Topic
PLB’s, SPOTS vs. Cutting the Cord
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Home › Forums › General Forums › General Lightweight Backpacking Discussion › PLB’s, SPOTS vs. Cutting the Cord
- This topic is empty.
-
AuthorPosts
-
Nov 5, 2009 at 11:10 am #1543075
Alright then… In your opinion, what are the pros and cons of cuben fiber vs silnylon?? (j/k) :-P
Nov 5, 2009 at 11:34 am #1543084Art, it was probably a misunderstanding on my part and I appologize for that. I agree that no one should want to willfully put someone else's life in danger such as SAR team members. However, currently being on a SAR team myself, that is what I signed up to do. No one forced me to do it, I signed up for it because that's what I love to do. I would never hold it against anyone for pulling the big red handle when they needed to because that's one of the things I get paid to do (in a way). But to wrap it up, Art, sorry for the misunderstanding brother.
Nov 5, 2009 at 2:19 pm #1543135Justin, having empathy and understanding the loss to those loved ones you may leave behind should something happen to you on the trail then taking some precautions to preclude that in no way lessens your wilderness experience.
I recognize it is an individual choice to determine how to experience wilderness but to proclaim one can’t by including a PLB, cell phone, or GPS or it is some how cheating to do so begs the question how much thought was given to how their wives, husbands, children, friends, and co-workers would feel if something tragic happened to them, especially if it was preventable with a call or a PLB.
The trill of a risk or challenge is one thing, the venue we choose to execute it in is another, and I don’t see the two as related. Wilderness is wilderness, whether one leaves a detailed route plan, takes a cell phone, GPS, or PLB, or wants the risk of taking no precautions, its still wilderness.
One individual can tell themselves it’s not a wilderness experience if I bring any electronics, another person can say the exact opposite, the wilderness doe not care because it’s how we choose to perceive things. Be that as it may there is a real potential difference in lowering the risk to potential survivors, out loved ones, that we may leave behind.
Nov 5, 2009 at 2:29 pm #1543137These are all reasonable questions and I appreciate the different views- I don't necessarily agree but I do appreciate them.
I've never used a PLB. I've never carried a GPS on a hike. I'm a land surveyor and deal with precision, technologically derived geospatial positions every day. When hiking I like traveling off trail and discovering new country- often with a 40 year old guidebook.
I like the fact that a PLB or SPOT does not tell the user where he is or allow for chatter with civilization. If I carried one I wouldn't do riskier things than when I was 20, but might do riskier things than I would otherwise at my age. This summer I had the joy of experiencing kidney stones. After that, and my dad having appendicitis, I'm not inclined to do long solo off trail trips- even on very safe terrain. How about an off-trail trip with my kids- what happens if I drop dead?
Will having a PLB make my wilderness experience different? I don't know. My hope is that I would just stick it in the pack and ignore it. SPOT would be a bit trickier because I would want to do a daily "OK" message and I'd probably worry that it wasn't getting out and my family was freaking.
Nov 5, 2009 at 3:30 pm #1543166I think it's all about personal situation and personal choice. When I was wild and single (that's been since WAY before PLBs existed) I never would have used one anyways. Now, I have a family, a house, a business and aging parents all of which are riding on me BEING THERE. To me, personally with those facts, not carrying the EPIRB that I carry would be completely irresponsible to those around me counting on me. Personal situation, personal choices.
Nov 5, 2009 at 4:50 pm #1543195AnonymousInactive" personally don't feel we have the right to put others lives in danger simply because we screwed up our wilderness vacation, but like I said before, this is apparently the minority view."
One way or the other, SAR folks lives are going to be potentially on the line. If a hiker doesn't return on time and his family or friends call it in, SAR will go looking for him/her. That's the way it works these days. If a PLB/SPOT/EPIRB, whatever, can be activated, it will save everybody concerned a lot of time, energy, and possibly exposure to life threatening situations. So it's not like a decision to not carry such a device will keep SAR from being called in. How carrying one affects one's wilderness experience is another matter entirely. HYOH in that regard, but don't think you're doing SAR any favors by not carrying one.
Nov 5, 2009 at 5:57 pm #1543212Modern living is a maze of interdependence. Civilization has made step after step after step away from independence in order to advance itself. There's nothing wrong with that, its given us a lot. However, the wilderness is the antithesis. Each element from modern life that's brought into it destroys the experience a little more. Knowing you could get rescued at the push of a button … well, I'm just saying you miss an awful lot.
