Another rescue of the clueless

vftt.org

Help Support vftt.org:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
I did just that one day on the Carter Range way back in my late teens. Set up my cheap tent, it collapsed when I got in ( did not pack out pad) Couldn't light my stove and was wet, tired and dehydrated. Took a look around and saw DOOM. Grabbed what I could and snowshoed for 90 minutes, straight to get to the car. No way I survive that night up there. Got drunk in my car and thought about my gear and techniques, major learning day for me.

I think the 17 year old of today is nothing like the 17 year olds of ours or past generations. I know a lot of people well into their 20's that have no where near the common sense, drive or intestinal fortitude that I had when I was in junior high school. They don't make 'em like they used to. :)
 
When I was 17, I'd already had several years of hunting and fishing in the woods of Maine. The US Army was teaching me how to kill the indigenous people of some future unnamed foreign country with sundry weapons and explosives. Being outside after dark, alone, was no reason for rescue or cause for panic. I guess I grew up in a different time and place.

So yeah, I agree the 17 year old of today is nothing like they were 35 years ago. Too bad, too.
 
Based on the info given (and not given) in this thread, really. He's a 17 year old kid from out of the area. Most of the hikes I do are solo, and hence by definition irresponsible and ill advised. Rangers often err so far on the side of caution the advice is not useful. Why didn't SAR just tell him to walk out rather then charge an unneeded "rescue" ? Was he sick ? Was he injured ? Was he lost ? No Head lamp ? Did he refuse (too lazy) ? Can I assume that he had the "appropriate winter gear" means he had a headlamp & map & compass if needed ? None of that info is given. I also find it smug that some experienced hikers consider knowledge gained by numerous years in the back country as "common sense" and a 17 year old kid from Toronto whose experience in the NE US back country in totally unknown is lacking in "common sense" since they do not share that knowledge. Maybe the kid does deserve to be charged, I don't know from this. If there are more detailed accounts on Facebook or Twitter that I do not go to, that may be a different story.

I will try to make clear my points. Before I do, I do not consider my comments or attitude (smug), I'm commenting on a rescue that took place. My opinions are what they are, you don't have to agree with them. He had the right gear for the hike, but he clearly lacked the experience for a 35 mile solo, which was his plan. The Rangers most certainly took the right approach to discourage him from attempting his planned hike. He chose to go anyway. He made it 2.6 miles and was cold and wet, he could not set up his tent or light his stove. Feeling like he was in trouble, he called for help. Once the Rangers are called, they can't get to him and then leave him, they are now liable for his health. My intent was not to sound elitist, although I am really dam good (sorry), but to say what I said, he was negligent and deserves to pay for his rescue. I'm actually of the school of thought, that all rescues should be billed, you get saved, you should pay for the services you received. I made many mistakes when I started out, dumb laughable mistakes that would provide fodder for months on a forum. I don't begrudge him for that at all, just saying he screwed up and should pay. The difference between my his exploit and mine, is I didn't call for help, I got myself out, every time. As far him not knowing the area, I've climbed in many places throughtout the country, doesn't mater where you land, your skillset goes with you.
 
Like a lot of threads here on "Rescues" this one smacks of arrogance. Believe me I am certainly guilty here of the same. I think it is easy to pass judgement from one's comfy chair as we sit behind our screens tapping away on our keyboards. Back when I was this kid's age defiance to authority ran deep especially when it came to the AMC. Nobody was going to tell me what and how to do it especially when it came to the Appies. A good dose of humility as I personally moved on through my outdoor experiences changed a lot of that. Now a days default reliance on Cell Phones IMO has changed a lot unfortunately. As far as not making them like they use to.....that's a crock of crap. Maybe not this 17 year old but a lot if not most would kick most of our arses here back when we were the same age. It's called evolution.
 
Like a lot of threads here on "Rescues" this one smacks of arrogance. ......As far as not making them like they use to.....that's a crock of crap. Maybe not this 17 year old but a lot if not most would kick most of our arses here back when we were the same age. It's called evolution.

