This thread is sort of hopping between a PLB/SPOT2 thread and a grizzly bear thread.

DeLorme announced they have partnered with Iridium to produce a two-way satellite GPS communicator that works off of the Andriod OS. It is essentially a self contained, portable wifi that allows two way texting with rescue units. The webpage has some good information.

DeLORME INREACH UNIT

I'm posting this b/c if it gets market share it could help determining the amount of effort that needs to go into the rescue before assets or volunteers are tasked out.

For those that don't read the whole article, they want to do a iPhone version but it was cheaper to do the Android OS first and there is a concern that because the app is text based, Apple might deny the it b/c apparently they are critical of apps that include competitive options things they include on the phone already. FWIW

Funny how the author himself used a gun to get a grizzly off him.
Don't really see his point, given his personal examples.

It is time to get rid of the old style PLB and use two way
communications. For everyone's benefit including the searchers.

Ask anyone who volunteers in SAR and they will tell you its a
bad idea to fine people who call for help. All kinds of
unintended consequences (as has been pointed out on many threads here).

It may be possible to write a law that fines people who abuse the system but won't discourage legitimate calls for help. It's probably irrational to expect our legislators to implement it correctly. My suggestion of fines was, as you say, a bad idea.

So what do we do?

Yosemite Search and Rescue (YOSAR) interviews their rescuees after the event. The most common cause for large scale rescues on the big walls is weather, not injury. If a rescued party did stupid things like bringing down sleeping bags or taking no raingear, the NPS will charge them with "creating a hazardous situation" and hit them with a fat fine. I don't know how often they actually collect, though.

It's too bad this statement is so true.

His main point is that guns in inexperienced hands are worse than no guns at all.

IMHO - There have been two statements that I would disagree with.

1. "His main point is that guns in inexperienced hands are worse than no guns at all."

2. "Given this scenario and how it played out, a firearm is unlikely to have made a difference."

Neither statement above has any basis in reality. They only apply to those that prefer to turn the other cheek.

Reality is -

* When seconds matter, your unarmed friends will rush to be mauled also.

* The armed guide on the other side of the river will be there in less than a minute.

* If you have three bars on your phone, medical aid may be there in less that an hour.

* If you have three buck and slugs in your Mossberg, none of the above apply.

Since this second statement is mine, I guess I should reply.

I am not coming from the perspective of one who would "prefer to turn the other cheek", but as one who prefers the best chance at survival. In the event of a bear attack my goal is to end the attack, period. This is what I base my opinion on.

If I ever come face to face with a bear I want to be able to walk away from the situation. In my conversations here I've assumed others hold a similar goal and have made my arguments for the most effective way to do so accordingly.

Since we've already had a lengthy discussion about how best to defend against a bear attack in the first thread about this incident, I will again suggest that this topic is better discussed over there rather than rehashing the same thing in this thread.

This thread would be best served as a place to discuss the signalling / communication aspects of the incident and what we can learn in that regard.

[quote=Denis Since we've already had a lengthy discussion about how best to defend against a bear attack [/quote]

In actuality, there was little discussion on how to BEST defend against a bear attack. In actuality, there were several comments that might imply that a firearm would not be effective.

IMHO - After digesting the complete initial thread and this one, there has been only one QUOTE that I would want a inexperienced reader to leave with -

”bear spray was effective at stopping aggressive bear behavior in 92 percent of cases while firearms were effective in 67 percent of cases”

(Both must be in immediate reach if visibility is zero. Dump at least 8 ounces of spray and immediately retreat under CONDITION RED with the shotgun if possible.)

I'm not sure why you feel the need to belittle the discussion which took place on that thread.

The primary tools for defence were compared for effectiveness, the results of at least 3 different studies were brought up at various points, methods for carrying and using these tools in the most effective manner were discussed as were appropriate reactions to coming in contact with a bear. At several points various posters suggested what they felt the best tool, or tool combination, would be to carry in bear country and why. I wouldn't say we all agreed at the end, but lots of good ground was covered.

If we missed any aspect or neglected some salient points about defending yourself against a bear, please feel free to add to that discussion. However, it seems quite disrespectful for your to simply dismiss everything that was said over there (save one partial quote) and then present your position as the be all and end all on the topic.