Stranded Man Cuts Power Poles to Draw Attention

A man stranded in the bush in northern Saskatchewan was rescued last week after chopping down four power poles — knocking out electricity to surrounding communities.

More at CBC News

Would you do it if you were in dire straits in hopes of rescue?

Cutting a remote power line can have some pretty serious effects. It's not like a well-developed area where the grid can compensate.

You can cut off power to a hospital or nursing station, to freezers containing people's food for the next six months, to water and waste treatment plants. Not to mention power to industrial installations that can lead to spills or millions of dollars in damage.

So to answer the question, I wouldn't do it except in the most absolutely extreme situation. And I try my best to avoid being in situations like that.

Part of me says, Whatever it takes, hoping that the travel plan I left with someone is used if I don't arrive or call, or the cell phone, or SPOT I have on me work where I am at. Or I know where I am and can walk out.

The other side of me remembers that in 2002 a stranded driver started a signal fire in Northern Arizona and it became the largest forest fire in AZ history, (500k acres, ~500 houses destroyed, 30k people displaced).

Imagine if someone needing that power was diabetic and their insulin was ruined because of heat, or someone on a medical system had no back up. Or a business lost money b/c they couldn't run their business. Of course all that could happen by mere accident as well.

I'm coming up blank for the reasoning of putting multiple lives at risk for the sake of my own. I'd have to be very sure that the power line I was downing was not putting anyone else in danger and most likely there would be no way I could be sure of that.

If its the choice between life and death, as in I see no reasonable way I would live without cutting it down, then yes I would. Sorry, but my desire to live would override the possible harm done to others. People in isolated towns like that should have the capability to survive without power for a little while.

If I've got food enough, or a way to get food, I'd simply start following the power lines. They have to go somewhere.

So long as you're willing to accept the punishment doled out if someone should die due to the incredibly selfish act you've committed.

After all, people who venture out in the woods should have the capability to survive without being rescued for a little while...right?

Yup! Though I'd be a bit more worried about starting a forest fire, and would want to maybe find low power or telephone lines. But yeah, I always figured that was a good way to get attention.

Which explains why I personally could justify cutting down those poles... Of course, the situation would have to be pretty extreme for me to do that.


Quite frankly, I don't think I ever would have thought of cutting down power poles as a means of signaling. He earns quite a few bonus points for ingenuity. But then again, a PLB would seem extremely smart in such remote locations.


In a perfect world, anything totally dependent on the grid would have some kind of backup, if nothing else then in the shape of thermal mass and creative cooling methods. It takes a while before the fridge is dangerously warm, and by then you'll have the insulin in the freezer, possibly in a cooler with lots of water bottles (thermal mass which at first prevents freezing, then act as a buffer to delay warming). I do realize cutting the power will have lots of bad consequences, possible lethal, but if there is no other options but cut-or-die I would cut the power.

I hold the view that I can't be morally responsible for other people's failure to prepare for power outage.

Just read the article and then took a look at the area in GoogleEarth -- fairly remote, not much up there.

If your only form of communication is cutting power lines you really need to rethink your kit. This is one of the areas on Earth that a PLB would really shine; cutting power off to multiple communities is really bad form.

Carrying an axe is good; there are lots of ways to constructively use an axe in a north woods survival situation. Taking an axe to a power pole or four would be way down the list of things to do (Plan C or D).

Probably not.

I'm not that important, and I'm too polite. Heck, I've told an EMT "sorry about this, I hope I didn't interrupting your breakfast".

I think you're morally responsible when you cause the power outage. I can't be held morally responsible for you not wearing a parachute, but I'm still responsible for throwing you out of a plane.

So you would rather die in that situation because you think there could be a chance that somebody might be hurt due to a power outage? Go for it. Frankly a reply like yours seems exceedingly smug, to think you are so morally superior to someone when you really have no idea what you would do until you were put in that situation yourself.

