Yuppie 911

[Jilleo]

Not really bikepacking specific, but I thought people annoyed by the proliferation of SPOT might appreciate this article.

Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear Yuppie 911

By TRACIE CONE
Associated Press Writer
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.”
If they had not been toting the device that works like Onstar for hikers, “we would have never attempted this hike,” one of them said after the third rescue crew forced them to board their chopper. It’s a growing problem facing the men and women who risk their lives when they believe others are in danger of losing theirs.
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.
“Now you can go into the back country and take a risk you might not normally have taken,” says Matt Scharper, who coordinates a rescue every day in a state with wilderness so rugged even crashed planes can take decades to find. “With the Yuppie 911, you send a message to a satellite and the government pulls your butt out of something you shouldn’t have been in in the first place.”
From the Sierra to the Cascades, Rockies and beyond, hikers are arming themselves with increasingly affordable technology intended to get them out of life-threatening situations.
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.
“There’s controversy over these devices in the first place because it removes the self sufficiency that’s required in the back country,” Scharper says. “But we are a society of services, and every service you need you can get by calling.”
The sheriff’s office in San Bernardino County, the largest in the nation and home to part of the unforgiving Death Valley, hopes to reduce false alarms. So it is studying under what circumstances hikers activate the devices.
“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.”
Personal locator beacons, which send distress signals to government satellites, became available in the early 1980s, but at a price exceeding $1,200. They have been legal for the public to use since 2003, and in the last year the price has fallen to less than $100 for devices that send alerts to a company, which then calls local law enforcement.
When rescue beacons tempt inexperienced hikers to attempt trails beyond their abilities, that can translate into unnecessary expense and a risk of lives.
Last year, the beacon for a hiker on the Pacific Crest Trail triggered accidentally in his backpack, sending helicopters scrambling. Recently, a couple from New Bruswick, British Columbia activated their beacon when they climbed a steep trail and could not get back down. A helicopter lowered them 200 feet to secure footing.
In September, a hiker from Placer County was panning for gold in New York Canyon when he became dehydrated and used his rescue beacon to call for help.
With darkness setting in on the same day, Mono County sheriff’s deputies asked the National Guard for a high-altitude helicopter and a hoist for a treacherous rescue of two beacon-equipped hikers stranded at Convict Lake. The next day they hiked out on foot.
When eight climbers ran into trouble last winter during a summit attempt of Mt. Hood in Oregon, they called for help after becoming stranded on a glacier in a snowstorm.
“The question is, would they have decided to go on the trip knowing the weather was going bad if they had not been able to take the beacons,” asks Rocky Henderson of Portland Mountain Rescue. “We are now entering the Twilight Zone of someone else’s intentions.”
The Grand Canyon’s Royal Arch loop, the National Park Service warns, “has a million ways to get into serious trouble” for those lacking skill and good judgment. One evening the fathers-and-sons team activated their beacon when they ran out of water.
Rescuers, who did not know the nature of the call, could not launch the helicopter until morning. When the rescuers arrived, the group had found a stream and declined help.
That night, they activated the emergency beacon again. This time the Arizona Department of Public Safety helicopter, which has night vision capabilities, launched into emergency mode.
When rescuers found them, the hikers were worried they might become dehydrated because the water they found tasted salty. They declined an evacuation, and the crew left water.
The following morning the group called for help again. This time, according to a park service report, rescuers took them out and cited the leader for “creating a hazardous condition” for the rescue teams.

[Pivvay]

Can't fix stupid. Fine people making blatantly unnecessary calls? PLB's have been available for a while, I guess a SPOT is just cheaper.

My SPOT was on tracking mode when the avalanche took my partner and me down. He knew I had it and we were both hurt bad enough we could hardly walk (broken ankles). We discussed our options before the 7 hour very painful but doable self rescue. We got back to the car while it was still light and though ridiculous, neither of us agreed the day was all that epic. It was still the afternoon when we arrived at the car and drove home to pack bags for the oh so fun emergency room.

