AKSAR, you seem to be saying that anyone that survives an outdoor incident is properly prepared and educated in preparedness. That would include anyone that had taken absolutely nothing with them and did things that actually made the situation worse.

I don't think that is what you meant, but defining preparedness by survival doesn't seem logical to me. As I mentioned in a previous message, there are lots of totally unprepared people that have been rescued, but probably more that have not.

Here is a recent local (San Diego) example that illustrates my point well. Two women were hiking in the local mountains in 85F weather and had no water. Both were rescued but one later died from dehydration. So, using your logic one was prepared and the other wasn't--even though neither of them had any water. I would argue that neither were prepared.

To answer your above question regarding this incident, "Would this have changed the outcome?" Yes, both would have survived.

Regarding my statement about the man rescued in the Sierra's, being inexperienced and uneducated in preparedness, granted this is subjective. The people on this forum (you and I included), tend to be more prepared than the norm, so perhaps I expect more from others.