Mt. San Jacinto Outdoor Recreation

According to an article published at mnn.com, governments would probably charge for rescues if the governments thought they could do that without generating larger losses for themselves in litigation over flawed rescues.

I wonder if that means that a lot of rescues are sloppy or otherwise flawed?

The article is here: http://www.mnn.com/earth-matters/wilder ... escue-bill

Note that SAR crews in Grand Canyon, Yosemite and a park in New York rescue more people than the others. I think the retired rescue ranger at Grand Canyon interviewed recently by backpacker.com was insightful.

http://www.backpacker.com/survival/8-su ... ue-ranger/

Among his interesting observations were that many people who call for rescue could have made it back on their own. They overestimated their risk, they underestimated their abilities and their minds filled with fear, and so they dialed 911. And this: the largest frequency of rescues involves males 20 to 29 years old. And they were not engaged in extreme sports, they were just hiking - hiking without adequate experience or preparation. (Also note his advice to wear cotton, which we have discussed here.)

Another significant factor seems to be that people usually get rescued hiking in areas that are unfamiliar to them (in the mnn article).

A couple of weeks ago, the Chicago Tribune published a story about a man who became lost on a hike in an unfamiliar forest. He went to enjoy the autumn colors. He did not call for rescue, and had no cell phone anyway from which to call (because he does not believe in them.) He did not panic, and just tried to find his way out of the woods. He became hungry, as well as lost, over the days it took rescuers to find him after being alerted by a person who noticed that he had not returned from the hike.

The article is here: http://www.chicagotribune.com/suburbs/c ... story.html

I may be reading something into this man's story that is not there, but he reminded me of Don Quixote, a little. I like Don Quixote. We should not rescue these great souls. It is best to let them live or die, as they may, in their quests.

Some very interesting articles, Wildhorse. I don't know how to take his assertion that some of the people he has rescued could have, in fact, self rescued. Part of me thinks that is just the kvetching of a tough old desert rat who can't comprehend what it's like to be a city person who is unconditioned and sick and weak. He may see "panicky young man who could have self-rescued' but it may be that some of these young men are much less fit than he is. But. OTOH, it also does seem true that many modern people are surprisingly uninhibited about calling 911 for help and don't think much of it--almost as if they are calling a cab.

Thanks for posting, WH.

Yes, it must be both. Or else, it is like Hamlet said to Rosencrantz, "there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so." (http://nfs.sparknotes.com/hamlet/page_106.html)

This is what I see when I compare the man in Homer Glen and the people the ranger describes, whether or not what the ranger observed would have been observable by others. Are they in trouble or not? We think yes or no, and phone 911 or not, carry a cell phone or not. And rescues, are they good or bad? I think they are at least flawed. My thinking makes them so.