Climbing/hiking with Mobile Devices – Should It Be Required?

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Good article. Outlines the options and provides intelligent analysis. A nice summary of why SAR professionals are opposed to requiring these devices, and why the legislation has never gotten off the ground.
 
All I could think of at the end of this article is "what a mess." :cool:
(That said the article has lots of info and is very well written.)

We have multiple devices each one with pros and cons. Take your pick!
Emergency gear is variable depending on......??????
More risk will be taken by some. Agreed. That is a given.
We have all read the reports of hikers who think they can hike into the sunset, ignoring the foul weather predictions, and carrying nothing more than a cell phone. These are the " truly clueless optimists." We also have the serious risk takers like a good friend of mine. Each day he survives is a "triumph over death". Device or no device, he will always be a thrill seeking addict. And we cannot forget all those in between, some who leave the pack in the col, and some who do not.

Emergency devices will increase the cost of rescue.
It's already strained to near collapse and to my knowledge they still don't have a solution for how to fix this problem.

Speaking only for myself I like the Fast Find! Yes indeed...please find me FAST! That PLB has a very "positive attitude"! :) It's very name would boost my morale if I ever found myself in need of it.
I doubt it would increase the chances of my taking unnecessary risks because spending night after night lost in the woods is NOT my idea of a good time. Now if I slip, fall, and break a vital hiking body part, please, please "find me FAST"! I will even pay extra!!! :D
 
Last edited:
I don't think it should ever be required. People simply need to come to terms with the fact that entering the wilderness carries more inherent risk than a trip to the grocery store, and it seems that a large segment of society isn't really comfortable with that reality.

If somebody goes into the mountains, they should be prepared. Either for self-rescue or for the possibility that they may not return. Far too many people use things like cell phones or SPOTs as safety nets when a bit of common sense and know-how would serve them (and potential SAR) much better. If you don't get yourself into trouble in the first place, nobody needs to get you out of it. Granted, freak accidents do happen, but how many UL stories are about unavoidable accidents versus people who simply made poor choices?

I don't even own a cell phone and I have no intention of ever doing so. I leave my itinerary with somebody when I leave, but I also know that in all likelihood it'd be 3 or 4 days before they reported me as missing. When I go out to the middle of nowhere, I go prepared. Either to be stuck out there for a while (knife/fire/compass/clothes/etc) or to not come back at all. I'm comfortable with the risks.

I think the issue is less about technology and more about attitude. It seems a lot of people treat the wilderness as an amusement park rather than something worthy of respect that is more than capable of killing them. A shift in attitude would mean fewer accidents, less SAR, and fewer SAR-related problems. The technology, on the other hand, seems to get people into as much trouble as it gets them out of. Making such devices mandatory would just be putting a bandaid on a much bigger problem.
 
New technology frequently produces much angst, with ardent proponents and opponents arguing about what's best for the private and public good. Remember cell phones? GPS's?

Eventually the dust will settle and these devices (SPOT, PLB'S, etc) will occupy a niche which is no longer controversial.

It's not like the PLB's and SPOT's are going to be taken off the market. So, rather than debate their benefit, it might be more productive to debate their appropriate niche.

Or not. Some people just like to slug it out over the best brand of bubble gum and other essential questions.
 
Will they be checking everyone at the trailhead for the proper mobile device in that location and spare batteries or that they are fully charged before you start? I'm not carrying a spare battery for my BB, is anyone else? So thin they'd probably brake in the pack any way. Is that a phone for everyone in the party? Can't be just one, what if that person falls off a cliff, in a crevasse or is lost in an avalanche. My kids don't have one yet (10 & 7, some of her friends have them. Boy guess I need a new avatar!)

Far more people die in Drunk driving accidents but we haven't made locking ignition switches with a lock & breathalyser mandatory on cars yet, In most states you need several convictions first & some people have disabled them.

True, a hiking bbs discusses hiking related subjects but boy, the Government has bigger things to fix. Of course this, like steroids in baseball, this would be easier to talk about in congress than 9%+ unemployment.

Wait we'll give them all jobs checking phones at trailheads, we'll just have to triple the USFS budget increase & the states budgets since not all trails are in the National Forest or National Park system.
 
Last edited:
<meta comment>
Much of the pressure to require these mobile devices comes from non-hikers/climbers. As such, they are unlikely to know much about the trade-offs or the effectiveness. Requiring these devices might seem to them to be a simple "solution" for all these rescues.

