Hiker Rescue in the Pemi

[Stan]

Excuse me? All SPOT owners are boneheads?

Good point and danger of name calling and generalizations.

The only SPOT owners I know are people who actually go into remote and relatively unsupported environments ... and who'd probably be embarrassed if they couldn't find their way out of the Pemi without technology of the sort.

 

[jfb]

Having the appropriate gear is one thing. Knowing how to use it in variable and difficult conditions is another. You could walk into any climbing store, grab a clerk and say, suit me up for Mt. Washington in the winter. Walk out of the store with the best gear and clothes you could buy. But if you've never winter hiked before, all that gear ain't going to make it a safe climb.

Good point, I often forget that some people might do things that I wouldn't. In many cases, I learned the hard way and now it's their turn. Anyways, maybe he did have the right gear in his pack but was hiking in only a base layer and hardshell. The NPHR article makes it sound like he stopped and pitched his tent because the river was too high to cross safely.

 

[Snowflea]

What I should have mentioned in my previous post is the fact that I am not the kind of person who makes it a habit of "preaching" to people I meet on the trail. It just seems condescending and patronizing, and I rarely say anything unless I feel really uneasy about a situation. This was a friendly encounter, and with the impending forecast, we were genuinely worried for this man.

All this talk of "proper gear"... I have been hiking, backpacking, skiing, running, etc., etc., for almost 30 years, and I have found NOTHING that is truly waterproof, at least not for long. A rubber raincoat perhaps, but you'd better not sweat! Cold rain is THE worst--I refer to it as Death Weather--but perhaps one has to experience it before she/he GETS it. The weather was not a fluke. Cold continuous rain on the 22nd was forecasted for days.

Post #39: I think the route that he was unfamiliar with was the Black Pond BW, not a trail or described in the AMC guide, and not his intended route, but their route as they related it to him?

and

Post #40: He knew the trails he wanted to use but when advised of the problem crossings and the BP bushwhack was discussed he did not know about it. Being familiar with bushwhacks is probably not very common to hikers outside of those who belong to forums like VFTT (i.e. experienced hikers).

The bushwhack routes to avoid the big river crossings ARE, in fact, mentioned in the White Mountain Guide and have been mentioned going back, in my collection, to the 24th (1987) edition, Gene Daniell admittedly being a bit more wordy than Steve Smith. In the current 29th edition, it is mentioned on page 203, in the Lincoln Brook Trail description.

Post #20: I'm curious, why would the SPOT add to the uneasiness you felt?

Sierra and Nartreb pretty much summed it up in Posts #21 and 29. My intent was not to get into a pro-con debate on the merits of SPOT/PLB devices. That topic is worthy of a separate thread. But for further reading on point, Backwoods Ethics and Wilderness Ethics by the Watermans (dated but new additions coming soon!) provide some food for thought. As well, I ran across this interesting article http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2015/aug/20/adventure-spot-gps-safety-hiking which provides some thoughtful commentary.)

 

[1SlowHiker]

OT but on the SPOT issue. Can you imagine the time, money, and heartaches that would have been saved, if Inchworm had carried a SPOT and sent a signal (not 911) whenever she left the actual trail? Something may have happened that would have prevented actually hitting the 911 or SOS button but at least they may have found her body without the massive repeated search attempts. When I hike (almost always solo) I try to send a quick signal home every 2-4 hrs when on a planned trail depending on the area, as well as at trailheads and objectives, and maybe every 30 minutes on a BW. My biggest love of my SPOT is that since getting it, my wife does not protest my solo hikes quit as much . In fact it was a gift from her. .

 

[DayTrip]

The bushwhack routes to avoid the big river crossings ARE, in fact, mentioned in the White Mountain Guide and have been mentioned going back, in my collection, to the 24th (1987) edition, Gene Daniell admittedly being a bit more wordy than Steve Smith. In the current 29th edition, it is mentioned on page 203, in the Lincoln Brook Trail description.

I'm aware of that. My only point was that most hikers are not really sure of what a "herdpath" or "bushwhack" really means and/or are not comfortable going "off trail". The last time I did the North Twin Trail at least a half dozen of the people on it had no idea about the herd path skipping the first two crossings, and that is well documented in the AMC Guide. I explained it to one couple looking anxiously at the first crossing as I went by (and they could have followed me on it as I went up it) but instead they opted for wet shoes and a crossing. I'd go so far as to say a significant minority of hikers I encounter aren't even 100% sure what trail they are on or where they are on the map when they have one. These people are certainly not plunging out into the woods hoping to get from Point A to Point B relying on navigational skills.

