Back seat driver, Monday night Quarterback...

[Chip]

When I hear people mention "making a fire" to survive I chuckle. These people should try doing this and see how it works.

I agree, everyone should try it. There are techniques that can be learned, like building a fire in snow on a wire mesh, but you're obviously not going to build a fire if there is no wood available. My idea of a fire or fires would be as a signal or as a psychological crutch if I was spending the night alone. I think this is pretty standard "survival" advice.
I wouldn't be depending on a fire to provide warmth or a fine meal of roasted pinecone and larvae.

 

[Tim Seaver]

How you are categorized depends on: what you know (skills), what you bring (gear), and whether or not you are willing to do something (motivation and decision making).

I would add to that: What kind of physical shape are you in?

From:Epidemiology of Wilderness Search and Rescue in New Hampshire

Conclusions.—The most prevalent demographic group requiring search-and-rescue efforts in New Hampshire was men aged 30 to 40 years who were hiking and who resided within a 4-hour drive of the area where they encountered difficulty. To decrease the number of people involved in most search and rescue, efforts should be focused on preventing wilderness users from getting lost and preventing lower extremity musculoskeletal injuries. Wilderness deaths may be prevented by focusing attention on cardiac health in wilderness users older than 50 years and on water safety.

I am not implying that you shouldn't carry some emergency gear when prudent, but the fact remains that "not having overnight gear" tends to be overblown as a factor as to the root causes leading to the majority of rescue operations in New England.

The danger I see is for people who are older, overweight, and out of shape making the assumption that carrying overnight gear "makes them safe", when the rescue statistics clearly refute that notion. A sleeping bag doesn't do much for a heart attack.

 

[Neil]

I always carry a Sven saw, birchbark and lots of matches and keep my eyes open for available wood as I move along. I'm pretty sure I could get a serious blaze happening most of the time but not if I was injured. The amount of wood required to keep a fire going all night is huge though. Also, the areas where there is plenty of good wood are not the sorts of places where one would be likely to get injured.

OTOH,

I heard a good story of a strong hiker who popped their Anterior Cruciate Ligament crossing the Boquet River in winter. Popped it just like that with no warning and collapsed right smack in the river. They got a feeble little fire going while the strongest member went for help. The SAR guys went in that same night with sleeping bags and got a real fire going and she was helicoptered out the next day.

One way to test your gear:
Put all your clothes and jackets etc. on and just sit there for a while not moving. Could you last a whole night like that? I know I couldn't. Makes you think maybe spending money on a down bag and carrying it and some sort of pad is cheap insurance.

 

[iceNsnow]

solo or not at all?

Given the fact that I usually can't find partners - this includes eliminating ones that are more of liability than enjoyable/capable, I hike solo.

I agree with Tim Seaver! Being fit is waaaaaaaay more important than carrying a ton of gear.

I travel light and fast, which I believe to be safer than slow and overloaded (some times part of the "overload" is "partners" ).


But I do enjoy company so if anyone wants to join me for some midweek treks, don't hesitate.

Inge

 

[Chip]

"The most common environmental factor reported as contributing to the need for search and rescue was darkness, which was cited in 26.8% of the cases."
Headlamp.

"The largest proportion of search and rescue was initiated for lost or missing persons."
Map, compass, GPS, trail.

"Cardiovascular causes accounted for 23.4% of the deaths"
Recent stress echocardiogram test.

"The most common type of injury reported in this series was a fracture, accounting for 33.7% of the injuries (Table 4 ). The next most common types of injuries were sprains and cuts/bruises, with each accounting for 18.2%."
I guess I can leave my helmet home.

"Seventy-three percent of the people requiring a search and rescue resided in New Hampshire or neighboring Massachusetts"
Live in Ct...

"The mean age of the people who died in the wilderness was 46.4 years"
Doh ! No hiking for me this year.

 

[John H Swanson]

I agree with Tim Seaver! Being fit is waaaaaaaay more important than carrying a ton of gear.