I'd gladly take on any 17 year of today with my 17 year old self. It would be a laughable beat down in my favor. I'd just pop the shell of their happy place bubble, say some mean spirited words and then put my foot on their prone blubbering body in triumph. The 17 year olds of today are most definitively nothing like past generations. Blanket statement for sure and no doubt there are exceptions to the rule but the "typical" 17 year old of today has nowhere near the mental toughness or drive that past generations have. Just look at the issues of today with kids that age. The bus has to pick them up right at the door for school, bullying leads to suicides, many don't have or desire jobs, they live at home until they're in their late 20's,etc.The last time I went to the registry to renew my license there were multiple "kids" in their renewing their licenses with their parents. For crying out loud many of them can't even cook or do their own laundry. If this generation was storming the beaches of Normandy we'd all be speaking German right now.
 
I'd gladly take on any 17 year of today with my 17 year old self. It would be a laughable beat down in my favor. I'd just pop the shell of their happy place bubble, say some mean spirited words and then put my foot on their prone blubbering body in triumph. The 17 year olds of today are most definitively nothing like past generations. Blanket statement for sure and no doubt there are exceptions to the rule but the "typical" 17 year old of today has nowhere near the mental toughness or drive that past generations have. Just look at the issues of today with kids that age. The bus has to pick them up right at the door for school, bullying leads to suicides, many don't have or desire jobs, they live at home until they're in their late 20's,etc.The last time I went to the registry to renew my license there were multiple "kids" in their renewing their licenses with their parents. For crying out loud many of them can't even cook or do their own laundry. If this generation was storming the beaches of Normandy we'd all be speaking German right now.

The problem with 17 year-olds is that they live at home into their late 20s? :)
 
Good judgment comes from experience but experience often comes from bad judgment. This young man grossly over-estimated his abilities and survival skills in these conditions. He lived to tell the tale. Criticism is probably a small price to pay when it could have cost him his life. I agree with Sierra that charging everyone for their rescue is probably the fairest way to handle SAR. It removes all subjectivity and lawyerly arguments over what is negligent or reckless.
 
Last edited:
I'm sure there's more than a few from previous generations who thought what I did in my late teens couldn't compare to what they did in theirs...
 
What a strange story. I mean, rescuers made first contact with the guy 3.5 hrs after they were called. That means in 3.5 hrs they assembled a rescue team, packed their packs, drove to the trailhead, hiked in, and located the guy. Then, presumably after getting food and warm liquids into him and packing up all of his stuff, they were back at the trailhead a total of 3 hrs after first contact. But he couldn't just walk out on his own? Couldn't get his tent set up? Couldn't get his stove started? And couldn't walk/butt-slide 2.6 miles downhill? I really don't understand this one. Genuinely. I don't get it. I'd think the press release would have stated any other significant contributing factors (hypothermia, medical condition, injury, lack of headlamp), but maybe I'm expecting too much. With the info given, I'm at a loss. Panic/anxiety?
 
What a strange story. I mean, rescuers made first contact with the guy 3.5 hrs after they were called. That means in 3.5 hrs they assembled a rescue team, packed their packs, drove to the trailhead, hiked in, and located the guy. Then, presumably after getting food and warm liquids into him and packing up all of his stuff, they were back at the trailhead a total of 3 hrs after first contact. But he couldn't just walk out on his own? Couldn't get his tent set up? Couldn't get his stove started? And couldn't walk/butt-slide 2.6 miles downhill? I really don't understand this one. Genuinely. I don't get it. I'd think the press release would have stated any other significant contributing factors (hypothermia, medical condition, injury, lack of headlamp), but maybe I'm expecting too much. With the info given, I'm at a loss. Panic/anxiety?

Back at the Flume (parking lot, I think they mean) three hours after being met by rescuers presumably means he walked down on his own feet at a normal pace, after rescuers warmed him up and checked him out for half an hour to an hour. It's unlikely he'd get down that fast on a litter, though if the litter functions as a sled and snow conditions were just right, I suppose it's possible to lower him with only a few people (at any time, one belays from above via rope, two more guide the sled) and at a decent pace.

