Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911

[Liberal_in_LA]

Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911

By TRACIE CONE, Associated Press Writer

(10-25) 16:54 PDT Fresno, Calif. (AP) --

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."

-------------------------

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.

--------------------

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.

-------------------

"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."



Read more: http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/n/a/2009/10/25/national/a100601D23.DTL#ixzz0V1lZOUA1

[Altoid_Cyclist]

1. I would charge them for all of the expenses incurred and fine them for making false 911 calls.

An actual emergency is one thing, but to have rescue workers respond to these calls is way beyond selfish. What if there is an actual emergency that they can't respond to in time because some idiot is thirsty.

Add in the fact that remote rescues often mean a helicopter must be dispatched into mountainous terrain where accidents are more likely to happen and you have a real chance of some innocent people dying.

In that case, I think that manslaughter charges would be appropriate if the 911 call was for anything less than a serious injury or a life or death situation.

The selfish attitude of these people boggles the mind.

[Liberal_in_LA]

2. The father in the first example was cited for his stupidity.

[Altoid_Cyclist]

39. Technology is making it easy for people to ignore common sense I think.

People need to learn the difference between challenging yourself and taking stupid chances.

An electronic device can't always take the place of proper training, experience and awareness.

My sister usd to live in Kathmandu and she used to laugh at the tourists who would show up and want to go trekking with no experience, guides or instruction.

She tried to convince them that a local guide was the smart way to do it but she said that not everyone would admit their limitations.

[Name removed]

3. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Xithras]

4. It's not just the beacons...people generally get stupid when it comes to the backcountry.

I was on a four day hike in the Emigrant Wilderness this past summer when a mother and son, who we later learned had never before hiked anything more difficult than the paved trails in Yosemite Valley, stumbled into our camp. They'd walked into the wilderness with nothing more than three bottles of Dasani water in each of their daypacks, five sandwiches each in plastic bags, some cheap $15 sleeping bags they picked up at Walmart, the blue jeans and short sleeve shirts they were wearing, and a popup rain shelter. No real tent, no maps, insufficient food, insufficient water, no medical supplies or emergency gear of any sort, no vapor barriers to protect them from ground moisture, no bug spray, no flashlights, and only a cheap little 39 cent lighter that apparently died on them their first night out.

We fed them, filtered them enough water to refill their bottles, gave them a map (to which we added lots of notes so they could follow it without getting lost), and sent them off toward a ranger station about four hours up the trail.

Yuppie 911 didn't bring the idiots into the backcountry, they've been there all along. Most make it out and never try it again. A few aren't so lucky.

[supernova]

5. Why are people so prone

to overestimating their "expertise" in these endeavors?

Does having a GPS or a cell phone make them overconfident?

[JHB]

6. Short answer: yes, that's exactly it.

Longer answer is they partly overestimate themselves, and partly underestimate what they'll be up against. And a very strong dose of starting off all fired up with "let's do this!". In previous years, by the time the small (and large) realities of what they were doing drained off their initial head of steam, they'd have to stick with it and see it through because they didn't have any other choice. Now, they have do have an option, and so have turned a legitimate emergency tool into a "crybaby switch".

[Xithras]

7. Inexperience and TV mostly.

The woman and her son had no warm clothing because it was June and she had no idea that it got so cold at night. She'd never spent a night outdoors, on the granite, at 9,000 feet before. Back home, it was comfy and in the upper 60's to low 70's at night. Where we were, it was still grazing the low 40's every night.

TV also makes things look easy. Starting a campfire? No problem. Just pile some sticks and some of those handy sized precut wood pieces into a teepee and stick your lighter into the bottom. Voila...a warm and toasty fire that will burn all night. In the real woods, where the smallest "logs" are full sized trees that blew down in the storms the previous winter, finding firewood isn't so easy. Her lighter failed because they were having to relight it every five minutes. TV made it look easy, and she had no idea that building an effective campfire is a skillset unto itself (and one which I admit I'm personally not that great at, even after a lifetime of hiking).

