Truly Unprepared

Here is another tidbit from the NPS Morning Report:

Chiricahua National Monument (AZ)
Lost Hiker Found After Intensive Evening Search

With National Park Service employees taking the lead, 30 searchers from four agencies and the crew of an infrared-equipped helicopter searched for four-and-a-half hours on the evening of Monday, January 3rd, before rescuing an unprepared woman from below freezing temperatures and a night out in the wilderness. The 57-year-old woman left her van for a short day hike a little before noon that day. A protection ranger conducting a trailhead sweep found her van still at the trailhead at 5:30 p.m. He looked through the van’s windows and determined that it belonged to a solo hiker who would want to be back before dark. When she did not return by dark, the park launched a search. Teams of searchers from all divisions of Chiricahua began the operation and were joined by searchers from Fort Bowie, Coronado, the Cochise County Sheriff’s Office and the U.S. Border Patrol and by a SAR helicopter from the Arizona Department of Public Safety. NPS employees found the woman around 10 p.m. She was exhausted and in the early stages of hypothermia. She told her rescuers she knew she would not have survived had they taken much longer to find her.(emphasis added)

For those of you not familiar with Chiricahua National Monument, it is a fairly small area dominated by picturesque spires and rock formations southeast of Tucson. All of the trips on a very well developed trail system are day hikes. About 5,000 feet in elevation, it is typically quite cold at this time of year, often with snow.

Sounds like DPS has a specialized SAR bird - good thing to have.

I'm glad the lady made it out.

It's the short hikes that can trick you. "I'll just meander up this trail for half an hour to see if it's worthwhile." And the trail draws you onward.

If I'm going on an all-day walk, or a multi-day walk, taking the full kit is automatic.

But for a short trip, a couple of hours, there's a dangerous temptation to leave most of it in the car. "I don't need to schlep all that stuff" etc. The first law of the perverse always applies -- if you don't have it, you'll need it desperately.

In my un-scientific observation over the years, day hike produce more searches than over nights...1-3 hour hikes don't think of food, extra water, clothes. notes, flashlight, etc....

This is why its a good idea to carry a small day pack in the car, for 'short' trips.

God bless that NPS Ranger for being observant and those who made the decision to launch a search so quickly.

I'm far more prepared when I hike now than when we started doing 8-13 mile day hikes in the Shenandoah mountains a decade ago. Stories such as these are the reason why.

This woman lived and hopefully learned.

I think Doug made a good point. All too often people get caught up in the "short hike" syndrome and it is these trips that get them into trouble. I subscribe to a heavily filtered Google news alert service that reports on lost hikers, SAR rescues etc. In reading these news stories everyday, this syndrome is all too often prevalent...

"Short Hike Syndrome". I like it. Catchy, but descriptive and I think effective.

Are you just using standard Google Alerts? If so, what filters are you using? I tried it for a while but got all kinds of unrelated crud.

HJ

It's a google news alert that keys off the words hiker and hiking The filtering took a bit to nail down as the intial query would return results such "feds/banks hiking interest rate", "suppliers hiking prices" etc.

The news alert returns a fairly accurate result and cut out 95% of the chaff which makes for a quick pervue of interesting news stories to read. On the left side of the Google news page are links to sort by dates instead of the default sort by prevalence.

Ah. I was hoping you would share the details of your filtering secrets. My filtering attempts have been less successful. Can you say "chaff city?" Maybe I'll give it another try.

HJ

Not only that, but Loyal, Brave, Clean, etc.... Seriously, this was definitely heads up work.

This is also the very same National Monument where the Ranger (Paul Fugate) on duty on a slow Sunday thirty years ago this month said "I think I will go out and check the Nature Trail." This is a typical thing to do on a slow winter day - go out and pick up butts and kleenex, etc. until quitting time. Been there-done that.

Paul has not been seen since. This despite an extensive,thorough, and lengthy search. Most likely he left the immediate area of the visitor center and the nature trail and blundered into a drug deal in progress. Still a mystery to this day.

