On one level, not having been in the region, how a kid that young could have wandered far enough that searchers couldn't find him."

It isn't that hard. One of my most baffling searches was for a two year old last seen within a quarter mile of his home. The intensive phase of the search lasted for more than a week, involving many resources, coming up with no clues or signs whatever.

Years later, his remains were found at least five miles away (I am a bit hazy on the details) while cleaning out an irrigation ditch. Swiftly flowing water transports very rapidly....

Very sad. And failed SAR operation has to be demoralizing but I bet it's especially so when a young child is the subject.

Not necessarily. If the emergency is legitimate (and this isn't always the case), there are two broad types of operations with respect to outcomes:

1) ops where your group made a difference,

2) those where you did not (an individual sustains a 300 foot fall for example - just remove the remains)

We always analyzed each operation, big or small, in an attempt to answer the questions - What can we learn from this event? What procedures and protocols should we change in order to improve our operations? If your group responded promptly, deployed effectively, and operated efficiently, what more can you do, and what is there to demoralize you?

Operations with bad outcomes definitely do not lift your spirits, but those where you did make a difference, typically saving a life, provide a very noticeable exhilarating high. This definitely compensates for the flat spots.

Searches for young children are often among the most demanding....

I would say that unsuccessful searches for children aren't demoralizing, rather they are very depressing. Seeing parents heartbroken over the death of a child is extremely sad and depressing.

The searchers who will probably be doing the most second guessing are those who were involved in the initial response, during the first 6 to 12 hours. According to the press release, the child is thought to have probably died during the first night. Any chance for a successful search with a happy outcome had to be that first night. It is probably inevitable that those in the initial response will be thinking "what if?". Hopefully a CISD ("Critical Incident Stress Debriefing") was set up for those involved.

For those who haven't been involved in SAR, I should explain that lost person searches typically fall into two distinct phases. The "initial response" is the quick search that is launched as soon as the person is reported missing. In this phase, search resources are usually very limited, consisting of a few Park Rangers, Law Enforcement, Forest Service employees, etc. You only have those few searchers who are immediately on hand. Yet this phase is extremely important and has the best chance of a happy ending. The objective is to quickly gather and evaluate any clues, and to search the most likely areas as fast as possible. Hopefully the subject hasn't wandered far, and has not yet succumbed to the elements.

The larger, organized search takes longer to spool up. Volunteer teams must be summoned and travel to the location. Likewise for search dog teams. Helicopters and other assets need to be requested and arrive. An Incident Management Team needs to be set up to organize all the diverse assets, and to plan the most efficient search. All of this is done as quickly as possible, but it still takes time.

AKSAR speak with straight tongue, but the scenario varies with the community and the environmental setting. Most of my SAR experience has been in Tucson, AZ, where we had very wild country impinging on the city limits, but an urban community that (eventually) developed reasonably effective SAR resources.

We soon learned that the quicker the response, the sooner and more successful the end was likely to be. Thirty years ago, we could easily put a minimum of twenty to thirty people in the field (not just sitting at base camp)and from what I have seen on periodic visits to my old stomping ground, the situation is even better today.

Then a typical ops began with a call to the effect that "Johnny was overdue, please help." Often Johnny was located within an hour or two. I came to think of dawn the next morning as the "Golden Hour" when the victim would start moving, increasing the chances of contact. Our efforts were enhanced by the unstinting support of the helicopters available from the highway patrol and the Air Force.

Lacking a quick resolution, the county sheriff got very good at effecting the transition into the larger scale effort with the proverbial "cast of thousands."

I am describing a near ideal situation that grew out of a large urban community with lots of resources,taking many years and a lot of head banging and assorted hassles. I am sure that the vastness of Alaska imposes many different constraints.

Which leads to the question - How well does it go in your area? Needless to say, I am a firm believer in using volunteer SAR resources. If well trained and coordinated, it is a good deal for the victim and for the taxpayer, as well

Hikermor is spot on that if you are going to get lost in the woods, it helps to do it near a big city. In Anchorage (like Tucson) some very wild country comes right to the edge of town. While Anchorage is nowhere near as big as Tucson, between the various SAR groups in the area we can generally get a fair number of people into the field in the near town area fairly quickly (though probably somewhat fewer than in Tucson).

The problem becomes much more acute when the search is located further afield. The time and distance situation then makes the initial search much more dependent on what few resources are available in the immediate area. Note that the search in question for the 5 year old was north of the Grand Canyon in Kaibab National Forest. A quick look at a map shows that Jacob Lake appears to be a long way from any major town. While I don't know any of the details of the search beyond the press release, I strongly suspect they only had very limited resources for the critical first few hours of the search.

One thing that I didn't mention in my previous post is that the vast majority of searches (something like 95%) are solved within the first 24 hours (thankfully). Only a small number go beyond that for several days. However, because big long lasting searches are not that common, there aren't that many people around who know how to efficiently run one.

I should also mention that Hikermor's old stomping ground in Arizona is one of the areas that has led in developing modern search theory and practice. Must be the warm weather down there has made Arizona a hot bed of SAR practice. Here in Alaska we have been fortunate to have several leading Arizona SAR practitioners, including David Lovelock, come up and offer training sessions for our local teams. We got some excellent training from them in how to run a large multiday search operation.

Dave Lovelock! Ah,yes...Glad he is still active!

One of the advantages of a volunteer organization is that folks qualified in many disparate fields and activities can contribute and pool their expertise. We had engineers, hard rock miners, and even archaeologists (useful for observing subtle clue son the ground, all with interest in the outdoors, especially technical rock climbing, caving,and river running. One of our number was Dr. John Bounds, a mathematician on the faculty at the University of Arizona, and a pioneer in developing mathematical models to guide rational decisions in SAR management. In the 1970s, under John's guidance, we commenced controlled evaluations of various search techniques.

I can certify that there is an enormous difference between my first SAR experience, a splendid example of how not to conduct a search, and later, far more effective operations.

Reading the reports earlier in this thread, it seems that something like 1000 people from the local communities volunteered in some manner or another. Doubtless only a small number had any kind of experience in SAR, so management must have been a challenge. On the other hand, what an outpouring of support!

I don't mean to cast aspersions on the SAR folks! A missing five year old has to be a big challenge, and I'm absolutely certain they went all out 110% trying to find him. It was very sad that he could not be located in time but in all honesty it wasn't a total failure. As heartbreaking as the loss of their son must have been, it would perhaps have been worse still if his body was never found. I can't even imagine the weeks turning to months and the months to years, still not knowing if your child was alive or dead.

A sad ending but I know they did all they could. If anything good can be made of a tragic situation like this it will be the result of publicity that leads to discussions like this. Perhaps another set of parents will think on this and prepare their child a little better and have a plan in place.

I never thought you were dissing those involved in SAR and I am sorry if that is what I implied. Not all operations have a happy ending and one must accept that and continue on.

In southern Arizona they are still looking for Donald Lee Curtis and Paul Fugate. They will be found eventually, but it will fall in the realm of archaeology rather than SAR.