Inge

I agree that it is important to be fit. Granted someone going light is less likely to loose balance and fall and therefore light loads are more safe. But there is a probability that anyone can break a lower leg given the statistics. If you become disabled from a lower leg injury and can't move then your only hope is to have adequate insulation. Frankly a fleece layer ain't gonna cut it.

...and given the time for rescue, the whole problem will be solved in about 30 minutes.

Nothing personal Inge, or Tim, just responding to your point.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Just to clarify what I was attempting to convey:

I don't advocate not bringing enough gear to keep you warm in the event of an accident. I almost always carry my "Blizzard Bag" on any given hike.

What concerns me is the way that these type of discussions seem to invariably revolve around this misconception that having overnight gear is some kind of magic bullet against all situations, with little regard as to the underlying reasons search and rescue missions are needed in the first place.

 

[RoySwkr]

When I hear people mention "making a fire" to survive I chuckle. These people should try doing this and see how it works.

That is excellent advice . Back 40 years ago or so, when campers routinely built fires for breakfast and supper and often lunch as well, the typical hiker carried the necessary tools to build a fire and had experience doing so - hence could probably build a fire in an emergency. A day hiker who lets McDonalds do the cooking or a backpacker who uses a stove might not do so well. Hence, take John's advice literally and practice fire building if that is part of your emergency plan.

In high mountains of NH or the Dacks? You gotta be kidding! It's a solution that might work 5% of the time.

I can't speak for the Dacks but I'd say more like 95% of the White Mtns is suitable for fire building - you need to exclude above treeline areas and areas around popular campsites where everything burnable is long gone A lot of the hardwoods are birch which come with their own firestarters and the scrubby spruce will burn even when green or wet. Of course the percentage is route dependent and would be much less for Presidential traverses.

But firebuilding requires some level of mobility and would be hard to do with a broken leg or if passed out from a heart attack. It is more useful for a group where uninjured people do the gathering and people can take shifts sleeping and stoking the fire.

Recent stress echocardiogram test.

Several among my family/friends are cardiac patients and I once asked a lecturer why this was not part of a routine physical. He said this test identified those at highest risk of heart attack but could not rule out heart attacks among those who passed it, even a cardiac cath wouldn't do it. Another lecturer was even more negative - he said for younger healthy people a stress test gave too many false positives, and while the mortality risk of the diagnostic angioplasty that would follow is reasonable for someone with heart trouble it was (in his opinion) best to avoid that risk if you had no other symptoms.

 

[John H Swanson]

I can't speak for the Dacks but I'd say more like 95% of the White Mtns is suitable for fire building - you need to exclude above treeline areas and areas around popular campsites where everything burnable is long gone A lot of the hardwoods are birch which come with their own firestarters and the scrubby spruce will burn even when green or wet. Of course the percentage is route dependent and would be much less for Presidential traverses.
.

I assume when you mention "tools" your referring to a suport structure upon which to build the fire. Such as a wire mesh or garbage can lid. So we don't have to build a log support.

In un-snowy condition, I agree with your statement. My point was about winter. If I picture myself 1/2 way up the Signal ridge trail in winter. (or any other uphill trail since we tend to fall and get injured on inclines more than on the flat walk to the climb) I'm standing in the trail. The opening is about 2 feet wide. The surrounding terrain is pretty dense. All the trees are and branches are covered with snow. The ground has a 3 to 6 ft snow pack. The majority of the dead wood is undersnow and very little wood is dry.

And I need to collect adequate wood to build a fire, build it, and keep it going to an intensity to add warmth? Okay, I'm an eagle scout, and I've got more than my share of experience (where the entire objective of the camping day was to keep a fire going in the rain with wet wood) I think I could make a good effort at it. But frankly, under the conditions I describe, it would be a significant challange. ......one that I would only attempt with a good supply of dry gear and beer.