And of course people should be prepared when they venture away from civilization; regardless of how prepared you are, stuff happens. Planes crash, electronics fail, stuff breaks, etc. You can act superior to everyone and think that you have every situation covered, but the fact is nobody can be prepared for everything at every given moment in time.

The article really does not give us enough technical information to make a solid determination, or any basis to judge each others responses harshly. That said, I cannot imagine a scenario for myself that would justify destroying infrastructure and putting others at risk in this manner. I don't know this particular area, but I do know that if you have an aluminum fishing boat and drag it up, tip it over, and prop up the bow, you have a fine shelter. If you have a lake, you have water. If you have fishing gear, you have food. If you have wood, an axe, gasoline, a spark, and the energy to chop down four utility poles, you have fire. He had at least these several things and probably more. As the (presumably) Native Canadian gentleman said, build a big fire and wait. But, as you say, I don't really know what I would do.

The man said don't forget you have to live with the consequences.
Do what you have to to survive, but remember you have to live with the consequences.
It may be your conscience, it may be ostracism (think Donner party), it may be prison, but don't forget you have to live with your choices.

Save yourself, or save your baby? Someone else baby? Some stranger?




So me, speeddeamon and JohnE are stranded in a boat in the middle of the ocean. We're out of food and water. We have fishing gear, but haven't caught anything in weeks. There is no rain. Who becomes lunch?

Seems to me that chopping telephone poles, dry/seasoned wood, would be pretty hard. Usually wet wood cuts easy but is hard to split but dry wood is just the opposite. Cutting down four poles has to represent a fair amount of energy. I'm just not sure what the mile per pole ratio is. With that much energy he might have hiked out.

Then again perhaps he really didn't feel he had many options. Most of those woods, as I understand it, are monitored for fire. Setting a bonfire, well controlled of course, would pretty sure to get firefighters coming your way.

I would be pretty reluctant to chop down power poles, property damage and cutting power for entire communities isn't my style, but if that was really the only option I would do it. I'm just not sure it was his only option. Exhaustion, sleeplessness, starvation and desperation can make creative thought next to impossible. Sitting here, well fed and rested, it is easy to maintain perspective and think up alternatives. Second guessing people who were in a desperate situation is easy, but it isn't likely to be profitable.

Q-Who becomes lunch? A-Each of you cuts themselves on the topside of your arms,then position yourselves each at Starboard,Port,&Aft,allowing your blood to drip the perimeter of the boat,& splashing the water,of course you will have your fishing gear ready w/bloodsoaked cloth on the hooks.Let's hope that boat isn't a Rubber Liferaft,lol!

Last resort, yes, but I'd try a lot other things first, like start a controlled fire.

For those want to follow the power line, places that remote you could walk along the line for a month without getting anywhere.

Nobody becomes lunch (course we would need some live bait for the sharks )

My reply was meant in a more general sense, as in would there be a situation you would do it. In his situation, no I wouldn't, because I wouldn't need to (like I said, only if I saw no other way to live).
As for living with the consequences, anybody that's been a soldier in combat knows plenty about that. When the #*$& truly hits the fan, you act first to do what needs to be done to save yourself and your men, then worry about what the consequences are later.

What the hell did he chop them down with? He was fishing or boating, right? I'm not really clear on the details...was he near his vehicle when he capsized? If so, why didn't he drive out? If not, who carries an axe but not a proper survival kit or signally gear? Again, we just don't have the details but if he had the capability to fell four power poles (no mean feat) then he probably had some other options. Oh, well...fools and children, right? Thru divine providence or dumb luck he was rescued and no one else was killed or injured. I guess that's something...

I'm in the "no" camp. Maybe I'd feel differently in the actual situation, but looking at it from my comfortable chair, and giving it serious consideration, I don't think I'd do that. If I have the means to chop down even one power pole, much less four, I surely could try to signal some other way. I wouldn't be comfortable with the chance of putting others' lives at risk.

Yeah, they should be prepared for a possible power loss if it's that critical to their survival, but that still doesn't give me the right to force that on them. Not even to save my own life.

