Outdoor outrage: ‘Yuppie 911′
I read this recently, and I have to admit I had a bit of outrage well up inside me. Summary: People are using SPOT locators or similar electronic devices for non-emergency bailouts in the backcountry or, worse yet, attempting activities (hiking, climbing, etc.) that are beyond their skill or experience levels. Hitting the panic button can send search and rescue crews out on lengthy, pricey and risky rescues which, if this trend continues, are increasingly unnecessary.
Much of the talk I’ve seen about this story goes something like this: People who ask for rescue and don’t need it should be fined or billed. Same goes for people who are reckless in the outdoors. In either case, they’re putting their lives, their companions’ lives, and the safety of rescue crews at risk.
I can’t say I disagree.
Read on, and feel free to share your thoughts.
Bob Doucette
Tired from a tough hike? Rescuers fear ‘Yuppie 911’
By TRACIE CONE Associated Press Writer
FRESNO, Calif. — 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.
Thank you for joining our conversation on Out There. We encourage your discussion but ask that you stay within the bounds of our commenting and posting policy.
Comments
My thoughts exactly, Bill. I know you’re a big proponent of SPOT, and with good reason. It’s a great tool. It’s obvious, however, that some people will not think twice about using SPOT when they feel “uncomfortable.” And in other situations, they might think SPOT or an avy beacon gives them some sort of protection so they can try riskier things. I saw some commentary on this where the poster said, “If you wouldn’t hike/climb/ski something without the device, you shouldn’t hike/climb/ski that thing with it, either.” A fall from a rock wall, an avalanche on loaded, 40-degree slope or getting caught dry in the Grand Canyon will kill you quick, beacon or no beacon. People just don’t respect wild places as much as they should.
It is a wounderful tool !!!!
Until…we get hit by a Reallly Big Solar Storm
Beacons are here to stay
So, lets work on getting some legislation in place
that will stop the false alarms and continute to promote their use to save lives !!!!
[quote]People just don’t respect wild places as much as they should.[unquote]
That is why we have Wilderness First Aid courses, Hunter Safety Classes and Outdoor Skills traning.
But, getting people to take those classes and learn how to make it out of the woods…Alive…is the hard part.
The OKC Outdoor Network sets up a Wilderness First Aid Class every spring in OKC and is well advertised and it rarely ever fills up totally, as most people have the attitude that that sort of thing would never happen to them!
It is ridiculous, people are jumping off the couch and rushing into the wilderness without any knowledge of what they are doing, hoping to get bailed out when they inevitably do something stupid.
I think we should use a paid hiking permit system in our national parks and recreation areas. Make it a one time fee, maybe $10 or $15 per person for lifetime use. If a person has to be rescued from a wilderness area, check them to see if they have one. Levy a large fine for it. Put the profits and fines levied into a fund for rescue costs.
I think people who used the areas often would be fine putting a small amount of money into a pool for rescue costs, and the added cost and time investment might make inexperienced people think twice about using the areas until they are experienced enough to know how to take care of themselves and when to use emergency beacons.
One thing they do in Colorado which I think is a great idea: You can buy a SAR stamp that donates a small amount of money (like $3 a year) to help fund local Search and Rescue groups. I don’t know how big of a SAR program we have in Oklahoma, but in other states they’re pretty extensive. When I went up Mt. Shavano in June, I got the stamp. I’ll do it again. You wouldn’t believe the time and effort that goes into wilderness rescues.
There should absolutely, positively be NO OPTION to refuse rescue. Think how much money would have been saved had these people at the Grand Canyon been yanked out after that first frivolous call.
There is a Great article in the latest issue of “National Geographic – Adventure” Magazine (pg 32) “Deep Survival by Laurence Gonzales. (December 2009 / January 2010 Issue)
Title
Most backcountry searches don’t cost the victim a dime. Let’s keep it that way
It is the belief of the author that the victim should never be charged for the rescue, do to the fact that if the victim thinks they will be charged a lot of $$, they will hesitate calling SAR and possibly “make matters worse”.
I point out this article, because it gives this topic a different spin on what we have been talking about.
Read it..before commenting on it
so you will have a full understanding of what HE is talking about.
[...] up with a similar joke about yuppies. We’ve all heard of the phenomenon referred to as “yuppie 911,” in which people engaged in typical yuppie-granola sports like hiking or climbing, get in [...]
I own a SPOT and would not go anywhere without it.
[quote]
The GEOS benefits (for my SPOT) provides up to $50,000 per occurrence in reimbursement for any SAR expenses for which you are held responsible up to TWO (2) events per year.
This benefit DOES NOT apply if:-
a) your situation is caused by circumstances such as a forecast change of weather conditions, which could reasonably have been anticipated at the date you started your trip
b) you have NOT made adequate provision of resources or training or competence needed to complete your planned trip.[unquote]
So, according to the agreement people agree to when they signup with SPOT, MOST of the scenieos mentioned in your article would mean that those individuals would end up getting stuck with the “entire” Search and Rescue (SAR) bill.
But, even with that…problems with beacons will continue to be misused in the years to come, and it will probably take new legislation to be put in place for SAR to receive any kind of relief from bogus 911 calls.
Personally – I think there should be a law that if someone uses a becon and SAR is called…they MUST LEAVE on the helicopter or be escorted out by SAR and if they refuse to go..they be arrested and go to straight to jail!
Once the word gets out…
That would pretty much stop the 3 calls in 2 days by one person !!