 

[DayTrip]

OT but on the SPOT issue. Can you imagine the time, money, and heartaches that would have been saved, if Inchworm had carried a SPOT and sent a signal (not 911) whenever she left the actual trail? Something may have happened that would have prevented actually hitting the 911 or SOS button but at least they may have found her body without the massive repeated search attempts. When I hike (almost always solo) I try to send a quick signal home every 2-4 hrs when on a planned trail depending on the area, as well as at trailheads and objectives, and maybe every 30 minutes on a BW. My biggest love of my SPOT is that since getting it, my wife does not protest my solo hikes quit as much . In fact it was a gift from her. .

Same reason I have mine. The regular updates are reassuring, especially if you are running behind your originally forecast "out of woods" time. I gave my wife quite a scare last year coming out of the woods 2 hours behind schedule and I had no way to get in touch with her until I was driving down the Kanc into Lincoln. That's what I bought my SPOT for. In my opinion it is way too unreliable to count on as an emergency device. I regularly have issues with the SPOT not sending the texts. For what I do it doesn't matter.

 

[Remix]

Haha no judging here. I tend to avoid getting into situations where i have to rely on an electronic device to save my butt. It didnt help Kate Matrasova any.

FYI, long ago, it was suggested that Kate's PLB is older technology which even under ideal conditions can't pinpoint below a circle with a diameter of kilometers. It was designed for maritime use, where an area that large could be easily searched. It is outfitted with a localizer transmitter that works well in the open ocean but terribly in mountain terrain due to radio wave reflections.

I would like to pose the following questions (no response necessary--just for thought. Also, if I could express a verbal tone, it would not be cynical/critical)

1. Is it in the realm of possibility that you will suffer an injury and not be able to self rescue?
2. Is it in the realm of possibility that you may encounter another hiker with a serious medical condition that needs immediate attention?
3. Do rescuers depend on any electronics (eg handheld transmitters or gps) to reduce risk and enhance success?
3. Does it matter if you get seriously injured in the woods or outside of the woods?
4. If #3 is no, are you under any impression that your life and well-being is independent of electronic devices providing anything from smoke detection to weather forecasts or stream volumes, or emergency service communications?

I understand there is a luddite belief that anything with batteries in the woods is bad. But I don't think the belief can survive a little logic. So instead, we constantly here oblique arguments that battery powered things make people careless, or that they unprepared, or that they actually want to get lost at night or suffer an ankle injury because they have a cell phone.

 

[egilbe]

Boneheads in regards to someone that replaces common sense with a rescue locator beacons. Someone who feels they have that get out of jail free card so they can take foolish risks, like Kate did. She paid the ultimate price and her beacon didn't help her at all, but she activated it when she was already beyond saving.

This gentleman probably would not have gone into the Pemi without a PLB, because, apparently, he was lacking the requisite experience to not have to rely on it. Probably a good thing he had it, but I wonder why he couldnt warm himself up?

 

[Stan]

FYI, long ago, it was suggested that Kate's PLB is older technology which even under ideal conditions can't pinpoint below a circle with a diameter of kilometers. It was designed for maritime use, where an area that large could be easily searched. It is outfitted with a localizer transmitter that works well in the open ocean but terribly in mountain terrain due to radio wave reflections.

I would like to pose the following questions (no response necessary--just for thought. Also, if I could express a verbal tone, it would not be cynical/critical)

1. Is it in the realm of possibility that you will suffer an injury and not be able to self rescue?
2. Is it in the realm of possibility that you may encounter another hiker with a serious medical condition that needs immediate attention?
3. Do rescuers depend on any electronics (eg handheld transmitters or gps) to reduce risk and enhance success?
3. Does it matter if you get seriously injured in the woods or outside of the woods?
4. If #3 is no, are you under any impression that your life and well-being is independent of electronic devices providing anything from smoke detection to weather forecasts or stream volumes, or emergency service communications?

I understand there is a luddite belief that anything with batteries in the woods is bad. But I don't think the belief can survive a little logic. So instead, we constantly here oblique arguments that battery powered things make people careless.

1. Yes. There is irony in the fact that as we get more experienced we also get older so even though the experience will help us avoid and deal with incidents, the older we are the less forgiving those incidents can be.

2. Yes. Which is why I periodically take first aid courses, usually wilderness first aid, and carry more "emergency/medical" items than I might need for myself.

3. I assume they do since they need the precision for better coordination and faster responses than most of us need on a typical hike. I would assume most SAR people are state of the art in equipment and training for theirs is often the riskiest of hikes.

3. Yes. That is why wilderness first aid differs from first aid; the former helps prepare to evacuate or deal with the situation for a potentially long time before help arrives, the latter anticipates a prompt response by better equipped and trained personnel.

