I found this article interesting. I read it first in the Feb. 2007 Field & Stream (The article in the magazine goes into some more depth).

Some points I thought interesting:

- Sounds like he became lost fairly soon after leaving his vehicle.

- How the quick snowfall (perhaps changing how things looked to him -- if no snow, might he have recognized some landscape features that could have helped him backtrack?) likely made finding his way back difficult.

- Why he chose not to use his rifle or other equipment/skills to provide a meal.

and to me the biggest question of all:

- Why wait until the sixth day to start heading out.

Sounds to me like he is at least a somewhat experienced outdoorsman (probably more so than me).

While I'm sure the situation, conditions (very cold vs. moderate temps; dry vs. rain vs. snow; amount of equipment/supplies on hand; etc.) and each person's abilities will determine when to decide if it is time to not continue waiting for rescue, I can't help but wonder what my decisions would be in a similar situation. I would think that Ceteris paribus -- "all other things being equal" (which they never are), I would at least start moving after three days - slow and steady.

Thoughts?


Buckeye - mourning for those touched by the senseless tragedy in Blacksburg and for those touched by the pain and sorrow that life brings to many everyday .

If this was a planned two day hunt, I wonder how he planned on spending that one night. Driving back to a motel, in his truck, miserable as he ended up, what???

Almost everyone said that James Kim should have stayed near his car and family. Kim started moving after NINE days.

Our analyses may become biased by how negative or positive the outcome is.

It's interesting how a lot of experts say that you should always stay put if you get lost or have a vehicle failure. Most of the time it's probably the best thing to do but in some specific situations I think it would be better to take the risk and try to find a way out on your own.

What a lot of people fail to consider is that staying put means your only hope is waiting for the rescue team, which may or may not arrive in time. It's difficult to find a lone person stranded in a remote area, especially if the weather is bad. Also, if the rescue team does not know exactly where to look for or if you happened to deviate from your planned route for some reason your chances become much slimmer. Then you need to take into account that you might not be able to survive more than a few nights out in a harsh environment if you lack proper gear. If you are in good shape and have the confidence in your skills it might be better to move on as long as there is a realistic hope of reaching safety and there is reason to believe that rescue won't come in time. If nothing else you might reach an area with more natural resources (water, firewood, shelter) that could provide sustenance for a few more days. Or perhaps just a highly visible landmark where your signals would be more likely to attract attention.

I found this line rather interesting:

"something even more alarming happened: It began to snow."

It is February. In Idaho. I would expect it to snow. A lot.

This makes it sound like he was unprepared for the weather.

I think that *initially*, staying put is the best strategy. While it may be "difficult to find a lone person stranded in a remote area", it is even more difficult to find one who won't stay in one spot.

I disagree that "staying put means your only hope is waiting for the rescue team", if by that you meant putting your feet up and twiddling your thumbs until the cavalry shows up (which of course you didn't . You can build a signal fire, tramp out "HELP" in the snow, read your survival manual, and do lots of things to increase your visibility. Staying put does not mean giving up responsibility for your own rescue.

I also believe that "staying put" does not necessarily mean you have to stop dead right where you are and not move. Obviously, if you "knows a better 'ole" you should go to it. The important thing is not to move just for the sake of moving, without a specific plan in mind.

After a certain period of time - I would estimate a week, because if you haven't been found by that time, there's a good chance the search will be scaled back - you simply have to move. When you do, leave as clear a trail as possible to follow, so that if searchers do find your original shelter, they won't have to guess at where you are now. (It will also allow you to backtrack more easily if you find you've gotten "more lost".)

I wonder how much of this story was the newspaper trying to make it "exciting"? Much of the story doesn't make sense. For one thing, as another poster pointed out, he apparently planned to spend at least one night out of doors, so how could the first night have been the worst? (Unless his idea of an overnight trip meant returning to his pickup truck.) For another, if it was a 2-day trip, the searchers wouldn't have been alerted until the end of the second day, so what did the deputy sherriff mean when he said "On day four, hopes begin to drain off"? My understanding is that hunters have perhaps the highest survival rate of lost persons, and very often they do self-rescue. I would expect a search and rescue spokesperson to be aware of that and not lose hope after only two days of searching.

He had a rifle. Since he was staying in one place as long as he did, did he fire three shots every so often, just in case there were people close enough to report them, or investigate?

"...several hours after parking his truck, he took a wrong turn. Finding himself in an area not covered by his topographical map..."

Kind of makes you think you want to have a couple of topo maps if you're walking around near the edge of the single one you've got. Besides, if you have one, you might want to LOOK at it occasionally. Before you're lost.

"... says he was surrounded by a howling pack of wolves at one point during his ordeal..."

That sounds like it's straight from the movies.

Here's a question that I've wondered about when I read/hear of a lost hunter. A 53-yr-old man leaves his truck on foot, walks as fast/as far as he can... so even if he did know where he was, if he did find an elk and shot it, how much meat is he likely going to be able to carry back? It sounds like he wanted to kill an animal the size of a horse just for a couple of pot roasts.

Maybe he shouldn't be allowed out alone again.

Sue

I think you have made some VERY valid points, Susan! It sounds like this article has been "Hollywood-ized" on several fronts!

I have known more than one hunter to go out with only the five rounds in his rifle. Silly fools.

I wonder if wolf tastes anything like chicken???

During hunting season, there isn't much point of randomly shooting, because there would be other gunshots in the distance. And while people might look in the general direction of a shot, I would want to have something like having seen headlights that stopped before I did that. Even if I heard three, I might be inclined to write it off as echos. A whistle on the other hand...

Also, in most states, anything bigger than a white tail you can quarter. You lash each quarter or half to your pack frame, hoof it back to the truck, stick in something that will help contain the scent, then go back for the rest of it. I don't know if that was his plan or not, but it is worth pointing out. And you usually have to bring it to a weigh station for it's dressed weight to be recorded.