OTOH, I'm not him, and maybe he truly had no other way to signal, due to lack of means and/or knowledge. I'm not sure I would have thought of this, and I applaud his ingenuity.

I'd like to think that between a satphone, PLB, and leaving my trip plan with a trustworthy and responsible adult, that I wouldn't find myself needing to do this. Would I do it to save my kid's life if there were no better option? Yes.

More likely than not, no, I wouldn't.

I would follow the lines, and hopefully I would have a map of the area and a good guesstimate of where I was so I could go in the correct direction. The power line cut would be semi cleared, make for faster movement, and there is always the possibility of someone living right along it.

With my luck, I'd chop down a pole, it would spark, start a forest fire, and Smokey Bear would appear and beat me silly.

It's interesting how people can justify breaking the law as well as endangering other people's lives in order to try and save their own.

Since we're grasping at scenarios, lets say that someone does this, they cut down a power pole to attract attention, lets say that another person is on a respirator hooked up to that power line, is the person who cut down the power line responsible for the death of the person on the respirator?

Do we blame the victim for not having an alternate means to provide electricity or do we blame the idiot who got him or herself lost in the first place? Apparently some of you would blame the victim which I find fascinating. Claiming that you're not responsible if someone else dies due to your illegal and immoral behaviour is pretty much the definition of blaming the victim in my book by the way.

Taking an action which knowingly causes harm to another and then attempting to rationalize it by claiming that the victim should have been better prepared is not only the height of arrogance, it's morally unsupportable.

Yes. Sometimes in survival you must: Cut, Chop, Burn, Dig, Smash, Kill whatever is necessary to get out. While I agree with the statement I just made it isn't mine. it belongs to M4040 look him up on Google.
Adventureboy

There are not, as far as I can tell, any reports of any loss of life, limb or serious harm in the communities that lost power. I don't know the area where this happened but if it is like most remote spots in Florida, those few that remain, it is quite used to losing power regularly. You simply can't string a line of simple poles through miles of woods and expect it to stay working indefinitely. Wind blows poles down, branches, sometimes entire trees fall or get blown across the lines, ice drops them, lightning, gophers, birds and squirrels all take their toll.

I wouldn't go so far as to blame the people in the communities for any losses, the guy that cut the poles is clearly to blame, but I think you underestimate the preparedness and perseverance of the people living in these remote communities. Yes, as people a wont to do, they complained about losing power. It is was PITA to lack lights and to be inconvenienced. Some might have lost the contents of their freezer. That's possible but it hasn't been confirmed.

What seems clear is that nobody died, nobody was seriously injured, and any property damage, beyond the repairs needed to the lines, was not serious enough to make the news.

It has to be noted that if anyone suffered any loss they can seek compensation from the man who cut the poles. A few thousand dollars spent compensating for lost meat would be a small price to pay for survival.

I don't think anyone should casually cut power poles. But I also wouldn't assume that a rural community was unfamiliar with the risk of, and are entirely unprepared for, losing power. Odds are it is a regular event.

I'm glad that no one was harmed, I'm even glad that the guy was rescued. And I can even give him credit for thinking a bit outside the box. But...the ends justifying the means isn't a valid defense for his actions.

I don't assume anything about rural communities and their ability or inability to deal with a loss of electrical power, that's why the actions of the guy in question are even less morally acceptable to me.

If one assumes that "well it's a rural community, they're probably used to losing their power..." that's simply an attempt to rationalize an illegal and immoral act. Only by not assuming anything, good, bad or indifferent about the folks who's power was lost can we make a valid judgement about the morality of the act in question. The illegality of it isn't even in question.

In my own case, I would assume the worst case scenario, that my selfish act is going to harm someone thus I wouldn't do it. Assuming anything else is, as I've stated too many times now, simply rationalizing, as the person who cut the lines down had no way of knowing what sort of problems his act might have caused.

I think examples like this get right to the heart of what "survival" is all about. We can choose to live our lives in a moral fashion or we can drop all the pretense and admit that we think laws and morality are for other people.

