New grist for the SAR debate from Brown University study

[hikerbrian]

@Tom_Murphy-
Useful links, thanks. After reading through them, however, I come away with a different summary. Namely:
1. The Hikesafe guidelines are guidelines only; not following them does NOT automatically make you negligent. F&G can certainly use ignorance of the guidelines and/or not following said guidelines as evidence of negligence, but it's not automatic negligence.
2. According to your second link, the only way to get "fined" is if a person "Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response." Is this still true? Where is the "negligence" term? In any case, highly subjective, as we all know. The last line in your second link also says there's a limit of $10k, but I recall Scott Mason being fined ~$25k. If you have other info about being automatically negligent if you're not carrying the 10 essential etc., please share.

Some other thoughts:

The study of 199 individuals at 3 trailheads is beyond worthless. Not nearly enough statistical power, too little sampling to support conclusions, poor definition of "prepared", etc. etc. Extremely misleading.

The idea that carrying certain items automatically makes you "prepared" is ridiculous. In fact, this idea has the potential to do more harm than good, as it can provide a false sense of security. Some examples from my own past (yes, I was a beginner once; still am, really): (1) For the first 2 years of my winter backpacking experience, I religiously carried an ice ax. Yes, even hiking to Zealand hut. I had read somewhere that you needed an ice ax to hike in winter, and even though I had no idea how to use one, I was sure that eventually I would NEED one, and therefore by carrying one I was "prepared." (2) I carried a compass for many years without knowing anything about it, other than the needle pointed north. Again, I was pretty sure that made me more "prepared." I could go on.

In the Whites, on trails, my compass (and knowledge) has absolutely saved my a$$ on two occasions, and saved me from a whole lot of discomfort on at least two others. It was winter in all 4 cases, but I think a compass and the ability to use it is REALLY important. In fact, in pretty nearly EVERY rescue I've read about here on VFTT, a compass plus skills could have prevented the rescue entirely. What I've seen most commonly: person hikes in on trails (usually winter), weather gets bad, trail becomes obscure, tracks disappear, person becomes disoriented/lost, scared, and calls for help. A map, compass, and the ability to use them effectively will usually prevent this scenario.

I find this whole discussion about what you "must have" in order to be "prepared" exhausting and irritating. It replaces logic with a list, and in so doing relieves people of the burden of thinking. The whole preparedness thing can be summarized as follows:
1. You can survive without warmth for a few hours.
2. You can survive without water for a few days.
3. You can survive without food for a few weeks.
Consider the potential eventualities, their probabilities, and the result as it relates to 1-3 above and plan accordingly. Simple.

 

[TJsName]

My smartphone uses satellite signals, but I'm not in a position to say that all smartphones do.

Lately I've been using the smartphone Google Maps app for navigating in my truck, and have a friend with an iPhone who uses the Apple version in his car. Works great, even in areas with cell reception.

Well don't I feel like a schmuck. My phone has this too! Thanks for pointing this out - I never knew. I'll give it a whirl next time I'm out!

 

[Tom_Murphy]

@hiker brian
The sentence is from the linked NH F&G web page:
"In New Hampshire, if you or anyone in your hiking group acts recklessly -- or fails to practice proper preparation as outlined by the hiker responsibility code -- resulting in Search and Rescue, you could be liable to pay the costs of your search and rescue mission."

Parsing their sentence:
you could be liable to pay the costs of your search and rescue mission if you need to be rescued and you have failed to to practice proper preparation as outlined by the hiker responsibility code

To me this means that not following the Hikesafe guidelines can be used as grounds to judge you as reckless. Obviously they are not applying this consistently. But if you can to eliminate it, why not?

@ Tim Seaver
Yes, they could use that excuse to fine you everytime. "You planned a hike beyond your phyiscal ability".

I am not advocating for the fines or the ten essentials or any specific SAR funding mechanism. The standards for getting fined are so ambigious they can get you if they want to.