Just a short hijack to the original post. Details on Paul Fugate whom Hikemor referenced can be read here. I recall reading this last year and the name rung a bell when Hikermor mentioned his name.

Short Hike Syndrome should be (c) Teslinhiker from now on, it has the ring of truth. (fully equipped) daypacks should be like seat belts, you just get used to putting them on and you feel naked without them if you don't. The only time I don't hike with one is on a quick 2 mi run up nearby Rattlesnake mountain, which averages 40-100 hiker per hour it seems, and that's often when I really wish I had my gear, especially the FAK, for kids who fall down etc.

Thanks, I coined that term a few years ago. We live where "Short Hike Syndrome" is very common due to our large metro area abutting the easily accessible, yet rugged and unforgiving PNW coast mountain range. As you can probably guess, this results in far too many SAR call-outs year round to find those missing "short hike" people who fail to equip themselves to survive...

The Japanese-Whillans dialogue you quote reminds me that the Japanese alpine Club used to charter aircraft to fly to Europe each summer for climbing - three going to Europe, two returning (or so I have been told)

?? Sounds like it's a habit. Did I misread? :))

When it comes to short trips, I don't think it is a lack of gear that necessarily puts people at risk but a lack of awareness. By that I mean, constantly assessing where you are with respect to the trail head, your energy level, and the weather etc. A short trip is by definition just that, meant to be short. By ignoring your situation and wandering around as though you have all the time in the world you will run up against reality and get caught out. If your plan is to explore and not keep track of your situation, carrying a small pack with basic survival gear is a good idea.

Is there a card registration scheme that you fill out (put in your vehicle window) to tell folks that you will be spending the night out (or even multiday hikes) in these national parks. Launching a full scale SAR search just because a hiker hadn't returned by dusk seems like a huge over reaction especially as the hiker has only been out on the hill for only 6 to 8 hours before calling in the Cavalry.

It seems very unusual for a full scale SAR search to be initiated without a relative or the hiker themselves calling in overdue.

To repeat, Chiricahua is a very small park, although it is at the north end of the Chiricahua mountains which are quite extensive, with a well developed trail system than affords many multiday trips. However, within the park, the longest trail can be easily done in about half a day. There are no connections with long trails outside the national Monument.

One of the reasons the ranger was doing his evening check of the trail heads was to determine if everyone had gotten out. Note that his call was the correct one.

I would be very leery of leaving a public notice on my car that gave the length of the trip. It is an open invitation to car clouting in too many places. A good many trail heads and parking lots, especially in the western US have no people around, only parked cars most of the time, which encourages breaking and entering.

In many of the larger parks, there are permit systems that tend to track backpackers, although the primary purpose of these systems is to spread use around, and minimize resource damage.

Yes, it may have been the correct one, but again the Ranger has assumed that the person who has not returned to the vehicle by nightfall was unprepared and unable to cope with a night out on the hill. What is there to stop, for example myself deciding to stay out overnight (deciding there and then to see the sunset and sunrise in such as spectacular place), and just as I have crawled into my bivi/sleeping bag (I might have even consumed a quarter bottle of Scotch Whisky ), not have a Helicopter and Arizona's finest descend on my campsite ruining a quiet and peaceful night out in the wilderness communing with spirit of Geronimo.

No one asked the nosey park ranger to go out and rescue anyone.

I wish we had details on exactly what he saw that caused him to reach that conclusion. Clearly he knew what he was doing. I'm wondering if the "back before dark" part might have been something like a jacket that was left casually tossed somewhere near the driver's seat, indicating that the hiker had decided against preparing for cooler temperatures? Just a guess...

I've been through that area. Those who have been there recently correct me if I'm wrong, but that National Monument isn't really a big monument, and the trails as I recall really aren't the kind where one would stay out overnight.

UPDATE... I just looked at their website. The website says that they have just 17 miles of hiking trails. Total. That's not much. The website says: In other words, no staying out over night in the Nat'l Monument. Given that, I can see why a Ranger would expect everyone out by dark.