And "Adventureboy", when your survival encroaches on my and my families right to live peacefully, especially the killing part, you've already lost the argument. You have no more right to "survive" than anyone else and committing crimes and immoral acts in order to do so is still wrong, regardless of what some clown named M4040 may claim.

Art, you bring up some valid points, the best one I think supports my thesis, albeit in an ironic fashion, if the community in question is used to having the power go out, they wouldn't necessarily think to check the lines in time to save the guy in the first place. They'd assume that the loss of power was just another regular event and not the desperate cry for rescue that it in fact was. Shades of a Roald Dahl short story there.

On the other hand, power in a remote area is not nearly as reliable as it is in a well-developed area. Even in the middle of large urban centers with a well-maintained power grid, critical systems have backup batteries and generators: being in a rural area and having nothing to protect life-critical systems is just as dumb as the guy getting stuck out there, perhaps moreso.

I would definitely be willing whack the power lines to get attention, once it was clear that was the only way to survive (ie, not a yuppie taxi service). I would also get ready to pay a fat bill from the power company for line repairs.

With all respect, that is a very tricky argument. Remote, northern communities are not flush with cash. The cost of living is extremely high. Many people in those areas live what is more-or-less a subsistence lifestyle and have few opportunities to change their situation. Infrastructure is barely adequate at its best.

The long-term causes and long-term solutions relating to their many deep challenges are outside the scope of this forum. Suffice it to say that these challenges exist, and have bearing on this discussion.

The fact remains that by chopping down a remote power line you are setting in motion a chain of potentially serious events. You cannot adequately control nor anticipate the effects on other, innocent people. Like the amputation of a limb, it is not a decision to be made lightly.

Doug:

Very eloquently stated and I mirror many of your same thoughts.

I would be most reluctant to cut down power poles, but might consider it if truly desperate.
One should certainly consider the risks to those deprived of power, but remember that the grid supply is unlikely to be very reliable in a rural area, and probably fails several times a year anyway.
The risk to life by having 4 power cuts in a year when otherwise there would have been 3 is unlikely to be significant.
Rural grid lines carried on wood poles are only for small communities, such a line would not normaly serve a hopsital or large factory.

As many others post, proper planning and equiping should avoid the need for such drastic actions.

So would you use the same justification when someone starts a wildland fire to attract attention, resulting in the loss of someone’s home? After all the person lives in a high risk area and should have been prepared for a naturally started wildland fire and should have taken precautions to protect their home from fire. It is only an inconvenience, as they can certainly rebuild with the insurance money.

The arrogance and supremacy attitude is almost nauseating. Someone goes hiking, gets lost and we (the generic we) are ready to attack and crucify the individual for getting lost and requiring rescue, but someone takes what might be at minimum a significant event in the lives of those affected by the power outage and at worst the possible loss of someone’s life and we seek to justify the individual’s actions. I just don’t get it. Have we become such a selfish society where self-preservation takes precedent over the lives of others?

Just my 2 cents-
Pete

We are transitioning to an "it's all about Me" society. We aren't completely there yet.

A wildfire is not at all the same thing and your comparison is ridiculous.

As for the arrogance and supremacy attitude, I agree, there isn't one person here who hasn't been guilty of that.

screw the power lines. if i've got the energy to cut down power poles with an axe, i've got enough energy to climb one and cut the phones instead. this has its own potential butterfly effect, but it seems less than cutting the power. that's assuming said energy wouldn't be better spent on other methods of getting attention, which for anyone here WOULD be the case.

Lessee. . .$299 for a McMurdo FastFind PLB or $100,000 damage to the power grid (not counting the cost of lost power to the communities those lines service)? geez, that's a tough one. . . hmmm, since I have already spent the $299 and have a McMurdo FastFind PLB in the bag, I'll forgo dropping the poles. $299 for something I hope to never activate; a PLB is cheap insurance.

I still carry various kits in the truck -- water, food, an AXE, yada yada yada FAK, but there are better ways to be found than dropping some rather expensive breadcrumbs.

