Multiple hikers rescued using 911

Story here:

http://www.independent.com/news/2012/feb/28/multiple-hikers-rescued-near-cathedral-peak/

It's amazing how many people get decent cell phone reception in the mountains. Most places I go hiking, I can barely get a bar, if anything at all (and that includes our house, which is in some sort of dead zone.) Then again, my phone is six years old.

That said, even with a newfangled iGadget I still would prefer relying on a PLB or Spot...

No doubt cell phone access makes things easier for SAR in some situations. Public safety comes first, and an early call can keep a minor incident from becoming a serious situation. Also, a 911 operator will glean a lot more information from a cell call than a PLB (though as noted, the quality of information may need checking).

But (as we've already debated at length) the worry is that it can encourage people to rely on it first, rather than last. A person valet and transportation service. All sorts of factors can delay SAR. If you know, for example, that you're entirely on your own for 48-72 hours, with no outside help possible, your planning takes a distinct turn.

Then there are nuisance calls, which 911 operators surely know too well. I have no hard data, but I suspect that cell service also increases the number of "we're out of twinkies, can you helicopter in a pizza" calls.

Those two incidents were right next door to me, so to speak, and they occurred in locations that are just barely off the road network, essentially day hiking country. Hardly an example of back country.

Cell phones, despite their quirks, are indeed changing SAR. Notification of an emergency occurs directly from the concerned party, rather than from someone in town who only knows that they are overdue. This leads to quicker response times and cleaner operations by taking the "search out of SAR." There have even been instances of people who were lost who transmitted a picture of their surroundings to the searchers, and of course, usually their position can be determined by cell tower triangulation.

As coverage gets better and technology evolves, cell phones will become more and more useful. The ability for two way communication should help repress the always present problem of trivial calls.

I regularly hear county dispatch advising SAR that the caller's location is 100 or 300 yds from a road and that they've told the caller which direction to go to reach it.

How did Jermiah Johnson EVER survive?????

Here's a similar rescue story that happened on the other coast (Adirondack Mtns. in New York).

http://www.courant.com/news/breaking/hc-ap-ny-forest-rangers-rescue-3-men-from-high-peaks-20120227,0,4641957,print.story

(Can't get the link format to work so you'll have to paste it in.)

Notable: Using snow caves to get back through a bad night.

Not so notable: Idiots in over their heads, using 911 to get out.

Question: Before 911 and cellphones, would as many people have taken these chances.

Tim (cranky before his second cup in the a.m.)

Tim, I'm cranky before caffeine too, but let's confine our remarks to a more constructive format if at all possible.

HJ
Moderator

interestingly enough, the lake that I normally train around, approx. 15 miles from nearest town and deep into a national forest, now has cell reception around the lake. Thank goodness too, as there was no public land line there either. it has given my wife an additional level of security. And will certainly aid the SAR & EMS people that have to spend time out there.

My cell phone is an old Treo 700 with Sprint. I get near perfect reception at the peak of Heavenly Ski Resort. I will not be moving from Sprint without a compelling reason.

FWIW, a bunch of my favourite dayhikes (and out of the way campgrounds) in Jasper National Park have grown cell coverage in the last decade. On balance, this is probably a good thing.

However, I have recently been dragged kicking and screaming into the twenty-first century. So, after holding faithfully to my candy bar Nokias (which are astonishingly good at pulling in a signal) I will be testing my Samsung Galaxy Ace in places I know a decent signal is present. This is, of course, based on the assumption that I am holding a phone that is designed to make phone calls. We'll see, and then we'll know. I've seen some slug-brained smartphones over the years. (And the Nokia isn't dead, only slumbering, in the glovebox with a car charger, just in case.)

A lot of it is Geographic, in the Alberta Rockies, cell coverage is best higher up and on the eastern slopes, where it is often non existent away form settlements on the western slopes and at lower elevations.

It is unwarranted remarks like this that compels me to mostly stay away from this forum nowadays. Blindly ridiculing others in this manner without having the complete and researched facts fully in place first, only serves to undermine all the good effort that people here put into making this forum, usually a good place to discuss and learn.