Sending a SPOT 911 call would have endangered a large number of rescuers, the weather was too bad for a heli and it potentially exposed us to spending the night. I'm happy with the call we made but I regard the 911 button the same as I do with 911 at home, for serious emergencies only. If you call 911 with a non emergency matter you're taking services away from people who really need them. Not sure how to convince others of that.

[Jilleo]

The actions of those people in the Grand Canyon are flabbergasting. It's too bad states don't have laws to charge people like that with some kind of crime ... sending unnecessary calls for help and taking away resources where they are truly needed.

I've recently tried to picture what I'd do in different situations, including a situation like yours, especially recently, when I have ventured solo several hours away from any source of help. It's all going to be compounded next season when I set out on more multiday fastpacking trips. I always carry the SPOT with me, usually turned off, as well as emergency bivy gear. I think I would have to be in a situation that was without a doubt life-threatening before I'd send out a SPOT help signal. Self rescue is usually an option if you can achieve some kind of mobility and have a way to keep yourself warm. I think you did the right thing crawling out, although I can imagine that was probably one of the hardest things you have ever done. I agree that any type of rescue puts other lives on the line, especially in the alpine regions.

[AZTtripper]

This came up over at http://www.mountainproject.com/ some time ago I'll have to see if I can find the thread. As I recall the general nonsenses was that this would be the inevitable out come as more of these units lured the inexperienced out into the field.

The water tasted salty that's classic.

[Pivvay]

Rescue units can charge, esp the fire department, heli's, etc. I would think the national parks can too. In general there has been resistance to charging so as not to discourage people who really need it from calling for help but I'm not sure that matters. If I truly needed help I would call no matter the cost since it was my life or a partners on the line. If no one's life is on the line then a call isn't necessary anyway.

The problem is that the people discussing this are thinkers. What thinking were the Grand Canyon people doing?

[DaveC]

Here's the NPS morning report for the incident:

"Grand Canyon National Park (AZ)
Hikers Evacuated After Three SPOT Activations In Three Days

On the evening of September 23rd, rangers began a search for hikers who repeatedly activated their rented SPOT satellite tracking device. The GEOS Emergency Response Center in Houston reported that someone in the group of four hikers – two men and their two teenaged sons – had pressed the “help” button on their SPOT unit. The coordinates for the signal placed the group in a remote section of the park, most likely on the challenging Royal Arch loop. Due to darkness and the remoteness of the location, rangers were unable to reach them via helicopter until the following morning. When found, they’d moved about a mile and a half to a water source. They declined rescue, as they’d activated the device due to their lack of water. Later that same evening, the same SPOT device was again activated, this time using the “911” button. Coordinates placed them less than a quarter mile from the spot where searchers had found them that morning. Once again, nightfall prevented a response by park helicopter, so an Arizona DPS helicopter whose crew utilized night vision goggles was brought in. They found that the members of the group were concerned about possible dehydration because the water they’d found tasted salty, but no actual emergency existed. The helicopter crew declined their request for a night evacuation, but provided them with water before departing. On the following morning, another SPOT “help” activation came in from the group. This time they were flown out by park helicopter. All four refused medical assessment or treatment. The group’s leader had reportedly hiked once at the Grand Canyon; the other adult had no Grand Canyon and very little backpacking experience.  When asked what they would have done without the SPOT device, the leader stated, “We would have never attempted this hike.”  The group leader was issued a citation for creating a hazardous condition (36 CFR 2.34(a)(4)). [Submitted by Brandon Torres, Canyon District Shift Supervisor]"

As someone who's actually hiked the Royal Arch, I find it amusing to contemplate where they might have been when all this went down.  There aren't too many water sources besides the river.  Were they near the spring on the upper bench, in which case they were no more than six miles from the trailhead?  Did they make it past the pouroff in the correct side canyon and down to the water in Royal Arch creek, which is the navigational crux of the route? 