Most of my backpacks are solo, off-trail, in the ravines and valleys. I am heavy. I am from out of state. I love being out there in the winter. So if I get hurt enough to need to actiavte the PLB for a carry out, I am probably getting a fine no matter what....

 

[DougPaul]

Drawing conclusions from studies this small is probably more dangerous than not carrying a compass.

To be fair, none of us (as far as I know...) have read the full report--they might have been careful about trying to get a representative sample, but with only 3 trailheads it seems unlikely.

Of course, their conclusions may be correct but simply inadequately supported.

Couldn't agree more; thus the adage about there being three types of lies:

1. Lies
2. Damn Lies
3. Statistics

Yeah--this is a cute-sounding old saw, but statistics are very important in science and modern society. Its just that they can be hard to use properly and are often presented in a misleading way (intentionally or unintentionally).

Epidemiological studies like this one can be difficult to do well (even before those with prior agendas get involved...).

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

@Tom_Murphy-
Useful links, thanks. After reading through them, however, I come away with a different summary. Namely:
1. The Hikesafe guidelines are guidelines only; not following them does NOT automatically make you negligent. F&G can certainly use ignorance of the guidelines and/or not following said guidelines as evidence of negligence, but it's not automatic negligence.
2. According to your second link, the only way to get "fined" is if a person "Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response." Is this still true? Where is the "negligence" term? In any case, highly subjective, as we all know. The last line in your second link also says there's a limit of $10k, but I recall Scott Mason being fined ~$25k. If you have other info about being automatically negligent if you're not carrying the 10 essential etc., please share.

While these "essentials" may have originally been presented as guidelines, F&G has made them into defacto laws...

The idea that carrying certain items automatically makes you "prepared" is ridiculous.

Agreed, but unfortunately there is no real way of measuring preparedness. The rule makers need something simple that they can use, thus the equipment list whether it has any correlation with preparedness or not. (My guess is that there is some correlation but not enough to be used as a criterion for legal action.) It is at least less arbitrary than an official's judgement based upon talking to the victim for 5 or 10 minutes...

I find this whole discussion about what you "must have" in order to be "prepared" exhausting and irritating. It replaces logic with a list, and in so doing relieves people of the burden of thinking. The whole preparedness thing can be summarized as follows:
1. You can survive without warmth for a few hours.
2. You can survive without water for a few days.
3. You can survive without food for a few weeks.
Consider the potential eventualities, their probabilities, and the result as it relates to 1-3 above and plan accordingly. Simple.

You left out:
0. You can survive without air for only a few minutes.
(This is also known as the "rule of threes".)

The absolute times only apply to benign environments--the actual times may be much shorter in severe conditions such as winter cold or desert heat. However, the relative importance of the four factors is the same over a wide range of situations.

Doug

 

[dave.m]

Agreed, but unfortunately there is no real way of measuring preparedness. The rule makers need something simple that they can use, thus the equipment list whether it has any correlation with preparedness or not. (My guess is that there is some correlation but not enough to be used as a criterion for legal action.) It is at least less arbitrary than an official's judgement based upon talking to the victim for 5 or 10 minutes...

Despite their inadequacy for determining actual competency or preparedness, I'm fine with having them linked to (potential) financial penalties.

In my mind, it's the distinction between necessary and sufficient. These "essentials" aren't sufficient, obviously.

But I think rational arguments can be made that each item is necessary, as in, if you don't have them, then you are adequately prepared.

I know there will be minimalists who will argue any or all of the individual points. And while I happen to agree with the necessity of each of the items (as in, I carry them when I go into the woods), I'm not going to go to the mat fighting over the particulars if somebody feels they can move safely without this or that.

This said, it's resolving to matter of enforcement and we should, I think, draw lines of analogy to the enforcement of speed limits and broken tail lights. Very often, these get used a pretense for an arrest or citation. That is, it's not about the enforcement of speed limits (or carrying the hikers essentials) per se. It's about arming the system with a rational and defensible criteria on which the legal process can hinge. Tons of laws and regulations operate this way.