Actually a wild fire is a good comparison and should not be chided as "ridiculous". A wild-land fire is in many ways worse then having the inconvenience of having to do without loosing power. Power will more then likely return in a day or so. However if someone lights a wild-land fire in an attempt to effect a rescue then the fire gets out of control and burns down your home...who is worse of? The people who had no power for a couple of days or you and your family who are now homeless?

Back to a power outage. My family and I have seen and were directly affected where a careless person took out power to our northern rural area of about 300 homes. The damage caused by the power surges, then the actual outages ended up costing hundreds of thousands of dollars to repair which was all not covered by insurance. This cost did not also include peoples lost work wages when they had to stay home to deal with the after effects of the outage.

I guess the difference in view comes down to how likely one thinks it is someone might die if you cut the power. I myself would guess the odds low (not zero) since anyone in that situation probably already died during a previous power loss. I would consider starting a wildfire to be a more serious prospect, an act far more likely to kill or injure others & beyond what I might be willing to do. Those two choices do not have similar consequence risks in my estimation.

Every time I pull out of the driveway I have, in different parts of my minivan, a cell phone, CB radio, FRS radio, PLB, and a I'll add a handheld HAM radio once I get a license. Likewise spare batteries are kept in two places, front and rear. And a signaling laser, a week of lifeboat water & food, etc. I do take preparations to avoid getting into situations where escape necessitates a big impact on a lot of people. But if I do get in that situation I am willing to balance significant inconvenience to strangers against life-or-death survival.

Without a doubt I would do it.

This guy obviously isn't the brightest light in the harbor:

"The man had gone out in his boat on the Geikie River, which feeds into Wollaston Lake, said Coun. Ed Benoanie of Hatchet Lake Denesuline First Nation.

"But once the man left the river, he couldn't find the passage through the ice that's still on the lake. "There is a way to get home, if you know where you're going, but he didn't know the way, " said Benoanie, noting the man isn't a resident of Wollaston Lake.

Montreal Gazette article

This guy's boat didn't sink. He was just lost.

It sounds like he was too dumb to be where he was, too dumb to be allowed out alone in a boat, too ignorant of local conditions, and too stupid to use his axe to cut wood to start a fire, or three fires, which could be seen from the air and reported.

Instead, he did the most destructive thing he could do to get attention. Short of setting his own boat on fire, of course, which would have been less work, but more costly to him personally, which he obviously wasn't of a mind to do.

Sue

While I am a fan of M4040, I would not presume to speak for him on this issue (or any other). Heres a link to his site.

http://www.m4040.com/Selections.html

Everyone's grasping at these theoretical scenarios, but at least in yours... ventilators have battery packs. And most folks I've ever picked up that are on home vents have LOTS of batteries. And a whole lot of O2 bottles. And quite often, the local EMS or equivalent is well aware of them (since these guys aren't the most healthy to begin with). Worse case scenario, you bag the dude with a BVM until the power comes on. Hope your neighbors are there to swap with you when your hands finally cramp.

Hospitals have generators, and usually high priority on getting fixed. And again, lots of BVM's to hand-bag. Not like medicine comes screeching to a halt when the power goes off. Gets a bit hectic, but medicines still work, needles still work, IV bags still drip, etc.

All this hoopla about "immoral" and "illegal" are hogwash. One man's morals are not another's. I mean, just look at al-Queda for that. You think beheading people on TV is OK? I bet not, but apparently they do. Who are we to judge if cutting a power pole, with hypothetical and mythical consequences, is immoral? We're not the ones making the decision based on our values at that time.

Illegal? Probably. Screw it, I'll pay the fine. If I'm that SOL that I'm resorting to cutting a foot of power pole, then I've probably blown every other opportunity for help. (The OP scenario seems like he wasn't there yet). And besides, it's not like they can collect any more than I can physically provide. Like a $10 million fine is BS, cuz they'll never make their money back. I'd just end up on government support cuz they'd be docking my paycheck, and they'd end up paying themselves.

