here are a couple of news links about Derek Mamoyac, who was missing for five days on a trek to climb Mt. Adams in Washington State.


http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/localnews/2008281288_climber18.html

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/missing_climber_found_alive_on.html

Another honorable mention.

Sounds like he has been watching Bear Grylls, what with the centipedes and all.

I wish I were up at Mt. Adams right now.

I wonder if Derek would think that a GPS-enabled 406 MHz personal locator beacon is too overpriced and heavy to carry now???

A PLB would have turned his single bad step into a real bad day or two, rather than a nearly life-ending nightmare.

I'm glad they found him alive.

From the article, it sounds like he did pretty well.

What an affirming story. As we all know, a positive mental attitude can overcome a lot of physical obstacles.

According to the story on CNN he was better-dressed than the average blue-jean-clad day-hiker, including water-resistant pants, insulated boots, and gloves. I wonder what else in the way of emergency preparedness gear he was (or was not) carrying?

Steve

Good for him! Kudos to the guy for staying calm and keeping a positive attitude. A ton of people could learn from his example.

Oh for sure. There is no mention of a sleeping bag, even for a day trip, that is a required item for mountain like Adams.

Would be really interested if he was making fires.

I see that no one has bothered to mention the most important point:


YOU NEVER EVER CLIMB ALONE!



Also: No PLB, probably no survival kit and no basic first aid kit. Being able to splint or strap the ankle increases your mobility drastically.

To be fair to the gentleman, he showed gut's and determination after it dropped in the pot. That counts for something. But he was very nearly a statistic.

Maybe he will write a complete account of his ordeal so we can get the details. Wouldn't it be great if he could be enticed to drop by this forum for a question and answer sesson?

In an earlier Oregonian article they had some account of his gear - he left his sleeping bag, tent and other essentials at the campground (SAR ended up being based there). He was used to 'fast climbing', solo. One might have a philosophical discussion with him now over beers or hot soup on the wisdom of the fast and light climbing school of thought. I think its more a form of russian roulette / suicide. But he's young and strong and will live to climb again. Bet his folks get him a PLB for Christmas.

Hmmmmm. Stay home all weekend because noone has the free time to go out or enjoy the outdoors all by myself?????

I'll climb alone.....

(If in fact he didn't have anyone to go hiking with.)

When you go out into the mountains you take a risk. Just like when you go out for a drive. Driving is far more dangerous.

I hike/bushwhack in the mountains by myself almost daily. It is no big deal. Maybe it seems so if you rarely if ever do such a thing. But then again I would feel threatened if I were to be in parts of New York city whilst others live there and feel perfectly at home.

My life has been on the line far more often while driving. A number of close calls over the years. But in the wilderness? Far fewer.

The press likes to hype these things up. It sells. But where I live there are dozens of locals who regularly hike these mountains without POBs and cell phones etc and etc. Just about the safest activity you can do hour for hour.

I thought that this comment from a member of nwhikers was interesting - lykkens was climbing down Mt Adams as the lost climber was heading up, they encountered him before he went missing. For anyone who sees some romanticism in eating centipedes...

"Glad that someone opened up this "can of centipedes". We saw him as he passed us above lunch counter [Mt Adams landmark] at 9400ft, he was under dressed, carrying a tiny day pack and was walking strangely on his crampons. He was aware that he was climbing into deteriorating weather and everyone on our team noted that he looked the least prepared for what he was getting into of the three single climbers we saw heading up as we descended. Our member who stayed at base camp even asked us if we had seen him because she wondered if he was actually going to climb or was just lookylooing. Where he fell was near where we made our navigational mistake, one that was rectified by comparing way points on the 2 gps units that we had on our team. I don't think you need to clean out the shelves at REI and carry all your gear up the mountain, but we had a stove with us in case our water froze or we got caught in a tough situation, on top of the layers (including goggles) that we ended up needing. Experienced means understanding your limits, reading the weather, listening to other climbers, being prepared for an injury if you choose to climb alone... I would not have classified him as any of those things, each individual on our team noticed him and discussed him long before he was reported missing. I'm glad he was found safely and I know the mountain can be a fickle beast, but you must respect it or you will pay handsomely... as will the tax payers of Washington & Oregon apparently."

