5 ms·

I also have a Garmin InReach and it is a littel 3 ounce game changer, regarding being safe in remote areas of wilderness. I very recently spent four hard days

I also have a Garmin InReach and it is a littel 3 ounce game changer, regarding being safe in remote areas of wilderness. I very recently spent four hard days in deep wet snow in the Glacier Peak Wilderness, and was able to communicate that I was safe to my family over the InReach, plus get regularly updated high quality weather reports. The battery also did fine. I was confident I could get help if I was out there longer. The Garmin Fenix 6x GPS watch is also a life saving piece of tech, since it's so rugged, the battery lasts long and it has maps of everywhere built in.

ghaff 7y ago
As I wrote on another thread recently, I come from a time when "send help" communications weren't the norm and I resist a bit the notion that you--either as an individual or a group leader--are under a moral obligation to make such communications abilities the norm to the degree possible. That said. I'd probably get an InReach these days if I were going to spend significant time in remote areas. Leaving your plans with people was always a bit of a tricky exercise. You haven't checked in by a specific time. Now what? Go to the trailhead if that's even practical? Call in SAR? Give them another few hours/a day?
- tialaramex 7y ago
  You aren't under a moral obligation? It's just that you might die and most people are willing to compromise pretty hard on principles to get rescued instead of dying. I can see a principled stance of getting a PLB and knowing you'll activate it if you believe you'll likely die or be seriously injured without rescue, otherwise it's just a ballast you're carrying. But just foregoing one altogether seems like a very strange place to draw the line.
  - ghaff 7y ago
    I’m not really drawing a line. I just don’t put it in the same category as map and compass. I don’t have one but it’s not a matter of principle. I’m just not regularly enough doing sufficiently remote activities where having one seems like basic prudence.
- aksss 7y ago
  I empathize.. growing up, you never wanted to be that guy that had to call for help, and I still don't - it's a mark of failure to be rescued - but it's better than dying. The tech probably makes it too easy for people to use it as an easy out, but it's better to have and not need it, etc. If you have a family depending on you, you've got a moral obligation to not be a dumbass, and that includes keeping appropriate tools on hand in case you end up inviting the characterization.
  - Ididntdothis 7y ago
    I would use my Inreach only in a really dire situation but if that ever happens it’s great to have one. I once used it notify of a severely dehydrated hiker who got continually worse even after being given water and food. They first sent a ranger. I left once the ranger was there but an hour later I saw a helicopter going to that spot so I assume it was really bad and the Inreach may have saved a life.
- oh_sigh 7y ago
  Do you think there is a moral obligation to get vaccinations? They weren't the norm not too long ago as well.

ghaff 7y ago

As I wrote on another thread recently, I come from a time when "send help" communications weren't the norm and I resist a bit the notion that you--either as an individual or a group leader--are under a moral obligation to make such communications abilities the norm to the degree possible. That said. I'd probably get an InReach these days if I were going to spend significant time in remote areas. Leaving your plans with people was always a bit of a tricky exercise. You haven't checked in by a specific time. Now what? Go to the trailhead if that's even practical? Call in SAR? Give them another few hours/a day?

tialaramex 7y ago
You aren't under a moral obligation? It's just that you might die and most people are willing to compromise pretty hard on principles to get rescued instead of dying. I can see a principled stance of getting a PLB and knowing you'll activate it if you believe you'll likely die or be seriously injured without rescue, otherwise it's just a ballast you're carrying. But just foregoing one altogether seems like a very strange place to draw the line.
- ghaff 7y ago
  I’m not really drawing a line. I just don’t put it in the same category as map and compass. I don’t have one but it’s not a matter of principle. I’m just not regularly enough doing sufficiently remote activities where having one seems like basic prudence.
aksss 7y ago
I empathize.. growing up, you never wanted to be that guy that had to call for help, and I still don't - it's a mark of failure to be rescued - but it's better than dying. The tech probably makes it too easy for people to use it as an easy out, but it's better to have and not need it, etc. If you have a family depending on you, you've got a moral obligation to not be a dumbass, and that includes keeping appropriate tools on hand in case you end up inviting the characterization.
- Ididntdothis 7y ago
  I would use my Inreach only in a really dire situation but if that ever happens it’s great to have one. I once used it notify of a severely dehydrated hiker who got continually worse even after being given water and food. They first sent a ranger. I left once the ranger was there but an hour later I saw a helicopter going to that spot so I assume it was really bad and the Inreach may have saved a life.
oh_sigh 7y ago
Do you think there is a moral obligation to get vaccinations? They weren't the norm not too long ago as well.