Stay put or hike out?

Stay put or hike out?

If you are out day fishing in a fairly remote area and your vehicle breaks down 23 km's (14 miles) from the nearest main logging road then 4 miles to pavement (and cell phone coverage). Would you stay put and await for help or hike out considering these circumstances:

- Two people (male/female) with food (2 days worth) and water (easily replenishable)

- Are in good physical/mental condition with strong outdoor and navigational skills (she is a former adventure racer)

- A detailed note was left with family as to where, when, what gear they had, and what time they expected to be back

- Proper clothing and footwear for the weather: 50- 60 F with some clouds and periods of very light rain

- Carried pertinent maps, compass and survival gear in their backpacks for time of year and terrain (a mix of PNW forest and interior open grasslands)

- Despite it's remoteness, both people know the area very well and have spent years, hiking, camping and fishing in this same area


This situation happened yesterday morning (11:45 am) to co-worker and her husband. Their car would not start and after an hour of trying, they realized that whatever was wrong with the car was beyond their ability to fix in the field. Rather then wait until nightfall and hope that their family would alert the authorities, after some discussion and review of their situation, the remoteness of the area and available gear, they decided to hike out.

They knew that by following the winding and looping road, it was a 23 km hike, however by hiking out cross country they could shave the distance by just under half. To their credit, they left a detailed letter in the car with their names, their personal descriptions and clothing, cell phone numbers, what gear, maps and compass they had, boot manufacturers / model / size. They also included a hand drawn map of the area and which direction they were taking. In short they left very little detail to chance.

Needless to say they hiked out with no issues and were able to use their cell phone to contact a family member who picked them up. Their car will be hauled out tomorrow on a flat deck.

In telling their story to family and now today at work, my co-worker privately told me that they have been roundly criticized for not staying put and waiting for help. I know both her and her husband well and have been on many extended outdoor trips with them over the years and they are very, very competent in the wilderness in general.

Do I think they did the right thing....I have somewhat mixed feelings. They know (and I know) what they are capable of....and their limitations. Part of me says they made the right decision, however one wrong mistake could of made that right decision very wrong.

Thoughts??

Why apologize for a good outcome? OTOH, if they had not walked out, they would not be back at work today. They would still be in breathtakingly beautiful wilderness, well-fed and comfortable...with an excellent excuse for missing work...I might have chosen to wait until someone in authority MADE me come back to civilization. Might not have been a bad place to wait out the election, or the depression, or the end of days, or whatever.

I'd say they did the right thing. Staying put is generally a good idea...but not always. Leaving detailed info of where you are going is a must. As for taking a straight line back to civilization...if I was sure I would be able to without getting lost, I would do it. If I had any doubts, I'd follow the road. Of course, being prepared makes a situation like this the difference between life-threatening and a big hassle.

I would say -- it depends. Depends a lot on the individuals and their experience and the thought process they used to make that decision. It sounds to me that they made some logical choices along the way and covered the likely scenarios. If the weather had been poor or they lacked enough clothing they might have made a different choice. The fact that they are alive and well and able to tell the story means the choice did not have any negative consequences. To say the end justifies the means is not a good excuse but they could have just as easily stayed put and had to wait 2 or 3 days to be located. People can also make stupid decisions when they are "BORED" and need to "SOLVE" the situation.

The whole scenario reminds me of a exercise our company did for a team building thing. Except that it was just a paper fantasy airplane crash, the location was northern Quebec (near the polar region) and we knew we were not going to be missed for at least a week. [Hey, I didn't say it was a realistic scenario!] I was the one with the most outdoor experience and capability and yet I'm the one who said stay put - everybody else wanted to walk out... In the end, I HAD to join my team because nobody could be left behind. In the scenario I think most of our team ended up dead because we couldn't walk out or navigate properly so I was doing the "i told you so!"

They said it was a team building exercise, my team was a bunch of idiots.

I think that they were "onscene" and knew their situation best.

From the sound of things,,I would have hiked out as they did. My opinion only!

Agreed. But Nursemike makes a good point . . .

Jeff

Given the scenario they probably did the right thing. Had any one of the factors you bullet pointed been different (unfamiliar with the area, or alone, or no proper clothing, equipment, or bad weather) then the better decision may have been to stay put. Given their level of training, experience, preps and knowledge, it probably doesn't even rise to the level of a survival situation, just a camping trip with some unexpected inconvenience.

Eighteen miles, even without the shortcuts, is really just a good day's walk. (The pioneers did it every day for about six months, including all but the smallest children and elderly.) At a steady three miles an hour, we're talking about 6 hours, maybe a little more with a rest every hour.