Back to the topic...

For hundreds of years, people have been getting themselves into trouble long before any technology came around. In today's world of being fully connected to globally available news stories, 24 hours a day, it is easy to surmise and perhaps suggest that people are taking chances more.

That said, yes people are perhaps too quick to call for help when they are not fully experienced or equipped. However, if cell phones, PLB's and other technologies makes it 10x safer and quicker for SAR to rescue them, then technology is more then worth it. I would much rather know that the SAR team was able to quickly pinpoint the person(s) position and effect a short rescue then to have the SAR team putting themselves in more harm's way for days at a time where the rescue inevitably turns into a body recovery mission...

I note that those SAR incidents around Cathedral Peak were pretty quick and clean, thanks to technology.

By the way, that area is a bewildering maze of climber's trails. The brush is high an thick, and you can't see well to get your bearings. I've gotten off course there myself.

HJ

To address the original question about pre-cell phone risk taking: Plenty of people were taking chances or getting into trouble inadvertently before cell phones. In those days usually the first intimation of trouble was the non arrival of the person or group in question. Therefore you started with a search, not knowing the extent of the problem, if any. It was often jolly fun, because frequently you had only a vague idea of their route or plans.

Today, with direct notification, you have location and at least some notion of the nature of the emergency, which, to my mind at least, leads to a much cleaner, efficient operation. Indeed some situations appear to be resolved without dispatching any resources.

The vast majority of my SAR experience was before cell phones. Current practitioners are urged to correct any misconceptions I may have expressed about the current state of affairs.

Well said!

Blindly criticizing?

I'm a resident of NYS where the Adirondack "adventurers" ran into their mishaps.

They were rescued by state personnel paid with state tax money. I get taxed plenty by that state. That's my money.

For people who make mistakes, and do so by not understanding the risks they are taking, such as people stranded on an interstate in a blizzard, the state has an obligation to attempt a rescue.

But for people who are deliberately taking risks, and then asking to be bailed out, exactly what should be the response?

This is, I know, a question sometimes worn to death here. It has not, to my satisfaction, been answered, particularly by people who denigrate those who pose the question.

There simply are a subgroup of people in our society who are irrational risk takers. Deciding when and how to bail these people out of their misadventures is a thorny question. But saying it shouldn't be discussed, and the people who make those mistakes, roundly criticized, is misguided.

tim

I believe the problem is the language you used, not the fact that you were criticizing. A critique of a situation, done in an even handed manner, can e instructive and useful. You were not off to a good start and frankly, you did not provide any useful insights into the incidents.

Reading the accounts, I noticed that a no time was a helicopter involved. Their use is becoming commonplace and of course that expends your precious tax money rather quickly. There was probably some overtime involved,but it would seem that the rangers were doing their job capably.

It also seems, from the fairly brief account, that no volunteers were involved. This is fairly unusual. My experience is that volunteers do the brunt of the work - at no taxpayer cost. When we used a chopper, it was provided by the military, and it was charged off to training time. The taxpayers received a pretty decent benefit.

If you get out in the Adirondacks, it may well happen that you will be the beneficiary of the state ranger's services. Be glad that they will be well trained and experienced.

Fine. Don't call people idiots. I can go along with that.

But what leaves me curious is the strong sense of entitlement exhibited by various posters, that is totally unrecognized. How exactly do you justify expending scarce resources on rescuing people who, open-eyed, walk into a hazardous situation?

A mere theoretical abstract argument? Hardly. Right now in northern New York, state police and sheriff's depts. are cutting back on road patrols, and a helicopter flight schedule to a medical center is being cut. How do you justify their hauling people out of the Adirondacks, spending resources on that?

So let me ask you a question. How much support from the government do you expect when you go out into the wilds on an adventure, a long hike, an expedition into the Yukon?

Do you really think you are getting back to nature? When you expect a government financed backup to rescue you if it turns bad?

There obviously is a solution (of sorts). Privately established SAR units. But those won't cover it all.

tw

Tim,

What I didn't see was any carefully reasoned basis for establishing that these people in the 'daks did something that was clearly inappropriate.

