Not even a few 100g of C4 and a prominent SELF DESTRUCT button?

lol. It figures a Cody quote would pop up on this thread. That man can sure speak truth to power. Or whatever, that means.

Anyhoo. I was in the Grand Canyon earlier this month and watched a hiker be evac'd out of Indian Garden for respiratory or cardiovascular distress. Trail telegraph is so imprecise. I understand that helicopter goes there daily, sometimes multiple times by people over their head.

Even on Bright Angel, 4 miles under the rim, there's tourist wearing Chuck Taylor converse high tops or skate board shoes, wearing blue jeans with only 1 liter of water in their hand. And a long walk up. crazy.

My point was that it is a SPOT issue when compared to the usage of PLB's. Prior to SPOT, how many folks used PLBs when the water they found was "too salty"?

The real issue is in fact stupidity but how we can blame people when they see this stuff for sale and they read the wonderful stories about people being rescued because they had their SPOT with them?

If that SPOT device cost $1000 and the plan cost $500 per year and anyone buying one had to go thru a short course in how and why to use it, they'd be used by people who needed them instead of by people relying on the technology to make up for their stupidity.

People were heading off into the wilderness, and even the Grand Canyon for generations without needing a SPOT device. Unless the good folks at SPOT start ponying up the cash to reimburse for the unneeded searches that THEIR products help to facilitate I think that they share at least part of the blame.

Rather than seeing rescue personnel charging for their services, I think what we'll see is a well founded reluctance to even initiate a search based solely upon contact from the good folks who monitor things at SPOT HQ. Couple that with the first law suit filed by the family of a SAR team member killed while "rescuing" a couple of idiots who didn't like the taste of the water in the Grand Canyon and you'll see some REALLY interesting changes in outdoor/wildnerness policies.

But as always, I could be wrong...

and there were consequences, although the charge may not amount to much.A hefty fine for shipping and handling (rescue & evacuation) seems appropriate.

Hmm - does the optional SPOT rescue insurance plan cover the cost of this kind of incident(s)?

I could see some SPOT owners actually see the device as a low-cost, way out of the woods or canyon, if it did. Not a productive product direction though.

From one review:

"When you activate your SPOT online, you have the option of purchasing search-and-rescue insurance for $7.95 per year, which includes "up to $100,000 of additional search and rescue resources, including helicopter extraction around the world and reimbursement benefits – underwritten by Lloyd’s of London – for any emergency service expenses incurred." "

Maybe there should be a requirement that these devices have a way to only be activated once. For example, a pull-tab. Once the tab is out, it cannot be put back in, and the unit is constantly on. You can make it a two or three step process to help make it more difficult to activate.

On one hand I figure the general population has always had stupid people.

It has to be pointed out that many of the famous explorers were operating with what would now be considered inadequate background knowledge, experience and marginal equipment. Of course they were often forced to go in relatively unprepared because it was the best they could do in that day and age.

Growing up the people I knew didn't undertake major trips without working up to it by taking many shorter trips to gain experience. The alternative was to hire a guide.

Of course people still did get in over their head. Ending up alone in the deep woods without a clue. I suspect the real difference is that they either died or rescued themselves. This difference is because until relatively recently there was really no practical way to call for help. If you were smart you had a set itinerary filed with the local authorities and if you ran into trouble they would go looking for you.

Of course people too stupid to plan ahead for water are also unlikely to have filed an itinerary. Until the mid-70s they would either figure it out and make their way out on their own or not. Odds are the world would remain blissfully unaware as their predicament played out. It wasn't uncommon for people to find human remains and bits of camping gear deep in the woods. Standard answer was: 'We always wondered what happened to them'.

Nobody said there wasn't a down side to advanced telecommunications, satellites, and miniaturization of electronics.

there is a revised model SPOT coming out, see here:
http://www.equipped.org/blog/?p=113
It addresses some of the issues.

As somebody said, you can't fix stupid.

There are thousands of responsible SPOT users that don't cause goofy incidents like this one.
I have one & so do several of my riding buddies.
Should we be penalized because fools rent & misuse the equipment?

I know - mostly from this site - that the SPOT has some shortcomings.
We like it because I can use the 'OK' button to let my wife know all is fine even when there is no other way to communicate.
I've had it over a year & so far the 'OK' button is the only one I have used.
Plan to keep it that way.

Should anyone be penalised? I don't know but you can bet your last Loonie that there will be a lawsuit(s) and it will involve either someone suing the folks at SPOT when a family member dies even though they used one or it will be the family member of a rescuer who gets killed responding to one of the many, in my opinion only, false calls that gets sent thru the SPOT response pipeline.

The more people have and use them, the more they will come to think it's their right to be rescued on a whim. It's inevitable.

Real PLBs do that, the selling point of the SPOT is that you can also send non-emergency messages. It's possible this confuses people or it just dilutes their feeling for the seriousness of sending an alert.