This is sad, another boy attracted by the Film 'Into the Wild". He apparently went off into the 'Wild' with little equipment and very little training.

URL KOMO News Article

Its odd when one wants to have a big adventure Skydiving, one does not just rent an aircraft and figure that the aircraft will have a parachute, and that they can jump into it and just Skydive with no training. But when it come to Wilderness Survival somehow we can watch a movie and just go for it!

He will either:
1) Succeed.
2) Come home hungry.
3) Die.
He is 18, which means that he is old enough to make an informed decision. Even if it's a poor one.
Not sure that I would describe this situation as "sad."
"Sad" is when something is not of someone's choosing. He has, as it were, chosen. Just pray that he does not come to regret it.

You make a worthwhile point. The article points out that he left behind a book on "outdoor survival tactics" which presumably he had read. Obviously there is cause for concern.

has not ended badly yet. will probably end with a tired, hungry, bedraggled 18-yr old.

Pete2

However it ends, it will only be after wasting taxpayer money to find his sorry butt.

And that my friends, is the sad part, based on the definition provided...

or maybe not. After all, we have chosen to let this sort of thing happen and foot the bill. I guess that's on us, or at least our leaders.

No worries Benjamin. Looks like he didn't cost the taxpayers much:

Missing Arizona man found dead in southern Oregon woods

"Johnathan Croom, 18, of Apache Junction, Ariz., was discovered in a wooded area around 6:30 p.m. about 1,000 feet from where his green 2000 Honda CRV was abandoned off Yokum Road in Riddle, the Douglas County Sheriff's Office said. His death is being investigated as a suicide."

Hard to stop a person determined to end their life. They are sure to find a way to get it done one way or another.

Not sure this qualifies for a Darwin award, as it appears the young man's intent was to end his life. It would seem reasonable to conclude that since the body was found only 1,000 feet or so from the vehicle, he probably died of self inflicted injury, and not exposure.

Other articles indicate this was a "lost love" motive. Apparently one likely influence was the story "Into the Wild" about another young man who died in the wilderness, though for completely different reasons.

One wonders, had the kid found a way to deal with the heartache, what might he have accomplished in his life? Now his poor parents will inherit his heartache.

Quite a difficult challenge to find a positive aspect to these situations.

But back to the point, is the money that was spent to search for and eventually find him a waste, or a social imperative? It is of some value to know if this community considers the use of funds in public trust to rescue folks from their recklessness a reasonable and fair imposition. Was that what the funds were collected for? Is that what the people that earned that money to pay those bills worked for?

Not I.

Certainly a valid question. However, it is well worth it to put this in perspective. Wilderness SAR in this country costs the public far less than most people imagine. A few big searches get big media coverage, and can cost a lot, but overall the drain on public funds is surprisingly small. Much smaller than most people think. By and large the public gets a hell of a bargain. There are a couple of reasons for this.

The vast majority of the manpower in wilderness SAR is volunteers. We buy our own gear, give up our evenings and weekends to train, and don't get a dime in payment. In Alaska, the State Troopers have legal responsibility for land SAR. However, in my experience the Troopers nearly always delegate the actual work of SAR to volunteer teams. I have been involved in a number of major searches where there were 60+ volunteers working, with never more than one Trooper on scene (often no Troopers directly involved).

In Alaska we are also lucky to have the 176 Wing of the Air National Guard available. These include the Pavehawks, C-130s, and PJs. Their support of civilian SAR is a training function for them. They need to train for their real mission which is combat search and rescue. They do civilian SAR because it is by far the best training they can get, outside of actual combat. Challenging flying in severe weather, difficult terrain, real hurt people for the PJs to practice medicine on.... about the only thing this "training" lacks is bad guys shooting real bullets. It doesn't cost the taxpayer any more than if they just did pretend training on make believe exercises.

Climbers on Denali sometimes get involved in high profile rescues. However, all climbing parties on Denali have to pay a fee which helps support the NPS rescue operations on Denali. The Park Service also uses a lot of volunteer (ie unpaid) climbers and medical personel to assist in their high altitude rescue program.

About the only significant direct expenditure of public money is for the Trooper's helicopter. Right now, here in a state more than twice the size of Texas, we have exactly ONE state owned helicopter which is primarily used for SAR. ONE...for the entire state.

One more point. You mentioned "...the use of funds in public trust to rescue folks from their recklessness...." As noted above there are a few high profile SAR cases for people who did stupid things, the vast majority of the SARs are for ordinary people who get into trouble. Kids who got lost in the woods on the east side of Anchorage, overweight and out of shape hunters, berry pickers, fishermen, hikers who tangled with bears, all sorts of regular folks who got into trouble in the out of doors.

We will even come look for you if you should have a problem on your planned big game hunt.

1) I am truly sorry to hear of this young man's passing. One can only hope that enough will be learned to help other's.
2) UNDER ABSOLUTELY NO CIRCUMSTANCES AM I PREPARED TO USE SOMEONES SO CALLED "WORTH" TO DECIDE IF THEY ARE TO BE RESCUED. It is not for you or me to decide who lives or who dies. It is not for us to pass judgement in that fashion. Because someday you might be the person being judged. Do you really want someone going "Naw, he's a right T.... Let him drown"?

I will grant you that there could be a case for procecuting someone afterwards for willfully or negligently endangering their, or their rescuers lives. But that's an issue that requires very careful throught.

Just for the sake of argument - You are in charge of the local SAR team. The decision to be made is yours and yours alone.

Two people are lost, in the same general area, but in opposite directions. There is only enough personnel/resources/time to mount one SAR. Incoming weather will degrade conditions in a short time.

Victim one is a depressed teen who has expressed a desire to die. He has driven to a remote area and left his car.

Victim two is an older gentleman who suffers from the early effects of a disease leaving him confused at times.

Who gets rescued?

(sucks to be King sometimes, huh??)