John wants to tell us how to hike based upon his values:
"those wanting that experience should discard their vibram soled shoes, down puff jackets, water proof shells, light weight cooking kit, etc..., strap on some leather soled or hobnail boots, canvas breeches, wool coats, oil skin slickers, etc....., and pray it does not rain."
Doesn't seem to be any room in John's world for people making their own decisions without derision.
Hi Ken,
Really? I want to tell folks how to hike based on my values? Where did you see that? I clearly stated above that the use (or non use) of these devices is a personal decision.
I absolutely agree with you that people should be free to “do things as they like”. No requirement to carry electronic gizmos, or even map and compass of that is their preference.
My point is that these devices are reliable/useful devices, and can serve as an important tool for those who choose to use them. Simple as that. In my opinion Larry Conn and John Likely would have both been found sooner (in Larry Conn’s case up to 7 months sooner) had they been using one of these devices. I only mention this to illustrate how the devices can be useful. They both chose not to use them. Their decision, their fate. I do wonder if they considered their families points of view when they made their decisions.
While my hypothetical question was (and still is) a bit “tongue in cheek”, let’s assume for a moment that the found party was of the type that likes to hike “in the old ways”. In that case, wouldn’t he/she expect to get the same help he/she would have gotten 150 years ago? Wouldn’t they prefer that I not violate the sanctity of their “Wilderness Experience” and that I not use a modern convenience, and prefer that I only make haste to hike out and contact S&R.? Even though that would likely mean no help for 24 hours, and so what that mountain lions do inhabit the area? Of course if this (unlikely) situation did arise I would “ring up” S&R. I certainly would not want to feel responsibility for the fate of the injured hiker if I did not do all that I could, but I might enjoy watching the individual reconsider their point of view about the use of these modern conveniences.
Honestly, I do not consider those who choose not to carry one of these devices as stupid. I never use it to walk down to the local 7-11 to pick up a six pack. In fact I only carry it for 5% of my hiking activity. I only carry it for those hikes that I think represent a sufficient risk that warrants the use of the device. I fully recognize that different people have different thresholds for acceptable risk. I could never do what Alex Honnold or Yoh Aoki have done, but then again, I do not care to.
Clearly I am an advocate for the adoption of newer technology. Why not? It works, and in light of some of the risks presented does not cost much. Just my point of view.
John, that's fair to advocate for what you believe, certainly I'm guilty of that.
To me, though, when you cross over into using the word "SHOULD", you are now telling people what to do, not what you do.
there are those who would say that you are not using the device correctly, if you don't use it on each and every hike. "you should" defines what THEY think that YOU should be doing, and it clearly implies that if you are not doing what you should, then you are doing what you should NOT. That is a criticism.
By the way, it was thought that Larry Conn had a heart attack. Interesting that you think you are immune to those on 95% of your hikes. I find my confidence in that has gone down with time.
As for your hypothetical, I don't think that people asking for help for a severe situation are in a position to tell the rescuer how to do things.
I also think it is disingenuous to say that simply having such a device on one's body will help recoveries.....they will not.
You have to have the right subscription for the device to be able to have it monitor your steps. But of course, I guess one "should"......
"I do wonder if they considered their families points of view when they made their decisions."
Have no doubt that is the sentiment cast upon every hiker, with or without a SPOT, who requires a rescue. It was the exact same criticism leveled 100 times against the climbers on Mt. Hood who DID have a SPOT who died, anyway.
Society considers us in a risky pursuit of fun, whether they "should", or not.