They thought they were going to hike down a well marked trail, spend a warm and comfortable evening sleeping under the stars in the beautiful mountains with a roaring campfire alongside them, and then walk back out the next day. By the time they realized that they were stuck in a maze of poorly marked (and unmarked) trails, near-freezing weather, and a scarcity of everything from food to firewood, they were already too far in to simply trot back out to their cars.

And that's the real problem with these cases. In every single instance where I've spoken to someone who got in over their heads in the backcountry, they simply didn't realize their mistakes until they were already too far in to back out.

[Realityhack]

11. Some very good points here.

And I think this is far from being isolated to wilderness activities.

There appears to me (no I can't back it up with numbers) that there is a growing sense that anyone can be an expert / everyone is an expert.
People absolutely no training in or research into a field acting as if their opinions carry the same weight as an expert in the field.

Once you have that attitude... why ask for help with anything? Why read up on what you are about to do? After all you are already an expert!

I am not entirely sure what might be to blame for the trend. I imagine it is more than JUST TV or any other single source. But it is an attitude that is a serious problem for our society IMO.

[intheflow]

18. Part of the anti-intellectualism rampant in the country,

of which the teabaggers are the extreme fringe. But if you watched all of season one of Man Vs. Wild and Survivorman, you have all the information you need to hike into the wilderness! :eyes:

But even that doesn't explain it. My cousin has two masters degrees, his girlfriend also has two masters. From Ohio, they'd never been west of the Mississippi before last week. Their first day here in Denver I advised them to take it easy, take a nice scenic hike around one of the foothills parks, just ease into their visit--and definitely drink lots of water. Instead, they went on a 7 hour hike through the foothills. The resulting dehydration and altitude exhaustion pretty much took her out of commission for the the rest of their five-day visit, and he was not very lively for two of the five days. In that case, they were just so excited to be among the grandeur they severely over-estimated their personal endurance levels and figured I was under-estimating their abilities.

[kestrel91316]

9. Yes. As a former avid Sierra Club mountaineer/backpacker and

competetive orienteer, I cringe at the very idea of cell phones and GPS being used in place of REAL navigational SKILLS in the backcountry.

Oy.

[nadinbrzezinski]

53. As I used to tell my kids

yes the GPS is nice, but batteries fail. Here is a map, here is a compass... PRACTICE.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

49. I don't think they overestimate their expertise. I think they underestimate the countryside.

And certainly people who are used to urban parks may not be prepared for the backcountry. There are about a hundred ways the backcountry can fuck you up, many of which are completely unfamiliar to people who've never gone into the wild before. Trails may be unmarked or poorly marked. Or the markings may require a map to interpret.

[frylock]

17. good on ya!

i've done a few multi-day trips in the Emigrant. amazing that anyone would think they could walk through there as unprepared as the people you described. we're renting mules next time we go.

[Xithras]

21. I've been hiking the Emigrant since I was a kid.

I have enough stories of the stupidity I've seen up there to write a book.

Like the guy who saw a bear come into his camp, and told his KID to toss it a piece of bread so it would hang out long enough for him to dig out his camera. Once the bear discovered the food, it went nuts. Neither the guy or his kids were hurt, but EVERYTHING they had was torn to shreds. One of the biggest problems with the Emigrant it it's proximity to Yosemite. Yosemite is like "Nature for Dummies"...the animals are conditioned to the presence of humans and are extremely tame (even the bears), the trails are level and well marked, and there is always a ranger within shouting distance. When regular Yosemite visitors hear about the Emigrant and come to visit it, most have no idea that they're entering a far less developed, higher altitude, and far more wild & dangerous, version of the Sierra granite country.

They don't do their research, and get in trouble. My former Tuolumne S&R buddy told me that they used to launch at least one search each summer weekend, and 3 out of 4 searches were ultimately traced to someone doing something really dumb.

[XemaSab]

52. Have you read "Death in Yosemite?"

I think you would enjoy it.

[Realityhack]

8. I honestly don't see the issue.

Yes. When you provide people with 911 service they will call because their spouse refuses to make dinner. Or they heard a suspicious noise that turns out to be their cat, or because they want to get directions, or it will be dialed by accident.