HJ

I can assure you the ranger wasn't being "just nosey," just observant. Whatever the ranger saw through the window was in "plain view," and no rights were violated in his making this observation. This is a key point in search and seizure training in federal law enforcement and there is a lot of case law dealing with this issue, including several Supreme Court decisions. My LE training was a while ago, and I cannot recall the specific cases, but the principles involved go back to the Magna Carta (Bless you Brits for that!).

I looked over the website for a specific statement about camping on the trails but did not see any. I am confident, however, that had you set up an overnight camp within the Monument, you would have been politely but firmly instructed to return to the designated campground right away.

It is not routine in most parks to check the trail heads for overdue hikers; in many parks the volume is simply too high and many other duties occupy the ranger's time. Most searches are triggered by the "Ranger, Ranger, save my child" call coming through at 3 in the morning.

What surprises me about this situation was that the lady in question stated that she would not have survived the night without the successful search. Now it does get nippy at Chiricahua this time of year, but it doesn't get that cold, even at 5,000 feet in the winter.

One more comment and I will shut up and sit down-




No, of course not. The better rangers size up situations and take initiative; they are not your usual bureaucrats. Don't worry, the NPS has a good supply of the usual ones as well.

Based solely on how she got herself into trouble I would be tempted to conclude she's not a very experienced outdoors person. I would not take her assessment of being on the brink of dying all too seriously. But my usual media filter disclaimer applies: There might be other factors that the media fails to report.

Her relief of being rescued, however - now THAT I can understand

Last weekend I made my first venture out this fall/winter carrying my full day hike pack. I broke my shoulder in the summer and wanted to test my ability to carry the pack before we take our Scout group to winter camp next weekend. I've been using a smaller, single strap pack so far this year, but I'll be the senior leader for our younger kids next weekend, we're planning a long hike and I want to be prepared. Yup, I've got a back-up plan to carrying everything myself - other leaders and parents with us and are prepared share the load.

The full pack was definitely overkill for this hike but not so for next weekend. Anyway, I definitely overpacked and need to re-evaluate what I've got with me. My shoulder didn't hold up well so I'm rethinking my gear list, specifically with regard to weight. I will not compromise our safety.

Back the test hike and the reason for this post. My husband, two kids and I left at 3pm for a loop at a local marshland. We let the neighbors know where we were going, just in case. It's not far from civilization and not a difficult hike at all. We saw two other people on the trail and my husband and daughter had their cel phones with them. It was not a difficult hike and not very risky, though with a seven year old with ADHD, you never can tell what's going to happen. We usually average about two hours on that route, putting us on target to get back to the trail head just as the sun was setting. If someone had fallen and broken an ankle or something it wouldn't have been life or death, just uncomfortable for a while.

In this situation, I'm wondering what prompted the S&R response. Had our family choosen to stay out past dark, we weren't violating any rules. No camping is allowed but there are no time restrictions on using the area. We would have called the neighbors so they wouldn't worry, but if the S&R guys showed up just because we didn't make it back to the car by dark, it would have been totally useless. There was a small day pack in the backseat, along with an extra jacket. Would that have been enough to send in the calvary? Did she leave a note inthe window, outlining her intentions? Who knows but it makes me wonder too if she got the bill for the rescue, like so many of us on the forum have advocated for when S&R activities are abused. In this case, it wouldn't have been her "fault".

Good question, what does trigger SAR? At one extreme, there was the lady who called and said her son was overdue - he had told her he would return at 5PM. It was then 5:20, the weather was good, etc..."Uh, lady, let's wait a few minutes, shall we? Call me back in about half an hour, please"...Ten minutes later he walked in the door.

On the other end, a call reporting injury, someone hearing cries of distress, etc., will usually spark the operation. On occasion, we have launched preemptively - hiking into an area threatened by a forest fire to look for any campers who might be in danger, for example.

Protocols vary, but in many circumstances the search will not begin until the following morning, absent any reason to the contrary. Everyone deserves at least one opportunity to commune with nature under the starry sky.

If the sky was not starry, we usually went out sooner, sometimes right into the teeth of an advancing storm. It's a judgment call, but it is better to start too soon, rather than too late. You don't like to say to yourself, "if only we had gone out that evening, they would be alive today."

