People telling me I "owe" it to my family and SAR to carry an electronic tether have the burden to demonstrate that is valid.
I'm not sure who these people are. I can't speak for others, but I merely stated that carrying one of those devices is helpful for your family and for SAR, not for you necessarily. Nowhere did I see it stated by anyone in this discussion that you owe anything to anyone. Those are two very different things.
If your intention was not that then I apologize for reading into your statement the implication that it was for may family and SAR I owed it to to carry. But reading this certainly implies that:
Quote:
But when you are overdue from a hike, there will likely be a large expenditure of time, money and effort on the part of SAR, law enforcement and volunteers. People might actually risk their own lives for you, or at least put themselves in harm's way. They have to take time from their other jobs, whether that is law enforcement or working in a national park or forest or something else that supports themselves and their families. It is all such a waste--such an enormous waste of resources, and potentially a waste of life, if the hiker was injured and could have been saved in time if SAR knew their location.
And this:
Quote:
the decision to carry one is not about you. It's about your loved ones. I shouldn't have to say this, but the reason this thread exists is because someone did not have one. Whatever the circumstances, the search and angst would likely have been over weeks ago.
and this:
Quote:
If everyone was as well prepared and thoughtful as you and your wife -- we wouldn't need SAR or police and fire departments, ambulances or hospitals for that matter!!!
and this:
Quote:
A thing you can leave in the bottom of your pack and not touch the whole trip unless there is an incident could save your loved ones from wondering what happened to you and countless others from having to search for you...
Yana wrote:
RumiDude wrote:
But to be clear, there are a lot out there in the backcountry who have almost no experience or skills but depend on inReach or SPOT as a sort of Ace-In-The-Hole to keep themselves safe.
I have seen no evidence of this, either presented in this or other threads, or through personal experience. In fact, a number of people in this thread have presented evidence to the contrary. So... what's your evidence for that assertion?
Well this is not the only online backpacking group I visit. I have read many accounts of people that have little or no experience rely on their SPOT or inReach to bail themselves out when they get in over their heads. This is especially true of SPOT, mainly because it has been around longer than inReach. This has been especially true of the explossion of popularity of the PCT as well. And cell phones have been used even longer than SPOT in that same attitude. In years past there have even been several discussions on NWHikers about people calling 911 from the backcountry for help.
Is there any proof that these devices we have been discussing cause people to take more risk? No! But we do know that there are circumstances when "risk compensation" is a serious explanatory theory with some evidence it does occur. To dismiss it out of hand is unwarranted, especially when some emergency response agencies tell us anecdotally that they feel it is true.
Anyway, the explosion of discussion and use of inReach in particular is interesting to follow. InReach seems to be the device of choice now. I wonder what the consensus is as to who should carry one. I wonder what the consensus is as to when it should be carried. And I wonder if someone dares to dissent from that consensus they will be ridiculed for their "ostensibly bloated self-confidence" or mocked with ""I don't need no stinking PLB because I'm so damn smart and talented"".
Rumi
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
0
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
I think where there is a difference of opinion is with the assertion that driving for example a 1967 VW Bug is safer than a 2018 Honda Accord because your attention will be 100% focused all the time because you know you are in a death trap.
If the person driving the death trap goes 55 because they know they are driving a death trap, while the person in the vehicle with airbags all around goes 95 due to over confidence in said safety devices, then yes the old jalopy driver would be safer...especially to the rest of us on the road.
I've been following this thread but have until now hesitated to add my perspective.
I've owned and used SPOT devices since the original gen 1 device became available. I carry one on the majority of my hikes. Additionally, I carry a PLB on my frequent off trail outings. I seriously doubt that carrying either one significantly changes my behavior in terms of risk acceptance. I'm certain that over time I've become increasingly risk averse and like other sane folks on this forum don't really enjoy pain and suffering from reckless accidents so I'm skeptical of the arguments that these devices encourage poor decision making. Others have also likely made the obvious argument most people don't want to unduly burden others and are reluctant to casually fire off an SOS. I know from personal experience that if there is any chance I can get out on my own I'm not going to call for assistance. I sure the same applies to the vast majority of hikers.
On the other hand, I have to admit other technology does sometimes change my behavior in significant and often negative ways. Sadly, I will occasionally waste time and energy climbing to a high point in order to acquire a cell signal to satisfy my increasing addiction to always being connected. Fortunately after 24 hours or so offline I usually recover from this idiocy and return to a healthy state of pre-internet bliss.
More constructively, the tremendous mapping capabilities of current smartphones often enhances my wilderness experience because it complements the trip planning I engage in prior to more challenging off trail adventures. But I realize some on this forum find that appalling...
My experience has led me to continue to emphasize the prevention side of things.
My experience and observations have led me to be sure I'm on top of the "prevention" side, but have also led me to want to have a decent shot if prevention fails to stop something bad from happening, whether to me or to someone else I might be with or might encounter out there. So I've also studied wilderness first aid (including cold weather oriented first aid), how to find buried avalanche victims and dig them out, and just this year I also decided to add one of these communication devices to the repertoire. I don't believe that taking time to prepare for the worst has in any way reduced my ability to also maintain my "prevention" skills.
I buy that there may be some people who get one of these devices as their primary "safety plan" but this is hardly an inevitable outcome of purchasing and carrying one.
