Beauty is skin deep, but stupid goes to the bone...

[hikeaz]

Grand Canyon National Park (AZ)
Hikers Evacuated After Three SPOT Activations In Three Days

On the evening of September 23rd, rangers began a search for hikers who repeatedly activated their rented SPOT satellite tracking device. The GEOS Emergency Response Center in Houston reported that someone in the group of four hikers – two men and their two teenaged sons – had pressed the "help" button on their SPOT unit. The coordinates for the signal placed the group in a remote section of the park, most likely on the challenging Royal Arch loop. Due to darkness and the remoteness of the location, rangers were unable to reach them via helicopter until the following morning. When found, they'd moved about a mile and a half to a water source. They declined rescue, as they'd activated the device due to their lack of water. Later that same evening, the same SPOT device was again activated, this time using the "911" button. Coordinates placed them less than a quarter mile from the spot where searchers had found them that morning. Once again, nightfall prevented a response by park helicopter, so an Arizona DPS helicopter whose crew utilized night vision goggles was brought in. They found that the members of the group were concerned about possible dehydration because the water they'd found tasted salty, but no actual emergency existed. The helicopter crew declined their request for a night evacuation, but provided them with water before departing. On the following morning, another SPOT "help" activation came in from the group. This time they were flown out by park helicopter. All four refused medical assessment or treatment. The group's leader had reportedly hiked once at the Grand Canyon; the other adult had no Grand Canyon and very little backpacking experience. When asked what they would have done without the SPOT device, the leader stated, "We would have never attempted this hike." The group leader was issued a citation for creating a hazardous condition (36 CFR 2.34(a)(4)).

[nonot]

I agree w/Letty that everyone should know and understand self-rescue is going to be more reliable than hoping for SAR rescue. There are simply places SAR doesn't go. Especially if you get into extreme canyoneering, mountaineering, glacier travel etc, if you can't save yourself then you die. Unless you lose ability to use both your legs, it's just a matter of determination in most cases to save yourself.

Near the city SAR will come get you, but the more remote the place, the more likely you're on your own. SAR shouldn't be your backup plan if things don't go as planned, it should be your backup to your backup to your backup plan. Waiting for SAR to come save you could be a good move, or it could be a very bad one as they will never come (particularly anywhere in Pinal county). It's funny that some places you think SAR would go they don't and other places you wouldn't think of as SAR areas are searched. I remember the chopper touching down in Paria canyon asking us to provide info on someone gone missing, last place I expected to run into those guys...how could you get lost in a canyon?

As for people claiming SAR is free, please go back and read the links I posted, it is most definitely NOT free, only some SAR organizations are entirely supported by donations, your taxes and entrance fees help to fund most SAR organizations, especially the ones that are related to law enforcement (Maricopa Sheriff, etc).

[Jeffshadows]

To add to what nonot stated: SAR is *far* from free. Here in Pima County it is always initiated and overseen by the sheriff's office, public servants paid by our taxes. Additionally, some of them are then focusing on the rescue instead of law enforcement, which costs $$ both directly and indirectly. If they have to bring DPS Ranger in that costs even more $$, now state tax $$. Finally, there have been repeated rescues down here that required night vision so they were forced to request assistance from the Air Force PJs. You can bet that cost major tax $$$...federal tax $$$. Up in the GC it costs major federal tax $$ since those resources are all PS...

[Jeffshadows]

I'd like to see this become like any other insurance. Professional rescue groups with regulations and protocols are formed and are for-profit. These groups are contracted by a county, park, or other official entity and operate under their direction. If you are someone who frequents the outdoors, you buy a personal liability policy. If you require rescue and don't have a policy - you get a bill. ;)

[JimmyLyding]

Or just root for the Diamondbacks to hit a lot of home runs. Fulton Homes or some other bizness donates $50 to Central Arizona Mountain Rescue for every D'Back home run. Of course $50 isn't much for a SAR op.

[dysfunction]

I'd like to see this become like any other insurance. Professional rescue groups with regulations and protocols are formed and are for-profit. These groups are contracted by a county, park, or other official entity and operate under their direction. If you are someone who frequents the outdoors, you buy a personal liability policy. If you require rescue and don't have a policy - you get a bill. ;)

You can buy said insurance in California.

[Jeffshadows]

I'd like to see this become like any other insurance. Professional rescue groups with regulations and protocols are formed and are for-profit. These groups are contracted by a county, park, or other official entity and operate under their direction. If you are someone who frequents the outdoors, you buy a personal liability policy. If you require rescue and don't have a policy - you get a bill. ;)

You can buy said insurance in California.

Seriously? That's good to know, actually...

[Al_HikesAZ]

YUPPIE 911

Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911

By TRACIE CONE, Associated Press Writer Tracie Cone, Associated Press Writer
- Sun Oct 25, 1:21 pm ET

FRESNO, Calif. - Last month two men and their teenage sons tackled one of
the world's most unforgiving summertime hikes: the Grand Canyon's parched
and searing Royal Arch Loop. Along with bedrolls and freeze-dried food, the
inexperienced backpackers carried a personal locator beacon - just in case.