Well, maybe for you, but not for me. I don't act any differently. I put the PLB in the bottom of the pack and forget about it. I change nothing about my planning, my gear, my level of risk taking. The experience is exactly the same — a complete reprieve from "civilization" — as it would be if I had no PLB.
Besides, that a PLB is no guarantee. With many injuries, a PLB would just be superfluous. Avalanche, rockfall, drowning while crossing a creek, taking a serious tumble, etc. would be no different with a PLB or without a PLB. With respect to hypothermia, people who have used PLB's have still died. A PLB isn't a guarantee of anything. It's still a big wilderness out there and they may or may not get there in time.
A PLB only makes a difference if you get into an emergency situation and are in good enough shape to push the button and stay alive until they get there. Even then, it changes the experience not a whit until and unless you get into an emergency situation.
HJ
Nov 5, 2009 at 6:06 pm #1543215When you carry one it does affect your trip with a bit of an undertone.
Nope. Not me. Maybe for some, but it's out of sight out of mind for me.
For me, having a Sat phone or cell phone on where people could call me, now that would totally ruin the sense of freedom.
Anyway, HYOH. If it somehow changes your experience to have a PLB deep in the recesses of your pack, then feel free to choose to not carry one. For me it changes nothing, and I don't even know it is there. Each to his own, and God bless ya.
HJ
Nov 5, 2009 at 8:16 pm #1543246AnonymousInactive"A PLB only makes a difference if you get into an emergency situation and are in good enough shape to push the button and stay alive until they get there. Even then, it changes the experience not a whit until and unless you get into an emergency situation."
+1 to your entire post!
Nov 5, 2009 at 8:37 pm #1543253make that +2!
Nov 5, 2009 at 9:03 pm #1543262Deleted. I wrote this too late in the night. Most of it incoherent when I re-read it. Sorry.
Nov 5, 2009 at 9:41 pm #1543268"No man is an island."
Oh I don't know. I thought I was Barbados once. It wasn't bad really, my temperature was so mild I never needed much more than a base layer.
And as far as the seat belts and collisions and death and carnage and all, I'm really lucky. I haven't encountered any cars on the trails on which I hike, so the head on collisions have been pretty easy to avoid.
Lastly, it is NOT my responsibility to stay alive for my family. My family can take care of itself. Therefore, as John said earlier, it is NOT irresponsible to not take advantage of the devices that might save us. It's up to each of us to decide what level of 'safety' we want. What works for you is not what HAS to work for everyone else.
Besides, there are lots of things we could carry that could save us, should we carry them all? Should we carry a gun in case we meet a murderer on the trail? (Could come in handy to shoot out the tires of the car on the trail, to avoid the head on collision and all). Should we carry an extra shelter in case the first one gets destroyed? How about a nice down jacket in August in case we get a freak ice storm? Just how far down the 'irresponsible if we don't carry things that could save us' do we need to go? And who makes that decision?
I know I know! You do. For you. I do. For me. Art does. For him. Justin does. For him. (Hmmmm, I detect a pattern here……)
Nov 6, 2009 at 6:21 am #1543325I agree. I might take more than you for safety, but not as much as the next guy.
We all choose are self-responsibilities to our various levels of comfort, or peace of mind. Having been in a dangerous life-threatening situation alone in the woods, my "levels" were changed. I was not saved by my outdoor skills. I was saved by weather. Had it dropped into the 20s and teens, I would not be here to write this. LuckilyI only got to the mild hypothermia level, very close to the level of the hopelessness of hypothermia, lala land and death.
Do you carry any first aid? Do you carry matches? Are you an all leather and wool mountain man? Do you navigate by sun a and stars? Can you figure out both longitude and latitude? Just how self-reliant are you? Do you wear glasses? What extremes have you experienced when alone?
Think of the meaning of the word accident. Experience does not totally eliminate accidents.
Time to read more of Jack London.
Nov 6, 2009 at 6:54 am #1543332Oh heck, I'm no poster boy for the Jeremiah Johnson fan club. I carry an iPhone, for goodness sakes! Will get a PLB soon actually.
But I do have a lot of confidence in my ability to think and reason myself out of dangerous situations without a host of supporting equipment. I have the knowledge, I have the ability, and I'm not prone to panic.