I doubt that the lady received any bill for the efforts made on her behalf. The NPS does bill for really egregious cases, like the dolts at Grand Canyon who triggered their PLB three times in two days, once because the water was too "salty."

The problem with overzealous charging is that it tends to inhibit asking for help, and then people will die unnecessarily. As a practical matter, their pockets aren't that deep or collection isn't possible because they skipped, etc. Many times it is just your tax dollars at work and I would submit that they are used pretty well.

In my experience as a volunteer searcher, the cost to the taxpayer is surprisingly low. The foot troops were unpaid; when we called for a helicopter, it was an Air Force bird whose use was charged to training (most of the pilots loved our missions; they had flown in Nam and our jobs were much more interesting than their regular duties).

The same was true for me. Once' plodding through the analysis of pottery on the floor of a twelfth century pueblo, we were called to help an injured hiked. Three hours later, after engaging in a life saving operation, I resumed my duties, feeling much better. My SAR pager saved me from many a dull pointless meeting. I typically took annual leave while absent on SAR work, although I did take full advantage of an obscure regulation that allowed forty hours of administrative leave for such cases. I arranged my schedule so that I did not work Mondays since that often was a SAR day. Again, tax dollars well spent, IMHO.

My experiences were primarily as a member of the Southern Arizona Rescue Association, quite a few years ago. Current practices in other jurisdictions may well vary.

the trigger question is a good one.there is a good book about two cases of being lost in canoe country,this was a few years ago.the guy in Quetico Park in Canada was searching for the portage to the next lake when he fell and was knocked out and wandered dazed until he was lost.the people with him got to a ranger station after a no stop major effort paddle in a day or so.in Canada the search is done by the OPP,provincial police,they contact the family and others with a list of questions--did he do this before--family problem--so on.the result depends on how intense the search is.in this case they flew a chopper from one end of Lake Superior to the other to help in the search.
on the American side a hiker got lost on some back trails with the winter coming on.when he did not get back on time the family called the sheriff who drove out to the trail head and found the car and no one around.a local SAR team of volunteers got their gear together and went looking.the air search was done by a deputy showing up at the air field in Ely MN and just finding a guy with a plane who would take him up..end of the story was that he was given up for dead because of the cold and snow storm but found by dogs in a tree stump where he took shelter and survived.the guy in Canada did have a compass but not much else and after three days pushed thru the woods and bogs to a lake where he flagged down a passing canoe.

She was unprepared and temps were below freezing... these two conditions alone are probably the reason for most people dying of hypothermia under similar conditions. If it was very cold, she would have been wearing warm clothing; most of the hypothermia deaths take place when air temp is between 32 and 50F, due to lack of forethought. And a 4.5 hour search was probably just a good stretch of the legs for the searchers.

"When it comes to short trips, I don't think it is a lack of gear that necessarily puts people at risk but a lack of awareness."

The people with the latter are usually the people with the former. Overall awareness of current and coming conditions, what could happen, and the mental conditioning to always take some gear along indicates a degree of common sense that most people just don't seem to have.

"Launching a full scale SAR search just because a hiker hadn't returned by dusk seems like a huge over reaction especially as the hiker has only been out on the hill for only 6 to 8 hours before calling in the Cavalry."

Thirty searchers tonight, live find. A hundred searchers tomorrow after a low-temp night, be sure to bring a body bag along. Which costs the most? Which has the worst repercussions for the park?

The rangers don't know who is out there; three guys with breaker bars and machetes can do a tremendous amount of damage just for "fun", and other steal the cactus for resale.

Sue

my favorite kind of book. i'd love to read that canoedogs. do you remember what it's called?

Not at Chiricahua, except possibly for a few scraggly prickly pear. The pretty cacti are further west and lower in elevation - Saguaro NP and Organ Pipe Cactus NM. Chir is actually up in the pines.

But yes, cactus rustling is a problem. There is a lively black market.

how do you rustle cactus?? - verrry carefully!