They knew where they were, and where they were going, and how to get there.

They weren't fighting extreme weather, they weren't injured, they weren't dropped into an unfamiliar area.

This is the kind of scenario that doesn't make the news because they had everything well in hand.

Why wait for help? They didn't need it. Save it for someone who needs it.

Sue

I think most here know that it's usually best to stay put. Your vehicle is much easier to see from the air than you are and it's usually easier to survive if you put your efforts into surviving instead of traveling and surviving. However, If my car breaks down just blocks from the house, I'm clearly not going to wait to be saved. I'll just walk home. And it sounds to me that given the people involved and when outside help might arrive, hiking out just wasn't that much of a stretch for them.

Not knowing more, I might have been inclined to stay on the road more since there would be a higher chance of running into someone and less of a chance of spraining something.

Also, anticipated weather would impact my decision. In the fall, when a surprise blizzard might be just around the corner, hiking out that day in mild weather may make a lot more sense than waiting for a storm to hit during the days it may take for friends to realize you never checked in yesterday like you said you would because your friends got distracted by their own problems.

18 miles on a road for outdoor people? Six hours for this couple of 62 year old retired shop owners.

For an experienced adventure racer - three hours while dragging along her boy friend.

Anyone who thinks backtracking the car tracks to a paved road at 50 degrees is a rescue situation should really stay in town.

They did fine. "stay put" is advice for when you're lost, or injured. They were neither - they had a broken car, knowledge, equipment, and experience. Can you imagine if the stayed put? "But you could have just walked out!"

I would have walked out too - 2 days food, a few mile hike, and great weather?? Geez, I might have made it a 2 day trip just to prolong the fun!

They made a good decision based on their equipment, conditioning and experience. If one of them was less capable than the other, I might stick to the road and longer walk, otherwise the more capable person falls down injured, the less capable is forced to press on, off trail, to get help.

I'd have at least stayed the night, good excuse for a quiet evening out. Then again, they may have had things to do and didn't want to unnecessarily worry folks when they didn't return on time. They made this Stay or Go decision in the field at the time and it appears they made the right choice. . . for them.

The people who are second-guessing their decision weren't there and it may not have been the correct choice for those individuals.

From the ABCDE survival matra,

A. Accept the situation.

B. Brew up a cup of sweet tea if time allows.

C. Consider all possibilities.

D. Decide on a Plan.

E. Execute your Plan.


But did they brew up a cuppa before making their plan?

Being Americans, I doubt it,,,but they MAY have brewed up a cup of coffee!!

MY thinking to. Do I really want to be rescued.....

But to be honest, its only 15 miles. It's a decent day's hike, but a little duct tape on the ankles and the good socks in the boots I keep in my car takes care of the iffy parts.

Sorry we are Canucks..however we love our Tim Hortons !

They thought of staying the night, but did not needlessly wish to worry their family nor cause any unnecessary search.

A short while ago, I talked to my co-worker and got a bit more info. After looking on Google Earth tonight, they figure the hike was about 15-17 kms and took just over 5 hours with darkness coming just as they got to the paved road. They started at approx 4100' elevation and went down to about 2600 feet at the road. The terrain was easy walking at times but also very steep and slippery (wet) in other areas. She has a few sore spots and bruises on her side and arms from taking a tumble almost backwards after slipping on a wet rock. She said that when she found herself falling, that all she could think about was tucking and covering her head so it did not get bashed on the ground....smart thinking.

They also found that their maps for this area are not scaled enough for hiking but even having this map was better then none. Other then this and wishing they had gaiters to help keep the pants drier (no cotton) their gear was more then adequate for their needs.

I asked both if they would make the same decision today as yesterday. The answer was yes...however the main concern if her fall had been worse (ie: bashed her head, broken bones, sprains etc) it could of quickly escalated to a more serious situation.

Given the scenario, I would have walked out too, without hesitation. To do otherwise would have been silly, and would have worried family unnecessarily.

The only big (REALLY BIG) question would be whether to stay with the road or go cross-country. Intimate local knowledge and maps would be the tipping point in this decision. Without those, I would have stayed with the road. Yeah, logging and oilfield roads meander all the heck over the place, which is annoying. But on the road you won't get turned around, won't sprain an ankle, and you are moving closer to rescuers, who will probably check the road first anyway. You can also keep moving after dark, though very cautiously if it's bear country.

IMO they did everything right. They took charge of the situation, assessed things carefully, took responsibility and got down to business. Pretty much a yawn, survival-wise.

Tell the nervous nellies at work to buzz off and watch more TV.

Sounds like a glorified day hike to me. They had the proper equipment, clothing, food, water, and a great trail to follow. Why not walk out???