I'm all about responsibility for actions, but when push comes to shove, this place is called Equipped To Survive. Not Equipped To Obey The Law And Die Quietly. I'll do what I have to. I have to be alive to deal with the consequences...

I am not trying to speak for him. I just agree with his statement and am making it my own. I was only trying to give credit where credit was due. Sorry for any confusion.

I'm not jumping anyone for what they'd do in a similar situation whether their answer is to cut the lines or not. It's absolutely a personal decision.

Regarding the fluidity of morals: I only have my morals and they're not subject to circumstance. I can either choose to follow the moral guidelines I've chosen or break them. Right now, I can say without a doubt that putting an innocent at risk to save my own bacon is against my moral code. I could later chose to break my moral code in a different circumstance, and I might even try to convince myself that it is justified, but either way they're not fluid.

My worry in this situation is still that I may cause the death of another if I chose to cut the power to a community.

Respirators and a multitude of other lifesaving pieces of equipment may be run by batteries or even by hand, I'll trust others on that. I don't have any personal knowledge of the equipment.

However, there are still many ways to die during a power outage.

Traffic lights usually go out the second the power is cut, and I've seen horrible accidents at traffic lights that are dark due to power outages.

Last year in this area there were a few fatalities from people who improperly used generators when the power went out due to ice storms.

It could be said that it was the operator's fault for misusing the equipment, but there is always the chance that they could have corrected the issue given time.

I know what I use electricity for and that I could do without it, most likely, indefinitely. My main worry is that in this day and age I don't know other people are using it for and I'm not willing to assume that they all can survive without it in remote areas.

This is a good conversation, thanks to everyone for posting their thoughts.

Well I'll say this much, it's nice that other people's illegal and immoral decisions can be used to learn more about the folks who post here.

It's been fun.

Monday morning quarterbacking -- one of humanity's favorite pastimes, a mostly productive staple of this forum and countless conversations I've had over a lifetime. Studying others' survival situations is how we learn. Sharing conjecture makes for interesting conversation. One thread in ETS is hardly worth getting exercised about and rendering sweeping judgments on fellow ETS members.

And so I will try not to judge the judgmental and will blissfully go about the day after logging out.

As to the topic at hand -- It would have to be a pretty desperate situation before I'd destroy others' property, especially when doing so would clearly impact others on the scope that power outages do. That I know for sure. What that threshold of desperation would be I don't know and hopefully will never find out.

Thanks to this thread I'm pretty sure I'd be giving more thought to the ramifications beyond my own situation. And am even more likely to carry a locator device.

The cumulative effect of ETS threads these past few years is that I don't go anywhere -- especially not into the wilderness -- without being more prepared and mindful of the situation.

But I carry so much preparedness stuff now I need a bigger vehicle and stronger muscles.

I agree with Dagny here. People do depend upon electricity for life-saving medical equipment and who am I to try to save my life at the possible expense of another. Most power outages do have some warnings for people to prepare. Hopefully I'll never be in that sort of situation, as I think I'm far more prepared than most and always try to think before doing any new adventure and try to prepare for the possibilities that could happen.

I'm going off topic here for a second, but I smell some rightous indignation on this thread.

There are many threads on ETS about homeowner security, gun control, conceale weapons, etc. Mostly well rationed (a boon to this forum)

Amazingly enough, lots of people post that they'd be willing to confront/shoot/sic a dog on someone in their house. Apparently their moral/ethical/legal standards allow them to kill face to face.

But Heaven forbid you should accidently kill someone at a distance.

I can't see how someone can justify shooting someone in their home, but freak out that someone else would chop a power line and "possibly" endanger someone else.

Well I've certainly never posted anything regarding shooting or having a dog hold someone! BTW, a trained dog will hold and bark if a person stops. But if someone came into my house and tried to harm me I certainly would have the right to defend myself. Totally different in protecting yourself from someone trying to cause harm than intentionally putting someone in jeopardy. Power outages can be pretty darn tough on the elderly in the heat or the cold and potentially deadly if they depend on a medical device.