I agree with your sentiment about accidents and experience. But experience helps avoid most, and mitigate the effects of most others. I'm much more concerned about accidents in every day life — where far too many others have significant play in whether or not I get in one — than accidents in the 'wild,' where it mostly depends on me and my awareness of my surroundings.
Of course, I also believe that when it's your time, it's your time. Doesn't matter where you are or what you're doing. I'm gonna die someday, and I'm okay with that. Because I'm okay with that, I try (TRY) to live my life from the perspective of fun and adventure, not from the perspective of fear and extra caution. Doesn't mean I'm a daredevil, far from it.
To sum it up, it's like the old Far Side cartoon. In one panel is a person who has a glass 'half full.' In another, a person who has a glass 'half empty.' In the third, a person who can't quite figure out whether they think it's half full or half empty. In the last panel, the one I identify with, the person doesn't care about the glass of water, they ordered a cheeseburger and all they want to know is where it is!
Nov 6, 2009 at 6:54 am #1543333>>> It is irresponsible not to take advantage of the devices that might save us, because it is our responsibility to remain alive for our families <<<
Honestly, I'm not just trying to be a smart a** here… But you or someone else that feels slightly stronger than you could extend that out logically to "it is irresponsible to enter the wilderness, hike in UL style, rock or ice climb, etc. etc. etc. — if you have a family."
Believe me, I'm not taking my responsibility to my family lightly and I do understand the affect on a family when a loved one dies in the mountains. My best friend died in a solo ice climbing accident. Another friend died in an ice climbing accident on Mount Washington. Whether or not you have children, people are left hurting.
This argument comes up all the time in the technical climbing communities when someone dies soloing or on a big peak. Lot's of people are quick to judge and condemn.
However, the bottom line is, we're all going to die someday and there is no avoiding that truth. My chances of dying on my commute to work (60 miles one way into the North Boston metro area) are probably much greater than anything I do in the mountains.
Who is to say that someone who gives up or greatly restricts the style of their outdoor pursuits is really "THERE" for their family. One way to BE THERE for your family is to be a happy, healthy, and fulfilled person and that means being true to yourself. One person might find this happiness hiking with a PLB discreatly stashed in their pack while another might need to solo technical ice climbs. Everyone needs to find the right balance between risk and responsibility.
Again, I don't have an issue with anyone using electronic devices. Hell, I use GPS sometimes and who knows maybe I'll change my mind and will use PLBs in the future.
I would just hate to see these things become required equipment for the backcountry.
Nov 6, 2009 at 7:15 am #1543335I’ve never quite understood the ‘man vs. nature’ approach to backpacking. Nature is surely unaware of such competition. If she were privy, I assure you that we would be defeated every time. Personally, I find wilderness to be a companion, not an adversary. Therefore, I don’t look at carrying such devices as ‘cheating’, because there is no ‘competition’ in progress.
For those who head out primarily to challenge nature, you could find ‘excitement’ in the possibility that the device may not work, or that SAR may not be able to get to you in time. Or, you may not be conscious in order to activate the device. Though, I pray that this never happens.
Even though I’ve yet to carry such devices while backpacking, I would never criticize someone who did… especially with their family in mind. With the covenant of marriage and parenthood comes a willful surrender of a part of ones self. You live for them. Unfortunately, a recent poll shows that more people would now rather ‘find themselves’, than be their own child’s hero. This saddens me greatly.
As for public opinion, I have been criticized on numerous occasions in the past for remote, solo, cross-country trekking without such means of communication. It appears that many people find it irresponsible… and in their defense, it may be… especially for those providing for families. I've tended think of it as calculated risk. Unfortunately, it can often be a display of defiance based upon self-imposed ideas of what constitutes a ‘real’ wilderness experience.
For me, considering these devices in the future, geographical areas and styles of travel will be taken into consideration (i.e. remoteness, solo, cross-country, desert, canyon, winter, etc.). I can’t imagine taking a PLB on a crowded AT section, but along a remote solo in the Brooks Range would make sense. I consider carrying the proper tools to help facilitate a safe return to be part of a responsible and intelligent travel plan.
If you’ve ever come across a bloody, stumbling backcountry traveler who has recently shook hands with death, the last thing they typically say is “ Go on! This is between me and nature!!” The presence of death has a way of humbling folks.
