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.