Yes, I don't like seeing my taxes spent on hauling out unprepared people either, but the mere fact that someone had to rely on emergency services does not per se establish that they did something inappropriate.

Any time that someone can present a moderate, well-reasoned criticism, I'll say nary a word. Name calling? Not so good.

HJ
Moderator

As others have noted, in much of the country, SAR is volunteer based and is often a combination of Law Enforcement and volunteer SAR /Fire Service members. Rescuers whether career or volunteer perform SAR operations fully aware of the risks involved and train to minimize those hazards.

People in many circumstances make poor choices and whether it is in the urban, rural or backcountry settings do things that many of us would deem as being “a bit out there”.

The issue of funding SAR operations just the like funding for many other public endeavors can be a contentious subject that will not be resolved here. Since we will not resolve those issues here, perhaps we would all be better served to examine these cases as “lessons learned” and focus on successful survival strategies.

Just my 2 cents-
Pete

Yours is certainly one of the more meaningful comments made on this subject in some time. It does strike me as odd that, while living as members of settled communities, we expect, receive, and pay for, public safety services without regard to the quality of any decisions that might have led to the situation, the minute the emergency occurs in wildlands, people get very concerned about the money, real or imaginary, that is spent.

It is unfortunate that the typical media account on which we base these discussions rarely has the sort of detail that allows focusing on the "lessons learned" aspect.

So here's some details from the story -- about people who were in the Adirondack high peaks during winter:

*******************
"The first rescue occurred Saturday evening when DEC rangers plucked Jones, 42, off Algonquin Peak. He had tried climbing the mountain Friday but got pushed off course by a snowstorm. He bushwhacked down and rode out the single-digit night in a snow cave.

On Saturday, he continued downhill but, unable to find a trail out, called 911 at about 5 p.m. A dispatcher pinpointed the location and rangers on snowmobiles and skis reached him at about 6:45 p.m. Jones, who was suffering from hypothermia, was taken to a hospital where he was still being treated Monday.

Bradley, 36, was found Sunday morning off the trails a mile downhill from the summit of Mount Marcy, the state's highest peak at 5,344 feet. He had planned to snowshoe to the peak but got lost. His girlfriend called rangers at about 11:30 p.m. Saturday, about the same time Bradley was trying to call, but he was unable to tell rangers where he was because his GPS had temporarily stopped working.

At about 5 a.m., after hunkering down in a snow cave, Bradley was able to call and, with his GPS working again, give rescuers better coordinates. They located him at about 9:30 a.m. He was treated at a hospital and released Sunday.

Sullivan, 62, was cross-country skiing nearing the region's Olympic facilities and was reported overdue by his wife at about 7:30 p.m. Saturday. Rangers started from each end of his route and worked toward the middle. He was found at about 9 p.m. after a ranger heard him shouting.

The rescues come less than a week after a Saratoga Springs snowshoer, Steve Mastaitis, spent a night in a snow cave he dug near the Marcy summit. Forest rangers rescued Mastaitis on Tuesday morning."

********************************

Four individuals: Jones, Bradley, Sullivan, and Mastaitis.

The older individual, Sullivan, seems to have left an itinerary, and to have stayed on known trails. The others were climbing Adirondack high peaks....in winter. And tho' the story doesn't say it, apparently alone.

Your thoughts?

My thoughts:

Jones got caught by bad weather and retreated. He dug in for the night. The next day he attempted to self rescue (commendable, in my opinion). Facing a second night out he finally called in about 5 pm, and was reached at about 6:45pm. About one hour and 45 minutes of ranger time (not counting evacuating him).

Bradley was reported lost at about 11:30 pm. He did the smart thing and dug a snow cave to spend the night in. He was able to call with his location at about 5 am, and was rescued by 9:30 am. Assuming the rangers launched at 5 am when he called, it took about four hours and 30 minutes of ranger time (again, not counting evacuation).

Sullivan was reported missing at 7:30 pm, and was located at 9 pm. About one and a half hours of time (again, not counting transport out).