The problem is when you go with someone you gotta actually interact with them on some level.

My trips are considered successful if I never see another Homo sapiens the entire time.

Seriously, I have to confess to solo hiking / camping myself and accept the consequences there of.

I also stack the deck in my favor by leaving detailed itinerary with my wife of where I will be and when I will check in and when to call the cavalry.

Haven't gotten a PLB yet, and it is on my list...

I'll bet he'll be getting a 'Touching the Void' DVD for his Christmas.

http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=b7zadH1ZqAE&feature=related

What kind of centipedes do they have at that altitude in Washington?

Even as a snail, ant, grasshopper and other inverterbrate eater I can tell you that there is no way I would eat a tropical centipede!

There's always a risk, but it's pretty common practice to go solo. I doubt you'll hear criticism from the climbing community just because he went solo; there's no consensus that solo is inately bad judgement.


I think I'll disagree with you there. Based on my experience, when one expects to be back before dark, carrying a sleeping bag isn't standard. The typical advice is to carry enough gear to survive the night if caught out.


That's the real issue. He was inadequately prepared, didn't listen, and headed into bad weather.

On the one hand, I admire him. That's dang good to survive five days injured in snow country. On the other hand, he went unprepared, blew off what other climbers were telling him, and didn't take into account the weather. What a bonehead.

So, it's a bit of both. I'm glad he's alive, but he really screwed up bad.

We've discussed the aspect of taking risks while playing, and my position on it hasn't changed.

If you are going to take risks that could require emergency assistance and thereby incur a significant cost to save your sorry butt, then you ought to be held accountable for those costs. Since most people don't have a spare $100,000+ laying around in a bank account (in other words self-insured), it would therefore make sense that anyone willing to take such a risk ought to be required to have insurance, post a bond, or otherwise provide some surety of payment in the event that their luck runs out before they get back to civilization.

In the real world, whenever people engage in risky activities as a means of earning money, they are usually required to have some sort of surety, usually in the form of insurance, that pays the bills for them if something goes wrong. The more risky opportunities usually require a higher premium for coverage, and to be sure there are laws and regs that limit the amount of liability should it become a matter or civil remedy in court.

Look, if I go to Baghdad on my own nickel just to see what it is like over there today, and I get myself in a bad way, should I expect the US government to send in the troops to come save me because I thought the risk was acceptable for the adventure potential? Lot on your knife (A Conan phrase).

I have no problem with people doing things that are challenging, that connect them to their environment at a basic, less civilized level. If they would include in their preparations for such endeavors some measure of personal accountability so that I and the rest of the folks in our community who aren't so adventurous don't have to come save them by paying for well trained teams of rescuers and the best equipment money can buy, then I think there would be a lot less griping from the peanut gallery about reckless behavior.

Then again, that whole argument could be applied to our society in general. There was a time when if you went off on a little adventure and you got in trouble, there wasn't going to be a big rescue, unless you had planned for it beforehand and someone with a vested interest in your rescue was committed to it.

It would be a good thing if there were an economic downside to going out unprepared.

On the other hand, in talking to SAR members, there's a fear that people won't call when they need for fear of being charged to leading to a riskier rescue or greater injury or loss of life. In other words a person might wait so long to call that the rescue becomes riskier (worsening weather, rising water, etc.) or the rescue becomes a recovery.

Generally, when I talk to SAR volunteers, they're against charging.

Personally, I'd like to see a "complete idiot fee," but that's unlikely to happen soon.

That's good for the SAR volunteers; having a clear conscience does count for something I suppose. However, such good intentions still come at a price, which is to the taxpayer, which has nothing to do with making the SAR volunteers feel good at night. Whether the SAR volunteers are against charging or not is irrelevent, as it is not their money and they have no fidicuiary responsibility. They'd do their job whether the victim pays or the public does. This is all about accountability, and the apparent lack thereof.

Don't get me wrong, I believe strongly in the purpose of SAR and others in providing the services they do. What I think is that, along with a reluctance of some foolish individuals to call in a rescue request because they didn't take proper financial precautions up front and are worried they might get nicked if they don't at least attempt a self rescue, you will have far fewer people actually going out and taking such risks without adequate insurance up front to pay for the unlikely but always possible need. Why is this concept any different than flight insurance, or driving insurance, or diving insurance?