4. My answer to 3. was "yes" but I still think much of my hiking/bushwhacking need not involve electronic gear as 1) my training and experience predates much of today's navigational technology and is a source of accomplishent for me, 2) my enjoyment of the outdoors relies more on my close connection with my surroundings than with electronics (though I respect that others enjoy the technology and others enjoy both quite well).

As for the "luddite" thing, I think that's a bit disparaging of others whose threshold of enjoyment may differ from yours. I embrace technology when and as appropriate for me and the level of challenge I am anticipating. I accept that everything comes with some risk but even the best of technology can't assure safety, it just improves the odds (or makes them worse if one is not prepared to deal with the failure of technology) and we all can make that calculation for ourselves.

 

[cushetunk]

I understand there is a luddite belief that anything with batteries in the woods is bad. But I don't think the belief can survive a little logic.

On that note, I don't think that the practice of hiking mountains - let alone in the dead of winter - can survive a little logic.

 

[Remix]

As for the "luddite" thing, I think that's a bit disparaging of others whose threshold of enjoyment may differ from yours. I embrace technology when and as appropriate for me and the level of challenge I am anticipating. I accept that everything comes with some risk but even the best of technology can't assure safety, it just improves the odds (or makes them worse if one is not prepared to deal with the failure of technology) and we all can make that calculation for ourselves.

I did not mean to make "Luddite" disparaging to you. By things with batteries, I meant cell phones, gps, and now beacons.

On this board and more than half my hikes, I see some people gently (or not so gently) disparaging those with a GPS or SPOT. I refer to these people as luddites. I wanted to treat the debate with logic, not emotion.

Here, I see the word "bonehead and SPOT".
Here I see the words "SPOT coupled with his naivite. (sp?)".
Here I see the assumption that people with a GPS do not know how to use a compass and are putting their lives and rescuers' lives at risk.
Here (and other places) I see absolutely incredible,illogical speculation that people wanted to suffer the anxiety of being lost in the woods, or wanted to trip and injure themselves (with a big medical bill) because they knew they had a cell phone or beacon to make it all better.

I cannot argue against any individual's preference for using technology or not. I could not see myself zipping around the Adirondacks on snowmobile or up and down Lake Champlain with a powerboat, for instance. I prefer simpler means like skiing or kayaking or sailing. I'm not going to lump a family or fisherman into the "bonehead" category.

However, when I feel people are making really specious arguments to support their preferences, I don't mind taking up the debate.

Peace

 

[TJsName]

I've mentioned this in other threads I'm sure, but it seems arbitrary to me look at the availability of technology split it up by electronic and non-electronic. It's all gear/tools, and they all have pros and cons. People make many choices along a series of spectra - shoes/boots, cotton/synthetic, shorts/pants, microspikes/crampons, down/fleece, etc/etc. The choice to use gear that makes a journey easier does seem likely (to me) to make someone more apt to do that activity. Demonizing that person/gear as an enabling device is akin to promoting abstinence only 'education'.

The argument appears to come down to: do these devices save more 'searches' than they cause 'needless rescues'? The prevalence of the devices is increasing significantly, so I'm sure some studies will be done (or perhaps have been already). It's hard to have a strong opinion without more facts, but the anecdotal evidence I see seems to support the positive attributes of the technology (a guy suffering from hypothermia was rescued by a couple rangers with no searching), where as the negatives seem more hypothetical (some one might go do something they normally wouldn't because they have a 'help' button). I like hearing the opinions of people that actually do S&R to understand their thoughts on it - it's an interesting debate. I wonder if we'll be at a point down the line when people consider not bringing one to be reckless. Maybe NH will only charge for searches, but not rescues?

 

[DougPaul]

I've mentioned this in other threads I'm sure, but it seems arbitrary to me look at the availability of technology split it up by electronic and non-electronic. It's all gear/tools, and they all have pros and cons. People make many choices along a series of spectra - shoes/boots, cotton/synthetic, shorts/pants, microspikes/crampons, down/fleece, etc/etc. The choice to use gear that makes a journey easier does seem likely (to me) to make someone more apt to do that activity. Demonizing that person/gear as an enabling device is akin to promoting abstinence only 'education'.

The history of hiking and climbing has numerous examples where some advance in technique, equipment, or safety gear (etc) is decried by some of the old guard (the "Luddites") as downgrading the sport by making it too easy and/or removing too much risk. The newcomers to the sport usually accept the new advance ("Isn't that the way it always has been?") but may become the next round of Luddites when the next big advance appears...