I may have to add this to my classes -- Make a pack of the basic ten items -- for every hike. Make it and stash it in your car. Cost $25. Usefulness on an overnight? Priceless.

$5 goodwill back pack
$5 good will waterbottle

free:( around the house)

jacket, first aid kit, snacks, etc and so on

It is truly amazing how cheaply the basic items can be acquired - and how much difference they can make in a pinch.

YES! YES! YES! But how do we get people to carry it after they make and stash it? We made lanyards with our Beaver Scouts families in the fall, including a beaded lanyard, Fox 40s and a squeeze light. Pretty simple. We review hug-a-tree before every outting, and still they all come without their lanyards just about every time. I can't have them without whistles, so lend simple lanyards to everyone every time. I don't expect the 5-8 year olds or their non-scouting siblings to remember, but moms and dads are leading by poor example. How do we beat the "someone else will take care of me" mentality?

Sit the little blighters down and give them some actual case histories. Include some, not all, with bad outcomes.

The reason I suggest this is that it worked for me, back when I was young and clueless (big advance now - I am old and clueless). When I became interested in mountaineering, I started reading, and it became obvious that unanticipated bivouacs and accidents were part of the game. It gradually occurred to me that a certain amount of preparation could indeed come in handy. And later on, it did - in spades.

Still later, it was very evident that the common characteristic of nearly all our accident victims was inexperience - they simply had no apprehension of the hazards and the necessary defensive measures appropriate to the outdoor environment.

Go through the kits and role play - demonstrate the utility of what you are requiring them to carry.

You might also present a "Hug a Tree" session. This is a program that has effectively aided young kids in the outdoors. You might also get a presentation from your local SAR group; I'll bet they would be willing.

Agreed - my "winter car survival kits" are under $5 to replace the perishables each year. But when they are needed, they are really needed.

Stages of a big storm on the great plains

1. big blow a comin'
2. snow
3. they stop plowing
4. they close the highways and stop patrolling them

Here's a link to a recent communication sent to our customers.

Seems relevant to the discussion-nothing groundbreaking, just an on-going reminder be prepared while in the backcountry.

Mike

Great ideas hikermor! thanks!

"Sit the little blighters down and give them some actual case histories. Include some, not all, with bad outcomes."

And don't just tell them stories! Make them THINK! Point your finger at one and ask a question: What would you do if..........?" Be sure to do it with the parents, too. Then discuss their ideas and work through the pros and cons.

The problem is that most of your audience are totally self-centered, have always had rescue just a cell call away, and have always had someone bailing them out of their problems. NAIL THEM!

Ask some of the parents how they're going to feel if SAR or the National Guard or the Army can't get their kids out of a bad situation. Ask what they intend to do if SAR can't get to THEM. Are they just going to cry, or wear down their cell batteries trying to browbeat someone into putting their own lives in danger because of their own carelessness, stupidity, and lack of preparation. Put them in a Kim Family situation and ask how they intend to handle it.

Sue

I like the way you think Sue!

One of our dads fell in the creek during the summer and broke his ankle. He's a huge guy and couldn't get himself out of the creek bed. He was out with his sister and their three kids, catching crawfish to use as fishing bait, something they do all the time. His two kids are in our Beaver Scouts group and wanted to take their lanyards but he told them they didn't need them. They had nothing with them but two cell phones, including the one that took a bath when he fell. He still doesn't get get. He thinks it was a complete fluke. He's an avid angler and hunter and this is his standard o/p.

While training a couple of our new leaders before Winter Camp next weekend, we talked about that accident and did exactly as you suggest. What if they were out of cell range? What if nobody was home when they called and the OPP couldn't find them? ("We're down where Pete split his lip that time" wouldn't be very much help to them.) What if the accident happened at the end of the day instead of the middle of the afternoon? What if it was late summer when the nights get chilly? What if the injury was worse? What if he was alone with the kids? etc.