The users of this BBS generally have a rather different background...
</meta comment>

Doug
 
This whole topic bothers me. For 25+ years, I've been making sure I'm self-sufficient and carry what I need in the event of an emergency/injury. Plus, I look at the weather and make sure I'm comfortable with what I'm dealing with it. Then I read this article suggesting I should carry a cell phone as a crutch? :eek: Part of the whole hiking thing is the adventure, taking calculated risks, the beauty, exercise, etc. If something happens to me, so be it...I calculate the risks and decide to go for it. If something happens to me I don't expect some sort of government regulation to make up for my own decision...Live free or die!
 
Soon we will not have to question ourselves about this, because all legal citizens will have a chip, a phone, a GPS and a hard drive implanted inside their body (and a headlamp maybe ?) :eek:

If I'm still alive when that happen, I'll probably escape in the Northern Territories and die there, nostalgic about the good old VFTT days :rolleyes:

Live free or die (I love NH !)
 
"Climbing/hiking with Mobile Devices – Should It Be Required?"

Of course they should be required, how else you going to get text messages or update facebook status.
 
I'm with Timmus on this...ID cards are coming, chips are already being put in our pets...look up for yourself about ID cards in India.

Cell phones, GPS, SPOTs, and PLBs have a place, but required gear? Not for me.

My wife gets an agenda, a time I'll call by, and emergency numbers to call if I don't call. I haven't missed the time yet (and I pray I never do) but if I ever did, I would hope it would be for a reason serious enough that I wouldn't be too embarrassed if the story was printed.
 
In the year 2525.

Excuse the thread drift but Timmus can see into the future and she shared what she saw with me over a beer last night. This is what she sees as coming to a planet near you.

In the year 2525 today's wilderness zones will be uninhabited and it will be illegal to enter them. There will be 25 billion people living on Earth and every ecological and climatological problem will have been solved through genetically designed organisms and nanotechnological advances. Most people won't be allowed the privilege of working and will live in high-rise boxes to a prescribed age of 150. Their persons will be loaded with techno-sensors, implanted there by the Central Organizing Committee of Galactic 5. :)

Through the use of ultra powerful computers, full-form nano-suits, sophisticated multi-axial segmental treadmills, helmets with hundreds of nano-speakers and projectors in them people will enter into special climate controlled rooms, to go hiking with their on-line friends from all over the world and from stations out in space.

The experiences we currently live as hikers and climbers will be perfectly replicated by the future technology. You pop in a data cube, suit-up, give a verbal command to your computer and right away, you and your friends will be hiking.

Other people will have different programs (organic gardening, quilting, paleontology, midwifery, Viking exploration, scuba diving - you name it there will be tens of thousands) and these virt-real games will be all that stands between insanity through boredom and a full, enriching life.

What will be cool is that those who are into hiking will have on-line forums similar to this one and all of our discussions here with any accompanying photographs will have been carefully preserved. The people of the future, in order to escape boredom, will engage in on-line meta debates about our current debates. Because they will be trapped in their living spaces, hundreds of stories high in "neighbourhoods" with thousands of high-rise units packed in tightly, these virt-real and on-line forums are all they will have to help them grind out their dreary existences.

Re: the on-line forums of the future, Thread topics will include:

Does gps belong in version Virt-Real ADK-762.b uprade 7 or not?

Should climate control be the same for all members on a hike?

How much computing power will I need to attend a virt-gathering?

Were cen-21 hikers taking foolish risks in going buswhacking solo?

Virtual herdpaths, should the offenders be banned from cyber-space?

Virtual flagging, should the offenders be kicked out of the galaxy?

Why use a compass if when you are lost you need only issue a verbal command to exit your hike?

And so on.
 
This reminds me of a story from earlier this year-
2 young girls (tweens) in Australia got lost and got stuck in a big drainage pipe of some kind. They had a cell phone with them. Instead of calling EMS to be rescued, they spent the time before they were found updating their Facebook pages to let their friends know they were lost. One of them then called the rescue squad.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/09/07/2678945.htm

Back to the big question-here's what I'm wondering-
If radios, phones, PLBs, etc. encourage risk, perhaps it is also true that for experienced hiker or climbers, they know that being able to call for a rescue may not be enough, as in the case of the Mt. Hood climbers, and therefore, they won't take the added risk, even with a PLB or SPOT or cel phone.

I think those taking the added risk are more likely less experienced climbers and hikers who might take those risks anyway because they don't know any better in the first place.

The other thing to consider is that if people are going to get into trouble and a rescue is initiated, wouldn't it be better to be sooner than later. which a communicator of some kind would initiate. Better to find someone alive and perhaps slightly injured sooner than dead or severely injured due to exposure later?
 