With limited mobility, it might not be possible to collect the wood needed. But, the act of attempting to build fire would probably do more to keep me warm then the actual fire. In my opinion, that effort would be better spent on self rescue assuming the injury allowed it. Another reason why my winter dayhike emergency gear does not include a sleeping bag but does include an expedition parka and primaloft pants. Try crawling to get below treeline while in a sleeping bag!

 

[C.Tracy]

I wonder what someone who lived 200 years ago would think ?

 

[John H Swanson]

I wonder what someone who lived 200 years ago would think ?

200 years ago, there wasn't the same number of people climbing mountains recreationally (at least in the US). Also, life expectance was much shorter.

But this does not answer your question which is a good one.

One of the big differences between 200 years ago and now is that now, many people in our population rely on other people to solve their problems. Car breaks down on the side of the roads and we call triple A. Cut our hand and we go to the emergency room. Back then, people were more accustomed to solving, or at least facing, their problems on their own or with the help of a few close people.

So, if someone is used to seeking assitance for dealing with all of their problems, then they might not want to hike alone where they would have to face their problems on their own. These same people probably would not feel comfortable going alone either.

By comparison, people from back then would probably think it was no big deal to address the problems. But they (as a group) chose to do much less hiking as the need to deal with their own problems took more time and required them to focus on the priorities......yack, yack yack....

 

[bill bowden]

200 years ago (literally)

Would be 1806. The majority of our population are farmers who rarely go more than a mile from home except for weekly visits to "town", perhaps 4-5 miles away.

Very few travel lengthy distances from "civilization" and when they do they take days/weeks of supplies and pack animals/canoes to support the need. And they, in spite of to me incredible toughness and courage, die young and at very high rates, worn out by their physical labors, poorly treated injuries.

200 years ago folks died at an early age and at high rates due to weather, injury, illness and accident. I suspect they would be awed and hgihly desirous to participate in our lives.

The relation to our voluntary short term hiking activities is unclear.

 

[Neil]

200 years ago our activities would have seemed completely useless at best. People had no use for wilderness which was seen as evil and anti-bible and they were in the process of taming it as fast as possible. Anyone who would have deliberately gone into the Mtns. would likely have been considered insane, dangerous and not to be associated with. (Like some of the members of this forum? ) It was thought that just going into the wilderness could make you lose your mind. Those early americans that "went Indian" were prime examples.
Not that anyone would have had the time for a Pemi traverse - they were working their fingers to the bone 16 hrs. a day and as was pointed out, dying young.

Right now, we are at a point in history in our part of the world where humans have never had it so good and pretty near everything we have and use we owe to someone else, at least I do. Like, I doubt I could make a computer out of forest litter and lynx innards.

 

[mavs00]

The danger I see is for people who are older, overweight, and out of shape making the assumption that carrying overnight gear "makes them safe", when the rescue statistics clearly refute that notion. A sleeping bag doesn't do much for a heart attack.

I certainly don't discount the fitness angle in all this.

I would just be careful citing the Natural (cardiac) death risk factor in all of this as being the GREATER risk. Much like the overblown "not having overnight gear" factor being overtyped, the Cardiac Death aspect of this is kinda a red herring as well.

We have to remember that cardiac disease/deaths are the result of a natural chronic disease process and are not DIRECTLY caused by hiking or other recreational activities (certainly exertion enters into it, but exertion enters into many activities we choose to do). I see MANY cases each year in which people suffer cardiac deaths on the toilet, mowing the lawn, jogging or even driving a car. It does not make those activities inherently dangerous to participate in, in and of themselves, it just happens to be the activity engaged in then the natural disease process play out its end game.

A full blown SAR rescue for a cardiac event or death are kinda like stat bubbles that can skew stats. (IMO only). Had those people choose to go for a jog or bike ride that morning instead of a hike, then they simply would have become bike or running EMS incident stats instead of SAR stats.

