guide service.” ​Alpine Ascents International​, ​International Mountain Guides,
LLC​, and ​Rainier Mountaineering, Inc.​ are the three guide services currently offering
“Climbing instruction, multi-day summit climbs, multi-day climbing seminars, and private
climbs” (“Climbing”).
Section II: Current Issues and Context on Climbing Mt. Rainier
Mt. Rainer is one of the most sought after climbs in the lower forty-eight. It
combines the challenge of an almost nine-thousand feet elevation gain over the span of
eight grueling miles with the thrill of isolation. The peak stands neary alone upon its
horizon-line, looming over the surrounding area. Every year nearly ten-thousand people
attempt to summit the mountain, and thousands more climb to its well-known
basecamp, Camp Muir, across a snowfield halfway up the mountain. Historically, only
48% of people who attempt to climb Rainier succeed in their endeavours with the
remainder being forced back to ground camps due to weather, injury or other
unforeseeable conditions. Over the last five years, that rate has increased to 52% for
successful summits for incoming party climbers as the rate of climbers on the mountain
has steadily increased past the turn of the century. With that rise in success there has
also been a concurrent rise in climbing incidents that recquire the interceedance of
search and rescue teams as well as a rise in climber fatalities. Since the park’s opening,
427 people have died in Mt. Rainier National Park since its opening in 1898 with over a
hundred of these occurring on mountain itself as climbers fall off its trails or get lost in
the encompassing wilderness on their way to the summit. (NPS, National Geographic,
Sierra Club)
 Over one-hundred-and-fifty-thousand dollars was spent on search and rescue
efforts in 1999, with the vast majority going towards costs related to missing climbers on
the steep route to Camp Muir basecamp. Within the entitled ‘Bermuda Triangle’ of the
mountain, unpredictable weather patterns in the localized area cause many climber
parties to veer slightly off trail and quickly become lost in the snow a hundred to
two-hundred yards off trail. Many such cases result in a failure to climb the mountain as
the afflicted climbers can occasional develop tired limbs quickly, or, in more extreme
cases, hypothermia from their trek off the beaten path. The smaller percentage of more
extreme cases occur higher up on the mountain in cases of severe weather or after
accidental falls. Of the roughly dozen serious cases per year that require
above-ordinary search and rescue efforts, many are the result of climbers on the
mountain becoming entrenched by the weather that require the aid of climbing rangers
for their safe descent or an airlift via helicopter off the mountain. This places a large
strain upon the Park Service in total cost. Rescue helicopters cost $1,600 per hour to
operate and funds are pulled from the National Park Service’s funds generated from the
fee climbers need to pay in order to attempt challenging ascents, such as the climb on
Rainier. The rest of the large bill for such rescue operations is paid from the NPS
directly on the rare occasion that extreme measures are needed. This large cost
annually to maintain such a safety net for climber wealthcare can tend to drain away
resources from other park issues such as infrastructure and park maintenance which
can fall by the wayside for years to come.
The danger the humans in climbing the mountain is a measured risk that many
experienced climbers take for the accomplishment of standing atop the peak but in
every person that steps onto the mountain, there is a cost that is extracted from the land
itself. Climbing routes are well maintained and with the use of experienced, most
climbers, successful or otherwise, manage to stay on trail and reduce their footprint by
bagging their gear out with them. Unlike other famous mountains, such as K2 and
Everest, the slopes are not paved with discarded gear from climbers past who were too
overencomuberd to continue with their current weight. It does share one issue with
other worldwide mountaineering icons, the removal of human waste. Human waste is
collected in bags and placed in drums at each of the key camps on the mountain, Camp
Muir and Camp Schurman. It is then annually airlifted off the mountain in large steel
drums, several at a time, by helicopter. This is done in late summer and into early fall as
the conditions stay consistent enough for the constant use of the required helicopters.
This cost further adds to the financial obligations that the Park Service accepts by
keeping Rainier as an operational climbing peak.
In recent years as many have pushed for the renaming of several key mountains
in the United States to their ancestral Native American root names. The successful
change of Mt. McKinely to Denali in the park of the same name is something echoed in
efforts surrounding Washington’s most famous mountain. Originally Mt. Tahoma and
named by the local indingeous people, the mountain took a prominent spiritual role in
their lives and remains an important part of the local culture. Its significance has caused
a small call for the closing of climbing on Mt. Rainier in respect for others who see it as
a religious touchstone for the remaining indigeneous people still in the local area who
can trace their roots predating colonial intrusion into the region.

