Few details but still...
http://www.cbc.ca/m/touch/canada/montreal/story/1.2303247

Interesting story...here's more
http://www.montrealgazette.com/Police+Marco+Lavoie+near+death+when+found/9109912/story.html

We'll have to wait a bit for details. Apparently this individual was too weak to speak or drink water when found, meaning SAR got to him, literally, in the nick of time.

I noticed that his original problem was having his food cache and equipment eaten and destroyed by a Bear. When this happened he had the option of canoeing/walking out and decided not to.

Since he lasted more than 30 day after his food ran out, he survived exactly the way that should be expected. Eventually Even with proper Fasting Technique you will run out of fat to burn and then go on to burn muscle. After that starts you get weaker every day.

He did well, I hope after he recovers more he does a full interview

good comments here.
looks like one big weakness was that he never told anybody to keep an eye on his schedule - he went overdue and wasnt missed for a while.

Pete2

Canadian SAR received some adverse comments on this site recently. Good to see they got this man out in time.

Now this is a great story to hear, and read. Would love to get more details as it progresses.

solo adventure? Be extra careful - and use a PLB with check-in abilities.

New Article Says he Ate His Dod

The tiny trickle of information we have suggests the dog went after the bear. We don't know how the dog actually met his/her end.

The well-fed comment-o-sphere, naturally, has already proclaimed judgement. A mob with torches and pitchforks is being duly assembled.

As far as I can tell, we really have ZERO credible information. The 'papers can't even decide if he's a canoeist or overland trekker.

This is possibly shaping up to be the most desperate situation we have seen. The gentleman involved does not seem to be a rookie. I sincerely hope he recovers and can shed an instructive light on his terrible ordeal.

Slightly off topic, but I read this the other day and.. well.. I Hope he didn't eat the Dog's liver....

Toxicity from eating liver {from Wikipedia)

While liver is often eaten, the vitamin A content of the liver of certain animals—including the polar bear, seal, walrus, moose, and husky—is highly hazardous.

This danger has long been known to the Inuit and has been used by Europeans since at least 1597 when Gerrit de Veer wrote in his diary that, while taking refuge in the winter in Nova Zemlya, he and his men became severely ill after eating polar bear liver. In 1913, Antarctic explorers Douglas Mawson and Xavier Mertz were both poisoned (and Mertz died) from eating the livers of their sled dogs during the Far Eastern Party. Another study suggest however that exhaustion and diet change are more likely to have caused the tragedy

Pathological changes consistent with hypervitaminosis A have been seen in bones of Homo erectus, and have also been attributed to consumption of carnivore liver. More recently, the bone pathology of the Homo erectus KNM-ER 1808 has actually been attributed to treponematosis, a bacterial infection.

The more you know...

Are you suggesting we should ascertain the facts before rendering judgement? You must be some kind of a radical, indeed! This is the internet,after all....

It really does sound like a really tough ordeal. I would think long and hard before I would eat my dog, but I wouldn't say that categorically I would not do it. It would come down to the situation and circumstances

From what limited info we do have though it doesn't seem like he was very well prepared. If he were a member of this forum he probably would have had some vital gear carried on his body.

We all do keep some gear on us physically, right?

In all seriousness, I am a little surprised he didn't have a PLB on him. It sounds like he made these trips often, and I would think by now he would have invested in a little insurance just in case....

Probably he is a lot like many of us older types (like me!). He has been doing his thing for many years, decades even, before LBs were available, and did just fine....They are not cheap, so why bother.

I am right on the cusp myself.

I disagree - good basic PLB is about $300 US a year; half of what I pay for cable TV. Its not only cheap, its tiny and great insurance. With more advanced models you can do check-ins to email and more. Well worth looking into

spot PLB catalog info

RNewcomb,

I have to agree with Hikermor (as is common, we have a lot of similar experiences) that people did this for centuries without a PLB and some don't see the need.

Some also choose NOT to degrade the experience. It was best described in "Paradise Below Zero" where the author described the dropoff from a coastal freighter as he and an old trapper were left for the winter. The trapper said (IIRC) "At least now we can holler for help - and no one will hear" Many of us seek the true independence of not being able to call in the cavalry when we screw up. It is a part of the true wilderness experience. When I am responsible for others or when I am working I carry a PLB. Often, when I am on my own I don't. YMMV

Respectfully,

Jerry

I was thinking the same thing, and was reminded of this discussion we had last year.

SPOT is not a PLB. SPOT is a SEND. Two different animals , both of which have their place. Most notably, a PLB has no annual subscription, a SEND does.