Last edited:
I think those taking the added risk are more likely less experienced climbers and hikers who might take those risks anyway because they don't know any better in the first place.
Risk is probabilistic. Carrying a device which can be used to call in a rescue reduces the risk, so to bring the overall perceived risk back to the the "standard level", one must increase the risk-level of one's activities.

Just like seat belts...

Doug
 
Some cynics have posited the idea that instead of seatbelts or airbags, the way to reduce accidents is to mount an extremely sharp spear tip or similar pointed blade on the steering wheel pointed at the driver.

Using this theory, any communication device should be banned. That way hikers will know they are on their own and will be more careful. An interesting alternative.
 
It seems to me more people are going out with cell phones and GPS over their ability/comfort level and just call SAR when they realize it.
 
There is a faulty assumption in the equation Brian sets out-not by him, but by those who assume that having a phone or GPS will save them. First of all, in places like Yosemite, there isn't any coverage in most of the park unless you have a Satphone or real shortwave radio (something more sophisticated than the FRS walkies).

Second, as I mentioned earlier, SAR may not be able to get to you for days because of bad weather or because they can't find you. A GPS will help you tell them where you are if using a phone and some phones have GPS in them, or a PLB will do the same thing, but even then, if you are snowed in, they will have the same problem you did.

It might be helpful for parks to add something to the literature they hand you at the gate that says "don't expect your phone to work here, don't rely on it to be rescued and if you don't know how to navigate in the backcountry, don't wander off the trails." Not a cure all, but it might get a few people to think.

Recently an experienced hiker was rescued in Joshua Tree, out in the desert, after 6 days in scorching weather when he wandered off the trail and got lost. He was spotted by a helo. A GPSr might have prevented this if had the route on it and could have used it to backtrack.
 
Over the years people in general have gotten bolder in all sport and other outdoor activities.

I can recall skiing when fatalities were rare. Then came the day when Killington started handing out warnings when you purchased your ski pass. It read something like ..."Six have died on the mountain this season . It could happen to you. Ski with care, etc." I saw a trail map recently that had warnings printed on all novice terrain trails "Ski fast, lose your pass!" It seems that greater numbers have lost their common sense. The days are gone when most had enough common sense that if you were a member of the "Ski to Die Club", you should not practice your super skills on slopes where novices are struggling to stay erect on their skis. You knew that trees were deadly obstacles and you kept your distance.

Kids today don't "go out to play" they are for the most part enrolled in competitive sports. They are taught from an early age to keep on pushing.
Go harder, go faster.... Perhaps winning all the gold medals should be our goal, rather that passing the SAT's. We keep dumbing down and revving up! Perhaps we are building "superman" to save the schools!

For some "clueless optimists", a walk in the woods pales by comparison to other activities they may or may not be engaged in. They perceive absolutely no risk. The extreme athlete goes in search of greater challenges, and some of us feel life is passing us by and we join their ranks.

Warren Miller and many of the Banff films feature extreme athletes. The day came when I thought I had not had a good day if I did not ski all diamonds or climb increasingly difficult peaks.

At one time I don't think it was as "cool" to risk your life over and over again but "extreme" is a way of life now". We have gym's to help us improve our physical prowess so we can take on daring adventures. Many do this with great care but risk is ever present. One can be extreme and safe all at the same time. We need the devices, the Medivac heli's, and the SAR people on standby. They are the safety net for the games we play. We will most likely have to find a way to reimburse them for their services. PLB's, cell phones, sat phones, are here to stay.

I reflected on all this yesterday when I was out with Bernie at a local park. They had set up a "race" course for very young children to compete in a bike race. Four were entered and it was obvious from the get go who the winner was. I felt very bad for the last little guy who was struggling to keep up. They were being imprinted with the mindset that they must push harder and faster so they can beat little Johnie in the next race. Or they can just go home and be told by parents that they are not trying hard enough. We can't deny that this does happen. I wondered as I walked away. Wouldn't it be more fun to just go out all together as a family, perhaps with a few friends and bike together on a rail trail.
You will still carry your cell phone just in case.

Yes...we do need all the devices We will take more risks and our youth will perpetuate this because we are teaching them it's way cool. We are addicted to "thrills". It seems that what was rare at one time is fast becoming the way of life today. It will never go back to the way it was, so I think we should perfect our PLB's and microchips because they could save our thrill seeking "bacon".

Is it a bad thing? Not necessarily. We are changing and I suspect we will have an even greater need for these devices.

(Now I am really late for knitting class!!! :D)
 
Last edited:
Top