Section III: Actionable Recommendations

This issue then, is a complex one with two main stakeholders as made evident in
the previously discussed sections. Taking into the context then, the mission statement
of the National Park Service as well as the working mission of the climbing operation as
defined in the introduction, it seems then that the Mt. Rainier National Park and the
National Parks Service are fulfilling their commitment to those wishing to climb Mt.
Rainier; facilitating and regulating the distribution of permits and acting to rescue
stranded climbers and maintain the climbing routes. However, we have formulated two
possible actionable recommendations that would go to potentially decrease certain risks
and lower death rates, as well as to create a more complete working definition of where
the park responsibility ends, and personal responsibility begins. These
recommendations also go to preserve the overarching idea and mission of the National
Parks and the concept of wilderness and the wilderness experience.
Recommendation 1​:
Currently, the National Parks has a loose definition of where personal
responsibility ends, and park responsibility begins. According to Tracy Swartout, acting
superintendent of Mt. Rainier National Park, the park does not have a working definition
of personal responsibility. Instead, the closest that the park can get is 36 CFR § 2.34,
which goes to loosely define disorderly conduct as “​with intent to cause public alarm,
nuisance, jeopardy or violence, or knowingly or recklessly creating a risk thereof” (“​36
CFR § 2.34”). This, however, is a very general definition and is nonspecific to climbing
and climbing on Mt. Rainier. It would then be beneficial, in the eyes of the group, for Mt.
Rainier National Park to establish a more defined and specific definition of what falls
under personal responsibility, and where the responsibility of the park begins. This
could ultimately lead to safer operation of the climbing mission of the park, but also to
leave climbers and those park employees who maintain the climbing roots, with a more
complete understanding of what they control. This would involve breaking down the
issue into two separate categories: responsibilities of the park and park service, and the
responsibilities of the individual climber. However, it is important to also consider the
difference between the types of summit attempts on Mt. Rainier: those that are guided
by guiding services such as RMI or Alpine Ascents, and those which are privately run.
Taking this into consideration, it may be important to keep in mind that in this
recommendation, private and commercial ascents are being treated as one group.
These are issues that are common causes of casualties and injuries on Mt. Rainier,
which then in turn facilitate the necessity for search and rescue resources to be utilized.
Personal Responsibility
Have the necessary training and
experience
-Have the experience necessary to safely
ascend and descend the mountain
without causing harm to self or other
climbers.
-Guide companies should make sure
customers have sufficient training.
Have the necessary gear
-Climbers should have the necessary
gear to be able to safely ascend and
descend the mountain
These issues were separated in such as way as to hopefully allow the safest passage of
climbers up and down the mountain while utilizing the least of the National Park
Park Responsibility
Maintenance of climbing routes
-Rigging Ropes on Route
-Containment and disposal of waste
-
Distributing and Regulating Permitting
-Controlling the number of permits that
are handed out every year as well as the
types of parties that are attempting to
summit
-
Under later Recommendation, checking
experience and training of prospective
climbers
-Checking to make sure that climbers
have the necessary skills and experience
to not be a liability on the mountain
-
Perform rescue missions
-Be able to rescue climbers that have
become stranded or injured on marked
climbing routes.
-Be able to perform search missions from
climbers that may have wandered off
marked climbing routes
Service’s resources. However, what this recommendation aims to do that is greater than
just the separation of responsibilities between the two parties that have a stake in this
issue is to start to better define the line between responsibilities. We asserted that the
park in large part is responsible for the maintenance of the climbing routes and rigging
as well as the waste infrastructure at base camps such as Camp Muir. In addition to
infrastructure, the park service should be responsible for the distribution and regulation
of permitting given to prospective climbers, the park should as well, have basic, but
justified experience and training requirement for obtaining a permit, with evidence from
guiding companies, training programs, etc. of expertise. In addition, it should be the
parks responsibility to operate and perform search and rescue missions to rescue
climbers who need assistance on marked climbing routes. In terms of individual
responsibilities, things such as gear and clothing necessary for climbing the mountain
safely and the necessary experience and training fall on the individual climber. All in all,
this recommendation aims to help begin to establish a defined definition of park and
personal responsibility in the context of climbing Mt. Rainier. This working definition
would require a sufficient amount of time to develop as situations questioning
responsibility arise, however, a definite line would go to potentially increase the safety of
climbing the mountain, decrease search and rescue costs, and preserve the experience
of the mountain for those climbing. This would most likely take the form of an
enumerated list of responsibilities which, like the above chart, are separated between
individual/guiding company responsibilities and park responsibilities which would be
widely available to ensure public familiarity.
Recommendation 2:
According to Tracy Swartout, acting superintendent of Mt. Rainier National Park,
“​NPS does not have any standard ‘requirements’ or ‘pre-requisites’ for climbing Mount
Rainier”​. The only requirements for climbing Mt. Rainier are enumerated in 36 CFR §
7.5 (“36 CFR § 7.5”) and only consist of proper registration, those under 18 must have
permission from a guardian to climb above high camps, and climbing parties must
consist of at least two people unless exempted by superintendent. Experience and
training fall in both categories as we believe that this is perhaps the most important
issue as it is the cause for most of the casualties and search and rescue missions that
take place on the mountain, meaning that it is both the responsibility of the individual or
guiding company to ensure that each climber has the necessary training and
experience, and the responsibility of the park to check these qualifications through
some sort of verification process. Essentially, we believe that it should be the role of the
individual to get the training and experience necessary, and the role of the park to verify
that the skill requirements are met to ensure safe passage on the mountain. What these
requirements would be are things such as glacial travel, basic self arrest techniques,
and other necessary climbing skills as listed by many of the guiding companies that
currently operate on Mt. Rainier. For instance, Alpine Ascents requires a one day
training course in techniques such as glacier mountaineering, self-arrest techniques,
and glacier travel (“Training”). Most climbers that attempt the summit have at least this
much training when operating through a guiding company, private summit attempts are
less regulated and training cannot be verified as it can through a guiding company, etc.
This however is not a complete solution as it does have apparent drawback; it would
make the mountain less accessible as more training and experience is required to make
a summit attempt, possible excluding persons who aren't able to afford proper training,
etc. However, this is countered with the belief that these training and experience
requirements would maintain the sanctity of the climbing experience as it would make
the mountain safer as there would be fewer less experienced climbers on the route,
potentially lowering the risk for other climbers, climbing rangers, as well as potentially
lowering search and rescue costs for the park. This would most likely take the form of a
checklist and verification process taking place in the Paradise Climbing Information
Center that would be required before a permit for a summit attempt could be made. Like
the enumerated list of responsibilities, this would be made widely available to ensure
public familiarity.
Both of these recommendations then, are ways that the climbing operation at Mt.
Rainier could be made safer, as well as less costly to the park as the number of
climbers trying for the summit increases, and park budgets fall. Creating a well defined
boundary between what is the park’s responsibility and what is the individual climbers
responsibility would be a good start to the process, eventually becoming more and more
defined as time progresses and more cases are brought to the forefront. This could
ultimately lead to a more complete understanding of responsibilities from all parties and
potentially lead to more legal protections for the park should questions of responsibility
arise. Establishing minimum requirements for experience and mountaineering skills
would potentially decrease accessibility to the mountain and the mountain climbing
experience, however, potential increases in climber safety to not only the individual, but
to other climbers as well. This could ultimately lead to lower mortality rates as well as
potentially less expenditures due to search and rescue missions. Ultimately, the
recommendations that have been made are all through the regulation lens; looking and
who is climbing the mountain and making sure they know what they are doing, and what
they are responsible for. This however will prove to be a dynamic issue as more
climbers try for the summit and the demand for permits increases. These
recommendations are an attempt to start definening and considering what skills are
necessary for climbing the mountain safely, and for finding the line of personal
responsibility.
 Works Cited

