I used to carry some "retired" (but still usable) maritime flares in my rucksack, until I tried one (over the river, on july 14th, our national day). It make a whooop, rocket like, in the air, and two bright red stars came on, and came down..... safely in water...
I then asked myself if it was wise to use these flares in a forest area .... ??
and removed them from my rucksack.
I will launch the last ones, next july, 14th.... over water.
Or maybe on january, 1st 2004.
... just to get rid of them all.

Alain

miniMe-
What's with the rush to judgment that this hunter is a fool lacking reason and/or outdoors skills? From all that I've read we don't have anywhere near all of the facts about his story. He might be an inexperienced wilderness neophyte who used a flare to set a signal fire or he may be an expert outdoorsman whose wilderness-rated distress flare had a defective parachute. Until the facts are in passing judgement on the guy seems premature.

I'd like to quote a guy whose opinion I've come to trust:
"The hind-sight 20/20 machine is an interesting friend. It is much better used when you accept that the situation that happened to someone else can, indeed happen to you........If you hind-sight 20/20 machine only told you that you are so much smarter than the poor schmuck that this happened to that it could never happen to you then you have wasted the opportunity to actually learn."

We should all try to from this guy's bad experience but let's wait until we have all of the facts.

Ed

BTW Those are your words, you were defending Aron Ralston

While I could not agree more with you on the importance of knowledge, I am sure we all can agree it is the most important survival tool we have in our possession. However, unlike those of us here and most likely a few other forums, the average person does not dwell or think much about survival tools and techniques. We are not anything special or superior in anyway, except to say we are passionate about the topic. We love to explore, experiment and discuss this subject and sometimes feel that others should be as “responsible” as many of us here believe we are. If I were a betting person, I would suspect this individual went to the Hunting/Sports store, saw the package and all of the manufacture’s hype and thought that this was a vital piece of equipment to have – just in case. Truthfully, I have not read any of the details on this individual’s experience or his/her rational to use the device, so I do not know if this was their first line of defense or their last, but I am willing to wait before passing judgment. You, as well as all others, should feel free to make that decision for yourselves, which is what is great about this forum. I cannot speak for those who have lost life and property and will not speak for the various rescue personal, as to whom is at fault, but I will speak for myself. As one who responds to situations where people have made poor choices, resulting in the need for rescue, I do not hold the opinion that these individuals made “dumb” choices that now place my life in jeopardy. No, I made the conscious decision to pursue this form of public service and it my decision alone. If, I too become victim at a rescue incident, it was based upon an informed decision; I would not place the blame on anyone else. Pete

Thanks for reminding me. Certainly this individual may have been an experienced outdoorsman whose equipment failed him. Hindsight analysis might cause him to rethink using fire for a signaling device when he is in a tinderbox even if the equipment were rated for that use.

What I am trying to say here is less about judging the individual involved and more an attempt to bring out the survival lesson that using fire in an area prone to wildfire during the dryest season of the year is something we should all consider carefully. Whether you use that fire for signalling or cooking it is still a questionable activity in terms of survival value. You may signal help successfully, you may cook your dinner successfully - or you may burn yourself to death along with several tens of thousands of acres of forest and a few homes to-boot.

Each individual needs to evaluate their choices in implementing the use of their gear. We don't know all of the circumstances and probably never will but we can take away from what we do know the simple lesson that fire used in a dry forest carries dangers that may exceed the danger of not being found by rescue for a few more days.

If an individual files a plan of action with others, carries reasonable outdoor gear to deal with expected and unexpected weather, enough survival gear to get found then we may consider them experienced and wise. If further they find that they need to signal for aid they may choose between using their mirror, their cellphone, their whistle, their radio or their matches. If they choose to use their cellphone and there is no signal - try something else. If they have both legs broken and have lost all gear except matches but know that they are in a dry forest (something an experienced and wise outdoorsman should be able to determine from a quick visual inspection) they are indeed faced with a difficult situation. In such a situation a controlled fire may be difficult to build (both legs broken) and an uncontrolled fire is hard to run away from (both legs broken) having no signal is certain death from dehydration / hypothermia. What to do?

Certainly, a cautious evaluation of the use of a fire based signal in the context of a dry forest is a valuable lesson we can take from this individuals experience. Whether or not his actions were the best options available to him will have to wait knowledge of further details of his circumstance but those detals won't invalidate this lesson whatever they are.

We have neither the right nor the duty to judge this man's conduct. And we certainly have even less knowledge as to the actual facts of exactly what he did. Unfortunately news reportage is often inaccurate in both details and generalities. Whether he will or will not be arrested and prosecuted will be sorted out by the local sheriff and prosecutor based upon whether what he did was or was not illegal. Hopefully that will be a fair decision. Later a jury (presumably) will dispassionately judge his conduct in light of the fully proven facts sorted through the matrix of law.

I personally would be loathe to discharge an aerial flare in the dry, brushy conditions prevalent in much of southern California presently. It's a tinder box ready for ignition. The validity of the high fire danger warnings is proven by the many and large forest fires epidemic in the region. In many parts of the country, it is not so dry as to be so readily susceptible to fire. I even recall one USFS ranger admonishing me not to worry so much about fire regulations and forest fires in that state since they were welcomed as a means of cleaning and renewing the forest, a remark that struck me as being in marked contrast to the attitudes prevalent in areas like southern California.

However the potential sources for ignition are innumerable. So the question really becomes why vegetation was allowed to become so dangerously thick. While the environmentalists will deservedly get much of the blame, our political leaders and upper forestry management are also responsible for tolerating those conditions. Therefore that is really a political question and not a criminal legal assessment to be imposed one foolish or hapless individual. (End of rant.)

John

John

Glad you're OK - I was starting to wonder, as we hadn't heard from you lately. Chris had quite an "interesting" night this weekend...

Tom

Tom,

Friday night when we went to bed, the nearest fire was a seemingly safe 20 miles away. By Saturday night, the fire was unexpectedly only 10 miles off. We were starting to worry. Fortunately, our winds abated. Also the mountains behind us have burned several times over the last few years, so the vegetative growth was thin. Consequently the fire approaching us has slowed and seems to be under control. Still it is a bit nerve-racking.

After looking over my earlier post in this thread, it would appear that my temper has worn a bit thin.

I'm certainly glad that Chris has not only survived and in good form, but so has his sense of humor.

John