Our two new leaders got it and we've been thinking about a group discussion with all the parents and kids. Three of us have gone down with major injuries in non-scouting accidents over the past 7 months so we have plenty of personal examples. Lead by that limpy dad, there's a feeling that "we shouldn't scare the kids". I agree that we don't want the kids scared in an emergency but preparing them BEFORE one is essential. They're going to be a lot worse off then, especially if their grown-ups are unprepared. It makes me heard hurt. Thankfully that family isn't coming to camp so I don't have to deal with dad, who thinks we're going overboard on the "Be prepared" motto when we ask everyone to wear a lanyard and bring a backpack with a water bottle when we're out.

Great ideas hikermor! thanks!

Inviting an S&R to present is a brilliant idea!

i don't know why i haven't thought of roleplaying before. My son, niece and nephew love it, and they have a blast coming up with ideas about the gear in their packs . Yesterday as i was repacking my own, i took out the aluminun back supports, and my son immediately grabbed them and started telling me all the things i could use them for. he had a pretty good list too - splints, shelter poles, fishing rod, rack for cooking, sticks to throw for hunting, reflector for a rescue signal, bang them against each other to make noise... everthing else pretty much needed a blowtorch and a harry potter spell to construct. (he is seven afterall!)

I think your seven year old is a bit brighter than the clueless Dad you were discussing. Sounds like your son is set to deal with uncertainties..

I think it is worth while to point out what a group in difficulty can do immediately - build a fire, stop the bleeding, etc. as opposed to calling for help with cell phone or PLB, CB radio or whatever. There is an inevitable amount of lag time when outsiders respond, ranging from hours to days, and the immediate action taken by the group is going to make a huge difference.

Some people are incredibly passive when confronted with an emergency,mostly because they haven't prepped themselves.

I am sure you can train your group without "scaring" them; you will be developing the quiet self confidence that will enable them to deal effectively with whatever situations they will encounter later in life. Actually, the tougher task is to educate the parents...

Thanks hikermor. As long as you make it fun, kids are like sponges. They learn without even trying.

Adults can be more like concrete blocks sometimes. Let's hope that in this case, the little chidren shall lead the way.

I wouldn't necessarily do all your teaching to a combined group. Get the parents together and scare the pants off them with the horror stories. Ask them to analyze what was done right and done wrong. Ask them what they would have done. Then give each of them a scenario and make them think it through.

With the kids, I think they need to start thinking for themselves, with guidance showing them the differences between what REALLY could be done, and pie-in-the-sky TV thinking. Most kids have only been subjected to TV situations, not real life, and they think the problems will be solved in 30 minutes (less commercial breaks).

Maybe you could make a game out of it. Make out a list of possible scenarios (with any limitations, like no cell phone or dead cell phone) and write each one on a separate piece of paper, folded, and put into a bowl. Let each kid choose one (have extras), then go round discussing each one, with the main objective being getting the kids to think rationally, and letting them add their input, nonsense or not, then work through each suggestion. And if the kids do have some equipment, be sure to include how many more options they have if they have those things with them.

Sue

I like Sue's approach. Scare the pants of the adults with real world events, then figure out positive ways to enable the kids, giving them strategies to deal with common scenarios.

One thought: kids seem to absorb or integrate this sort of thing if they do it with their own hands. Theoretical knowledge doesn't really connect with behaviour until they do it, hands-on. So, giving scenarios to small groups in a campground or nature area, with resources provided, can keep it interesting and contribute to true learning. For example: give each group a scenario and a location, let them analyze and come up with a plan, then have an adult listen to their plan and give suggestions, and have them implement the plan. And move them to the next station/scenario. Followed by hot chocolate, of course.

My $0.02.

You guys are awesome! Apologies to hikermor for hijacking the thread. Thanks for all the great ideas Sue and Doug!

Doug is right about the hands-on approach, but I think a discussion should precede that because of TV contamination. There's no danger in thinking, and kids can think, but they need guidance. What doesn't work is just telling them what they should do... that sticks like water over a duck's back.

Hijacking a thread, how AWFUL! I'm sure that's never happened before....

Sue

You guys are awesome! Apologies to hikermor for hijacking the thread. Thanks for all the great ideas Sue and Doug!