I don't know as I would condemn either side.

I figure a lot who are coming down on the side that says that cutting the poles is always wrong are downplaying the idea that most people who say they might do it have emphasized that it would have to honestly believe it to be a real life and death situation. Anything less than a firm, well-founded, belief your going to die makes the property damage nothing more than vandalism. I don't think anybody would argue in favor of that being okay.

IMHO society does not have the right to demand that you die to avoid property damage and the relatively slight risk someone might, conceivably, be injured.

I don't agree that self-defense in one's own home equates to self-preservation at the expense of others in a situation one put themselves into.

Not saying I wouldn't cut the power poles down. Wasn't there, don't know.

For darn sure I'll defend myself and my loved ones in my own home. And then I'd probably throw up.

Another way to look at the question is to examine it from the other perspective: if a stranger were likely to die would you inconvenience yourself to save them?

I think the answer would be Yes for everyone here. In practice there are a lot of people who will even place themselves at considerable risk to save a stranger's life (these people are often referred to as "firefighter", "policeman", etc).

Most of the disagreement in this thread stems from extremely different assessments of the risks imposed on others posed by loss of electricity for a few hours, and we're not all asking the same question.

I think the risk is low, though not zero, so I'm willing to view it as a "my life vs. significant inconvenience", and believe that there is a threshold where if my death was likely enough I'd inconvenience a lot of people even without asking (I'm not expecting a freebie and would expect to pay out a lot afterward).

Others view the risk as high and are essentially seeing an entirely different question "would you condemn another to save your life?" That's not the question anyone is answering when they say Yes.

Finally, if I ever face the question I doubt it will be a simply black & white issue. If I break that power line will someone die before it's repaired? I think it's unlikely (since they'd have died the last time the power went out) but there is a chance it might happen, just like there's a chance a rescuer dies any time you initiate SAR with your PLB.

(indeed you could always look at it that way: if a bridge washed out and your car went for a swim on a dark night and you managed to cling to a tree with your PLB ... would you trigger the PLB knowing that some sheriff's deputy was likely to also end up in the river? That there was a very real chance a SAR effort might result in a rescuer death?)

If I cut a power pole down there's a good chance it would fall on my head.

There's a PLB in my future.

Your first idea is critical I think, James.

Would I volunteer to inconvenience or even put myself in mortal danger to save a stranger? Absolutely.

Would I force someone else, essentially volunteer them for danger that they may not be prepared for, to inconvenience or put themselves in mortal danger to save myself? No.

I think there's a critical difference between calling 911 or activating a PLB versus forcing a whole community to respond to an emergency of this kind. Law Enforcement Officers, Fire and Rescue and SAR crews all volunteered for the jobs knowing that their lives could and will be placed in danger. That's why they are considered heroes.

As I stated previously, I wouldn't cut the power to save myself. That is a decision based on my moral code.

I'm not judging anyone who has a different code and would therefore choose differently than I.

I asked the question in the title to this thread "Would You Do It?" because I thought it would make an interesting conversation. It wasn't some kind of ploy to play gotcha on anyone. I think it's a worthwhile conversation and should continue.

I'd either fall it on myself or electrocute myself! Sort of like just because you have a chain saw doesn't mean you should use it.

A very deep philosophical question. I like to believe that although some moral codes (what to wear etc) differ, some human core values are universal.



A very bad chosen example. Human leaders go through great efforts to inhuman their enemies ("them"). This serves as justification to enable one particular group ("us") to do all sorts of nastiness to their enemies ("them"). The claim is that normal standards for behavior don't apply when dealing with enemies - they're "inhumed", and all sorts of nastiness is not only allowed, but encouraged (beheading, torture, rape, blown up by bombs etc). Beheading is not in anyones morale code - beheading is what you do to enemies when moral codes are suspended.