Life is full of risks. We have a responsibility for our own welfare, and just like most other aspects of our lives, climbing a mountain ought not carry any less of a financial burden. Maybe then people like this will give it the consideration it is due. SAR was never meant to be in the business of saving people from the own foolish, reckless actions.

The trouble with idiots is that they get other people killed who are trying to help them, due to their lack of preparation and common sense. Two young children will grow up without their father because of two hikers who had to be rescued.

FRIENDS, FAMILY SAY GOODBYE TO DPS OFFICER KILLED BY HELICOPTER
06:50 PM Mountain Standard Time on Monday, October 20, 2008

MESA [AZ] -- Friends and family of DPS Officer Bruce Harrolle said their last goodbyes Monday morning.

Funeral services took place at Central Christian Church in Mesa.

The 36-year-old DPS officer and paramedic was killed during a mountain rescue in Sedona last week when the rotor blade of his helicopter hit him in the head.

Harrolle was helping a stranded hiker into the helicopter when it happened. He died instantly.

DPS Director Roger Vanderpool said Harrolle was always smiling and was a true professional.

"This man truly dedicated his life to helping, serving and protecting others and last Monday he was doing just that," Vanderpool said. "He was doing the job he loved and I'm sure he had that big smile on his face."

Gov. Janet Napolitano called Harrolle a hero.

Harrolle, who had been with DPS for nine years, leaves behind a wife and two young children.

He is the first DPS office killed in the line of duty since March 2000.

A 25-mile processional from the church to the Phoenix-Mesa Gateway Airport Aviation Hangar took place after the service.
http://www.azfamily.com/yahoo_rss/stories/mesa-local-news-102008-harrolle-funeral.12f32ca32.html


In an article from the Arizona Republic, citizen Harvey Lorentz summed it up very well:

"It is tragic that a rescuer lost his life, but the solution is for all of us to exert a little common sense when planning to embark on an escapade that has known dangers.

"People who refuse to evacuate when told that it is necessary, those who insist that they can drive through the wash, hikers who think that they are different from the others and can do the impossible, all put our dedicated rescuers in jeopardy every time they venture into one of these situations.

"Before starting a venture, look at the potential dangers and make certain you are prepared to finish in a safe manner, without needing the rescuers. Make sure you have all the necessary equipment to safely complete the mission. Don't rely on others to risk their lives to save you from your folly. Don't become the survivor that lives with the onus of contributing to another death."


So, what's the plan when an idiot calls for help and his rescuer(s) die in the attempt?

Sue

Problem is waiting longer costs even more money and increases
risk to SAR, volunteer or not. A dangerous situation
turns into an true emergency and it is not only the
bonehead that is sometimes at risk. It may be someone
else in the bonehead's party.

Heck, we take care of our senior citizens through Medicare
even if they smoke cigars.

Negligent homicide, involuntary manslaughter, or at the least wrongful death. I liken it to the gen manager of a chem plant in Houston who sent workers out without the proper training or PPE, resulting in their deaths. Criminal and civil penalties should apply.

Of course, the operative term you used is "had to be rescued". I don't believe anyone should be compelled to risk their health and safety in an attempt to save someone else. It is one thing to volunteer, even to get paid for that, because you can always refuse it, but does anyone really have to be rescued these days?

I nonehteless have great respect for those who go in harm's way to try and help others in need, even if the need is self-generated.

I would surely hope the DA would press charges. At least the family well ought to.

Wow. Total downer on the rescuer. Crap.

The idea of "SAR insurance" bears merit. Get you some insurance or don't call us -- unless you've got the cash yourself. Difficult to inform the public. And enforcement? Do we station rangers in the woods to "card" people?

I've often thought there should be at least charge of, say $50. It would make people think twice but not so prohibitive that it would bankrupt people or cause them not to call when really needed. It would function much as a Doctor's co-pay does with a health care plan. HMO's found that if visits were free, utilization (amount of MD visits) went through the roof but if they charged even relatively nominal sums of $10 to $20, utilization went down. People went for the slightest sniffle when free but thought twice when the had to cough up a few bucks.

