One issue that seems to be coming up more and more frequently is that of people substituting technology for common sense. A cell phone, PLB, SPOT, or sat phone can be hugely valuable for calling for help in a real emergency. However, they can also be a crutch, and lead us to be less prepared and self reliant.

Check out this recent incident: http://www.alaskadispatch.com/article/alaska-search-and-rescue-thin-line

I think everyone on this forum would agree that we should stay out of trouble to begin with. And certainly no one should have any qualms about calling for help when life or limb is truely at risk. However, we should also give some thought to when it is not appropriate to call for rescue. In my opinion, we should all make every reasonable effort to self rescue. Even if that means spending an uncomfortable night out. A few minimal preparations can make that night less uncomfortable!

A very interesting article which contains a lot more information and insight than usual. I don't think that Marsh was dumber because of technology, but I think it made him more careless.

A moral hazard is introduced when SAR services are easily accessed and are free.I think about the guys that go out fishing on the ice edges in Lake Superior and when the wind shifts, the ice drifts out to sea. These guys know the risk, but the fishing is good, and they know that SAR will come out and get them.

I think the only way to modify this type of behavior is to charge a fee for a rescue operation. One should be able to purchase insurance for it if they wanted too.

This issue is not anything new. We were dealing with frivolous searches and trying to separate the wheat from the chaff back in the 60s and 70s.

It would always be nice if people would accept responsibility, be prepared, and rely primarily on their own resources. SAR cannot respond immediately for any number of reasons.

I don't know if technology is necessarily making us dumber. Rather, I feel like it causes us to expect that help is always just a button press away.

With that being the case, people sometimes take more risks than they are actually prepared for. This is done under the pretense that, if they get into trouble, one quick phone call and the rescue crew will give them a free helicopter ride home. In actuality though, it doesn't usually work like that.

Good article, thanks for the link.

Rather than "dumber," I'd say "lazy," "complacent," "overconfident."

My cell phone (Verizon) is not even 100% in the city (depends on the building) so no way I'd bet my life on it in the wilderness. It stops working altogether 70 miles west of DC in route to our usual campground in the Shenandoahs. Even on top of the mountain coverage is spotty, at best.

A consistent theme in cases cited in the article is that people panic near darkness. Yet, they seem not to have given any thought to the challenges and dangers rescuers face after dark.

So add "self-centered" to lazy, complacent and overconfident.

It would be tragic if PLB alerts become as dubious as home and car alarms - which people around my neighborhood don't pay much attention to anymore because most have been false alarms.

. . . and then when he uses up the cellphone's limited battery using that electronic compass, he'll still be lost, but now he won't have a phone either.

comon sense, there ISN'T and app for that.

Actually, I have complete confidence that the natural tendency for many human beings, when left to their own resources, is generally in the direction of dumbness. It has nothing to do with technology.

For example, I live very near the coast and often monitor the VHF marine frequencies, particularly on the weekends when all the dude boaters are out on the ocean. I can't tell you how many times I've heard the Coast Guard, or Sea Tow, or some other sea rescue agency ask a stranded boater for their position, and the boater can't provide the info. In other words, they either don't have a $100 GPS, or don't know that their GPS can provide them with coordinates that will more or less pinpoint their location. So, no, technology doesn't make these people dumber, these people can do it all by themselves. ;-)

Er.. Dumber.

I laugh at -

Techo-geeks who can find anything, so long as the GPS is working. Can't read a map or compass tho. God forbid their batteries die, or GPS breaks.

Cashiers who can't make change without the register telling them how much to give back. God save them during a power outage (seen first hand).

Geeks who know it all, as long as they have bars on their hispeed fones. Out of fone service, they may as well be on the moon. And they get all fidgety when they can't check their emails 25x an hour.

So am I surprized that more and more people put themselves in dangerous situations, then call for help. Not a bit. I only wish Darwin was allowed to operate as intended.

Technology makes stupidity easier, with quicker results.

There have been previous arguments on ETS on whether to charge or not charge for SAR. The main argument is that if people know they're going to be charged, they won't call for help, even when they really need it. So separate the WANT from the NEED.

How about making some rules about charging/not charging?

Will Be Charged:
* If they don't have a basic survival kit on their person (like the complacent STATE F&G dolt in the article);
* If they don't have appropriate attire with them;
* If they call and then start moving away from the area they reported they were in (except to avoid harm, such as rising water or lightning on a ridge).
* If the call is deemed frivolous by the rescuers.

Won't Be Charged:
* If they have a basic survival kit on them;
* If they are injured to the point they can't walk out themselves (no sprained thumbs, etc).
* If they are in a life-threatening situation.
* If they have appropriate overnight clothing with them.
* If they call and stay put (with above exceptions).

If the call is frivolous, they need to hand-write their agreement -- not just sign -- to pay (so they can't say they 'didn't know what they were signing') before they board the rescue craft, and if they refuse, leave them there. The word will get out.