Obviously the same will happen with PLBs. Duh.

So you treat it the same way. You respond as if there is an emergency until you know otherwise. If it turns out the call was unreasonable you fine the crap out of the person. And the next time they do the same thing you give them a bigger fine.

So what? It costs money? um... no shit. So does responding to an accidental 9-11 call. It is the price we pay for that safety net to exist.

And PLBs do save plenty of lives. I understand the frustration. I understand we may need more funding because of increased call rates, but ultimately I don't see a big issue here.

[Xithras]

10. There is a problem with that mentality.

Many of the rescues mentioned in the OP were legitimate in one sense. The couple who hiked up a trail and became stuck because it was too steep to descend? Legitimate emergency. They could have died otherwise. The panner who became dangerously dehydrated and used his PLB to call for help? It probably saved his life. Another legitimate use.

The problem is that, in both of those cases, the people shouldn't have been there in the first place. The PLB creates a false sense of security, which encourages people to do things that they might otherwise consider too dangerous. That is NOT a good thing.

I say that EVERYONE who uses a PLB should be charged, every single time. Even if the emergency is legitimate. If you fall and break your leg, a thousand dollar fine for using your PLB will seem minor when compared against the possibility of dying and being eaten. On the other hand, that thousand dollar fine might be enough to dissuade someone from attempting a trail that is beyond their capabilities. Instead of thinking, "I can just use my PLB if I get stuck" they'll be thinking "It will cost me a thousand dollars if I get stuck up there".

That should be enough to make people use these appropriately.

[Marr]

16. That's a horrible idea.

People with legitimate emergencies-- people who *should* call for help-- would then be faced with making a decision between prudence and saving money. Basically the same thing we have in health care with preventive care.

I'm all for fining people who use such devices frivolously, but you don't charge people for using emergency services in an actual emergency.

[Xithras]

20. And when they create their own emergency? What then?

Who gets to determine which emergencies were accidental, and which were caused by the punishable negligence of the victim?

Besides, if you can "save money" by just dealing with it yourself, then do so. The whole point here is that people are using PLB's to call for help in situations that they would have resolved on their own in years past. Nobody is going to bypass using their PLB if they're genuinely injured or in an emergency that is threatening their life. What they won't do is use it when the "emergency" is minor...or completely nonexistent.

One thing you need to keep in mind is that most S&R crews in rural areas are manned by volunteers, and not paid staff. A good friend of mine was a Tuolumne County S&R volunteer (which covers a huge chunk of Yosemite and the Emigrant Wilderness) for many years, and these guys actually take time of work and money out of their own pockets to go search for people. It it NOT acceptable to have them responding to rescues where the actual emergency wasn't an emergency at all. That simply dissuades people from volunteering (why waste the time?), and causes EVERYONE to suffer.

[Marr]

22. As I said,

fine people who call without sufficient reason. Making that determination isn't problematic. Law enforcement does something similar every time they cite anyone for anything. If the person thinks the call was bad, they can present their argument to the judge, just like with any other citation.

You suggested charging everyone who calls for assistance, whether they really needed that assistance or not. That would encourage people to take unnecessary risks, and undermine the whole purpose of rescue services. People are going to do stupid things-- that's just reality.

[Realityhack]

26. More like calling an ambulence.

Even with insurance it can be VERY costly. But if you need one you KNOW you need one and you forget about the cash. If you are borderline then maybe it is o.k. to have your friend drive you.

[Marr]

38. Someone calling for S&R without a good reason can already be cited for it.

If they call with an actual emergency, they don't have the option of just having their friend drive them out. They have no other viable option. Encouraging them to make the riskier choice isn't what I'd call good policy.

[Realityhack]

41. I agree.

See the rest of my posts. I wasn't trying to imply that existing laws did not cover the situation or that we should encourage people to not use the device when needed.

I was pointing out that a fee of $500 isn't likely to keep someone from using the PLB in a real emergency and in fact isn't really different from what we have with 911 outside the wilderness.