As for "the SPOT device conspicuously dangling from his pack", I think this suggests an attitude--that it is a primary device rather than a backup. If hikers have the attitude that it is ok to try something risky because they can just call for a rescue if it doesn't work out, it will cause changes in the sport that many of us think are undesirable... (Of course, maybe we (myself included) are just the next round of Luddites who still value self-reliance... )

A personal anecdote:
When I was soloing Cabot a number of years ago, I passed a woman (in a small party) who spontaneously asked where my whistle was. (Hers was dangling conspicuously from her neck or pack.) I answered that it was in my pack. She was clearly expecting a high probability problem that could be dealt with by instantly blowing one's whistle whereas I was not. (Cellphones, GPSes, PLBs, and SPOTs did not exist yet...)


Back to the original topic, the hiker in question obviously took some risks for reasons unknown to us, got caught, and was rescued because he could send out a call for help with an electronic device. Assuming that he did everything else the same but was unable to call for help (for instance the electronic device did not work), he most likely would have been on his own and may not have survived. Whether he would have taken the same trip without the device is unknown to us.

(There is a lot of unsubstantiated speculation going on--it gains us very little. In particular, after-the-fact speculation that carrying such-an-such device would have prevented some specific accident also gains us very little--one can pretty much avoid any accident if one could just predict the future. In practice, one must estimate the trade-offs of carrying specific items of gear ahead of time and go with it or stay home.)

Doug

 

[una_dogger]

I've mentioned this in other threads I'm sure, but it seems arbitrary to me look at the availability of technology split it up by electronic and non-electronic. It's all gear/tools, and they all have pros and cons. People make many choices along a series of spectra - shoes/boots, cotton/synthetic, shorts/pants, microspikes/crampons, down/fleece, etc/etc. The choice to use gear that makes a journey easier does seem likely (to me) to make someone more apt to do that activity. Demonizing that person/gear as an enabling device is akin to promoting abstinence only 'education'.

The argument appears to come down to: do these devices save more 'searches' than they cause 'needless rescues'? The prevalence of the devices is increasing significantly, so I'm sure some studies will be done (or perhaps have been already). It's hard to have a strong opinion without more facts, but the anecdotal evidence I see seems to support the positive attributes of the technology (a guy suffering from hypothermia was rescues by a couple rangers with no searching), where as the negatives seem more hypothetical (some one might go do something they normally wouldn't because they have a 'help' button). I like hearing the opinions of people that actually do S&R to understand their thoughts on it - it's an interesting debate. I wonder if we'll be at a point down the line when people consider not bringing one to be reckless. Maybe NH will only charge for searches, but not rescues?

Well put

 

[Sematary]

I doubt he'll get billed at all if he had all the right gear
Although, it doesn't sound like he planned for the rain

 

[Sematary]

Those condions are the worst. Give me ten below anytime over 35 and rain. The second to last line of the article is misleading and is perpetuating a misconception about HikeSafe cards. People seem to think you will not get charged with one but will get charged without one. Not quite.

Hot drinks are key in winter...and amazing for your mental state as well when feeling cold. I carry a vac bottle as well filled with hot tea in winter.

I pulled out a stove twice yesterday on a hike of Adams. Totally not needed since it felt like September, but stopping for a couple hot cups of coffee on the hike was nice.

You won't get charged if you have the hike safe card AND have the right gear with you. You probably won't get charged even if you don't have the card as long as you were prepared for the conditions/elements

 

[Sematary]

I'm aware of that. My only point was that most hikers are not really sure of what a "herdpath" or "bushwhack" really means and/or are not comfortable going "off trail". The last time I did the North Twin Trail at least a half dozen of the people on it had no idea about the herd path skipping the first two crossings, and that is well documented in the AMC Guide. I explained it to one couple looking anxiously at the first crossing as I went by (and they could have followed me on it as I went up it) but instead they opted for wet shoes and a crossing. I'd go so far as to say a significant minority of hikers I encounter aren't even 100% sure what trail they are on or where they are on the map when they have one. These people are certainly not plunging out into the woods hoping to get from Point A to Point B relying on navigational skills.

Ya, those river crossings are tough. My daughter and I did all three of those in mid November. Thanks goodness for microspikes on icy rocks.
We managed to cross all three without incident. I am, btw, not really familiar with off trail hiking but it's definitely one of those skills I want to work on (this summer). It will be nice to take my skills to that next level.