As I noted, we don't know exactly when the searches were launched, or how much time was spent in evacuation, but all in all it doesn't strike me as a big expenditure of ranger time. No helicopters involved. Perhaps a few gallons of fuel for snow machines. Doesn't sound like particularly hazardous searches. The folks at 911 dispatch are paid whether it is a quiet night with nothing going on, or people lost in the woods calling in.

Note that in urban life, people do dumb things all the time, and police, fire, and ems come help them. For example, if you are careless with your cigarette butt and your house catches fire, you probably won't be directly billed for the fireman's time. If your stupidly leave your car unlocked and the keys in it, and someone steals it, the police will do what they can to help, and not send you a bill for their time.

Regarding "... climbing Adirondack high peaks....in winter. And tho' the story doesn't say it, apparently alone." I don't see being out in the mountains in winter as a great crime. It is called adventure. Many of us have done such things. Alone is a bit more dubious, but many of us have also done that from time to time. The main advantage of a partner is to help if you get injured. In all the cases described, the main problem seems to have been getting lost. A partner may or may not be of help in that case. I've gotten just as thoroughly lost with partners as without.

Very well put. I am genuinely puzzled as to the apparent existence of a double standard for people in urban settings vs. outdoors.

Incidentally, most agencies (the NPS for sure) have the policy and the means to bill people for costs when they do something that is truly outrageously, stunningly bad. It is stated as something like " willfully creating a hazardous situation."

Whenever we jump to negative conclusions, and start judging and name calling in these incidents, it makes me uncomfortable.

As a Scout Leader, I think we should be encouraging more peope getting of the couch and get out there. I can't tell you how many youth join Scouts and then never get any outdoor time because mom and dad have no experience. We have kids that don't get to get hiking or camping with us because their parents are afraid of the unknown, or at least don't value outdoor time. (One kid finally got to join us for a camping trip, afterwhich his parents pulled him out of Scouts completely because he had to use... shudder... an outhouse!)

EDUCATE. EDUCATE. EDUCATE.

The same goes for preparedness. EDUCATE. EDUCATE. EDUCATE. People don't know what they don't know. That doesn't mean they should hit the couch.

If we constantly jump all over people that need rescue, regardless of the details, that education is going to turn even more people away, or worse. I fell into a frozen creek when I was younger and I needed help. I wasn't shamed out of it or beaten about the head to never take risks and never ask for help. Thankfully I learned a little more and my parents kept encouraging me to get out there.

Just because we're better prepared than the average Joe, doesn't mean we own the outdoors, or that we're beyond mistakes or mishaps. It could happen to us too. We should keep that in mind. "Yeah but...." doesn't cut it if we insist on dragging everyone else over the coles with relentless unforgiveness.

What our experience should mean is that we have a responsibility to help people learn. Many of us ETSers are SAR, LEO, EMS, FD, nurses, Scout Leaders, etc... I think I can safely say that most of us are in it to help not berate. That's the spirit we should be encouraging here at ETS!

I'm with AKSAR on this -- there's nothing egregious in any of the four events. People do hike solo in winter and sometimes things go south.

Well said, +1

Thinking it over, I believe you were right. Nothing is solved by calling people idiots.

I was particularly taken with bacpacjac's discussion.

So, let's revisit the issue, at another time, in a more temperate fashion.

tim

I'd laugh except that I know you're serious.

And I'm all for getting kids into the outdoors. My daughter (yes, pretty thin excuse for putting up a photo of her, I know).


In all seriousness, I try to let her make some mistakes (hopefully not near 40 foot drop offs!). And I try to, well, educate her when things don't go well. She's turning out to be quite the little hiker.

HJ

All I can say, as one father to another, is that you are going to need a mighty big shotgun....

She's a cutie, Jim!

It's a fine line, isn't it, between letting them explore and make mistakes, (a.k.a. learn) and keeping them safe. Teaching our kids how to weigh risks and consequences is an important job, and one that takes boots on the ground, and often a face full of dirt.