So if I read this right, his stuff was either eaten or broken by a bear. He had the ability to turn around right then and return to civilization, but didn't. Me Macho Man, me good to go without the basics. Things got worse the farther he went, he ate his dog. He ate his freaking dog. His dog. He makes a rookie mistake in the beginning and compounds it. Nice play there Shakespeare.

I have a word for this guy. MORON. He should have manned up the first day after his stuff was destroyed and gone home. Instead, with no common sense involved, he continues his trip. I pity his family. I'm really sorry for the dog, he got roped into this clown's macho mindset without much input.

This story should be prominently displayed in a section of "What not to do in the woods". Or possibly the "Take your head out of your butt, admit defeat, and go home."

I certainly hope the SR guys charged him for their services.

[/quote]

RNewcomb,

I have to agree with Hikermor (as is common, we have a lot of similar experiences) that people did this for centuries without a PLB and some don't see the need.

Some also choose NOT to degrade the experience.
[/quote]

Yeah, I thought about that.. that Quote, "Well, at least now we can yell for help and no one will hear us" is a good one..

However.. I have to admit.. When I read "Some also choose NOT to degrade the experience.", I laughed a little.. cause I thought "I think the Dog took the brunt of the degraded experience here.."

After a the bear attack, I think I would have wrapped that trip up.

Hope he's ok though.. sounds like he got in over his head.

Agree with these sentiments and those of JBMat. He ate his dog...

As for not wanting to degrade the experience, remember that while living off the land in days gone by, many people died in their not quite adequate attempts. Take the Donner party, some of those survivors resorted to cannibalism, which some folks consider worse than eating the dog. Not quite the romantic pioneering experience they were expecting. The only reason the Donner party folks didn't use a PLB is because they didn't have one. They also didn't have a GPS, good 3D maps or any of the other niceties we have available.

My dog cost more than a PLB.

I rank this gentleman right up there with another person who had to cut off his own hand when trapped by a boulder.I omit his name because Mr.Ritter had some legal issues from our discussion of him.The way I see it,gear distroyed by bear=trip over.Seriously injured on trip=trip over.Not having a communication plan, absolutely deplorable......

BOATMAN
John

Lots of chest thumping here. Not sure how familiar many people are with northern Canada, but google James bay and look at area to the east of it (where he was), you are looking at a wilderness size of 4 or 5 American states combined and there could be literally no road or town within hundreds of miles. To canoe there you are likely be dropped off by somebody in a plane, return to your starting point does absolutely nothing to help you because you are still in middle of nowhere. This isn't in US or UK where you can walk to the next town and call home from the gas station.

As for the self righteous "OMG he ate his dog people", gimme a break, easy to say that when your fridge is 10 yards away but if you are in his situation you'd do it too.

All the more reason to be prepared!

Here's a more realistic/detailed version of what really happened.

http://www.lafrontiere.ca/2013/11/02/cinq-tentatives-pour-sauver-sa-peau-2

Five tries, to save his skin
Injured and starving, Marco Lavoie made five attempts to make his way back to civilization and save his own life.

Having navigated two thirds of the Riviere Nottaway, between Lake Matagami and the village of Waskaganish, the adventurer injured his ankle.

On a remote river chock full of rapids that needed to be bypassed by carrying everything on foot, the injury left him in deep $£!+.

Misadventures

Mr. Lavoie left on the 17th of July on a two month trip with his dog, to descend 230 km [143 miles] on the Nottaway River to Hudson Bay.

After an uneventful month, his campsite was attacked by a bear. The bear damaged some of his equipment and stole his food bag.

But all was not lost. Armed with two rifles, he managed to hunt, trap and fish. He continued to descend the river. Two thirds of the way down the river between Lake Mattagami and the village of Waskaganish, he injured his ankle badly. There were dozens of portages to do, and the banks of the river being steep (25-40 feet high), it was too painful to portage. So he stopped for one month to heal the ankle.

The worst was yet to come

All his attempts to continue descending the river--which was starting to freeze up--failed. Finally he was forced to stop and wait for rescue, since the most difficult section of the river still lay ahead.The helicopter pilot, Claude Richard, says, "It was a good thing that he stopped at that point, because he wouldn't have been able to continue in his condition. Just below that point, there was a very rocky rapid, dropping 5 metres over 3 km. He would never have arrived at the end of that rapid on the right side of the canoe"

In time, food and ammunition became scarce. Hungry and incapable of obtaining food, he was forced to kill his German Shepherd to eat it. In spite of that, for one week before his rescue he had nothing to eat. An SQ officer Benoit Coutu, says, "With the weather and storms, his tent and sleeping bag were torn and wet. He had no matches". His boots and socks were also soaked. He took them off to try and dry them, but without fire, and with nighttime temperatures around -10C (14F), they froze solid, rendering them useless.