I'm sort of surprised, btw, that nobody has responded to my question about fire starting. I'd be very, very curious if people consider it a necessary skill in terms of backcountry preparedness and if not, why not.

Let me toss out another... Is dead reckoning (using a map and compass) for off-trail navigation a necessary backcountry skill? Again, if not, why not?

Is the proper splinting of a femur fracture a necessary backcountry skill (hope that's not too close to home for you Doug; you're actually the second person I know personally who suffered one in the Whites) and if not, why not?

I'm raising these scenarios to make a point btw.

 

[sardog1]

You need to attempt to avoid being judged as "Recklessly or intentionally creates a situation requiring an emergency response".

In New Hampshire, if you or anyone in your hiking group acts recklessly -- or fails to practice proper preparation as outlined by the hiker responsibility code -- resulting in Search and Rescue, you could be liable to pay the costs of your search and rescue mission.

Your understanding and the Fish and Game web site both need updating. (I will bring the latter to the attention of F&G immediately.) The standard was lowered from reckless to negligent in June 2008. Here's the current statute – RSA Title 18, Chapter 206, Subsection 206:26-bb that supersedes the one you cited:

"206:26-bb Search and Rescue Response Expenses; Recovery. –
I. Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department's expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director. If any person shall fail or refuse to pay the costs by the required date, the department may pursue payment by legal action, or by settlement or compromise, and the responsible person shall be liable for interest from the date that the bill is due and for legal fees and costs incurred by the department in obtaining and enforcing judgment under this paragraph. All amounts recovered, less the costs of collection and any percentage due pursuant to RSA 7:15-a, IV(b), shall be paid into the fish and game search and rescue fund established in RSA 206:42.
II. If any person fails to make payment under paragraph I, the executive director of the fish and game department may:
(a) Order any license, permit, or tag issued by the fish and game department to be suspended or revoked, after due hearing.
(b) Notify the commissioner of the department of health and human services of such nonpayment. The nonpayment shall constitute cause for revocation of any license or certification issued by the commissioner pursuant to RSA 126-A:20 and RSA 151:7.
(c) Notify the director of motor vehicles of such nonpayment and request suspension of the person's driver's license pursuant to RSA 263:56.
Source. 2008, 167:2, eff. June 6, 2008."

 

[Tom_Murphy]

Fire-starting - I have gotten better with a lot of practice but after a long stretch of rain I still find it impossible to find enough dry kindling and wood so once my tinder is used up.... I have been thinking about bringing a knife beefy enough to baton wood and seeing if I can process enough wood.

Dead reckoning - I am not good at judging distances or rate of travel so I kept track of time which was a poor subsitute. I have found frequently turning around and really looking at the surrounding landscape helps me a lot more than trying to keep a log of distances and bearings.

 

[DougPaul]

Despite their inadequacy for determining actual competency or preparedness, I'm fine with having them linked to (potential) financial penalties.

Equipment lists are simple (either you have it or you don't) and thus easy to enforce. It doesn't mean that it will increase safety or reduce the number of rescues (which is hopefully the goal...).

In my mind, it's the distinction between necessary and sufficient. These "essentials" aren't sufficient, obviously.

The distinction between necessary, sufficient, not needed and if needed, how much varies for different people, activities, and conditions and is often a matter of opinion (ie risk vs equipment). In some conditions one can even hike completely naked and barefoot (if one has very tough feet...).

Is the proper splinting of a femur fracture a necessary backcountry skill (hope that's not too close to home for you Doug; you're actually the second person I know personally who suffered one in the Whites) and if not, why not?

No problem as far as I am concerned.

FWIW, I knew how to splint a femur. Adequate supplies are can be hard to find in the winter woods. (I have looked for splinting materials in the past and all I could find was rotten sticks--we ended up using a closed cell pad as a magazine splint.) A ski might work but would still require a lot of improvisation. (I probably wouldn't have been able to do it solo and I'm not sure we had enough supplies to attach it effectively even after the helper arrived.)