I think this one is some combination of "you called us, we're taking you in" and "I'm cold, I just want to go home." The rescuers could have started his stove and pitched his tent for him, but in their shoes I sure as hell wouldn't want to let him spend the rest of the night by himself, let alone continue a four-day trek.

It sounds like he called from Liberty Spring tentsite. It's not clear where he was when rescuers met him, but the time to hike in and out implies he didn't move. That part mystifies me too. Perhaps an example of an over-reliance on rescue - emergency dispatch probably told him to "sit still and wait for help to arrive".
 
Last edited:
Back at the Flume (parking lot, I think they mean) three hours after being met by rescuers presumably means he walked down on his own feet at a normal pace, after rescuers warmed him up and checked him out for half an hour to an hour. It's unlikely he'd get down that fast on a litter
Right, exactly, that's what I mean (if it wasn't clear in my post). The guy walked to the trailhead in something likely under 2 hrs once rescuers arrived. But he was unable to do that before they arrived. Why? Are we really NOT missing something? I just cannot put myself into this guy's boots. I don't get it.
 
If you've ever been hypothermic, you'll know that rational thought and self-preservation can be drastically reduced, along with motor control. He was possibly very lucky to have used his phone while he still could.

If you're dispatch, do you tell the hypothermic guy to start walking, knowing he might miss a turn and walk down a ravine? He had shelter at hand (sleeping bag, use tent as bivy sac), so sheltering in place is not a bad option.
 
Then, presumably after getting food and warm liquids into him and packing up all of his stuff, they were back at the trailhead a total of 3 hrs after first contact. Couldn't get his tent set up? Couldn't get his stove started?

Maybe he was using a canister stove for the first time in cold weather and didn't know he had to warm the canister first.

The problem with the tent might have been using thin tent stakes.

He may have been an experienced three-season backpacker and didn't anticipate some of the difficulties of winter camping. That's why we all set up our tents and test our gear in the backyard before heading out to the mountains.
 
Last edited:
I will try to make clear my points. Before I do, I do not consider my comments or attitude (smug), I'm commenting on a rescue that took place. My opinions are what they are, you don't have to agree with them. He had the right gear for the hike, but he clearly lacked the experience for a 35 mile solo, which was his plan. The Rangers most certainly took the right approach to discourage him from attempting his planned hike. He chose to go anyway. He made it 2.6 miles and was cold and wet, he could not set up his tent or light his stove. Feeling like he was in trouble, he called for help. Once the Rangers are called, they can't get to him and then leave him, they are now liable for his health. My intent was not to sound elitist, although I am really dam good (sorry), but to say what I said, he was negligent and deserves to pay for his rescue. I'm actually of the school of thought, that all rescues should be billed, you get saved, you should pay for the services you received. I made many mistakes when I started out, dumb laughable mistakes that would provide fodder for months on a forum. I don't begrudge him for that at all, just saying he screwed up and should pay. The difference between my his exploit and mine, is I didn't call for help, I got myself out, every time. As far him not knowing the area, I've climbed in many places throughtout the country, doesn't mater where you land, your skillset goes with you.

The thread title and this statement "Having the right equipment apparently does not replace common sense." are the ones that bother me, neither are yours. One could make the same points with more tact. How about replacing the title with "another rescue for unprepared hiker", and the above quote with "Having the right equipment is not useful if you do not learn how to use it first". It the same thing with more common courtesy (not PC). Pretend the hiker is reading this forum and we are talking to him. I have yet to see any answers to the questions I posed earlier, especially "why didn't he just walk out ? (injury, illness, laziness, fear, it matters which)" & "why did SAR think a rescue was needed, can't they just say no, or did they try to talk him out first ?" Or "was one really needed ?" I think the article was really scant and I did not see anything to pass judgement yet.
 
I guess, it's pretty hard to tell what exactly lead the hiker to make a rescue call especially when all the info is encapsulated in a single sentence:

”On the first day of the hike (Thursday) he made it only 2.6 miles up the trail and became wet and cold. When he couldn’t operate his stove or set up his tent he called for assistance fearing that he would not be able to keep warm or rehydrate himself,” Kneeland said in a news release.

