JohnE asked a question on a thread about a survival show which I thought deserved to be asked and discussed. So I am asking it just as a discussion starter.




Now consider first that minimum equipment requirements are already enforced for boats and planes.
Bear proof food containers are already required for campers in some parks too.

So does the idea of minimum equipment requirements for going hiking in parks make sense at all?
What would be the positives or negatives of having such requirements?

(Nobody is proposing such a requirement as far as I know and I really am just throwing this out there for discussion.)

I just dislike the idea of big brother telling us what to do

Just because you need XYZ doesn't mean I do, and vice-versa.

I think that some gear suggestions are valid-particularly what is needed on planes & boats. They cannot cover every situation, but I believe they want to give people a chance to survive until rescue. As far as bear cannisters go, this is also sound advice; the bears arent learning that humans=food. Or, thats the idea anyway.

The US Forest Service used to, and maybe still does in some
areas, require everyone going onto forest lands to carry
a bucket, axe, and shovel. This was enforced and enable one
to fight a fire. Everyone was required to fight any fire seen.

In a perfect world there would be no need to have anyone establish minimum equipment requirements and enforce it as a law, complete with checks by law enforcement and penalties for non-compliance. In this perfect world people would seek out knowledgeable individuals and credible sources and use them to determine what the community consensus is for minimum equipage, And then they would, as a matter of duty, good citizenship, and good conscience, heed that advice and do whatever is necessary to meet that minimum standard.

We don't live in a perfect world. People seldom seem to use common sense. Otherwise sane people often do not bother to do basic research on what minimal standards might be. When they do many of them will either disregard any advice or simply fail to make an effort to meet the standard. Often talking a good story about being independent and rugged individualists right up to the point they get into trouble. Then it is all whining and griping that people don't drop everything and come out and rescue them. Inside many a loudmouth there is a wimp.

I'm not very familiar with a lot of specific minimal equipment standards but a few things seem clear to me. First, minimum equipment standards are not new. During the gold rush the RCMP was stopping people who couldn't show the minimum equipment, roughly 2000 pounds, in 1898.

Second, the standard are typically so minimal as to be laughable. The minimums for watercraft in the US are so weak that anyone not meeting the standard should really be hauled off as insane and a hazard to themselves and others instead of just being ticketed.

IMO, it won't help very much, and could potentially have some serious drawbacks.

First, who will be setting the minimum requirement? What one person considers an absolute minimum could be way too much for an ultralighter. I would hate to be required to carry anything unnecessary just because someoneelse thinks it's essential. There is no universal list of equipment that has to be carried by every person in every situation, even the "10 essentials" has some room for modification.

Second, just because you force someone to carry something, doesn't mean they'll know what to do with it in an emergency. You would think most people would be smart enough to figure it out on their own, but if they were then they probably wouldn't need someone telling them what to carry.

Third, I see a liability issue if someone still happens to get into trouble even with the mandatory minimum. With some of the outrageous stories that you read in the news lately, it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to sue the NPS (or whoever is the governing agency) because the minimum requirements weren't enough to keep them alive in an extreme situation. That's why a lot of these requirements cater to the lowest common denominator, because of liability issues. By enforcing these types of rules, people tend to get complacent about their own responsibility because they assume someone else is taking responsibility for them.

No matter what, there will always be people who die out in the wilderness. Sometimes it's unavoidable accident, and sometimes it's just plain stupidity. Trying to force everyone to follow the same standards isn't going to help those that die from their own carelessness, all it does is limit the freedom of those that don't need help.

Actually, it sounds like a good idea to me.

If the fools go hiking in the Olympic National Park, maybe it should be insisted upon that they take a backpack of things that might keep them alive long enough to rescue.

For instance:

6x8' tarp
50' nylon cord
Two forms of firestarter (i.e., matches in container, Bic lighter)
Tinder (packaged)
1-gallon Ziplock plastic bag
Knife
First Aid kit (bandaids, gauze bandages, antibiotic ointment,
Ace-type bandage, triangular bandage, etc)
Metal cup
Signal mirror
Pencil & paper
Compass
Map of the area
Water and granola bars (etc)

The only things here that aren't self-explanatory are the compass and signal mirror.

A small book of survival tips would be nice, too. The park could make it location-specific and require a refundable deposit.

None of this would take up a phenomenal amount of space and it wouldn't weigh much.

Wouldn't insisting on something like this be cheaper than dragging out the Air National Guard every time some yahoo finds himself in the wrong place?

And no matter what you do, you will never escape the 'Sue 'em' philosophy of a population of irresponsible people. Esp since the park could be sued for letting them in, letting them go, not starting a search quickly enough, not finding them fast enough, etc.