Hmmm, interesting dilemma. As always, it depends. They seemed to be prepared, weren't lost, weren't injured. I don't recall the first post stating what time of day it was or how much daylight they had left. That would have made a difference. I'm also curious as to what they had to bushwhack through to go straight rather than follow the road. Was it thick underbrush, a lovely pine forest, or open rocks?

The wife's fall definately could have buggered things up quite badly. It seems a better choice may have been to follow the road and make a two-day adventure out of it. But then you've caused the family to worry.

-Blast

Personal responsibility, or the lack of it, drive most people to default to please rescue me mentality. There are ocean going sailors out there who purposely do not carry an EPIRB because is is their conviction that they are doing this and it is not someone else's responsibility to come rescue them. They carry liferafts, etc, but not a beacon. A broken down car in the field is not the same as an airplane crash, or even going into a ravine in a car. It was an inconvenience for them, that's all.

Going cross country instead of following the road, their decision. I would have taken the road as it is easier (generally) hiking, allbeit longer.

I have the same issue with people who first and foremost default to "carry a PLB". It is your responsibility to make sure that you can succeed in whatever adventure you are on, are properly equipped, and that you exhaust all other possibilities before punching 911. No one made you go, it was your choice.

Final note, just remember that the police are there to ask questions and arrest the guilty, not protect you. That is your responsibility since the bad guys outnumber the good guys by way too much.

Rant mode off,
Bill

Ok, so they have assessed the situation and decided that they can self rescue. From their knowledge, skill & situation etc that's a reasonable decision. As far as it goes.

However the issue that I have with this is that, having made the decision to walk out/self rescue, they chose to cut the corner by going across country. That's a bad judgement call. One mishap and your in very serious trouble.

In their shoes I would have stuck to the road. The road is a known quantity. Going across country is an invite to a busted ankle/sprain or worse.

Ok, its further. But shortcuts have a nasty habit of turning into long delays.

I don't see anything wrong with what they did. If they had planned a cross country hike, would anyone have said anything? They had the right equipment. They were familiar with the area and had proper nav equipment. They left a trip plan. No inclement wx was forecast. Why wait?

Now if they didn't know the area or didn't have nav equipment or bad wx was forecast, or they didn't have equipment, or were there anything particularly dangerous or smacking of poor judgement, then I'd say wait in the car, but none of those circumstance exist in this case. Why not just hike out and "get the ball rolling" on getting the car into the shop and things set aright?

Perhaps in this case the crucial issue is as if they had planned a cross country hike. As people have pointed out, there are dangers in cross country travel. Ideally, they would have (I assume they did) evaluated the risk involved with a cross country walk out prior to their setting out just as they would if they were planning a cross country hike. I wouldn't automatically say "go ahead and cut cross country" nor would I say "always stick to the road." Rather, I'd say "evaluate the cross country route just as you would were you planning to hike cross country, and then make your choice as to which way to hike out (or not)." Time of day and daylight hours remaining, the speed (or slowness) of cross country travel, and the difficulty of terrain, vegetation, and other natural obstacles would have to be evaluated. Based on the outcome, it appears that they evaluated things well.

FWIW, some of the things I factor in when I plan cross country, off trail hikes:
-Ease of navigation (Deep forest vs. good landmarks continuously visible. Followable terrain features?)
-Steepness of terrain
-Distance
-Surface type (rocky, sandy, firm, boggy, etc.)
-Brush (type, density, etc.)
-Weather
-Water or other obstacles (river crossing, swamp, etc.)
-Season (snow on ground? How cold at night?)
-Time (Can I make it by nightfall? How much margin do I have?)
-Price of failure (What's the worst that can happen?)

i'll toss in my two cents and say --walk out--but the interesting part of this is the flack they got from their friends who said they should have waited for help..which is of course what has been pounded into everyones head when it comes to "lost"---and is sometimes the wrong or unrealistic choice--

I don't want to second guess the couple too much. Their decisions worked, and didn't get anyone else involved to sort out their mess.

But I agree with your assessment, terrain, weather, time of year and time of day would make my decision for me. If I was starting out after a full day of fishing or the weather had the potential of turning poor, I personally would probably wait until morning and then walk the road back on the road. The expectation being that if I don't make it out before rescuers are called, I can meet them on their way in. This option also helps make up for lack of detailed maps of the area. I'm used to walking with either 1:24,000 USGS, or 1:25,000 military topographic maps. Detailed enough to plot your position within a 10 meter square with a lensatic compass. If I just had a road atlas, I'd follow the road.