But even the professional splint isn't always that good:
The evac crew brought a pretty useless femoral splint--I had to stabilize my broken leg with my good leg during the evac even with the splint in place. (They brought the "old one"--I hope suggested that it was time to retire it...)

Ultimately, no one can carry enough equipment and have enough skill to handle every situation. Consciously or unconsciously we all draw dividing lines between safety vs equipment and skills. F&G, for better or worse, is just trying to force their fixed lines for all people, activities, and conditions on hikers.

FWIW2, a friend of mine (not known to people here) dropped dead on the trail of a massive heart attack. Should he have brought a cardiac unit along?

Doug

 

[bikehikeskifish]

What about "don't rescue anyone"? How do people feel about that? Because that would solve the problem as well. As in the state has no obligation to rescue you. It was hinted at earlier, but I don't think it was ever really debated in any of these discussions.

Tim

 

[Raven]

What about "don't rescue anyone"? How do people feel about that? Because that would solve the problem as well. As in the state has no obligation to rescue you. It was hinted at earlier, but I don't think it was ever really debated in any of these discussions.

Tim

Novel idea.

Those who travel the mountains and survive will live and multiply, passing on their genetic information to the next generation and so on and so on. Those who do not, will not pass on DNA.

Over a fair bit of time, we as a species become more adapted to surviving in the mountains sans rescue as only the genes more suited for those environmental conditions are passed on and concentrated in the genome.

Natural selection: not always popular, but it always works.

I think if the state were taken out of the equation, it could be successfully managed completely by the volunteer force. Including the 24 hour, 7 day on call aspect.

No obligation to rescue anyone -takes the courts out of the equation.

A bunch of people already in place with the knowledge, desire, and ability to volunteer for S&R, some of them doing most of the lead work in many rescues I have read about (e.g. MRS).

More responsibility squarely on the person choosing to go out...the responsibility of, "no one else is obligated to save me" which ideally leads to, "I better know how to save myself" or "maybe I need to rethink this ascent as there might be consequences for my lack of preparation and knowledge."

And with a volunteer S&R group, beefed up of course, I imagine the percent of actual rescues could stay consistent with what is achieved now. Might get better. Take fish and game out of the equation, let them go refocus on their priorities.....like fish........and game.

Everybody wins.

 

[Red Oak]

dave m;I believe it is very important to know how to start a fire!One should know how to start it in the rain,snow and wind.Knowing your woods is critical to this.For example branches from a pine if dead are still very dry below the wet bark and great tinder starter.I would guess if you live in Cambridge for example,one does not have ample opportunity to practice such skills.So maybe it is more of a practice question then a question of wanting to learn a skill.For me personally,working in the woods and having to do brush fires to burn off dead brush as a preventative measure against forest fires,I am heading in the direction of wanting a little gas stove for the practicality of it.
In these numerous threads about how many pounds one carries on a hike it would be cool to know what the weight difference is between ones summer pack and winter pack.With water included my summer day pack is about 10 -15 pounds and my winter pack is 15-22.

 

[peakbagger]

Tim's concept was also referred to the "let em die" approach that used to be debated endlessly on early bulletin boards.

Politically it would be a hard sell to say the least. I have heard of but have never encountered areas of the world that use the profit approach. The government doesnt do rescues so its up to profit making entities to offer rescue services. Of course given the low number of rescues and significant seasonality of rescues I suspect that even in the whites, this business model wouldnt work. I believe one of the members with insurance background once did a work up of the potential for creating rescue insurance and came to the same conclusion, the potential costs did not offer enough return on the revenue.

With regards to fire, I carry army MRE trioxane bars, barring them being totally immersed in water they seem to keep burning no matter what. I think the junior maine guide program used to have a activity where the student had a log and a hand ax and one match. The log was thrown in the water and totally wetted. The student then had to start a fire using only the log, the hand ax and the match.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

It does not have to fall to for-profit companies. It could be all volunteer. And, as hard a sell as it might be, nobody's happy to buy the current solutions.