And if the call was bogus from the start and they're identified, NAIL THEM! Authorities should refuse all calls from 'UNKNOWN CALLERS'. Without ID, there will be no attempt at rescue.

The problem is that the Doers make it too easy for the Users, and the Users multiply like rats. If we keep doing what we're doing, we're going to keep getting what we're getting.

Sue

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-scotland-tayside-central-14735364

Technology does make it extremely easy to navigate and get to a mental note of the landscape using Google Earth. Even GPS waypoint routes can be transferred to GPS as someone has already done the hard work.

http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lochlomond/ben-lomond.shtml#profile

http://www.walkhighlands.co.uk/lochlomond/profiles/ben-lomond.kmz

The wooded area where the walkers were rescued from would be about 500-600m from the path running along side Loch Lomond and another 500-600m back to the car park. Spooked by an adder then calling on a cellular phone to SAR to get them out of trouble is pretty dumb as Ben Lomond isn't exactly a difficult place to get lost.



The wooded gully just right of the waterfall

Using technology to stop getting ones self into trouble rather than using technology to get out of trouble (calling for help via PLB, cellular phone etc ) would be the smart and less embarrassing thing to do.

Susan, this is a great way to create a monstrous bureaucracy and eventually impede the delivery of emergency services.

A good many of the situations to which I have responded were, in hindsight, essentially unnecessary and frivolous, in hindsight (which is always perfect). What did we do? We shrugged our shoulders and chalked it up to training. What is benign and nonthreatening to one individual may be incredibly frightening to another with a different background.

Many SAR situations begin in a very benign, humdrum manner, with no hint whatever of serious problems. Many SAR responders can recount situations where they realize that an earlier, more aggressive response would have made an important difference in the outcome.

Bear in mind that many SAR operations are basically volunteer in nature, and the cost to the community is fairly small. Be aware that many agencies (the NPS is one for certain) have policies in place that do permit charging for the really extreme frivolous calls that can develop. Out and out false alarms are, I believe, in most jurisdictions, criminal behavior.

I doubt very much that GPS is luring unprepared people into the outdoors. Unprepared folks have been venturing into sticky territory long before GPS, etc. came along.

As for "Doers making it too easy for the Users, who then multiply like rats" there is a very effective solution that is often implemented. It is called training and education. our group always had a proactive education program which got good information to the community. Over time, it paid off.

I agree. Who decides what constitutes "a basic survival kit"? Some people might consider a knife, bic lighter, and compass as adequate. Others might think you were a fool without a 44 magnum, stove, tent, and sleeping bag. Who decides what is "appropriate atire"? Is an el cheepo plastic rain poncho OK, or do you need a $500 goretex jacket?

Also, who do you charge when the search subject isn't the one who initiated the call? Note that one of the incidents cited in the article was when the mother of the subject called because he didn't show up. The reason was that the subject decided (quite sensibly) that it wasn't wise to continue after dark, and chose to wait until morning. Are you going to bill the mother who made the call? Or the guy who made the safer choice, but then was late?

Up here a some years back, a guy didn't return on time from a multi day ski trip. His wife called SAR. The Troopers helo located him as he was skiing out with no problem. Conditions just made it slower going. He didn't need or wish to be rescued. The Troopers ordered him to get on the helo and he was flown out, essentially against his will. Who do you think they should send the bill to?

I totally agree. I believe the NPS actually refers to this as "preventive SAR". Education is best. You won't get through to all of the people, but you can get through to many of them.

I spent some time lurking on the ETS forum before I joined and started posting. I have observed many posts where people recommend carrying PLBS. Also much discussion of the merits of PLB vs SPOT, etc. But not much discussion about when to use them. The first post I made on ETS was responding to a thread about an incident in the Tietons where an apparently uninjured climber activated SPOT and was short hauled off the mountain, but his buddy climbed down on his own. No one seemed inclined to question whether it was an appropriate situation to activate the SPOT.

The reason that I posted this story in the first place was to make the point that we ourselves need to make sure we give some serious thought to when (and when not) it is appropriate to activate those devices, or use our cell phones to dial 911.

Oh, I'm sure you're right.

But you only mention the cost to the community -- how about the cost to the volunteers? How many have died or been badly injured going after idiots?

Education... and what do you do with the majority, who don't think they need it?

Sue

I can address this question because I have done a lot of volunteer SAR work, spanning several decades (1958 to 1985 essentially). During this time, I became aware of what I might call the "SAR paradox - namely, the more I contributed, the more I received. The result was a "win" for me. I was volunteering for SAR for the very same reasons any of us indulge in any activity - we derive a net benefit.

Forget all that hooey about the dedicated, selfless, noble volunteer. That is a very simplistic, naive description of the volunteer dynamic. It doesn't work for everyone in the general population, but for those who embrace SAR, it is addictive.

The benefits certainly weren't financial, but they were substantial, nontheless. I credit SAR for getting me through a rough period in my personal life. it was the one positive influence in a crumbling marriage and a sub par job (one that involved a paper shuffling bureaucratic maze, incidentally).