Just a thought.

$50 for a weekend event might be marketable as a one time insurance cost, like buying flight insurance at the airport right before the plane takes off. I am sure some insurance company would do a statistical analysis and determine a scale for associated risk like this. In some cases, the cost would be much less, like hiking in a city park in Arizona. In other cases, it might get a bit prohibitive, like climbing Mt. McKinley (sp). They could offer discounts for purchasing a GPS, PLB, compass, and/or taking some survival related course.

Actually, the idea of regulating risk like this is revolting, but if they are going to continue using taxpayer money like they have been, and I can't imagine that they'd be able to somehow stop now, then I see no other recourse. Either individuals accept responsibility for the risks they take, or they must have the responsibility forced upon them. There has to be a measure of accountability one way or another. You can't just let people do as they please and expect others to foot the bill for it indefinitely. Sooner or later there will come a time or reckoning.

Or we can become like Finland, and each pay 75% income tax, and have the state provide us whatever THEY think we need, and also tell us what we can and can't do. That levels the playing field pretty much.

More details of how the hiker survived and was found: Yakima Herald Article

Frostbite of the butt...

He kept moving during the nights and stopped to sleep in the warmth of the day. That sounds like his version of traveling light doesn't include firemaking materials. Or nothing to burn. And nothing write with, and on, to leave a note on the trail.

Traveling light on a 12,000' mountain. Yeah.

Sue

http://www.oregonlive.com/news/index.ssf/2008/10/climber_talks_about_surviving.html

Here is a follow-up story with an interview with Derek.

Not bad advice.

NOW he says he will 'probably' not climb alone.

NOW he says he will 'probably' go better equipped.

NOW he says he would take a GPS.

NOW he says he will take more food. (Since he was dehydrated when found, food was the last thing he needed.)

Why did these discoveries only come after a near-death experience, at a goodly cost to the taxpayers? He's read in the papers and seen on the news all the other dumb bozos who've done the same thing, but he didn't think it applied to him because he's never broken his ankle before. Keep your eye on this guy, and the Darwin Award website handy for nominations.

Someone just left their 2-year-old in a hot car in AZ with the usual result.

Someone left an 18-month-old unsupervised in a bathtub in WI with the usual result. And another in FL.

The death toll from Hurricane Ike is up to 72 and counting.

People are still not wearing their seatbelts, still not putting their kids in safety seats, still driving drunk.

Survival of the Fittest is still a good idea. Too stupid to live or reproduce? Too bad.

Cynical Sue

Seatbelts? You wear seatbelts?
Add to that talking on cellphones.

I plead guilty to breaking the rules.

I most often hike alone in the mountains, off-trail and on steep or rough terrain. I don't carry a PLB, GPS or a cellphone. I sometimes change my planned route, exit date, or destination on the fly, often after starting out.

However, I accept the risks in return for the rewards of "the freedom of the hills."

I am also not an idiot. I carry and actually know how to use a map and compass. I read guidebooks and descriptions of my planned hiking area voraciously if I am unfamiliar with that area. I am a very experienced backpacker. I am also a paramedic and carry a very good advanced FAK. I leave a thorough description of my planned route AND likely variations, along with very current photographs of myself, my clothing and gear, and even a photocopy of my boot treads. I use two hiking poles to reduce the odds of the most common types of disabling backpacking injuries - falls and ankle/leg sprains and fractures, although I willingly and frequently cross sketchy bits with some serious exposures to get where I want to go. I do the lightweight thing, but I'm not ridiculous about it. I carry adequate shelter, food, water, repair gear, etc. I don't carry a "survival kit" per se when backpacking, since my gear is already my survival kit.

I would find being on the receiving end of a rescue effort quite embarrassing, but I don't count on it, and I'm not afraid of being hurt, alone or dying. Safety isn't everything, and I accept the consequences of my actions. My newly wealthy widow won't be suing the National Park Service or whomever, either. She understands, accepts and supports my need to do these things.

Jeff

I'm guilty of all of the above myself, particularly in my younger days.

