High Sierra Topix

Once you get one, and hold it in your hand and see how tiny it really is, and then take it out back and send an OK check in, and then you get a text message and email with your lat and long on it in minutes, and then you look at it on the linked map and zoom in and it is within 20 feet of where you transmitted (most times exactly), you will wonder why you did not get one sooner.

I totally empathize with the "Freedom" issue - if a soloist could accept the risks and then sign a paper that said NO RESCUE OR SEARCH no matter what, then it is just you and your decision. But, in reality, this is not going to happen. Even though my family is OK with not actually talking with me or knowing exactly where I am, I am about 99 percent sure that if I went missing they would call authorities and get a rescue started, even if that is not what I wanted. I do not use a GPS, do not take a cell phone. The only "gaget" I have is my i-pod shuffle that I take in shoulder seasons and listen to music or books on tape while in the tent, to mitigate the long and boring dark hours. Usually it is too cold to hold on to a book and the batteries for a head lamp outweigh the tiny shuffle. I would NEVER want to listen to music while walking, or if any daylight were left to explore. Believe me, taking SPOT for me is like listening to fingernails grating on the chalkboard. But, I hope I can learn to take the thing and then put it out of my mind that I really have it. We old dogs can learn new tricks.

As for safety in numbers, there are flaws in that concept too. In case of injury, if only one other is with you, then you have to leave the injured alone to go for help. Some cases, OK, others the injured really does need care. If a group does not really stick together, then a member can still go missing. In the old days, some groups actually carried walkie-talkies.

I think the desire to constantly communicate is a cultural thing. Nowadays, people seem to have the cell phone glued to their ear! I call our modern culture, the yak, yak, yak culture. I remember when we would not think of making a long distance phone call until the rates went down at some rediculous hour like 11PM! Then we would quickly say or peace in 3 minutes! But, I do not think those who want to stay in touch with the outside world via technology are "wrong", they simply are going to have a different wilderness experience than I am. Regardless of our leanings, we need to accept personal responsibility. That means not using SPOT as a substitute for experience and skill and those of us wanting "freedom" should not put others at risk.

Wandering Daisy wrote:
As for safety in numbers, there are flaws in that concept too. In case of injury, if only one other is with you, then you have to leave the injured alone to go for help. Some cases, OK, others the injured really does need care. If a group does not really stick together, then a member can still go missing. In the old days, some groups actually carried walkie-talkies.

Actually I have my group carry walkie talkies. Not that they have them on.. sigh..

Our group always has a talk before each trip.. It is mandatory. The plan is to stabilize the victim and then leave. We know and agree on the risks. Even in a group of 2. I think a spot is great, esp if you can hit it for a friend. My point has always been that you might not be able to hit it for yourself.

WD pretty much sums up my conflicts and philosophy.

Thanks

Mike

Just wondering: Would a few Trail Junction Registers help out any? Sign your name describe new plans etc.
replace the register every season as needed. Just have a few central spots in the backcountry to leave a change of plans?
I do not like Spot or PLB's for all the reasons listed in the messages above.

I carry a Spot. Why?
1. Some level of peace of mind. Not necessarily mine, but my family's. If there's a way to lessen the concern that family and friends have when we enter the wilderness, then it's worth it.
2. Risk management. I take on additional risks when in the backcountry. The spot will not prevent accidents, and does not make me a better hiker, but I believe it increases my and, if with someone, my hiking buddy's chances of getting help if it is needed.

Personally, I think the first reason is probably the more important one.

Spot has a tracking feature where it sends a signal of your location every 10 minutes (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8pRAuZTSO_M" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;). I had this option when I first got the Spot almost two years ago, but opted to turn it off earlier this year to save money. I will definitely add this feature again when I go on my next backpack.

used to have a Spot. Now I have a satellite phone, and it does everything the Spot didn't do.

I have been followimg the Spot debate for a few years now and fr all I have read Spot works well enough but has had a few glaring failures, enough that I would not depend on that system.

Here is my thinking, for what it is worth.

I was an early adopter of SPOT and have never regretted it or had any kind of failure with it.

It is true that if I fall and hit my head the SPOT is not going to spontaneously call for help. But it is far more likely that I might have a heart attack, or serious altitude sickness, or a bad sprain or break that required transport. So if the device can deal with 90% of my potential emergencies should I not carry it because it can't deal with 10%?

But in fact it would help with the 10%. I do send messages at each major intersection/lake/pass/campsite that I pass and this would dramatically narrow the search area for any SAR.

I take many precautions about not accidentally or carelessly activating the 911 function. I don't see how that would be possible in my case.

I am not compulsively addicted to communication devices. I am part of the .0002 % who do not even own a cell phone. I am saddened as I watch people increasingly live their lives in a technology mediated world. I like SPOT precisely because it is not two-way communication. I can only use it to reassure others or to summon help, but since I cannot receive any information on it, it does not invade my feeling of solitude.

I do understand the minimalist approach. I respect Colin Fletcher's decision not even to take a watch into the wilderness. But I cannot make my decisions in a self-centered way. I must realize that my own pleasure in the wilderness experience depends upon taking the risk that I could worry my family or expose a SAR crew to expense and danger. I feel that I have an obligation to do what I can to prevent this, or else I am placing my own pleasure above the chance that I could inflict harm on others.

The soloist can make decisions on a whim and a devise will not moderate a bad choice or propose an alternative. A companion would be there to say "that's not a good idea, lets try this instead". So for me, a gizmo is not in the cards.
Next year I will find a companion, or enroll with an experienced commercial group hike. Yeah, commercial, professional babysitters, the "tour bus" approach. If I do sneak out on my own, I will use the permit system much better now, including a detailed itinerary, my interests, and a topo map of the proposed route, with alternatives, for them to attach to the permit. Hikers who do not pull a permit, or just BS it, are needlessly placing themselves into obscurity if a rescue is required. The Permit system also allows rescuers to contact other hikers who pulled a permit in the same time frame and area. And don't be fooled into thinking just because you are on the JMT, they will easily find you. 25 paces off the trail to "enjoy the view" is all it takes to become hard to find.