In addition we should keep in mind accidental activations. Not sure what the 'right' thing to do is there. Especially considering that you can easily claim it was an accident when you realize you called for a stupid reason 20 min after you set it off.

I can see the argument for no fee when the rescue is legit. I can also see the argument that a $500 activation fee might discourage people with minimal outdoor skills from getting in over their head just because they bought a PLB. It might well keep it from being the 'I have one of these so I can just try whatever' device to a more serious 'If I need rescue I can use this' device.
There is a legitimate concern that technology encourages people to push their limits or ignore safe practice altogether and then they either need rescue (legitimately) or are screwed when they remember the forgot to check the batteries.

[IdaBriggs]

46. No, it really isn't. If you are borderline, and stop breathing in the car

then you will probably be dead by the time your friend stops and begins doing CPR, and while they do that, good luck remembering just where you are on the highway/which street you last passed because that is what you are NOT paying attention to, which means it takes longer for help to get to you.

If you have doubts, call for help. Bills are better than dead.

This message from a retired American Red Cross instructor, who lectured on this mentality for over ten years.

:)

[Realityhack]

57. That was not the point I was getting at.

Lots of people end up in the ER for minor issues. Lots for major issues.
Obviously there are lots of times an ambulance is called for. Other times it isn't. My point was that for the most part knowing their will be a bill doesn't interfere with calling the ambulance. Social factors are a larger influence.

I understand what you are saying. Obviously I miss-communicated. I completely agree that it is better safe than sorry. But in some cases that still does not involve an ambulance.

[Realityhack]

25. I don't see much of a problem with that.

A set reasonable fee. $500 or $1,000. The things tend to cost around 3-500 anyway (of course that may come down).

I would oppose more than a grand as it might keep people from calling in until the situation is past saving or is more dangerous for rescuers. But I understand where you are coming from.

[supernova]

13. The issue is

that these folks could very easily get themselves in a place where they are hurt and or dehydrated, and can't fend for themselves until a rescue time can arrive. Some of these places are so remote, it can take more than a day even for the best rescue teams to reach.

If you go out with any kind of survival training, you're putting not only yourself and your party at risk, you are also asking the rescue teams to put themselves at risk more than necessary.

[TwilightGardener]

14. Big difference between a cop pulling up to your house

and a helicopter searching mountains and canyons, and rescuers spending hours on foot.

[Realityhack]

27. Yes I understand that it costs more...

but it is the same type of service. Emergency response.

[Xithras]

34. It's not just the cost., and the difference is huge.

When you call 911, paid paramedics and LEO's show up on your doorstep to deal with it. In the rural areas where many of these PLB calls originate, Search & Rescue teams tend to be mostly comprised of volunteers who are taking time out of their own day to help people they think are in trouble.

If you allow the situation to develop where many of these alerts are being generated by people with nuisance problems, you're going to undermine the willingness of people to actually volunteer to search.

[Realityhack]

35. Rural areas also sometimes have volunteer fire departments.

I get what you are saying. And I largely actually agree. The thing is I think this problem can be managed with the same techniques applied to other emergency responses.
The fact is that this technology isn't going anywhere. It does save lives. Nuisance calls should be dealt with appropriately. But in the end I feel like the issue is blown a bit out of proportion given that we have seen the same thing with other emergency services be it 911 or the Coast Guard.

And I do see the issue with volunteers. But I am not sure there is any easy solution.

[Hassin Bin Sober]

15. I tend to agree with you.

Just like any other request for emergency services, the PLB can and will be abused. Study it and pass additional legislation if needed.

I can think of several cases off the top of my head were this cheap technology would have saved lives. But I'm just one of them big government bleeding liberals.

I'm reminded of a park in Michigan I read about. There is a dune where people climb down and the only way out is straight back out. The sign warns would-be climbers of the potential $3000 dollar helicopter ride if a climber gets "too tired" to make it back up.