EDIT: The same is true for adults too, but somewhere along the line most us lose our sense of wonder and curiosity, and replace it with a more safe, sendentry and cautious approach. (Just watch a 40 or 50 something year old try to learn a computer program for the first time. It's almost fearful. Hesitant to touch anything in case they make a mistake.) I'm not adovcating recklessness, but too many people go away overboard with that safety first approach. Public humiliation and ridicule, or at least the perception of it, may just serve to push them even further that way.

(And nope, sadly, I wasn't kidding about the kid who's parents took him out of Scouts because he had to use an outhouse at camp. Outhouses are gross and infested with germs and diseases....)

bacpacjac:

All I can say is You Rock!

Hikin_Jim, I love your kid photos! Regarding getting kids into the outdoors, my approach was just to get my daughter out doing stuff. When she was small, we were fortunate to often go car camping with a big group of friends to a nice place on a somewhat out of the way beach, where we all went fishing. It was a perfect place to just let the kids go wild around camp. There was always at least one or two adults around in the background, keeping an eye out that the kids didn't get into anything too life threatening. Moderately life threatening was OK ....just kidding there...you know what I mean. She would get muddy and cold, I would take her into the tent, dry her off and warm her up, put some more dry clothes on her, and away she would go. And get muddy, cold, and wet again.

A few parents were abhorred that we (most of the parents) were so casual about the kids safety, worrying about every tiny thing: "What if they fall down on a sharp stick?"..."What if they get too close to the campfire?"...."What if they catch cold?" We weren't really that casual about their safety, it only appeared that way. We were just OK with the idea that bumps, scratches, bruises, and colds happen sometimes. Usually those overprotective parents lightened up after a bit. A few just quit coming on these adventures.

My daughter, now grown and well launched on her own life, loves the outdoors. She doesn't always like to do exactly all of the same activities as her old dad but she has found her own things she loves to do outside I still see some of the other kids who were part of that group. They have all grown up to be awesome people. All different, but all great young men and women.

Haha! Thanks Aksar. I'm not so sure everyone would agree with you but I'll take the compliment with thanks and a big nod to my parents, and theirs.

My mom and I talked today about the not-so frozen creek incident tonight, and she said that she had to just hold her breath sometimes and be thankful she decided to become a nurse. :-) She said that their theory was to weigh the risks I wanted to take and ask themselves:

What's the worst that could happen?
How likely is that to happen?
How bad would it be if that happened?
What can we do to avoid that happening?
What's the plan if that does happen?

Slowly, sometimes painfully, I learned that decision-making process for myself. ("Heck, you made it out of that creek, so you must have learned something!" Says my mom. FYI - my dad and grandpa were SAR that day, thanks to my cousin who went back to the farm to get them.) I'm not always great at it, and it's way harder to do as a parent, but I always fall back to EDUCATE. EDUCATE. EDUCATE. Turn fear into knowledge and then decide. When it comes down to it, there are basically three choices: say no, try it right along with them, or close my eyes and hold my breath.

Personally, I try to avoid no until I've hashed through all the other questions and I'm certain that it's absolutely necessary. Of course, I also keep my first aid training and emerg plans current too.

I think the lesson learned here is that even experienced hikers, climbers and snowshoers aren't immune to overconfidence. I wouldn't think about going on a fair-weather hike without my daypack containing the 10 essentials. But I find that most people don't think that way.

I see folks on the trail all the time in shorts and a t-shirt carrying nothing more than a single bottle of water. I've often shared water, food and directions with people I found struggling along the trails, in a few cases helped them find their way back to the main trail or trailhead. In fact I see more and more of this today than I did 30 years ago (maybe because there's more people enjoying the outdoors now than ever?). Most people act like I've got a learning disability when I tell them what's in my pack.

I also spend some time answering questions on some general public forums about camping and hiking. It is startling to see so many people argue that "real" camping or hiking is going out practically naked. As if planning for one's own survival and self-sufficiency is somehow "unmanly," [no offense, gals]. I fear that shows like Bear Grylls and the like are sending the wrong message, particularly to younger adults.

I agree that EDUCATION is the key. The question is, what's the right forum?