I do hope they were billed for the flights.  I believe Denali started doing that last decade to combat spurious rescue calls.

I also bet whomever issued them a permit (if they got one) got a nice spanking over the weekend.

[ScottM]

I'm wondering why NPS responded to the 'help' button.  Some people use that to send non-help messages to family/friends/etc.  Someone at home must have panicked and called NPS/911/whatever, saying that 'help' was pressed.

PLBs do change the game, and superfluous usage is pretty ridiculous. 

[AZTtripper]

Since it was a rented spot it probably didn't come with the 100k Loyd's of London insurance policy so no deep pockets there.

As I recall from climbing in Yosemite Valley you can be charged for rescue services if you are found to have put yourself in harms way in a reckless manor. The typical scenario was say you started solo climbing a big route when thunderstorms were forecast for that afternoon. If you had a legit accident and needed rescue then no charge. Seams to me that attempting a major hike in the canyon with out experience is a little reckless.

There was a cell phone activated rescue on Sheepshead at Cochise Stronghold last winter. Witnesses said they just kept going higher up on the wall even as time was obviously running out. They apparently never attempted to bail off just waited for sunset and then called 911.

This may have a serious impact a Darwin's theory. 

[Slowerthensnot]

Pretty lame, although i was in what i thought was just someone lost and not staying still this spring and Joe died....  Can't help but think of beth and there 2 kids every time i pass by this cirtian spot at little creek

I didn't have my spot and i was hasident to call in SAR but who knows if joe had a spot or a cell phone on him?  i donno sometimes i wonder if some of us in the "self supported" movement or moving to far from asking for help?

or maybe this is just a few thoughts after a few beers tonight... or just a re-hash of woulda, shoulda, couldas in my own head....

or maybe darwin in auction?

[Mike Brown]

Anybody else catch the segment on All Things Considered yesterday about this same topic, but different scenarios?
Oddly synchronous.

[Mathewsen]

Anybody else catch the segment on All Things Considered yesterday about this same topic, but different scenarios?
Oddly synchronous.

oddly synchronous--or maybe not.
location based services are blowing up...until the next thing comes along.
foursquare.com, instamapper.com, fireagle and so on. most of it's phone-based, though. one more reason to bikepack beyond the cell towers.

"online data prevent a privacy minefield"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114163862

[DaveH]

"online data prevent a privacy minefield"
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=114163862

Ha ha.  Not sure if this was intentional, but "prevent" above was actually "present" in the linked article.  Opposite meaning.

[Mathewsen]

Ha ha.  Not sure if this was intentional, but "prevent" above was actually "present" in the linked article.  Opposite meaning.

good catch. yes, typo...er freudian slip? you decide. not sure myself...was reciting from memory, but the v-key is no where near the s-key. what tha...?
re. LBS, despite my alleged conflict of interest, still proud to be cell phone-free as a bikepacker. i happily trade sat. GPS info for cell phone assuagement any day of the week. having both in a mobile phone seems the worst of both worlds. not only do they know where you are, they want to know why you haven't called.

[Slowerthensnot]

i happily trade sat. GPS info for cell phone assuagement any day of the week. having both in a mobile phone seems the worst of both worlds. not only do they know where you are, they want to know why you haven't called.

LOL!

[stevage]

Interesting. In Australia, I thought the general rule was that if you push the button, your trip is over. They don't drop you supplies and leave you to it. If a helicopter comes and get you, you're going home in it.

The phrase missing from the article is "moral hazard". Of course it's a problem that if you reduce the risk associated with an activity, you increase the likelihood of someone undertaking it. The economically correct way to deal with it is to impose a cost on activating the beacon. Even if it doesn't cover the cost of the rescue, a fee of $500 would make you think twice about activating it, and of getting into that situation in the first place.