I will say that for some individuals having a PLB or SatMsg may embolden them. Rumi and Chief may in fact fall into that group of people.
I think to assert that applies equally to all people sounds a lot like rationalization.
E.g. some people can have a beer and enjoy relaxed conversation at a party. But other people drink the whole rack and end up hurling into the bushes.
Everyone needs to make their own choices and respect other people's choices whether they are the right choice for themselves.
I lead groups of people on backcountry ski trips, both day and multi-day trips. I find having a SatMsg to be a useful , but not intrusive tool.
In my own experience I've never been injured, nor has anyone in my group ever had injuries more serious that nasty blisters.
I have however encountered injured people while out in the mountains and rendered assistance-- including aborting my plans to run back many miles to summon a rescue party.
For this alone it's worth it to me -- to be able to quickly render assistance to some unfortunate person -- even if their mishap was due to a stupid decision on their part.
When I took the avi1 course several years ago we were told that the most common demographic of avalanche victims was “male, 19-25 and had at least avy1 training “.
Now there certainly are some possible variations in the vectors in this example but it also seems safe to say that testosterone plays a part.
If we can agree that testosterone is a valid indicator then some of you should take up bowling this winter.
there are a lot out there in the backcountry who have almost no experience or skills but depend on inReach or SPOT as a sort of Ace-In-The-Hole to keep themselves safe
Can you support this claim? I've never met such a person. Have you? It would seem odd that an inexperienced hiker would plop down $350 for a device and (in the case of SPOT or inReach) commit to a subscription. Every person I know with a sat device is a very experienced mountain traveler or a boater (PLB) or airplane pilot (PLB) or bicyclist (tracking only).
RumiDude wrote:
My experience has led me to continue to emphasize the prevention side of things.
Me too. And I carry a satellite communication device. The two are not mutually exclusive.
I don't get your point. Are you suggesting that carrying a sat device makes one less prepared? Wow, that's a reach
I will say that for some individuals having a PLB or SatMsg may embolden them. Rumi and Chief may in fact fall into that group of people.
I think to assert that applies equally to all people sounds a lot like rationalization.
What it means is that science tells us that much of the way we act is predictable. I don't think I have ever said that these things apply equally to everyone.
The truth is that most of us are subject to the same foibles as everyone else whether we admit it or not. Just like heuristic traps, the only way to really avoid them is to be aware of them in the first place. Even then they can be difficult to overcome. The one sure way to fall into the heuristic traps is to convince yourself they are either not true or that you would not fall into them.
RandyHiker wrote:
I lead groups of people on backcountry ski trips, both day and multi-day trips. I find having a SatMsg to be a useful , but not intrusive tool.
Several years ago I too led groups into the wilderness on week long trips. I led groups of high school aged teens. It was a huge challenge and at times a nerve-wracking task to be the leader. I certainly wasn't looking out for my own wilderness experience, just trying to bring them all back unharmed. I didn't have a sat-phone as they were prohibitively expensive, but I did use radios to to communicate with our nurse and other helper. If I had an inReach available back then, I would have taken it in a heartbeat. But I was responsible for those kids and I did not want to face their parents to tell bad news.
I might add that I had two sons I took backpacking as well. I can't say one way or the other if I would have taken an inReach on our trips if it had been available. I know I made each of them carry a map and compass and I taught them how to use them as we went. I also had an altimeter and showed them it's use. And I made each carry a knife, a whistle, and fire starting equipment with them at all times. I even made them carry the whistle on a lanyard around their neck when they slept, in case they had to get up to go pee. I tried my best to allow them as much independence as possible without them getting into too dangerous of situations.
I don't have a death wish. I don't want others to suffer for my decisions either. Within reason, I want my wilderness experience. I think my choice is within reason. And as I have said from my very first post on this subject, I don't begrudge another person's choice which might be different than mine.
Rumi
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
0
"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Some strange arguments on this thread, into which I won't enter.
However, I do have my own reasons for carrying a PLB, which I've done for 12 years (no, not the same PLB--I'm on my third--they get lighter and cheaper, so I've gotten new ones instead of having the batteries replaced). As I've gotten older, I've had more resistance from my grown children (somehow when they reach adulthood they seem to think they are the parents) to my hiking alone (which I prefer). The PLB keeps them off my back, so it's a psychological weight saving! I still go through the usual routine of carrying the "essentials," leaving an itinerary, etc. Should I become lost (unlikely, since I'm a careful navigator) or injured, I certainly will push the button.
I also am increasingly cautious as I get older, simply because I know that any injury at my age (82) will put me off the trail permanently. I'm almost to that stage anyway, but I sure don't want to hurry the day!
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view.--E.Abbey
0
May your trails be crooked, winding, lonesome, dangerous, leading to the most amazing view.--E.Abbey
For what it's worth, I have 30 years of hiking, climbing, Mtn biking, BC skiing, hunting, 4x4ing, etc. In the old days, we just told our families where we were going and when we'd be back. Maybe call collect from a payphone when things didn't go as planned. Times have certainly changed and I have carried an InReach SE for the last few years. Great advancement in safety and communication in my opinion. I may spring for a Mini and give the SE to our daughter as she's getting out on her own more.
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot vote in polls in this forum
Disclosure: As an Amazon Associate NWHikers.net earns from qualifying purchases when you use our link(s).