[Realityhack]

28. Great example. n/t

[donco6]

24. Here's the diff -

When bozo calls because wifey won't make dinner, it may be a drive over to a house in suburbia at MOST. In the backcountry, it's a helicopter ride ($$$$) in whatever weather is happening at the time (often blizzard or fog or somesuch). One means a minor incovenience, the other requires rescuers to risk their lives.

[pipi_k]

12. I think those things should come with a warning clearly printed on them

someplace that says anyone using them for situations NOT involving a life threatening emergency (or declining help after willfully activating a signal) will be fined and charged with a misdemeanor. And then charged for the rescue expenses.

Something similar happened in my area this past summer, although it didn't involve GPS...two young women from the eastern part of the state were wading in a local river and found themselves on private property. Afraid they would be in trouble for trespassing, they called State Police and reported that they had been kidnapped and forced to walk upriver by this guy. They had State and local police out searching for this "person", and the whole community was very upset for a day or two thinking there was a crazy person on the loose, but then their story started to fall apart and the truth was revealed. They were prosecuted and now have to reimburse all agencies involved for the cost of the rescue. I believe they have also been told not to return to the area.

I hope they learned their lesson. And the ironic thing was, the farmer whose land they ended up on probably wouldn't have given them a hard time. I wouldn't either if someone accidentally ended up on my property...

very foolish people...

:eyes:

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

31. We used to get similar situations where I grew up (sans the crazy lying nonsense.)

My family owned land that was on the edge of a series of state and local parks along a particularly scenic bit of river that flows through a gorge. Many of the paths were poorly marked, so every once in a while we'd get people showing up in our front yard looking very, very confused. We effectively ran a shuttle service back to the main parking lot for the people who got lost.

But every once in a while someone would do something dumb, like going off trail to try to find a shortcut. Which was a very bad idea. And then we had the local yokel volunteer emergency services people tear-assing around the hillsides on ATVs (no matter the person they were looking for might have been injured or unconscious - it was a chance to play with the equipment) and generally causing even more problems than they solved. Ah, countryside life.

[pipi_k]

36. We actually had a weird thing happen with GPS a couple of weeks ago when

We were hosting a wedding for my youngest stepdaughter.

Everyone was at the house getting things set up.

The bride was off with her nephew and his girlfriend having her hair done. After it was done they all jumped into the girlfriend's SUV and headed over from a nearby city. The girls were in the back chatting and my stepgrandson was driving, using GPS.

Well.

It told him to take xxxx road as a "shortcut" to our house.

Ha ha.

They ended up in the middle of the woods, oil pan impaled on a huge rock. Cell phones would not work. They walked through the woods till they found a house, and the guy called us. The whole conversation was pretty funny actually...he calls and says, "Hey...are you guys missing a bride?" Oldest stepdaughter had gotten the phone and was terrified thinking that someone had kidnapped her sister and was gleefully chopping her into little mincemeat pieces. After some minutes the story became clear, and a contingent was sent out to rescue the lost and recover the SUV impaled on the rock.

The contingent included the groom. So we got the bride back (three hours late for the ceremony) but the groom was missing and it was another hour before he showed up.


I guess the moral of the story is, don't always trust GPS, especially in the scary forest...

:7

[petronius]

40. I think that's a related problem - some people are so trusting of GPS that

they'll do whatever the electronic gizmo tells them, even if common sense or observation should suggest that there's a better route...

[Realityhack]

44. Ding!

With all due respect to the other poster... the GPS was in no way responsible for an impaled oil pan. That is the drivers fault.

This is the same as people who think their car having AWD or WORSE 4WD allows them to go faster on snow and ice.

[Cessna Invesco Palin]

47. GPS is not a substitute for having a brain.

I had a similar experience when I was living in the UK. My family came to visit, and I used my shiny new GPS on a trip around central and northern England. I don't think whoever programmed the routing for Garmin had any idea that the difference between A and B roads was academic in the countryside. To wit,

GPS: In 200 meters turn right.

Me: That... looks like a slightly improved goat trail.

Mom: But it's a pretty hill. The car can make it up.

Me: Oh, what the hell.