Sue

Gear only helps to a certain degree... haven't a lot of the calls this year been `stupid` too? Like broken finger, bored want to go home, etc... you can't pack gear for that

I'm no lawyer or survival expert, but it seem to me that a better idea would be to have training instead of equipment.

Because as we all know, just because someone has gear doesn't mean they know how to use it.

How many people have bought one of those cheap junk survival kits and just thrown it in their bag with out bothering to open it to see what's inside it?

So I would have to say that training (possibly with an examination or test like you have to take to get a driver's license)to different levels to meet different contations would be better than a mandatory gear requirement. although i would say that having a generalized list of gear wouldnt be a bad idea.
(sutable clothing ect)

For stupid calls, the answer is 'NO!' Publicize those calls and the people who make them. Most people don't want to be a laughingstock. Preventative medicine?

Training won't happen. That takes personal responsibility.

Force them to take a small bag of gear, and when push comes to shove, they can make a fire, put a tarp over their heads, and scoop water from the river, simply because they HAVE to.

I wonder how you propose to force people to take a small bag of gear when they go into the "woods".

By maps I live in the woods/forest... does that mean every single person stepping out of their home for a walk should have this minimum required bag? There is no imaginary line where if you cross you must have this... and no way to enforce it either.

If you are talking about public parts and entrances then yeah, they could enforce to some degree. Are you going to check to make sure there is 1 kit per car or 1 kit per person? What if the states start to lose $ because they have to turn people away... will they now start selling these kits too?

I think it's a grand idea, and if people had the brains to start they would have their gear anyway... but in the end it's just internet talk

Don't use extreme and rare circumstances to make laws for
ordinary times.

An example presented was the Canadian Police stopping gold-rushers
at the Canadian Border and requiring supplies of at least a ton.
Maybe they should have required even more.

This was an on-going emergency situation of huge proportions.
The gold-rushers numbered in the thousands and no way could they
have lived off the land, even if they had superlative skills.
As it happened, even with those supplies, they killed game and
that put a hardship (starvation) on native people in the area.

Another POV, is that LEOs have way too much power to stop, detain,
harass, search people. This needs to be rolled back not made
easier. All these numerous regulations give LEO's excuses to
to bother people.

Citizen education groups, reaching out to others, through
posted signs, or face to face discussion, is better and
cheaper. Coast Guard Auxiliary used to do this.

"Don't use extreme and rare circumstances to make laws for
ordinary times."

That sums it up pretty darn well.

Even with the # of publicized rescues the statistics are still rather low with how many people go into the woods each year.

Susan

I'm sorry that you thought that my call was stupid but my idea was that if someone needs to have some form of training in order to get a gun licence or drivers licence, then some form of training should be required to get entry to national parks with difficult Terrain.

JohnE's question was not as simple as it appeared at first, and when I thought about it I just ended up with more questions.
I don't even know if a simple or even partial answer exists which was why I just posted it as a discussion topic.

I think everybody posting on this so far had interesting things to say.

I don't think you need to worry about Susan, Cauldronborn.
Don't take it too personal either. She was not calling your idea stupid, just disagreeing with it.
You both have great points.
Forcing people to carry a load of gear is not the complete answer and teaching people how to deal with getting lost or hurt is not a complete answer either because there are some folks who just won't get it. (Susan states it a bit more eloquently than I do.)
I liked the point Todd made about how rare rescue situations are in relation to the number of people out there a lot. It is something we often forget.
I wish I could find numbers for it.

It wasn't meant to be a simple question, glad you got that.

I'd expand on the notion that we shouldn't be making laws based on extraordinary circumstances but I fear that it would turn political, ie, September 11, 2001.

Passing laws is easy, changing the nature of people who want to go into the wild is hard.

Like most things, it comes down to what sort of society we want to live in.

I agree with Todd W
In my country, you can get in your car ( in the city) and drive in any direction ( north, south, east, west ) and find your self in the desert or mountains, well except if when you hit the seashore. Many lives are lost and corpses found when people drive there unprepared. The story comes in the news for a few days and then forgotten. There is no gate that says (This is the beginning of the desert, wear your batman belt and stuffed backpack).

Much as I like that people lives to be saved , there is not much anyone can do about this other than spreading awareness. I wish that in your public parks or in our desert trails authorities put some big posters suggesting minimum requirements for what kind of expected environments. If people won't read or accept those suggestions, then nothing more can be done but wait for corpses to be found.