In the span of three days, the group pushed the panic button three times,
mobilizing helicopters for dangerous, lifesaving rescues inside the steep
canyon walls.

What was that emergency? The water they had found to quench their thirst
"tasted salty."

If they had not been toting the device that works like Onstar for hikers,
"we would have never attempted this hike," one of them said after the third
rescue crew forced them to board their chopper. It's a growing problem
facing the men and women who risk their lives when they believe others are
in danger of losing theirs.

Technology has made calling for help instantaneous even in the most remote
places. Because would-be adventurers can send GPS coordinates to rescuers
with the touch of a button, some are exploring terrain they do not have the
experience, knowledge or endurance to tackle.

Rescue officials are deciding whether to start keeping statistics on the
problem, but the incidents have become so frequent that the head of
California's Search and Rescue operation has a name for the devices: Yuppie
911.

"Now you can go into the back country and take a risk you might not normally
have taken," says Matt Scharper, who coordinates a rescue every day in a
state with wilderness so rugged even crashed planes can take decades to
find. "With the Yuppie 911, you send a message to a satellite and the
government pulls your butt out of something you shouldn't have been in in
the first place."

From the Sierra to the Cascades, Rockies and beyond, hikers are arming
themselves with increasingly affordable technology intended to get them out
of life-threatening situations.

While daring rescues are one result, very often the beacons go off
unintentionally when the button is pushed in someone's backpack, or they are
activated unnecessarily, as in the case of a woman who was frightened by a
thunderstorm.

"There's controversy over these devices in the first place because it
removes the self sufficiency that's required in the back country," Scharper
says. "But we are a society of services, and every service you need you can
get by calling."

The sheriff's office in San Bernardino County, the largest in the nation and
home to part of the unforgiving Death Valley, hopes to reduce false alarms.
So it is studying under what circumstances hikers activate the devices.

"In the past, people who got in trouble self-rescued; they got on their
hands and knees and crawled out," says John Amrhein, the county's emergency
coordinator. "We saw the increase in non-emergencies with cell phones:
people called saying 'I'm cold and damp. Come get me out.' These take it to
another level."

Personal locator beacons, which send distress signals to government
satellites, became available in the early 1980s, but at a price exceeding
$1,200. They have been legal for the public to use since 2003, and in the
last year the price has fallen to less than $100 for devices that send
alerts to a company, which then calls local law enforcement.

When rescue beacons tempt inexperienced hikers to attempt trails beyond
their abilities, that can translate into unnecessary expense and a risk of
lives.

Last year, the beacon for a hiker on the Pacific Crest Trail triggered
accidentally in his backpack, sending helicopters scrambling. Recently, a
couple from New Bruswick, British Columbia activated their beacon when they
climbed a steep trail and could not get back down. A helicopter lowered them
200 feet to secure footing.

In September, a hiker from Placer County was panning for gold in New York
Canyon when he became dehydrated and used his rescue beacon to call for
help.

With darkness setting in on the same day, Mono County sheriff's deputies
asked the National Guard for a high-altitude helicopter and a hoist for a
treacherous rescue of two beacon-equipped hikers stranded at Convict Lake.
The next day they hiked out on foot.

When eight climbers ran into trouble last winter during a summit attempt of
Mt. Hood in Oregon, they called for help after becoming stranded on a
glacier in a snowstorm.

"The question is, would they have decided to go on the trip knowing the
weather was going bad if they had not been able to take the beacons," asks
Rocky Henderson of Portland Mountain Rescue. "We are now entering the
Twilight Zone of someone else's intentions."

The Grand Canyon's Royal Arch loop, the National Park Service warns, "has a
million ways to get into serious trouble" for those lacking skill and good
judgment. One evening the fathers-and- sons team activated their beacon when
they ran out of water.

Rescuers, who did not know the nature of the call, could not launch the
helicopter until morning. When the rescuers arrived, the group had found a
stream and declined help.

That night, they activated the emergency beacon again. This time the Arizona
Department of Public Safety helicopter, which has night vision capabilities,
launched into emergency mode.

When rescuers found them, the hikers were worried they might become
dehydrated because the water they found tasted salty. They declined an
evacuation, and the crew left water.

The following morning the group called for help again. This time, according
to a park service report, rescuers took them out and cited the leader for
"creating a hazardous condition" for the rescue teams.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
[emphasis added]

These problems are really with the SPOT not with ACR PLBs

[Jeffshadows]

I really don't think SPOT vs non-SPOT is relevant; what it comes down to is the basic premise I missed getting across in my earlier posts to this thread: "Why did you buy a PLB?" If you did it to make *yourself* feel better you probably should consider another hobby.

[big_load]

As others have already said, I actually like getting beyond the reach of help. I'm not a big risk-taker by any means, but I cherish the sense of freedom and inner peace I feel in that brief span of ultimate self-reliance.

[BobP]

As others have already said, I actually like getting beyond the reach of help. I'm not a big risk-taker by any means, but I cherish the sense of freedom and inner peace I feel in that brief span of ultimate self-reliance

[Sredfield]

Holy Moly, this is on NPR right now, All Things Considered.