It would be helpful if we knew how he "got wet"? Did he accidentally fall into a stream or did he sweat a lot on his way up? Why couldn't he operate his stove? Is it because (like someone already pointed out) perhaps he had a gas stove and the gas canister was too cold? Or maybe his hands were frozen he couldn't get igniter to work and he had trouble starting a cigarette lighter? (it happened to me once before.) Why couldn't he set up his tent? Loss of dexterity due to low temperatures? Missing / lost tent parts? Wind too strong? Or maybe just not enough experience setting it up? Maybe he realized that he was loosing feeling in his hands and at least figured out that he wouldn't make it through the night and just managed to make a call for help. Would he be able to walk out if his hands were completely numb? Maybe. If I am guessing correctly then the signs of trouble must have been coming gradually and he should have dealt with wetness & cold much earlier, but would he know to do that?

Maybe this was a case of dreams that meet reality? At least he was trying to do something different than playing computer games. 17-year old not heeding advice from adults? My kids know everything too, and you can guess what I think about it... :)

I think they should give this teenager an option to either pay the fine or spend the money on a wilderness survival course or something similar. I suspect NH F&G has no power to compel anyone to take any courses, but that would be a good option if available. If he gives up on hiking in NH they may never see the money anyways.
 
Despite the views to the contrary I think clueless is pretty apt description given the information to date. Unfortunately I guess some folks may not be familiar with the definition so let’s go to a dictionary definition “having no knowledge, understanding, or ability.” All three of these are condition specific conditions, a perfectly competent individual may be completely competent to do a multiday trip in the summer over the same territory and be complete incompetent in winter conditions. Given the forecast and actual weather of the time period in question (below zero temps and high winds) there are few competent folks that would be competent do the intended trip solo in the forecast conditions. It is highly likely that they would have made it farther up the ridge and would have bivyed during the worst conditions. The competent folks that are most capable would be S&R folks and they only travel in groups as they aware that no matter how well someone is equipped and trained, stuff happens. That’s not to say competent solo hikers don’t on occasion do this hike in the winter, they just pick conditions that are more amenable which are far more frequent later in the winter. Even later in the winter, stringing four good days in a row are rare.

Fish and Game reports are generally pretty sparse but had the hiker been injured and required assistance for the injury they generally would have stated that. They didn’t and it appears as though the issue was a hypothermic hiker. They had stated that the hiker has proper equipment for multiday hike in these conditions. This means some very specific gear and lots of it. Probably in excess of 40 to 50 pounds when snowshoes are added in. This is probably double the weight that a typical winter day hiker would carry. There are no major rivers to fall into along the way, every indication to date is this is someone who had a heavy load and was exerting himself heavily and not having the training or fore thought to ventilate so that he would not get wet. There are very few cases of “dry” hypothermia generally hypothermia is linked to inadequate or ineffective insulation and the key cause of this is wet or damp insulated layers.

Now we come to the use of “clueless”. The denotation appears to be an accurate so those objecting to its use must be using some other connotation. Clueless is not intended to be derogatory but like any word its meaning is in the eye of the beholder. What one member feels is common courtesy is to me PC. To me the first step in removing this label is to acquire competency specific to the intended conditions. Perhaps this 17 year old formerly resided in Nepal and has summited Everest and runs a winter guiding school after school but the far more likely scenario is he is someone from outside the region that was not aware of the potential conditions and the abilities required . Nothing wrong with that, what was wrong was to head out regardless of advice from AMC and Fish and Game. I guess folks forget that one of deadliest 100 feet of the AT in the whites, Haystack, junction of Falling Waters and the AT is just 1.5 miles up the trail where numerous folks have has to be rescued and fatalities have occurred.