If I was starting out early in the day and the terrain and weather looked fine, I would probably follow the same course of action they did.

Its not a situation that really required rescue. It could have turned into one but so can showering. They did their duty to any rescuers though, by leaving a plan before they left home and before they left their car.

I'd have walked out following the road. Depending on the terrain, the straight shot may be rougher even though it's shorter.

It was taking the road that would have been 18 miles, not that far, really. Cutting across country may have shortened the distance but not necessarily the time, but it did increase the danger. The constant need to hurry these days may kill or injure more people than necessary. Mahatma Gandhi was right, "There is more to life than increasing its speed".

Had they stayed with the road, they might have been able to flag down a ranger, or passerby and hitch a ride.

But they did okay.

Sue

Interesting. I hike a fair amount. I'd say 18 is a pretty good number of miles. It's somewhat terrain dependent (are you in flat country or the middle of the Rockies?), but still even at 3mph which is a pretty good walking speed for most folks, that's a minium of 6 hours walking not including any water breaks and the like. In hilly or difficult terrain, 2mph is more realistic, which would entail 9 hours of walking. Given that the event happened at about noon (in this case), 6 to 9 hours of walking this time of year may not be the way to go.

True, XC travel doesn't necessarily cut your travel time. One has to make an assessment. Sometimes XC travel is a worthwhile savings; sometimes it's a fool's errand. STOP (Stop, Think, Observe, Plan) is a good one to keep in mind. You're absolutely right that the risk level generally goes up on XC travel and that it may not save you any time. One has to ask: "Is it worth it?"

In general a HUGE factor in the decision is whether or not you REALLY think that help will come looking for you.

In the situation described, it sounds like help would indeed have come ... eventually. Still, the people involved clearly felt they were prepared sufficiently to "self-rescue" and I don't have any problems with that.

I too would probably have stuck to the road, but then again, they knew about the terrain they'd be facing. I'm a sure thing kind of guy.

Ken K.

The decision to travel via the dirt road or XC (saving half the distance, but certainly not half the time) will depend on local knowledge of the terrain and/or by looking at the detail of the available map in conjuction with the weather conditions predicted. Last thing you want to do is to come across an impassable obstacle such as a cliff face or river, which requires such a wide detour that it makes the other choice of the dirt road much more sensible in the first place.

Trekking unknown XC without a map which doesn't have terrain features detailed such as contour heights and detailed features such as rivers, dense woodland (dense woodland is sometimes easier to detour around) and streams, is not really recommended.

As you can see above from the Jocks Road example it could potentially catch some folks out, if on the map it didn't indicate the type of terrain it passes over.

Good point. My personal experience bears that out. One time on a hike in the Hualapai Mountains in Arizona, I wanted to traverse between two mountains. All I had was a line drawing with an "x" marking the summit of two mountains that I wanted to traverse. Down the side of the first mountain I went only to find some tough cliffs. I got down the cliff all right, but a slip and injury there could have been serious. One never knows what lies between two points when all one has is a little line drawing sketch. Even a topo map doesn't show everything, particularly ones with 40m contour intervals (or greater) (We used 1:50,000 maps with 40m contours in the army. 40m! You can drop an entire company of men in a 40m interval with nary a trace. Completely inadequate for XC travel)

Put my vote in for hiking out. Most likely I would have voted to stay on the road for many of the reasons others have pointed out. I don't know if anyone else mentioned it but if you stay on the road you have, at least, some change of being spotted/picked-up mid way.

I concur. You probably won't have the good luck by meeting someone else while x-c but might while on the road and catching a ride in a vehicle could save hours and hours of walking. Worth the chance. Plus it makes a much easier backtrail for searchers to follow if necessary.

I think they did fine. They did a self-rescue after careful, informed consideration of the circumstances. They get a 98. Deduct 2 points for deciding against the road.

I don't think anyone here is in a position to criticize their decision. I for one believe they made the only sensible decision. They had maps, they knew the area "very well". The weather was clearly not a big factor and the distance was entirely manageable. Why try to sit it out when it's much simpler to do a little SERE?

If you have the means and skills to get back to safety on your own in a situation like that, do it! As simple as that. It will save the SAR teams a lot of time and resources that could be better spent elsewhere. I really don't have much sympathy for folks who expect rescue from any situation they could easily get out of themselves.

The decision to travel cross-country instead of following the road makes sense as well. In many kinds of terrain travelling cross-country can be a lot quicker. With a map and compass (plus a bit of skill and experience) it isn't that difficult to find your way out. More so if you know the terrain well already - in places like that you would even need the map & compass as long as you are in a decent shape, the weather isn't too bad nor the distances too long.