 

[Sematary]

OT but on the SPOT issue. Can you imagine the time, money, and heartaches that would have been saved, if Inchworm had carried a SPOT and sent a signal (not 911) whenever she left the actual trail? Something may have happened that would have prevented actually hitting the 911 or SOS button but at least they may have found her body without the massive repeated search attempts. When I hike (almost always solo) I try to send a quick signal home every 2-4 hrs when on a planned trail depending on the area, as well as at trailheads and objectives, and maybe every 30 minutes on a BW. My biggest love of my SPOT is that since getting it, my wife does not protest my solo hikes quit as much . In fact it was a gift from her. .

I send texts whenever a signal presents itself - this is where I am, this is where I'm going. Even though I also leave a detailed description of what peaks I'm shooting for and the trails I plan to use along with my projected timeline. It puts her at ease if I keep in touch

 

[Sematary]

FYI, long ago, it was suggested that Kate's PLB is older technology which even under ideal conditions can't pinpoint below a circle with a diameter of kilometers. It was designed for maritime use, where an area that large could be easily searched. It is outfitted with a localizer transmitter that works well in the open ocean but terribly in mountain terrain due to radio wave reflections.

I would like to pose the following questions (no response necessary--just for thought. Also, if I could express a verbal tone, it would not be cynical/critical)

1. Is it in the realm of possibility that you will suffer an injury and not be able to self rescue?
2. Is it in the realm of possibility that you may encounter another hiker with a serious medical condition that needs immediate attention?
3. Do rescuers depend on any electronics (eg handheld transmitters or gps) to reduce risk and enhance success?
3. Does it matter if you get seriously injured in the woods or outside of the woods?
4. If #3 is no, are you under any impression that your life and well-being is independent of electronic devices providing anything from smoke detection to weather forecasts or stream volumes, or emergency service communications?

I understand there is a luddite belief that anything with batteries in the woods is bad. But I don't think the belief can survive a little logic. So instead, we constantly here oblique arguments that battery powered things make people careless, or that they unprepared, or that they actually want to get lost at night or suffer an ankle injury because they have a cell phone.

I love my electronics. I have waterproof maps and compass and all of that but in higher wind conditions a map can be, um, unruly to work with. I keep an extra charger in my pack for my phone so I should EASILY be able to get several days of power if I need to dial it down to airplane mode. It allows me to keep my wife informed of my current location/progress and on some of the more "interesting" winter hikes I've been on, I can use the apps I have to follow a trail that I can't see because, it either isn't blazed well, or the blazes are on rocks which are now covered with snow, etc.... And, in a really worse case scenario (which I've not come across yet), I can use it to retrace my steps in case the snow has blown in over my previous tracks on the descent (if I'm using the same trail - otherwise, several apps have tens of thousands of trails built in which makes it easy to see if you've gotten off course. I haven't really had to do any of that, with the exception of one hike up Spellman Trail on Monadnock. That trail is almost impossible to follow in the winter - especially with 2 or 3 feet of snow on it. lol Point being that we're in the 21st century now and we shouldn't be afraid/unwilling to take advantage of the tools at our disposal.

 

[CaptCaper]

I love my electronics. I have waterproof maps and compass and all of that but in higher wind conditions a map can be, um, unruly to work with. I keep an extra charger in my pack for my phone so I should EASILY be able to get several days of power if I need to dial it down to airplane mode. It allows me to keep my wife informed of my current location/progress and on some of the more "interesting" winter hikes I've been on, I can use the apps I have to follow a trail that I can't see because, it either isn't blazed well, or the blazes are on rocks which are now covered with snow, etc.... And, in a really worse case scenario (which I've not come across yet), I can use it to retrace my steps in case the snow has blown in over my previous tracks on the descent (if I'm using the same trail - otherwise, several apps have tens of thousands of trails built in which makes it easy to see if you've gotten off course. I haven't really had to do any of that, with the exception of one hike up Spellman Trail on Monadnock. That trail is almost impossible to follow in the winter - especially with 2 or 3 feet of snow on it. lol Point being that we're in the 21st century now and we shouldn't be afraid/unwilling to take advantage of the tools at our disposal.

Love my electronics too. So does or did the Space Shuttle...Ha... Years ago I got into GPS due to my sea duty. I brought that knowledge over to hiking before many here did. I got flac about using it. It's a toy,etc. was shouted out by posters...Ha..good luck to em...I know of many hikers today who would be either alive or never would of had to be rescued if they only had one...Still use mine on every hike to save and compare data. Just recently did a hike into Arthusa and took the trail back via Frankinstein Cliffs and compared it to one I did back 2004.. Good to see my time,speed,etc. was the same with my new total knee replacements and some age tacked. On..
Don't let anti electronic folks eat you up. They loose as my old friends who refuse to have a computer or be online. Biggest factor is to learn all about it and use it often to keep up on it.