Travel safely… whatever that means for you and yours.
Nov 6, 2009 at 7:25 am #1543342In my experience, the type of people that undertake unsupported wilderness treks and solo technical mountain routes are some of the least likely people to exhibit a "me vs nature" mindset.
Nov 6, 2009 at 8:17 am #1543354John,
I wholly agree. Having not seen your post until after publishing mine, I was referencing nothing that you wrote.
The inspiration for my response stems from the question of why one would choose NOT to use such a device based solely on principal. To me, it is like always driving without a seatbelt based on a self-imposed decree of independence. This is clearly different than not utilizing one because you simply don’t find it necessary when you’re just backing the car out of the garage.
Does this mindset originate from a ‘me vs. nature’ mentality? Not always, of course. But, it is a common mindset… and I find it to be a most irresponsible reason to not carry a safety device.
I will choose to utilize such devices in the future based on weather or not I feet it makes sense, not because I have set rules pertaining to my wilderness travel. Obviously, everyone will have his or her own approach. I hope that whatever they choose, it leads to safe travel.
Nov 6, 2009 at 8:31 am #1543360>>> I wholly agree. Having not seen your post until after publishing mine, I was referencing nothing that you wrote.
<<<Ha ha – funny how these intra tubie's work. I would have bet good money your post was at least partially in response to mine!
Nov 6, 2009 at 4:23 pm #1543497AnonymousInactive"Lastly, it is NOT my responsibility to stay alive for my family. My family can take care of itself."
Maybe, maybe not. I am assuming you have dependents. If not, inform me and I will retract this post, although it still applies to individuals who do and may be thinking along the same lines. What if your wife has a nervous breakdown as a result of your death? Who takes care of her?
The kids, with a deceased dad and an emotionally traumatized mom? More than likely the taxpayer in one form or another. Or perhaps more distant relatives at great inconvenience to them. Back to no man is an island. My 2 cents.Nov 6, 2009 at 4:29 pm #1543498AnonymousInactive"Travel safely… whatever that means for you and yours."
++1 to your entire post, Roger. Very eloquent presentation of the issues involved.
Nov 6, 2009 at 4:50 pm #1543503" If not, inform me and I will retract this post"
I would never ask you to retract your post! Differences of opinion welcome!
I do not have dependents (well, there are my two dogs….), but when I was married, my wife was not the sort who would have had a nervous breakdown. One of the reasons I married her. If I had died, she would have been quite sad, but would have carried on. No kids. Plenty of life insurance, so that would have assisted her through her grief (not being cheeky, meaning she could have not worked for a year or two if she wished while she checked vector and then moved on). In other words, she could have taken care of herself. I didn't have to be alive to do that.
Back to Barbados ;-) Really, back to making decisions that are right for you. You know your situation, you know what works for you. I stand by my post — for me. I imagine you'd stand by yours as well. Doesn't mean either of us is wrong. Just different, in different situations, perhaps looking at life just a little differently.
Nov 6, 2009 at 4:53 pm #1543504AnonymousInactive"Doesn't mean either of us is wrong. Just different, in different situations, perhaps looking at life just a little differently."
Totally. Good discussion. Thanks, Douglas.
Nov 14, 2009 at 12:21 pm #1545277Nov 15, 2009 at 7:32 am #1545409Some people may think it is irresponsible to go out into the wilderness and push your limits without carrying a PLB. But I find it to be terribly irresponsible to go out further than you can save your own self and rely on pushing the button. Now you are relying on someone else to come and rescue you. Why not cut back on how remote you go or how far you try to push yourself instead?
-
AuthorPosts
- You must be logged in to reply to this topic.
Forum Posting
A Membership is required to post in the forums. Login or become a member to post in the member forums!
Our Community Posts are Moderated
Backpacking Light community posts are moderated and here to foster helpful and positive discussions about lightweight backpacking. Please be mindful of our values and boundaries and review our Community Guidelines prior to posting.
Get the Newsletter
Gear Research & Discovery Tools
- Browse our curated Gear Shop
- See the latest Gear Deals and Sales
- Our Recommendations
- Search for Gear on Sale with the Gear Finder
- Used Gear Swap
- Member Gear Reviews and BPL Gear Review Articles
- Browse by Gear Type or Brand.