3) You've pressed the button and start relaxing because you know help is on the way, but either the message doesn't go through or help takes longer than expected and you prematurely give up the will to stay alive or self-rescue.
Hitting the SOS button isn't like sending a text. With a PLB, the battery is good for 5 years; when you press the button, it will broadcast a distress signal on two bands for a minimum of 24 hours. Help can take longer than you expect, and if you're in a crevasse or something it's possible for it not to go out, but it's overwhelmingly likely that if you hit the button and the battery hasn't expired, the signal will go out.
I'd expect a rescue no earlier than the next day.
So I don't buy the assertion that the percentage of unprepared fools is greater now than before -- I do believe that there are just a lot more total people out hiking , so the number of incidents is of course higher.
Unless I'm missing something, the logic to support that is pretty simple. Overall numbers are growing, due to (inexperienced) newcomers outnumbering (experienced) out-goers, so average experience will be decreasing as long as that's the case. I suppose you could make the argument that young folks are hitting the ground running these days more so than in the past, but if my last few trail-hikes are any indication, that's not the case. I guess there's a whole spectrum of experience too, and people could gain it non-linearly. Hmm. Whatever. Get off my lawn!
RandyHiker wrote:
The first time I climbed Mt Si (on the "old trail" the only trail at the time) it was in Keds, cotton pants from J C Penney's and a T shirt and I climbed the Haystack as well.
I think the last time I climbed the Haystack was similar, except it was also wet.
Again I'm really just after things I may not have thought of re. side effects of PLB ownership.
An acquaintance was backpacking in Nevada. A thunderstorm came through, lightning struck a tree, it started smouldering. He hiked out in the night, several miles, found a ranger, and reported it. The ranger told him not to worry, it would burn out (trees were rarefied and spaced far enough for a fire not to spread). So he hiked back into camp in the dark, and watched the show with his wife.
Now a PLB has only one function, to call in the cavalry. But an InReach would have saved him a lot of night hiking. (I'm always worried about breaking an ankle hiking at night.)
With fires getting to be more of a problem here, a PLB would help you be found if you ever got trapped somewhere and smoke made it hard to search.
I don't buy the assertion that the percentage of unprepared fools is greater now than before
I recently retired from the Big Aeroplane Manufacturer here and started my new career as a Wilderness Ranger for the USFS and am spending a lot of trail time now- and I CAN attest that I've seen lots more folks on the trails who are NOT prepared-- substantially more than a decade or more ago.
Why? I think people have gotten used to their Cell phone as more than just a phone-- they now rely on it for a nav device, a flashlight, and a "help is needed" device. I see more people every day heading into the wilderness (e.g. Snow Lake Trail, Pratt Lake, Taylor River trail, Greenwater Trail) and other places where cell coverage is spotty and I don't think they have the sense to think about the repercussions of "what could happen". Example? I recently ran into a group of hikers heading out to Echo Lake with full packs and a good set of gear. On the same trip, I ran into a couple that was heading into the wilderness in the late afternoon with nothing on their persons other than cell phones in their hands and a single water bottle in the other, dressed in shorts and tank tops. They were at least 4 miles from the trailhead and all I could do is advise them to make sure they turned around in order to be able to get back to the trailhead before dark (they didn't...). The REAL problem that I'll bet they didn't realize was that the entire Greenwater valley is a cellphone hole-- NO service that I know of.
I will hike solo way into the backcountry (sometimes 8-9 miles from the nearest road), but with adequate gear to take care of myself and/or an injured person that I run across-- plus solid comms tethers: a Forest Service radio with repeater access and a Ham Radio that when I hit the right places also can reach out to repeaters. BUT I also have in my pack an old fashioned map and compass, 3 liters of water, a purifying system (tablets), a few packs of FD food, a space blanket, plus my 10 essentials-- I can spend the night in the woods without having to push the "panic button". And I will submit that's the real test of are you prepared for your adventure into the woods: If you can't stand an extended stay in the woods without having to call for help, you aren't prepared enough. And too many of the people I see can't pass that test
I've seen lots more folks on the trails who are NOT prepared-- substantially more than a decade or more ago.
I agree that the count of people getting into trouble has grown -- I just don't know that the percentage is really any different.
If you have any methodically collected data on the counts of people participating in hiking vs the number of number of people that have gotten into trouble -- please share that data.
I get a kick of out people arguing that they're immune to the same unconscious biases that affect everyone else. (Although without a doubt, with awareness and practice, we can overcome them to some extent, and most people here for sure have developed above-average outdoor skills.) But let's not go there again.
