Originally Posted By: dougwalkabout
Glad to see more detailed information (and hopefully less frothing at the mouth).
Amen to that doug.

People need to remember the distinction between "could have" and "should have". The first is a simple observation. The second is a value judgement. Different people can make very different value judgements.

Yes, he "could have" had a "Plan B" and carried a PLB, and that "might have" made a big difference. Or then again maybe it might not have helped. What if when the bear "....damaged some of his equipment and stole his food bag" it also damaged his PLB? Maybe he "should have" had a Plan C, and carried a sat phone as a back up? But wait, a sat phone, like any electronic device, can fail when you need it most. So maybe he "should have" also had a Plan D as a back up to his back up, and also carried a spot?

Or maybe he "should (not) have" attemped such a trip with only a dog as his only companion? I can point to lots of books by armchair experts that say you always "should" go in a party of 4. That way if someone gets hurt, one can stay with the injured guy and two (for safety) can go for help.

Or maybe he just "should have" not done the trip at all? Instead he "should have" just layed in a good supply of beer and chips and dog biscuits, and stayed on his couch watching Bear Grylls on TV, with his dog curled up at his feet?

Personally, I appaud his cojones for even attempting such a trip alone except for a dog! And I admire his guts for managing to survive for so long after he had some bad luck! That's my 2 cents.
_________________________
"Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas any more."
-Dorothy, in The Wizard of Oz