People do get killed and injured doing SAR. A good friend died prematurely, having contracted Valley Fever while on an operation, and I have been dinged up a bit myself on various occasions. I vividly remember one occasion, 100 feet down in a badly decaying mine shaft, where I really thought we might not make it.

My honest reaction to that situation was "At least I am going to go out doing something meaningful, not just perishing in some lousy car accident." Whether or not you are going after idiots or not is fairly immaterial, at least during the event. Someone needs help, you respond. It's fairly simple.

In the incident where I was in mortal fear, it is worth noting that our two victims, who had spent a couple of days in the bottom of this mine shaft, had landed there as a result of criminal activity (and some less than brilliant decisions). Once out of the pit, they were promptly interviewed, cuffed, and arrested. We rescue them all and let the deputies sort them out.

In a perfect world, one would prefer to rescue non-idiots. While we are dreaming, let us also specify that victims would be attractive, available, and extremely grateful. Since that isn't the case, education is the best, most productive strategy. The publicity and media attention surrounding some of the more spectacular operations offers a very good platform for these efforts and it can pay off.

I apologize for the length of this post, but this obviously punches one of my buttons.....

NightHiker,

For the most part, I couldn't agree more with Hikermor's and your assessment of SAR operations and the personnel that get involved with SAR. I do take minor exception to:



I was always taught (and how our team handles) that all SAR operations are primarily law enforcement functions due to potential foul play and should be handled as such until proven otherwise.

Pete

Excellent point, AKSAR.
-Blast

I agree with hikermor and NightHiker. I volunteer with a local SAR group for two reasons. Foremost, is that I really like the people who join these groups. It is a very self selecting group. They are the sort of people I like to hang with. And I like using my skills and experience to give something back to the community. I'm getting a bit old for this sort of thing, but I will keep on participating as long as I can, in whatever way I can.

The state of New Hampshire does pretty much exactly that...if you get into trouble through negligence and have to be rescued, you can be billed for the cost of the rescue.

Technology is great but we need to remind ourselves that technology is not a "push button solution provider". Critical thinking and being prepared are always our greatest strength, expecially in a survival situation.

As I read this thread and learn of the attitudes people have towards SAR operations, I can't help but wonder about two things:

1. Won't ethics play a big part at the moment we have to decide whether to rescue someone? What I mean is this: even if we are aware that someone is in over his head, the moment he calls for help because his life is in jeopardy, are we going to be able to resist the urge to save a fellow human being? To simplify this matter, some stupid guy who doesn't know how to swim jumps into the pool, much against our advice. He begins to drown. Do we save him? Or do we say, see, we told you so? I think as human beings we have been built to feel a great deal of pressure to save one another, and for us this feels like a matter of right and wrong.

Or is this a matter of, if you pay for it we'll gladly do the SAR, even putting ourselves at a reasonable amount of risk?

2. Some people are beginning to suggest this reckless spirit of adventure may be what set modern humans apart from other hominids:



An article (http://www.theatlanticwire.com/technolog...hominids/42117/) quoting from the New Yorker.

Isn't this just the same thing as those hikers who, relying on little more than a GPS, etc., get themselves into trouble?

Or I suppose there is a difference between someone who takes the effort to acquire all the knowledge and tools before setting out on a dangerous journey (e.g., today's astronauts) vs. someone who decides to take a detour while driving through an uninhabited part.

Da Bing

My experience is that you rarely contemplate whether withholding rescue services is even an option. At the beginning of an operation, you only know that someone is in trouble, or is potentially in trouble. Hardly ever do you have credible information on which to even begin to consider the non-rescue option. The fact is that you simply do not have all the details that are often available later on.

That doesn't mean that a rescue will always be available. Rescuers may be engaged in another operation, or weather may present obstacles. There is often an appreciable time lag.

With respect to ethics, what can we say about the morality of sitting in impromptu judgment of another human being, and deciding that they should die or continue to suffer simply because they did carry matches, or a tent, or whatever. It would be something like deciding not to transport an accident victim to the hospital because we thought the injured person was at fault and caused the accident. I don't think we do that.

If rescue, especially wilderness SAR in mountains or caves particularly, is going to be effective, it needs to be as prompt as possible. You can't hang around to get the information to decide if the person(s) in jeopardy "deserves" rescue. What kind of world would that be, anyway?

Wit respect to the second point of your post, I find the conclusion highly speculative and suspect - just another attempt to prove that humans are "special' and somehow very different from the rest of the animal kingdom. It is very simple - Neanderthals didn't cross large bodies of water because they didn't have watercraft. Would neaderthals or homo erecti have ventured out to sea if they had watercraft? Who knows? One thing, when you venture out onto the water, accidents happen. Storms arise and you get blown off course. Currents set you into unknown locales. Sometimes this results in accidental discoveries.

Now we have the technology to contemplate voyages to Mars. We will try it. But without the technology, we would just be pounding sand, or maybe stll fashioning flint knives.