[dysfunction]

In response to Sredfield:

almost all the way down
http://www.npr.org/templates/rundowns/r ... hp?prgId=2

or this should get there. http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... =114181641


wow

[Jeffshadows]

I don't think it starts and ends with gizmos, either. Shortly after that show the Biggest Loser started extolling the workout benefits of walking up hills I started to notice three and four hundred pound people with absolutely no water or gear wandering around in he Front Range canyons in the Catalinas. Tell me nothing can go wrong, there...

For far too long there have been no consequences for anyone for anything in this country.

[azbackpackr]

Has the FS put up any information kiosks at those trailheads? It would be a good thing, might save a life and a LOT of tax dollars if they would try to get people to understand about water, electrolytes, hats and sunscreen.

All this takes me back to how the media portrays people who get lost. They always call them hikers. They even referred to that lady who started the Chediski fire as a "hiker." Strictly speaking, if they are hiking, then they must be hikers, right? This lack of specificity in terminology has always bothered me.

Plus, I just like big words.

[dysfunction]

There's a ton of warning signs at the trail heads at the Canyon.. doesn't seem to stop people... That being said, FAR fewer ill-prepared people on Kaibab than BA....

[Jeffshadows]

The GC has HUGE signs everywhere at the trail-heads. One even says "You Might Die" in huge letters, or something to that effect.

[Thoreau]

Caca occurs to even the most well-prepared hikers. Someone can get hit by a rattlesnake, attacked by a bear/cougar/rabid fox/cow, or suffer a torn ACL. I have no problem with people using a SPOT to get rescued if caca occurs, but obviously the morons in the Grand Canyon abused the system.
As for people like the morons in the Grand Canyon...what if they used the SPOT in a frivolous manner and then declined rescue, but somehow got into a life-threatening situation that they had no part in causing afterwards? I would not want them to die.

Simple fix... you push the button, you DO get evacuated, and you DO get billed if it's a BS reason.

[Jeffshadows]

Caca occurs to even the most well-prepared hikers. Someone can get hit by a rattlesnake, attacked by a bear/cougar/rabid fox/cow, or suffer a torn ACL. I have no problem with people using a SPOT to get rescued if caca occurs, but obviously the morons in the Grand Canyon abused the system.
As for people like the morons in the Grand Canyon...what if they used the SPOT in a frivolous manner and then declined rescue, but somehow got into a life-threatening situation that they had no part in causing afterwards? I would not want them to die.

Simple fix... you push the button, you DO get evacuated, and you DO get billed if it's a BS reason.

Such a fix is only simple if you are talking about professional rescue organizations coming in and getting the button-pusher. More often than not, it's a band of volunteers...

[Thoreau]

Plus, many SAR operations are volunteer (SSAR), how many of your tax dollars go to SSAR? NONE. So your argument that it costs us an outrageous number of tax payer dollars is largely moot. Find some hard stats that back up that claim of $500 million. You want to stop taxpayer waste tell our prez and congressmen that you want the troops out of Iraq and Afghanistan!

Just on this one point I figured I would chime in and mention that Sherriff helicopters (and other LE resources) are VERY often used in SAR operations, and every single one of those come from tax dollars. That's only the tip of the iceberg on the costs involved, and the (often) volunteer labor of course wouldn't be from tax money.

Volunteer or not, a HUGE issue in my mind is that there are other people putting THEIR lives at possible risk in these rescues. If *I* broke an ankle on a hike, I'm gonna be hobbling a LONG way before I even think of hitting the 911 button on my SPOT (which I do take on all of my hikes.) You mention that people are trying to put a value on human life... how about the lives of the rescuers who one person can put into jeopardy, even in the most legitemate of circumstances?

[Thoreau]

Caca occurs to even the most well-prepared hikers. Someone can get hit by a rattlesnake, attacked by a bear/cougar/rabid fox/cow, or suffer a torn ACL. I have no problem with people using a SPOT to get rescued if caca occurs, but obviously the morons in the Grand Canyon abused the system.
As for people like the morons in the Grand Canyon...what if they used the SPOT in a frivolous manner and then declined rescue, but somehow got into a life-threatening situation that they had no part in causing afterwards? I would not want them to die.

Simple fix... you push the button, you DO get evacuated, and you DO get billed if it's a BS reason.

Such a fix is only simple if you are talking about professional rescue organizations coming in and getting the button-pusher. More often than not, it's a band of volunteers...

That fact just dawned on me. Even so, perhaps some kind of umbrella coverage via the recuse device itself? I'm sure SPOT could write in some basic verbage in the service contract making one liable for costs, payable directly to SPOT, then relayed in whatever part to the rescue group based on either some sort of flat rate or actual cost.

Unfortuantely, there ARE a lot of legit uses (and I'm partly of the mindset that even in such cases the rescuee DID receive a service, and should pay for it just like you do if you take a ride in an ambulance) so it's hard to really cover all the bases. It would, however, be REALLY nice to see the morons in the article from the GC get pimpslapped, publicly ridiculed, billed, fined, and punished all to hell for their crap. =(