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.