The man was finally rescued more than three months after the beginning of his trip. While being taken out of the forest, he expressed to his rescuers his wish to get a new dog and train it for search and rescue work in the bush.

Thanks for the link.. it's a good story, and some good lessons to be learned there I think.

If I was in the same boat... I hate to admit it.. I probably would have made the same decisions though. He'll have to live that for the rest of his life, which I am sure will not be easy.

I felt early on that it would be a mistake to condemn the guy with the info we had. Glad I waited for 'the rest of the story'. Looks like he worked hard to get out of there.

Glad I have a PLB.

After reading the info about where he was during this experience, it only reinforces my feeling that he should have had a PLB. He started this with his eyes wide open and didn't have a back-up in case things turned south early? An encounter with a bear in that small part of Canada should not have been unexpected. The possibility that a lot of gear and food could be lost should not have been unexpeected. If his "Plan B" was do make due and live off the land until rescue was triggered by time, then he had a pretty poor plan.

The $$ cost of a PLB pales to the cost of a good dog in money and companionship.

Glad to see more detailed information (and hopefully less frothing at the mouth).

Looking at the trip he was making, it's rough, wild shield country, and a wild, powerful river. The only way to self-extract is to run the river, including portages.

My feeling, from the start, was that a basic communication breakdown made his ordeal considerably worse. If I understand correctly, the initiation of SAR was delayed by almost a month because his family assumed he was taking extra time on purpose.

To each his own, but personally I'm not comfortable with a mushy return date. When travelling solo, I have always tried to set a firm date with a reasonable margin for delay, so that it's crystal clear when I am overdue and possibly in trouble. This gets the SAR ball rolling promptly, and knowing that keeps me from doing desperate things that might make my situation worse.

Philosophically, I understand the desire to experience wild country without the chattering of the wired world imposing on my solitude. But there is no doubt that a means of communication would have been a wise addition on solo trip like this.

Sat phones are prohibitively expensive for many, and SPOTs are only now finding their way into mainstream stores. PLBs are certainly the most cost-effective since prices have finally dropped to a point where I would consider one. But PLBs are not yet well known in the wider world. I suspect a majority of capable and experienced outdoorsmen have never even heard of them.

Amen to that doug.

People need to remember the distinction between "could have" and "should have". The first is a simple observation. The second is a value judgement. Different people can make very different value judgements.

Yes, he "could have" had a "Plan B" and carried a PLB, and that "might have" made a big difference. Or then again maybe it might not have helped. What if when the bear "....damaged some of his equipment and stole his food bag" it also damaged his PLB? Maybe he "should have" had a Plan C, and carried a sat phone as a back up? But wait, a sat phone, like any electronic device, can fail when you need it most. So maybe he "should have" also had a Plan D as a back up to his back up, and also carried a spot?

Or maybe he "should (not) have" attemped such a trip with only a dog as his only companion? I can point to lots of books by armchair experts that say you always "should" go in a party of 4. That way if someone gets hurt, one can stay with the injured guy and two (for safety) can go for help.

Or maybe he just "should have" not done the trip at all? Instead he "should have" just layed in a good supply of beer and chips and dog biscuits, and stayed on his couch watching Bear Grylls on TV, with his dog curled up at his feet?

Personally, I appaud his cojones for even attempting such a trip alone except for a dog! And I admire his guts for managing to survive for so long after he had some bad luck! That's my 2 cents.

My thought is that a simple $300 PLB purchase would have changed the outcome...its simple and easy.

Even after reading the extended version, I think this guy had more cojones than brain cells. I've been told quite often - "there's a fine line between hard core and stupid". He passed the line in a dead sprint.

He knew what was in back of him and before him. In 10 cases of 10, I will take what I know over the unknown. Turning around was a major option, he knew the terrain he had already traversed. Continuing on into "unknown" territory, I say unknown as no terrain is truly known, it always varies, was not a wise option.

I agree, a PLB, SPOT, whatever radio, would have changed this from a brink of death rescue to a "Hey guys, come get me, I'm semi-messed up".

I don't care about his skills, his drive, his determination - he made a bad decision imho. And I am still outraged he ate his dog.

One small point JB. This was a river trip. Apparently a big, fast river. Paddle upstream....?....I don't think so.

His choices were to either complete the trip, or get rescued.

Aside:

I'm wondering about the long-term effects and recovery prospects after being so severely malnourished. Anybody have good information on this?