Just this last week I was in a local forum and one guy showed his camping and cave exploration equipement. It was extensive but with very obvious problem . He focused his attention on equipement that would help him AFTER a disaster takes place like a broken neck . He had an extensive FAK that would address the problem. However, he didnt have a very simple gadget that would tell others about his problem or whereabout (a whistle). I suggested to him that neither he or anyone in his team go down in a cave without having a whistle around his neck. And also suggested him a few cyalume tubes, which he seemed to know nothing about.

This tread is crazy guys.

How big is the problem? This is a survival website with people that like to comment on other people’s misfortune. Maybe the nature of the forum gives the impression the problem is out of control. I am sure only the worst cases are highlighted here and there are many others that are news worthy but are missed by members and others that never make the news. But, maybe this is not a big problem, although I am sure it is a growing one.

It seems the US has so many rules and regulations for people entering parks and forestry service land. I have read on here, in other places and personal experience that people have to apply for permits often costing money and in some cases booking in a year in advance. This is an arcane system that is outdated.

People that are interested in the outdoors should be encouraging other people to enjoy the outdoors. This being a survival forum with some very able and experienced members, it is ideally placed to encourage people to get out and enjoy their environment. But, to do it sensibly and safely, start easy and build up to the more remote locations.

Equipment is NOT always the answer. It is only an aid to survival. Think of the many people that carry survival equipment on planes and especially boats, because they are legislated to. Many think it is a waste of time, an added expense and in some cases, big brother taxing their enjoyment. They have no interest in survival. And, have no interest in educating themselves about survival. Many boat owners for instance, only carry the bare minimum of equipment that the legislation dictates. They often buy the cheapest equipment available and forget about it. They don’t replace out of date items or have equipment serviced. This would be the same if legislation was brought in for wilderness areas. The flood gates would open on cheap wilderness kits that would only meet the requirements of the legislation but not be much use to an individual survivor.

It should be common knowledge on here, that the principle of survival is a pyramid with ‘a positive mental attitude’ or in some quarters ‘a will to survive’ being the solid foundation of the base of the pyramid. Followed by ‘health’, ‘knowledge’ and finely at the very top and taking up the least space is ‘kit’. This can be seen in all of the stories of people that have survived amazing adversity with no knowledge and equipment but with a positive attitude. Also the many stories of the people that have died that had all the best equipment and knowledge but lost faith in themselves.

The way forward for making people aware of the risks is to educate them. To build on excellent campaigns such as a hug a tree campaign (is this still going?) and others that the US have. To highlight that people need to take responsibility for themselves with some simple steps to guide them if something was to go wrong.

If a percentage of the forestry service and parks revenue was put into a nation wide campaign in the media, internet and useful flyers at park entrances, similar to the natural disaster campaigns of many states for hurricanes, tornados, floods and the like; or that of the homeland security campaign. Then the message would slowly get through to many people that are interested in visiting the wilderness; especially those that live in the cities, which vacation in wilderness areas.

Educational campaigns like this are known to work. They don’t get the message across to the whole population but campaigns do get through to a percentage of the population which translate to huge differences on the ground.

But, maybe the authorities feel they have the right balance and don’t need to act.

Forget the 'but gear quality will be poor' argument. Any knife is better than no knife. The numbers of people who get by with cheap equipment is legion. The most used knife a friend's boat is a discount store fillet knife bought twenty years ago. You have to use a steel on it a couple of times a day and it is a fraction of its original size but it still cuts. The quality of knives used by our ancestors was pretty poor and our more distant relatives often made due with slivers of stone, often as small as a fingernail. A $4 compass will still tell direction well enough to prevent you from walking in circles.

There is also no need to have requirements amount to a huge burden. A requirement for boots, compass, knife, and two ways to make fire shouldn't put anyone off.

Requirements can also be objective oriented. Like simply saying they have to have: 'the means to purify water at not less than one gallon per day for each person'. Or: 'Durable and effective, wind and water resistant means of getting out the weather while sleeping'. Objective oriented regulation tells you the outcome but does not describe how to accomplish it.

Don't like equipment requirements? The other effective way is to require a guide. The guide will tell you what to take or provide it, for a price, of course. Don't want to use a guide? Become one. Complete a field and sit-down test, pay your registration fee and go out by yourself all you want.

For a thread that's crazy, it has certainly sparked some interesting comments.

Please carry on.

Whilst studying for a PADI Scuba course out in Mexico (the dive centre was just across the road from the notorious Bay Bay Getaway hotel in Cancun next to the big Mexican flag pole), the issue of safety was raised by two young women taking the same PADI course, to which the instructor replied that in the days of Jacque Cousteau, Scuba Diving was a very dangerous sport but today, now with better training and better more reliable gear the safety of the sport has improved radically in the last 30 years, whereas sex had become much more dangerous past time over the same time period. Multiple Underwater Free Form diving is still best left to the experts though.