“36 CFR § 2.34 - Disorderly Conduct.” ​Legal Information Institute,​ Legal Information
Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/2.34.

“36 CFR § 7.5 - Mount Rainier National Park.” ​Legal Information Institute,​ Legal
Information Institute, www.law.cornell.edu/cfr/text/36/7.5.

“Foundation Document Mount Rainier National Park Washington.” ​Foundation

Document,​ Apr. 2015, www.nps.gov/mora/learn/management/.

“Quick History of the National Park Service (U.S. National Park Service).” ​National
Parks Service​, U.S. Department of the Interior,
www.nps.gov/articles/quick-nps-history.htm.

“Training.” ​Alpine Ascents International​,

www.alpineascents.com/climbs/mount-rainier-climb-muir/training/.

“Archaeology.” ​National Parks Service​, U.S. Department of the Interior, 28 Nov. 2018,
www.nps.gov/mora/learn/historyculture/archaeology.htm.

“Climbing.” ​National Parks Service​, U.S. Department of the Interior, 2019,

www.nps.gov/mora/planyourvisit/climbing.htm.

“Mount Rainier NP: Wonderland:An Administrative History (Chapter 1).” ​National Parks
Service,​ U.S. Department of the Interior, 24 July 2000,
www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mora/adhi/chap1.htm.

“Historical Highlights of Mount Rainier National Park.” ​National Parks Service​, U.S.
Department of the Interior, 1 Mar. 2002,
www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mora/notes/vol12-2e.htm.

“Early and Most Noted Ascents of Mount Rainier.” ​National Parks Service,​ U.S.
Department of the Interior, 17 June 2002,
www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/mora/notes/vol15-2g.htm.