Sorry, but that was an invitation . FTR I don't think I'm in any way immune, but I do agree that awareness and practice can overcome the bias of "yeehaw, katie bar the door, I am free to take risk now!!" thanks to carrying an inReach - but sure there may still be some subtler influence on my risk profile. I'd wager that my risk profile, even if bumped up a little from some unconscious safety cushion my brain is believing in, is still clearly lower than some regular trip reporters on this site. My reasons for getting the device in fact related to having a somewhat conservative nature in this regard...
On a semi-separate note, I have one friend who was glad to have an inReach with her, which she used when a friend of hers took a bad fall on an off trail backpack in the Sierras (Trinity Alps I believe but am not sure). It was a group of three, and they were happy not to have to separate to two parties of one and have one have to hike way out to call for assistance. And unfortunately, as it turns out the victim died after about two hours - they were also both quite glad to have been able to stay with her in the meantime. Thanks to the communication features on the inReach, they knew that there were folks rallying to come to them, so no one felt the need to book back to the trailhead (a reasonable risk mitigation by neek with the PLB one-way SOS call). I have ski toured with this friend and find her to be quite cautious. I seriously doubt this doesn't carry over to her backpacking as well. This sounded like a freak fall - very unexpected in the moment. These women had done trips like this before any of them had an emergency satellite communications device. My friend gave Garmin a decent chunk of feedback on the usability of the device in this scenario (she has some product design experience and I hope they paid attention). But for sure she was very glad she had it with her on this fateful trip.
I get a kick of out people arguing that they're immune to the same unconscious biases that affect everyone else. (Although without a doubt, with awareness and practice, we can overcome them to some extent, and most people here for sure have developed above-average outdoor skills.) But let's not go there again.
Sorry, but that was an invitation . FTR I don't think I'm in any way immune, but I do agree that awareness and practice can overcome the bias of "yeehaw, katie bar the door, I am free to take risk now!!" thanks to carrying an inReach - but sure there may still be some subtler influence on my risk profile. I'd wager that my risk profile, even if bumped up a little from some unconscious safety cushion my brain is believing in, is still clearly lower than some regular trip reporters on this site. My reasons for getting the device in fact related to having a somewhat conservative nature in this regard...
But of course the whole idea that there is a subconscious influence is that it is almost impossible to see it in oneself without outside help. Even then it is easy to forget and slip back within the subconscious influences. Often these are merely described as statistically significant and this is true for an overall population and not necessarily individuals. But sometimes the difference amounts to a huge influence.
An example is the general idea that people will choose the default over the option. For instance some countries have almost 98% participation in people being organ donors and others struggle to reach 25% even after extensive campaigns to raise the percentage. They looked at all sorts of possible reasons only to realize the difference was in how the program was presented. In the nations with 90% plus organ donor participation, the default at the license bureau was that of organ donor. If you wanted to not participate you had to opt out of the default. The nations with low participation were just the opposite, the default was not in the organ donor program and if you wanted to participate you had to opt in. This held true regardless of religious, educational,, economic, and cultural background. It is just much easier to go with the default than to take the option. There are many more examples of similar situations.
Again, it doesn't mean any particular individual will be radically changed by any particular situation, but we are all affected by subconscious brain activity that we have no access to at all.
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."
Yeah, I get that unconscious bias is, well unconscious. Of course. I think I allowed for that possibility in the comment of mine that you quoted, RD. And yes, perhaps the influence is much larger on me than I think. But I don't think that's the case based on reviewing my decisions after the fact and also having talked to wife and friends about what I'm up to. But yeah sure it's likely nonzero.
There is definitely a huge upsurge in people getting out these days. At least around Seattle. We have talked about it on this site and I have heard this from the Forest Service through Seattle Mountain Rescue (although I do not know the exact source of that data).
Anecdotally, I get out most weekends and have been doing this around Seattle for 30 years. I have noticed a huge increase in cars at trailheads year round, people on the trails, people at lakes and view points and an increase in SMR missions. What my casual observation indicates to me is that, "it is an overall rise in numbers without an increase in the percentage of people having accidents." In other words, I believe we are seeing an increase in poorly prepared hikers that reflect the rise in the total number going out. This is just my observation and is not based on real data.
Is this because there are more experienced hikers suddenly having the time time to get out such as baby boomers retiring? Is it based on baby boomers' kids coming of the age where they are getting out on their own now (20 +)? This is true of my kids. Or does this influx reflect the rise in H1C? Perhaps these people are just great walkers (as are most outside the US) but unaware of the environmental hazards of the NW. So most are able to walk on by without issue but if there is an issue they are not prepared. Or is it a combination of all of these?
I suspect it is a combination.