Tim

 

[Kevin Rooney]

Notwithstanding RSA 153-A:24, any person determined by the department to have acted negligently in requiring a search and rescue response by the department shall be liable to the department for the reasonable cost of the department's expenses for such search and rescue response. The executive director shall bill the responsible person for such costs. Payment shall be made to the department within 30 days after the receipt of the bill, or by some other date determined by the executive director.

So, the same cash-strapped department providing SAR also determines negligence? And the bill/fine is assessed without a hearing or ability to appeal? And if the bill/fine isn't paid in 30 days then some state-issued licenses, including driver's licenses can/will be suspended?

And this is the "Live free or die" state, ever struggling with the heavy hand of government?

Phew.... maybe I shouldn't drink coffee in the morning.

 

[Tim Seaver]

It might be easy to forget, as long as the ridiculous SAR debacle has been going on, that the problem is NOT that an unreasonable amount of rescues being performed on stupid lazy hikers, it's because the state is unwilling to adequately fund it.

The overall amount of $ is trivial. Yes, trivial. A handful of screamers on Union Leader doesn't change that basic fact.

I'm not worried about hikers getting their act together, it's more about the overstuffed suits.

 

[bikehikeskifish]

it's because the state is unwilling to adequately fund it.

Unwilling to fund the mandate given to F&G. It's not like there isn't any precedent for unfunded government mandates . The discussion point I made was about removing the mandate, and thus the need to fund it. Not unlike the Claremont school funding decision and defining an "adequate education" at $0.

Tim

 

[Tim Seaver]

I don't think anyone takes the "just let them die" approach seriously, so I don't think that's even worth getting into.

 

[dave.m]

Equipment lists are simple (either you have it or you don't) and thus easy to enforce. It doesn't mean that it will increase safety or reduce the number of rescues (which is hopefully the goal...).

As I noted before, I think one goal of such regulations is to give enforcement officers a rational, easily applied rule that can be used at their discretion. Drive aggressively and get pulled over for speeding, even though others are speeding too.

In terms of reducing rescues, yes, I think that is clearly a goal but only like speed limits influence speed on roads. On average, it helps. We all accept that everybody violates the law though.

FWIW, I knew how to splint a femur. Adequate supplies are can be hard to find in the winter woods. (I have looked for splinting materials in the past and all I could find was rotten sticks--we ended up using a closed cell pad as a magazine splint.) A ski might work but would still require a lot of improvisation. (I probably wouldn't have been able to do it solo and I'm not sure we had enough supplies to attach it effectively even after the helper arrived.)

I thought of you a few years ago hiking with my son at Crag. Went to bed feeling ill and woke up with an abscessed tooth. He was only 10 and I was almost entirely incapacitated.

We sit here and talk about the things we do to mitigate risk like fitness, training/skills and equipment and they're all very important. But the other thing to bear in mind is that we're out there taking risks and at any moment, we could be become incapacitated and in need of rescue to stay alive. Add to this that it's impossible to imagine a society that didn't create some sort of capability to find the lost. It's really hard to image. So, we put others at peril too. More sober reading here:
http://www.backpacker.com/june_2002_feature_survival_hiker_mike_turner_wyoming/articles/4585

 

[DougPaul]

Equipment lists are simple (either you have it or you don't) and thus easy to enforce. It doesn't mean that it will increase safety or reduce the number of rescues (which is hopefully the goal...).

As I noted before, I think one goal of such regulations is to give enforcement officers a rational, easily applied rule that can be used at their discretion.

Yes I know that that is why they use such regulations. (And yes, there are lots of such regulations--enforce something that is easy to enforce rather than the real problem...) I am of the opinion that it misses so much and is so inaccurate that its use as a stand-in is indefensible.

Also has anybody done any (valid) studies? (Not that I know of...) Or is it just based upon someone's supposition...

Doug