GPS: Off route. Recalculating.

Mom: There's a big truck coming down the hill! Pull off!

Me: There IS no place to pull off. This is a sunken lane. We need to reverse back down to the intersection.

Mom: I thought you said the GPS knew where to go!

[seemunkee]

19. I blame Bear Grylls

and I say that only half toungue in cheek. He does some very dangerous stunts that anyone out on there own would be foolish to perform.

[Xithras]

23. Oh god don't remind me.

He did a show in the Sierra's and spiderclimbed down a curving granite slope. He couldn't see the bottom and was talking about using the friction of his body on the rockface to keep from sliding.

All I could think of was the fact that the Sierra granite exfoliates and spalls, and that anyone foolish enough to actually try that was just as likely to end up at the top of a cliff as at the bottom of a gently rounded hill. The PROPER suggestion, when in a high place where facing a blind descent down unknown granite terrain, is to find ANOTHER way down, or to sit still and find a way to signal for rescue. Only an idiot commits himself to a one way climb down an unknown and blind granite slope without hope of rescue or the gear to haul yourself back up.

[seemunkee]

29. Swinging on vines in the jungle

diving in a cave, walking through ice tunnels on a glacier. He tends to do something that can easily get you killed pretty often.
At least Les Stroud lets you know how uncomfortable he is on his show. Although I've seen him on ads for the Spot, which I'm not so sure how I feel about. I'm sure there are plenty of times my wife wishes I had something like that so she could see my location, but I like the feeling of dropping out of sight for a while.

[Realityhack]

30. Well in fairness...

the spot is one way AFAIK. I am not sure checking in with an 'ok' and coordinates is really that different from dropping out of site entirely.

[Xithras]

32. I have a bit more respect for Stroud.

Grills makes it seem like getting lost in the woods is a fun adventure, and that there is no real danger if you understand what you're doing.

Stroud makes it clear that the possibility of death is both real and constant. He also doesn't commit himself to doing stupid things that will get him killed. The difference probably has a lot to do with the fact that Grills is out there with his crew to back him up, while Stroud usually has nothing more than his cameras and a few rudimentary supplies. If Stroud gets intro trouble while filming, he understands that it might be days until anyone notices (though he does always carry a PLB when shooting).

Still, they both create a mentality of false "experience" in their viewers that can encourage them to attempt hikes they have no business attempting. I've personally seen the result of that mentality many times, and it's never pretty.

[petronius]

50. The Sierra was spectacular (although not in the good way)!

The rafting down the river part was pretty entertaining, as well...

:rofl:

[XemaSab]

55. And capturing the "wild" horses?

:rofl:

[petronius]

56. That part too - I was nearly comatose from excess laughter by the end

I had to do some mental housekeeping to erase all the things I thought I'd learned from previous episodes of that show; I was always skeptical of about 85% of it, but after the Sierra I tuned my BS detector up to about 99.9%... :)

I still like the show, however - when viewed as adventure-fiction and not as a documentary, Grylls is a pretty entertaining host.

[XemaSab]

54. I laughed my ASS OFF in the Sierra show

The thing I most remember is the "floating down a river to safety."

Dude, the Sierra is known for its many waterfalls. :P

That guy is "what not to do."

[TwilightGardener]

33. Oh, now. Even my kids think he's a little nuts, and more stuntman than guide.

That said, we really like the show.

[supernova]

37. Same here

I enjoy the show, however I think BG is crazy.


:wow:

I'm prepared for the day when there's announcement that he fell and either died or is now permanently paralyzed.

[TwilightGardener]

43. Yes--I fear he might go out the Steve Irwin occupational-hazard route.

[Liberal_in_LA]

42. Who is Bear Grylls?

[supernova]

48. Here

http://dsc.discovery.com/fansites/manvswild/bio/bio.html

[Liberal_in_LA]

51. oh...Man Vs Wild. Heard of it, seen the commercials.

[leanderj]

45. Put an idiot-proof " In Case of Emergency Break Glass"-type cover on it

to limit its usage to real emergencies.