Still, I wonder why you wouldn't carry something like a PLB. Other than perhaps the weight, it doesn't impair your freedom, but could bail you out if need be. I've hiked with the best; I mean moutaineers that have done 20K+ peaks; and everyone has an accident sooner or later. Not a criticisim. I'm a backcountry traveller myself and I know how personal risk assessment is. Just asking. Dialog, particularly when entered into without rigid "right answers," can help us clarify our own priorities and decisions. As in life itself, most everything in wilderness survival is a series of trade offs. Rigid approaches seldom hold up under real world conditions.

By the way, I totally understand about the price, if that's the issue. $500 or so bucks is a bit daunting, particularly in a down economy.

A good, fair question. I suspect my reasons are counter-logical. It's sort of an aesthetic, psychological thing. I like being alone, and free. A PLB or a GPS just feels like a tether to civilization or a sort of crutch in my mind, I guess. I actually own a few GPSs, but I've yet to carry one on a long trip.

I'm not foolish enough to believe that I am immune from the hazards, or that any amount of experience or skill can keep anyone safe from an accident. I've actually had some VERY close calls, including one memorable fall and slide on a steeply sloped granite slab where I was saved from a drop into oblivion by fortuitous and quite painful jam into a little surface crack. I had to sit and wait about a half hour to quit shaking after that.

Maybe that's part of the appeal, though. Total self reliance, with a certain occasional frisson of mortal danger. I know it doesn't make sense, but there it is.

Jeff

Heck, I hate to think how many thousands of dollars I've "invested" in outdoor gear over the years. I could outfit a platoon of backpackers. One whole room in my house is more or less devoted to storing it all.

But it does come in handy when I take friends, assorted relatives, etc. backpacking or camping.

Jeff

For those here who are willing to challenge themselves, to find the path less travelled, to push for the top in the face of adversity, I commend your spirit. It is this drive to accept challenges and push ourselves to our limits that helps define our character. All this is a worthy goal, and makes us better people for the experience, at least I feel it always has for me.

What we must bear in mind is that in the course of our endeavors to explore our surroundings and our abilities, we take risks, and however well we may think we are prepared, there is always a significant chance that our undertaking will overtake us, and we will find ourselves in need of assistance. As Jeff put it, he accepts the risks to his health and welfare, but he, like the rest of us, are not able to mitigate the risks sufficiently to discount altogether the prospect that we may need rescue. Therefore, since that is a material risk inherent in the type of activities we are now discussing, and since we've already established an official rescue operation that is compelled to try and save us in the event of some catastrophy beyond our control, our only recourse is remuneration to the public trust for the services being provided to the individual at the public expense, without public benefit.

SAR, and the various other agencies and groups tasked with rescue and/or recovery, provide each of us with what I refer to as a "Safety Net", meaning that when we get in above our heads, they are there to pull us out using means and methods we would not otherwise have individually at our disposal. The vast majority of the population do not and perhaps will not ever need assistance of this sort from these agencies and groups. Yet all are responsible for paying the costs to maintain these services in ready condition using some of the best technology and training money can buy. That a few should benefit from the efforts of many in such a way seems to me an innappropriate and irresponsible expecation. This is why the proposal that those who would make such undertakings go to the trouble and expense of "insuring" that they can in fact accept the risks of their rescue or recovery should the need arise, however slight. I would prefer that all of us be left to our own recognizance, and those who go forth as did the pioneers of old realize that their survival depends solely on themselves and what means they might furnish to that end, and not on the coerced extortion of the public at large through levies and taxes. In the course of the events of the past 50 or so years, our society has forsaken such a notion, and the result is that more and more the public trust is extorted to compensate for the shortcoming of a few unfortunate folks. I believe this is wholly contrary to the intentions of our founding fathers, but that is just my opinion, shared by a few historical figures I've cited previously, but remaining nothing more than a point to argue.

This is not to advocate that aid should not be rendered where needed and able, but that the whole intent is it should be as a basis of charity, otherwise it can only be considered an act of extortion. I should hope by now that we've made the distinction between the two quite plain over the years on this forum.

So my advice is to go forth, young man, and make a mark. Find your way, and build a character suitable to lead others to their limits. But know that the risks you take are not only yours to accept, but now also belong to the rest of us, whether we would want them or not.

Eloquently stated, Benjammin, and I think I take your meaning.