So if clueless was the wrong word what was the right one? Here is list of synonyms; ignorant, incognizant, innocent, insensible, nescient, oblivious, unacquainted, unaware, unconscious, uninformed, unknowing, unmindful, unwitting. Ignorant probably has a worse connotation, nescient is not a common word, and most of the rest of the list do not apply as the hiker was specifically warned not to go in advance. Now look at Webster’s related words uneducated, unschooled, untaught; absent, absentminded, abstracted, heedless, inattentive. They don’t appear to fit or have worst connotations.

The one good thing is” clueless” does not have to be a terminal condition. Heck Waterman got a couple of chapters for a book from a "clueless" winter hike with his son. I have been clueless in the past and survived and I expect many on this board have also been. He made it down alive with all his fingers and toes and hopefully he learned something. Maybe he will be back and I expect AMC will gladly accept his check for a winter outdoors school. In the meantime other potentially clueless folks may read of his experience and consider changing an itinerary or heeding local advice so that we don’t end up with a serious injury or fatality.
 
Last edited:
First time I solo hiked, I had a Coleman white gas stove. Only ran it once, in warm temperatures, at home. Didn't really understand this priming thing. Was having breakfast at the top of Zeacliff, tried to start my stove. Pumped it full of gas, which I lit...and gas poured all out over the stove, down the sides, and started a decent fire on top of the cliff. Convinced it was going to blow up, I stood back for several minutes while it burned itself out.

I decided either a) the stove didn't work, or b) I didn't know how to run the stove and now on a rainy Veteran's Day weekend it was not the time to figure it out. Since I was to be picked up in Lincoln Woods two days later, and had no way to make a meal, I hiked back out to Zealand Rd., along rte 302, and to the closest store where I bought two hot dogs and made a phone call to get me the hell home.

Good times.
 
We're all clutching at straws trying to understand what led to the rescue call. At least I am. There's no indication of hypothermia. It says he feared he wouldn't be able to "keep warm," which actually implies he was warm at the time of the call. But That's reading into that statement a bit. But for us to assume he was hypothermic - well, there isn't very good evidence that's true. Considering he was back to the trailhead 3 hrs after first contact with rescuers, they clearly did not need to do anything substantial to warm him up and get him going again. If they had even needed to set up a shelter and get him into a sleeping bag prior to walking out the timeline would have been longer. All of that suggests to me that the dude was at worst a little chilled, and possibly (speculation here) panicked. My response when panicked is to take a deep breath, try to make a good decision, and then keep moving. For better or for worse, I find it almost impossible to stay put if I think there's even a remote chance I'll be able to extract myself. But that's just me. I'm not even sure it's the best policy, but it is my instinct. So again, I don't understand why this kid opted to stay put when all he needed to do was reverse direction. Go back down the trail he just came up. Walk downhill for an hour or two.

The VERY FIRST change I observe in myself with mild hypothermia (i.e. feeling chilled, not even shivering; so perhaps 0.5 degree core temperature drop) is social withdrawal. I stop interacting with others, stop participating in the conversation. I lose personality. I've never been to the 'confusion' stage, and I'm guessing based on no mention of hypothermia that this person was not at that stage either. So still I wonder, why did he call for a rescue? Why didn't he just walk out? I get how he might not have been able to operate his stove or set up his tent. I've seen that exact scenario on one of my trips (midway up Shasta in an early spring storm, climbing with a guy who 'knew what he was doing.' Couldn't get his tent set up or his Jetboil working, so we packed him into my 2-person mountaineering tent with my partner and I - ummm, cozy! - and relied exclusively on my Whisperlite. Yes, this EXACT scenario). I get all that. I still don't understand why he didn't just walk out. Could he really have lacked any gumption at all? Gumption. Oh god, did I really use that word?
 
I am actually wondering about another detail mentioned in the article, according to which the hiker "ignored the advice of officials from the Appalachian Mountain Club and Fish and Game not to attempt a 35-mile, four-day hike". How did he get to talk to AMC and F&G? I imagine they didn't wait for him at the trailhead, so he probably inquired about the hike, maybe shortly before he set out on it. If so, he might have been suffering from a case of "hiking fever" as he possibly traveled from Toronto and did not want to go back "empty-handed".
 
Top