Now add to that the fact that I get off trail a lot and see the same percentage increase in people off trail. In other words, people like me who are more experienced are venturing off trail. And I can say that when I do see someone at the base of the north face of Chair pk or out on a ridge connecting one trail with another, they have decent size packs and well worn outdoor clothing.
So I really doubt that electronic devices are having a meaningful impact on the behavior of the general population that is getting out.
Does it affect my behavior? I know that if I get hurt out there I can push the panic button and the message "will probably" get through. I do not think of it as a guarantee. So far I have not used the panic button. Not once. I would happily use it if I came across anyone who was injured AND agreed that they needed SAR assistance. But this has not happened in the years I have had a SPOT.
Being older I know that if I get injured it will take longer to recover to 100%. So I am more conservative than was before I had a SPOT. Most older people are aware of this effect and so I doubt that "time to rescue" has as much effect on their behavior as it 'might' on a younger person.
So there are a lot of considerations that would make this data, if it existed somewhere, pretty difficult to use and draw a meaningful conclusion from.
The computer age is upon us. It has a lot of effects both positive and negative. Regardless, all we can do is run with it unless you are able to retire and effectively bury your head in the sand. But why would you not take advantage of the positive aspects?
Yes, I've become a bit more conservative as I'm aging, for various reasons including realizing I'm not as quick to bounce back from injuries. I suppose it's possible that my recent acquisition of an inReach device will lead me to slow that rate of "dialing it back" but so far my observation of my own choices is that it has certainly not reversed the trend - at most it may *possibly* have slowed it just a bit as compared to the choices I might otherwise make w/o the device. but for sure, I still very much don't want to get hurt!!
On one of my guided ski touring trips in BC, where at the start of the week the guide(s) will set up a somewhat realistic "you've come upon another group with multiple avalanche burials" scenario, one of the guides (who had guided our group for a week two years prior) told us that based on what he'd seen of us, this was the more likely scenario for our crew than having our own members buried (though of course the latter is always possible). I hope that this is the same with my satellite comms device - that if I need to use it in an emergency, it will be to help out another unfortunate party I come across. But based on my friend's unfortunate experience, as related a few posts back, I carry it not only to keep my wife from worrying, but just in case something happens to me... It's become a relatively affordable bit of extra insurance (both $ and weight wise), atop the more primary efforts to mitigate risks in the first place.
All that said, I make no proclamations about what anyone else should or shouldn't carry. And even if these devices do have *some* negative effects on safety, my bet is that the net from them is positive across the population of users.
"...if these devices do have *some* negative effects on safety, my bet is that the net from them is positive across the population of users."
I would agree with you on that point in regard to the PLB/inReach/SPOT devices.
It's the effect of cellular phones (which are now ubiquitous) that causes me to wonder about whether there is a higher percentage of users taking greater risks and/or venturing out unprepared.
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
0
"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach.
I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
However, I will add that if I mainly hiked solo into remote and obscure places, I might consider carrying one.
If you aren't carrying a Spot/PLB/InReach because you expect that other people will be around, then I suppose the logical follow-up question is whether if, offered help from someone carrying such a device, you would accept it.
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).
. FTR I don't think I'm in any way immune, but I do agree that awareness and practice can overcome the bias of "yeehaw, katie bar the door, I am free to take risk now!!" thanks to carrying an inReach - but sure there may still be some subtler influence on my risk profile. I'd wager that my risk profile, even if bumped up a little from some unconscious safety cushion my brain is believing in, is still clearly lower than some regular trip reporters on this site. My reasons for getting the device in fact related to having a somewhat conservative nature in this regard...
On a semi-separate note, I have one friend who was glad to have an inReach with her, which she used when a friend of hers took a bad fall on an off trail backpack in the Sierras (Trinity Alps I believe but am not sure). It was a group of three, and they were happy not to have to separate to two parties of one and have one have to hike way out to call for assistance. And unfortunately, as it turns out the victim died after about two hours - they were also both quite glad to have been able to stay with her in the meantime. Thanks to the communication features on the inReach, they knew that there were folks rallying to come to them, so no one felt the need to book back to the trailhead (a reasonable risk mitigation by neek with the PLB one-way SOS call). I have ski toured with this friend and find her to be quite cautious. I seriously doubt this doesn't carry over to her backpacking as well. This sounded like a freak fall - very unexpected in the moment. These women had done trips like this before any of them had an emergency satellite communications device. My friend gave Garmin a decent chunk of feedback on the usability of the device in this scenario (she has some product design experience and I hope they paid attention). But for sure she was very glad she had it with her on this fateful trip.