I'm not sure he's allowed to stay a Canadian - if he actually left the Great White North just because he was feeling a little peckish. Don't they have some kinda' law against that?

Seems like he should have just hummed a few bars from the "Jeremiah Johnson" theme song, married an Inuit woman so he could stay warm at night, and trapped a few beaver in his spare time.

And as for eatin' the poor dog's liver .... ohhhhh Lordy, Lordy. I hope he soaked it Yukon Jack and served it flambe.

Pete2

I don't think critiquing his case is tantamount to 'bashing him' at all. There was a time when trainers considered it "bad form" to use cases of officers killed in the line of duty to teach, but that has changed. It seems to me that we should be dissecting this case, especially since he lived. That means he did some things right. Of course, it also looks like he was damned lucky!

The various articles I read claim he couldn't make a fire because "he ran out of matches." Bad, bad, BAD! Let's say for the sake of argument that the bear at his food and absconded with his matches. This is an excellent example of why you have certain stuff that you always carry on your body. How about a lighter in your pocket? How about a Ritter/AMK PSP? What kind of woodsman feels qualified to make a month-long trip alone yet doesn't know any other way to make a fire but matches? He had a firearm but apparently insufficient ammunition to rely on it for survival (again, without knowing for sure if the bear stole that, too).

Again, I don't think we're really dumping on the guy to point out the really epic mistakes he made. Hopefully it will help someone to avoid making those mistakes again. For me complacency is one of the silent dangers. This should be a wake up call for anyone planning a similar trip.

For my own part I am going to make an effort to make sure I have not only redundancy but on-body carry of some of that stuff. Fire gear in my pack but a lighter & firesteel in my pocket. A good sized knife and axe on/in my pack but a good folder or small fixed blade on my belt. Ammo for my sidearm (where I live I have a permit to CCW) but at least a spare mag on the weak side belt opposite the gun.

I think that's one of the big takeaways from this case. Regarding PLBs it can be argued that 1) not everyone knows about them, 2) they're not dirt cheap and 3) they may violate some people's sensibilities regarding the wilderness experience.

OK fine, but if someone can tell me the wise woodsman's argument against carrying a firesteel in his pocket in addition to matches, I'm all ears.

One article mentions his boots and socks freezing solid overnight. Imagine the difference a fire would have (not could have) made. Think of the boreal forest with all the uncountable tons of downed wood & pine pitch...

Thinking that a small inconspicuous emergency beacon would somehow diminish a wilderness experience is a good indicator of a person who has "issues". I'm a child of the 50's and I carry a PLB any time I'm out and about. CANOEDOGS has a few more years than me and he carries one too. The PLB may be high tech and it may have taken rocket science to put the Cospas-Sarsat and GPS constellations into orbit, but deciding to carry a PLB was a no-brainer. It in no way diminishes the experience; that's just an excuse being used to justify an irrational position. My opinion, YMMV...

I don't feel the need to comment on the PLB issue. As far as eating his dog? I don't think I could eat my dog; however I've never gone a week without food.

Russ,

Although I have "issues" about a lot of things, this is not one of them. If it does not diminish the experience for you, fine. It has nothing to do with the size or intrusion of the device itself. It goes back to the mental intrusion. To me (YM obviously V) the requirement that I depend only on myself is one of the reasons I make some trips into the wilderness. There is a feeling that is lost when you "Can holler for help". I have a PLB. Most of my trips are for work. I carry a PLB for these trips and those where I am responsible for others. When I do not carry a PLB, I know and accept the risk involved.

Respectfully,

Jerry

I can understand and even appreciate that point of view, Jerry. But if you don't return the SAR teams are going to look for you regardless. Why not make it easier and safer for them to do their job?

"a small inconspicuous emergency beacon would somehow diminish a wilderness experience "

speaking as an older adventurer - these days I just aim to diminish my emergency-room experiences :-)

Pete2

same here Pete..the subject of modern gear somehow taking away the wilderness experience has been beat to death on the canoe tripping sites,with no agreement of course.
nylon or canvas,fire or Gaz stove,wool or polyfluff and so on.
in the end everyone just said "it's your trip"
and of course you could go as far as to say that having any kind of survival gear along is cheating and you have to face the wilderness,or backwoods maybe,one to one to have a true adventure otherwise your just a tourist.

There was a study just after WW2 about it with internment camp survivors ... if your google Force is strong you can find it. I don't have time at work right now, but interesting read.

As for technology, I like my newer fibers and sleeping bag and tent, but I've never bought a GPS and never invested in a PLB? Why? Cuz I know where I am (I don't usually stray too far off the trail), and I'm stubborn and cheap.