The fact is, if I don't show up, some people are eventually gonna have to come looking for me, or for my corpse. As I said, I'd find that quite embarrassing. But, as you point out, these days it can't be avoided.

I'm willing to pay to play, myself. But I'm leery of any public policy that makes outdoor recreation even more expensive, and therefore less accessible, to ordinary working folks.

In any case, I figure I'm already all paid up for any SAR I might get, at least karmicly. I've long since lost count, over a thirty year career, of the number of folks I've helped come back from their date with Joe Black, or at least from their own bad luck, bad judgment or bad timing, sometimes at the risk of my one and only posterior. Also, as someone once said, "I'm older, and I have better insurance." I could pay for my rescue, if need be.

Jeff

Actually, no, it does make sense, at least to me. Living a life so conservatively that one never feels alive is no life at all. I find that in this over-stimulated, overloaded, over-regulated modern world we live in, freedom is something valuable indeed. Last weekend, I promised my wife I'd be back by 1:00 PM from my (solo) hike. I went down a side trail that I've been wanting to check out. I showed some restraint, but still didn't get back until 5:00 PM. Definitely caught some heck even though I called in and said I was running late. Totally blew off the "honey do" list, but it was oh-so-healing to wander and explore on a beautiful day with no particular itinerary or objective. Freedom: no deadlines, no one to answer too, no "to do" list, no hassles, no crowds, no mechanical/human noise. It's worth some risk to be alive.

Not trying to crowd your space, but I roll up my PLB in a plastic bag, toss it in my pack, and off I go. I forget that it's even there, and I still have the same quality of experience. There's a part of my soul that crys out for those moments of truly being alive, and there's another more pragmatic part of me that realizes that I can have a lot more of those moments if I keep myself healthy and alive. I do what I can to mitigate risk (hike in somewhat tamer areas when solo, file a "flight plan" but loose enough that I don't feel constrained, carry a PLB) while not choking the very "aliveness" that I came out there for in the first place.

One guys way.

We all split the melon a little differently. I carry a PLB, and give to SAR every year, hoping to keep my kharma away from my dharma. I'm alive, but so is Jeff, so what's the difference. We all recognize the need to ride a Harley, on the open road with the wind rushing though our hair, and resist a bit the laws that put a helmet on our heads in some states, but they don't call them donor cycles for nothin, you luck can run out from a rock on a curve. Old, bold and alive - pick two. You takes your chances and live with your mistakes I say. I dress in bright colors, the easier for SAR to spot my corpse. But if I had my druthers I'd rather be signalling distress with my PLB than lying and dying at the bottom of a ravine. That's my chance to take. I like being out on a hike alone, but I love my wife and my family.

Jeff, Jim, and Lono, I think you got the idea. We should all get out there and play, and the fact that you all contribute to the services on your own is precisely how I would prefer it to be. It's not about doing away with the public service, nor about foregoing the risk-taking, but more about realizing what the burden is and paying our fair share. Like Lono points out, there are an awful lot of folks who would love to ride harleys just for fun. Everyone that does is supposed to have insurance, because something can go wrong and does often enough tomake it worth their while, and if you have an accident while riding and end up in the hospital, most likely public money won't be what pays your medical bills. It ought not be any different for any other risky venture, with the insurance balanced against the risk. If someone can't afford motorcycle insurance, then I reckon they shouldn't be riding, no matter how rewarding the experience might be for them. Similary, one ought not climb a mountain if he hasn't taken suitable precautions to ensure he can get off the mountain should he be rendered incapable of self-extraction. As much as I would prefer that risk not be regulated, the simple fact of the matter is that such is now the world we live in, and since it is what it is, I suppose to be fair to everyone, those who enjoy the privilege ought not do so at the expense of those who decline.

Like it or not, we've started down this path long ago, and it seems if we are bound and determined to legislate such things, then we ought to ensure each person bears their own burden if we are going to, as a whole, provide them with a means of avoiding what would otherwise likely be their demise, or at least insufferable misery. I can enjoy watching a person scale a vertical wall of rock. If he slips, I would prefer either to elect to catch him of my own charitable will, or to watch those he hired to do the same, rather than to be told I have to stand under him to break his fall.