Say, that gives me an idea. I've wanted to test a PLB out in the boonies. Maybe I should plan a monthly trip out to Trapper Valley or out south of Hatcher pass and pop the PLB and see if they can come find me. I mean, since it is good training for them, I am sure they wouldn't mind. That way, I can also get a free ride back into town, and maybe a hot meal off them while they're at it.

I just knew there was a better way of going about this adventure thing than having to pay my own way. This will be far cheaper for me than buying a suitable snow machine and all that gear and fuel and planning out my trip. I'll just head up to the REI and pick up a PLB or two, and see if I can go find that there gaggle of wolves that like to just stare at folks.

Maybe the wolves were wondering "what the heck is wrong with this person, they're burning up their snow machine and not bbqing the snack they brought with them"

Lets not confuse issues here, shall we?

Whether or not they were idiots is one question. Since I wasn't there, and have no information other than press reports (which often have little to do with what actually happened), I will reserve judgement on their idiocy (or lack thereof) until I have more reliable information. Note that I would give you the same benefit of the doubt, should you become the subject of a SAR mission.

Regarding your tax dollars, a portion of those go to support the 176th Wing, Alaska National Guard, who's primary mission is combat SAR. They are very, very good at that mission. The reason they are so good at that mission is that they train, and train hard under the most realistic conditions possible. Hence some of your tax dollars go towards training.

Experience has well demonstrated that some of the best training possible for combat SAR is civilian SAR in Alaska. That is in fact why the 176th is located here. They get it all. Extremely challenging terrain, severe climate, real hurt people to use their medical skills on, vast distances and remote areas, difficult flying. About the only thing lacking is someone shooting at them. (Considering all the idiots with guns running around the woods in Alaska that too will probably happen, if it hasn't already.)

The fact remains that they would spend the exactly same tax dollars on training if they had not rescued this couple. The only difference being the training would not be as good.

Well Ben, you could do that. Your best chance of getting the PJs to come get you would be if you include in your plans falling of a cliff up there, or getting mauled by a griz, or getting severely hypothermic.

You see the RCC is kind of selective in which missions they send the air guard on. They like missions that have some training value. If it's just a guy with high cholesterol who wants a free ride home they would probably just punt your case to the Alaska State Troopers. But then again the Troopers might bust you for sending a false distress signal.

By the way, you ought to get out more and learn some Alaska geography. Note that "....out south of Hatcher Pass..." would just about put you in the town of Palmer.

The articles seem too sketchy at this point to support decent analysis of the incident. One thing that came to mind is the troopers' description of the woman as "severely hypothermic", yet she was apparently able to speak with them and explain the situation. I suppose it is a matter of terminology, but even if a person is confused and has the "umbles" that is not what I know as severe hypothermia. Maybe the trooper first did some immediate action to help warm her, and only then was she able to communicate.

One article says "Her mobility was limited, Peters said, and she could not simply walk the mile back to the cabin". Is this because she was injured, or because she had a pre-existing handicap? If the latter is the case, I question the wisdom of leading the trapper lifestyle in those conditions and at that age with such a handicap.

Still, I've learned the hard way here on ETS to wait for better info after these incidents are initially reported.

Special thanks to folks like AKSAR and BenJammin for giving perspective as folks living in Alaska.

Good point Glock.

To some extent it is terminology. Strictly speaking, it sounds like from a clinical perspective she was likely only moderately hypothermic. Keep in mind that these classifications are very only gradational, and somewhat arbitrary. And not all patients present exactly the same way. In WFR we are taught that in the field, without the ability to get a reliable core temperature, we can really only reliably distinguish hypothermia into two categories: "mild" and "moderate/severe". Mild hypothermia can be effectively handled in the field. Moderate/severe hypothermia is best handled with advanced medical care. In a pinch you might be able to rewarm a moderately hypothermic patient in the field, but it is very risky. Problems like afterdrop or ventricular fibrillation can easily kill them. For a severly hypothermic patient, there is very little likelihood you could successfully rewarm them in the field. Hence if I found a hypothermic victim, and was not absolutely sure it is only mild hypothermia, I would try to prevent further heat loss and try my best to arrange an evac to advanced care for rewarming. Simularly, I suspect the Trooper was being appropriately cautious.

For more details on clinical presentation and treatment options, a good source is the State of Alaska Cold Injuries Guidelines (pdf). It covers hypothermia, frostbite etc, both in terms of field care, and in advanced care in a hospital. Back in 2003, Alaska DHSS convened a panel of medical experts who developed the guidelines. Some revisions were made in 2005. It is well worth looking at.

Awesome. Thanks!

Well, a bit more info about this story is beginning to emerge.
See Wolves or no wolves, Cantwell couple sur... what happened.

From a quick read on my lunch hour, my take is that Mr Mayo made the classic mistake of being overconfident of his route finding in an area he knew well. That, and continuing to wander about after he clearly knew he was lost. If he had even carried a compass (let alone a GPS) this would never have become a story at all. Once he ran out of gas, he didn't do too badly. He started a fire and kept it going, improvised shelter, melted snow for water, and stayed in one place.

As for Mrs Mayo, she seems a good bit less skookum. While she was no doubt at least mildly hypothermic and certainly in a very dangerous situation, she clearly was not "severly hypothermic" in the clinical sense. What I don't understand is why she chose to burn up her snow machine, rather than gather wood and build a fire? The only possible explanation I can see is that she was in one of the more open areas, and her mobility issues prevented her from traveling even a short way to gather wood. Since she apparently did see and hear some mushers one night in the distance, a strobe light and/or whistle might have got their attention.

No comment on the alleged wolf pack.

[quote=AKSAR What I don't understand is why she chose to burn up her snow machine,

[/quote]
Having had some experience with snow machines of unreliable design and questionable character, I have on numerous occasions seriously considered setting fire to machines after a mechanical betrayal. Much more satisfying than shooting them.

I've had thoughts of that nature regarding laserprinters.

+1 Extremely interesting reading - but - no revisions since 2005?