Not that they should be discounted altogether, just that we need to be careful not to make the assumption that fitness / cardiac death / SAR response correlate at all. At least not any more so than taking a crap and sudden cardiac deaths do.

This is my opinion anyway.

 

[Tom Rankin]

"The mean age of the people who died in the wilderness was 46.4 years"

Yikes, I'm almost exactly that age!

 

[Chip]

Yikes, I'm almost exactly that age!

me to, but after I thought about it I realized we're safe, it's everyone else who's younger and older that're dyin' !

 

[iceNsnow]

Mav-

I think when we speak of heart attacks or cardiac issues, as you say, we mean the no. one killer in the US. --that being the ones that can be avoided by fitness!

Did I misinterpret you?


sincerely,
Inge

 

[SAR-EMT40]

Not that they should be discounted altogether, just that we need to be careful not to make the assumption that fitness / cardiac death / SAR response correlate at all. At least not any more so than taking a crap and sudden cardiac deaths do.

Mavs is right. Half of all Sudden Cardiac Deaths happen to people with no history or risk factors. If that doesn't scare you, it should. Don't think that because your "in shape" and have no history you cannot die from sudden cardiac death. You are just as likely as anyone else, based on age groups, IIRC. If someone insists I can probably find that study to back up what I am saying.

Keith

 

[mavs00]

I think when we speak of heart attacks or cardiac issues, as you say, we mean the no. one killer in the US. --that being the ones that can be avoided by fitness!

Did I misinterpret you?


sincerely,
Inge

I hope not Inge . Actually Keith kinda gets to my point. I'm not sure that I would go so far as to say half, but it's my experience that genetic factors, age and other issues not related to "fitness" persay are extremely significant as well. Atherosclerotic Plaguing (with causes heart disease) is happening in all of us, it's part of the human condition. The rate and its effect on us depends on many factors, including cardiovascular fitness and genetics. Tragically, we probably all know someone that has passed or had a heart attack that upon reflection, we've said "wow, how can that be, they seemed so healthy". Thankfully, it not all that common, but at the same time, it not that uncommon either.

My point is, Tim (who I respect and admire a great deal) seemed to be implying (the way I read it) that fitness is a more important factor than preparedness or having the right gear when hiking because a higher percentage of SAR rescues involve cardiac issues than preparedness issues. My only point was just to caution that while on a superficial level it can appear that way, but thats possibly not wholly accurate.

Lots more people are hiking these days, including those that are retired, older. That may have an impact on %'s of at-risk people in a spot needing SAR assistance. Simply because more people are out there, its numbers. Those same people are at risk whether they are hiking or jogging or whatever.

I was just adding caution to the statistics that all, not discounting totally Tim's point

 

[Tim Seaver]

My point is, Tim (who I respect and admire a great deal) seemed to be implying (the way I read it) that fitness is a more important factor than preparedness or having the right gear when hiking because a higher percentage of SAR rescues involve cardiac issues than preparedness issues. My only point was just to caution that while on a superficial level it can appear that way, but thats possibly not wholly accurate.

You don't seem to be the only one taking my comments out of context or misinterpreting my point of view on this.

John Swanson proposed a list of qualifiers for categorizing people as an asset or liability:

How you are categorized depends on: what you know (skills), what you bring (gear), and whether or not you are willing to do something (motivation and decision making).

To which I replied:

I would add to that: What kind of physical shape are you in?

It was meant as an addition, not a substitution. It's entirely possible to both be physically fit AND to have sufficient equipment for most emergencies without carrying a 60 pound pack.

Having the right gear and being fit are both vital. I certainly don't run around the Whites with nothing more than a fleece jacket as emergency gear in the winter, despite the comments insinuating otherwise.

And I didn't mean it as an attack on the "cardiac crowd", who as Mavs correctly points out, nobody is excluded from by their fitness levels.
The heart attack/sleeping bag scenario was probably not the best way to convey my point.

Hope that clears things up.