JohnE asked a question on a thread about a survival show which I thought deserved to be asked and discussed. So I am asking it just as a discussion starter.




Now consider first that minimum equipment requirements are already enforced for boats and planes.
Bear proof food containers are already required for campers in some parks too.

So does the idea of minimum equipment requirements for going hiking in parks make sense at all?
What would be the positives or negatives of having such requirements?

(Nobody is proposing such a requirement as far as I know and I really am just throwing this out there for discussion.)

I just dislike the idea of big brother telling us what to do

Just because you need XYZ doesn't mean I do, and vice-versa.

I think that some gear suggestions are valid-particularly what is needed on planes & boats. They cannot cover every situation, but I believe they want to give people a chance to survive until rescue. As far as bear cannisters go, this is also sound advice; the bears arent learning that humans=food. Or, thats the idea anyway.

The US Forest Service used to, and maybe still does in some
areas, require everyone going onto forest lands to carry
a bucket, axe, and shovel. This was enforced and enable one
to fight a fire. Everyone was required to fight any fire seen.

In a perfect world there would be no need to have anyone establish minimum equipment requirements and enforce it as a law, complete with checks by law enforcement and penalties for non-compliance. In this perfect world people would seek out knowledgeable individuals and credible sources and use them to determine what the community consensus is for minimum equipage, And then they would, as a matter of duty, good citizenship, and good conscience, heed that advice and do whatever is necessary to meet that minimum standard.

We don't live in a perfect world. People seldom seem to use common sense. Otherwise sane people often do not bother to do basic research on what minimal standards might be. When they do many of them will either disregard any advice or simply fail to make an effort to meet the standard. Often talking a good story about being independent and rugged individualists right up to the point they get into trouble. Then it is all whining and griping that people don't drop everything and come out and rescue them. Inside many a loudmouth there is a wimp.

I'm not very familiar with a lot of specific minimal equipment standards but a few things seem clear to me. First, minimum equipment standards are not new. During the gold rush the RCMP was stopping people who couldn't show the minimum equipment, roughly 2000 pounds, in 1898.

Second, the standard are typically so minimal as to be laughable. The minimums for watercraft in the US are so weak that anyone not meeting the standard should really be hauled off as insane and a hazard to themselves and others instead of just being ticketed.

IMO, it won't help very much, and could potentially have some serious drawbacks.

First, who will be setting the minimum requirement? What one person considers an absolute minimum could be way too much for an ultralighter. I would hate to be required to carry anything unnecessary just because someoneelse thinks it's essential. There is no universal list of equipment that has to be carried by every person in every situation, even the "10 essentials" has some room for modification.

Second, just because you force someone to carry something, doesn't mean they'll know what to do with it in an emergency. You would think most people would be smart enough to figure it out on their own, but if they were then they probably wouldn't need someone telling them what to carry.

Third, I see a liability issue if someone still happens to get into trouble even with the mandatory minimum. With some of the outrageous stories that you read in the news lately, it wouldn't surprise me if someone tried to sue the NPS (or whoever is the governing agency) because the minimum requirements weren't enough to keep them alive in an extreme situation. That's why a lot of these requirements cater to the lowest common denominator, because of liability issues. By enforcing these types of rules, people tend to get complacent about their own responsibility because they assume someone else is taking responsibility for them.

No matter what, there will always be people who die out in the wilderness. Sometimes it's unavoidable accident, and sometimes it's just plain stupidity. Trying to force everyone to follow the same standards isn't going to help those that die from their own carelessness, all it does is limit the freedom of those that don't need help.

Actually, it sounds like a good idea to me.

If the fools go hiking in the Olympic National Park, maybe it should be insisted upon that they take a backpack of things that might keep them alive long enough to rescue.

For instance:

6x8' tarp
50' nylon cord
Two forms of firestarter (i.e., matches in container, Bic lighter)
Tinder (packaged)
1-gallon Ziplock plastic bag
Knife
First Aid kit (bandaids, gauze bandages, antibiotic ointment,
Ace-type bandage, triangular bandage, etc)
Metal cup
Signal mirror
Pencil & paper
Compass
Map of the area
Water and granola bars (etc)

The only things here that aren't self-explanatory are the compass and signal mirror.

A small book of survival tips would be nice, too. The park could make it location-specific and require a refundable deposit.

None of this would take up a phenomenal amount of space and it wouldn't weigh much.

Wouldn't insisting on something like this be cheaper than dragging out the Air National Guard every time some yahoo finds himself in the wrong place?

And no matter what you do, you will never escape the 'Sue 'em' philosophy of a population of irresponsible people. Esp since the park could be sued for letting them in, letting them go, not starting a search quickly enough, not finding them fast enough, etc.

Sue

Gear only helps to a certain degree... haven't a lot of the calls this year been `stupid` too? Like broken finger, bored want to go home, etc... you can't pack gear for that

I'm no lawyer or survival expert, but it seem to me that a better idea would be to have training instead of equipment.

Because as we all know, just because someone has gear doesn't mean they know how to use it.

How many people have bought one of those cheap junk survival kits and just thrown it in their bag with out bothering to open it to see what's inside it?

So I would have to say that training (possibly with an examination or test like you have to take to get a driver's license)to different levels to meet different contations would be better than a mandatory gear requirement. although i would say that having a generalized list of gear wouldnt be a bad idea.
(sutable clothing ect)

For stupid calls, the answer is 'NO!' Publicize those calls and the people who make them. Most people don't want to be a laughingstock. Preventative medicine?

Training won't happen. That takes personal responsibility.

Force them to take a small bag of gear, and when push comes to shove, they can make a fire, put a tarp over their heads, and scoop water from the river, simply because they HAVE to.