4 ms·
The vast majority of people that visit national parks stay at campsites that are attached to parking lots, that have running water and bathroom facilities, and
by ohazi 6y ago
The vast majority of people that visit national parks stay at campsites that are attached to parking lots, that have running water and bathroom facilities, and that have at least some cell reception. Many of these are attached to well marked, well traveled trails with amazing views that make for excellent all-day hikes. You don't need a PLB to visit one of these camp sites or hike some of these trails.
But if your off-the-grid campsite is a 30 hour hike from the nearest road, and half of that hike includes a mountain scramble and a trek across a frozen alpine lake, then I'm sorry, but you can't responsibly plan such a trip in 2020 and not carry a PLB.
Between your clothes, boots, jackets, shelter, backpack, food, fuel, cooking gear, and navigation equipment, you're likely carrying at least $1000 of equipment. You can figure out how to borrow a PLB.
Spending days flying circles around a vast wilderness where somebody might have gotten lost is expensive and time consuming and takes resources away from other people who might need them. It took 20 years to get Sarsat up and running and for PLBs to get cheap, and now rescue organizations all over the planet are asking you to please, for your sake, for theirs, and for the sake of other people who may also need emergency services, carry a goddamn PLB if you're going to go off the grid.
Contrary to popular belief, going out into the wilderness is not about eschewing all technology. You still need to be responsible, and today, for certain activities, that means carrying a tiny piece of emergency equipment at the bottom of your backpack that you hope to never have to touch.
- jointpdf 6y agoI have (semi-)frequently gone “off-grid” far away from established trails, without carrying a PLB. Sometimes I’ve gone days without seeing another human. I have extensive training in wilderness navigation, and have always reviewed my itinerary with the rangers ahead of time. In hindsight, I can see how this was a selfish decision. This feeling has been nagging at me for a while, since I’ve had close calls in remote areas that would have jeopardized the inevitable SAR crews. So, I’ll acquire a PLB and carry it on future trips. Thank you for the reminder. That said, I think some of my hesitation in the past was rooted in this belief that PLBs were unreliable and mostly a nuisance due to the abuse by inexperienced hikers. Also, if you are in cell range (like on the majority of the AT), I believe that a phone is the superior device since you can communicate the severity of your emergency to emergency services and they can respond accordingly. I’d like to read more about this if you have some links: > ”now rescue organizations all over the planet are asking you to please...carry a goddamn PLB”
- ohazi 6y ago> I believe that a phone is the superior device since you can communicate the severity of your emergency to emergency services and they can respond accordingly. Agreed -- if you're able to get cell reception, and the emergency is not life-or-death time critical, you should try using the phone first. > I’d like to read more about this if you have some links: > > ”now rescue organizations all over the planet are asking you to please...carry a goddamn PLB” Basically, the search part is really really expensive and time consuming for rescue organizations. You need a lot of man power and a lot of fuel, and the search can go on for days, and you may not even be sure that the person is in the area where you're looking. If you can eliminate that part, all that's left is a direct flight to the location. It can be done quickly and relatively inexpensively, and is an easy win for both the rescue organization and the parent government (deaths and called-off rescue operations can be politically expensive).