Of course if you have a more intimate knowledge of the terrain or the challenge that you have set yourself, then less gear is required or perhaps it's just a case of 'the more you know the less you have to carry' or even 'Proper Perperation Prevents P**s Poor Performance'.

There are a lot more dangerous and life threatning activities around in this world than simply going for a stroll into the bear, cougar and wolf infested woods and wilderness. An example would be a Saturday night expedition out to a nightclub in either Glasgow, Manchester or Leeds city centres yet there is no mandatory gear requirement for this activity.

Please note that issuing permits and having rules and regulations are not only for the sake of ensuring safety, but also to limit and control the impact visitors have on popular recreational areas. Some popular trails have been so heavily used, that erosion has become a major issue.

Pete

Maybe those you-are-on-your-own rules might be enforced in the death zone altitudes of the Himalayas, but the herd mentality here would likely crucify any SAR organization that tried it here.

Like the concepts of "free market" and "democracy," the ideas of "freedom" and "personal accountability" remain aspirations at best. Worthy aspirations to fight toward but not accurate descriptions of our daily circumstances in this very interdependent global society.

More on topic, I think preparedness education requirements that would reduce the cost of various licenses and permits to enjoy the outdoors might work.

That might conflict with the “duty to perform” aspect of abandonment. I don’t think any SAR team would want to be the first to test it out in court of law or the court of public opinion.

My feelings on the subject have been posted before. If you participate in SAR/EMS/Fire/Rescue/LE, you do so with the knowledge you may need to come to the aid of the prepared individual who just got into trouble or the unprepared individual who may have or not done something real stupid to be in their current situation. If you do not want to be response neutral you should not be in SAR, EMS, Fire/Rescue or any other emergency service. Yes, you get tired and fed up with people who are unprepared or are frequent fliers (an EMS term) or a whole host of seemly unnecessary emergency reponses, but if you are that bothered by such people/situations, you should look to some other job or interest.

Pete

I'm not sure it would work. Never mind the politics (someone would be screaming about how much a flashlight, mirror, whistle and garbage bag costs, and how it puts the "outdoors" out of reach for the "poor") and the potential litigation issues, but I have to wonder if it would actually do any good.

In some parts of the world, you MUST have a fire extinguisher in the car. OK, that's all well and good. So are they checked during inspection? (I don't know.) But even more importantly, what percentage of motorists know how to use the silly thing? I truely believe that even you did make basic equipment required, you'd still have the same number of SAR callouts because stupid people will do stupid things.

I have no illusions about any equipment requirements actually preventing anyone from attempting to power hike across Glacier National Park with nothing but tennis shoes and a jockstrap with a pack of Tic-Tacs stuffed into the waistband. National parks and forests are not, for the most part, surrounded by unclimbable fences and guard towers. Odds are you will be able to do it and get away with it. If you really want to do something stupid your facing a fine and a stern talking to, not a firing squad.

People likely to demand their right to do something egregiously stupid can still do it. The odd chance of getting caught and paying a fine is just part of the cost of doing business and part of the roguish attraction of being an outlaw, young, and stupid. The fine might be thought of as just removing some of the financial incentive to try to skate by with less equipment and shouldn't give anyone pause if they are dead set on doing it their way.

I definitely don't want to get into a situation where we have to compromise the humanity of the society by withholding help and rescue for people who fail to comply with an equipment list. In the abstract refusing rescue and assistance sounds like rough justice. But long term, when the event inevitably rolls around, it isn't worth it to the society and its view of itself as a just and generous people and withhold help to people in trouble. The standard is, and has to remain, that smart or dumb, well equipped or skating fast over thin ice, if you get into trouble we do everything possible to rescue you. It is who we are. It is how we roll.

There was a situation in Florida a couple of years ago where a nutty lady decided to go on an around-the-world sailing trip. The local Coast Guard commander physically confronted her on the boat and told her he'd arrest her if she tried to leave port. I don't know if he had any law on his side but he sure had common sense...

(this isn't the 13 y/o Dutch girl - that girl apparently has enough solo extended-duration experience to make it if nothing went wrong - the Florida woman had no experience at all)

As for "Duty to Perform" this recently was heard by SCOTUS and police officers can't be sued for not performing (the case was over a protective order that was not enforced). I didn't read the ruling and have no idea if it covers SAR personnel who are not police officers.