Incidentally, it would be nice if these devices had a few more features. I was in a situation a while ago (out of mobile phone coverage) where I would have liked a device that could have alerted a friend (but not the emergency services). I was scrambling through a rough, but not particularly remote area, by myself, in the middle of the night (blame geohashing). If I'd hurt myself, it would have been great to call a friend, who could have come and found me and driven me home, in a couple of hours. With an EPIRB, there probably would have been a helicopter...that would then have discovered it had nowhere to land...eventually causing great expense for no real need.

[Mathewsen]

Interesting. In Australia, I thought the general rule was that if you push the button, your trip is over. They don't drop you supplies and leave you to it. If a helicopter comes and get you, you're going home in it.

This would be one way of handling it in the US. The right of SAR to "arrest the rescued" would have to be legislated into policy but it would be probably make folks think twice--especially if the bill for the rescue followed. if i remember from hearing this debate b/f, US SAR folks themselves are against such a pay system and thus far NPS has vetoed it.

The phrase missing from the article is "moral hazard". Of course it's a problem that if you reduce the risk associated with an activity, you increase the likelihood of someone undertaking it. The economically correct way to deal with it is to impose a cost on activating the beacon. Even if it doesn't cover the cost of the rescue, a fee of $500 would make you think twice about activating it, and of getting into that situation in the first place.

i read a bit about moral hazard in my research for trackleaders.com. it's a classic form of info asymmetry (IA), which private interests like insurance companies invest lots of their resources to avoid, yet there seems to be very little aversion to it on the government side, save the executive branch--which will remain on the more knowledgeable end of IA at ALL costs (read: national security)! Adverse selection (squeaky wheel looks for the grease) will always be a problem in the backcountry but i'm not sure we want to see SAR systems turn into what the american health insurance system has become. screening and more restrictive permitting might mitigate it some but also saps already limited NFS/NPS/BLM resources. I like your idea of charging (x)dollars if one make an SOS call but where do we draw the line there? how much time does a caller have to cancel such a call, etc and can there be an allowance for extenuating circumstances such as being a victim of a crime or being the brunt of bad park service info or infrastructure? could get messy at times and require a whole `nuther tribunal we can't pay for/rationalize.

Incidentally, it would be nice if these devices had a few more features. I was in a situation a while ago (out of mobile phone coverage) where I would have liked a device that could have alerted a friend (but not the emergency services). I was scrambling through a rough, but not particularly remote area, by myself, in the middle of the night (blame geohashing). If I'd hurt myself, it would have been great to call a friend, who could have come and found me and driven me home, in a couple of hours. With an EPIRB, there probably would have been a helicopter...that would then have discovered it had nowhere to land...eventually causing great expense for no real need.

SPOT2 addresses some of this and i think we'll see the units improve on such functions down the road.

[stevage]

>I like your idea of charging (x)dollars if one make an SOS call but where do we draw the line there?

I don't know, and perhaps whether they actually charged the fee could be discretionary. The concept would be that if you're in that much distress, you really don't care about the $500.

The downside to this, as would be pointed out by the Freakonomics authors, is that people of adequate means would be even *more* tempted to push the button, thinking now that they have "paid" for the service. "Yeah, it's worth $500 for a helicopter lift out of this crappy weather."...

[stevage]

Incidentally, though, this article did get me thinking about buying a PLB. Looks like they're a lot cheaper in the US - about $300 vs $530 or so, plus shipping. Might be worth it to keep the gf's nerves under control...

[AZTtripper]

yuppys have the cash to pay for what ever they want to do.

the first time i was in joshua tree the rangers found that some one had 3 cars in a spot that only allowed 2. rather then move a car over to the overflow parking they just paid the $100 fine.

[Pivvay]

A discretionary fine is essentially what we already have which doesn't seem to be a solution.

Has everyone read the boyscout story who got fined on the east coast? He got a big ass fine and from what I've read, it seems he wasn't really negligent whereas the grand canyoners really were.