The last 100-150 years, Western civilization has gone through great effort to extend the definition of human to your enemies, which are not inhuman and are not to be tortured or massacred. You may still shoot or bomb someone for some military gain defined by your leaders, but not civilians. This is a fairly recent invention.

My point of this particular situation was that this guy did have some other choices, which were less potentially damaging, and he didn't choose them.


Dagny, throwing up afterwards is okay.

Sue

I am not sure if people understand just how remote Wollaston Lake is. If they got a road to there it is fairly recent. A lot of the reserves there are only served by ice(winter) roads, by boat or by plane.

I have worked in Northern Sask in the past as well as in Northern Alberta. You are pretty much in the NWT a far as terrain goes, except that NWT likely has denser population levels.

If I was in a similar situation I would do the same thing as he did.
I am glad he was found.

Hi chickenlittle, welcome aboard.

As you can see, passions are running high in the "yay" and "nay" arguments. This one touched a nerve. We're generally a bit more laid back around here.

Your points are well taken. That's big, wild country. If you get in trouble, you're not walking out. (On the other hand, the remoteness cuts both ways -- the community that lost power can't nip over to the local Costco to stock up on perishables. I assume the ice road is out, so it's air transport only until the lake clears. You can see how the argument gets tangled up in a hurry.)

The one thing we haven't discussed -- though Sue has hinted at it -- was the lead-up to this rather extreme event. We don't have all the details (it's a curiosity type news story) but there are hints of "gong show." At least that's the vibe I'm getting. ("Doctor, it hurts when I do THIS." "Well, don't DO that.")

Cheers,
Doug

Mostly Harmless - I agree it's a poor example, but it was one intentionally chosen as a stark contrast to our normal value system (uh... ok, maybe "my" normal value system).

Dagny, I'd probably yak too. Or shake really really bad. Which is embarrasing as a guy
Although I would love to debate how self-preservation in one's home is somehow different than self-preservation outside one's home (where someone dies), it's totally OT and worthy of a whole slew of threads. In my mind, though, having one's actions kill another is the same, whethere it's on the offensive or defensive.

Susan, if he had other choices available, and he went with the powerline first, he's a flipping moron.

This chaps mistake was not burning the evidence, i.e. of the ends of the chopped poles. I would have then just later said that a beaver ran of with my firesteel earlier that morning.

[quote=MostlyHarmless

The last 100-150 years, Western civilization has gone through great effort to extend the definition of human to your enemies, which are not inhuman and are not to be tortured or massacred. You may still shoot or bomb someone for some military gain defined by your leaders, but not civilians. This is a fairly recent invention. [/quote]

Only the implements of war have changed. Witness: Alexander the Great, Erick the Red, King Richard Lionheart, Julius Caesar, Gengis Khan..................

Residents of Tokyo or Dresden circa 1945 might quibble with your timing somewhat, and the doctrine of strategic bombing in the 1920s was centered around of idea of knocking out the opponent's civilian support for war. But from the end of WWW2 or so I agree.

I also agree that if the situation isn't desperate he'd better not mess with the community power system. If he's not low on food, water, or something else essential for survival, the power company should give him a map & compass rather than a ride out.

I wouldn't agree considering one of the largest aerial bombing campaigns ever mounted was during Operation Menu in the late 1960s and early 1970s, where over 2.5 million tonnes of high explosive bombs were dropped on countries that had virtually no air defenses. The tonnage dropped was many many times that dropped during the second world war.

Shock and Awe was only a few years ago.

LOL -- though any beaver that could survive that dose of pole treating oil would be a heckuva lot more freaky than any bear I've met.

Actually, to be ploddingly literal, if I absolutely had to chop down power poles, I'd chop as high as I could -- above three feet. At least that gives the repair crews something to work with. I've seen a lot of three-phase line poles repaired with thru-bolts and big, heavy steel dogs. The repair outlasts the pole.

Woof!
Doug

P.S., is this thread generally heading toward a Monty Python sketch, or is it just me? "I'm a lumberjack, and I'm okay ... "