Back seat driver, Monday night Quarterback...

[mavs00]

You don't seem to be the only one taking my comments out of context or misinterpreting my point of view on this.

....................................

It was meant as an addition, not a substitution. It's entirely possible to both be physically fit AND to have sufficient equipment for most emergencies without carrying a 60 pound pack.

Having the right gear and being fit are both vital. I certainly don't run around the Whites with nothing more than a fleece jacket as emergency gear in the winter, despite the comments insinuating otherwise.

And I didn't mean it as an attack on the "cardiac crowd", who as Mavs correctly points out, nobody is excluded from by their fitness levels.
The heart attack/sleeping bag scenario was probably not the best way to convey my point.

Hope that clears things up.

My apologies..............

I didn't see that line. Forgive me. Part of my misdirection came form the link provided. Reading through it I was struck by a few things that led me down the avenue I went. One, was a line from the fatalities section.

The mean age for cardiac deaths was 56.5 years (SD, 11.0; 95% CI, 50.4–62.6). Men accounted for 85.9% of the people who died in the wilderness, whereas 10.9% were women.

56 is on the not incredibly old when it comes to cardiac death scale. I know from experience, that many that "drop" in this age catagory seem to be those without significant pre-exsisting factors. Perhaps some hypertention or a little paunch out front, but certainly not the same as someone 10-15 years older that has started to develop more significant symptoms/signs of trouble.

I also believe most hikers, particularly older ones I've met along the trail, are NOT in the same catogory of obese, coach-sitting, smoking, non-exercising sloths that one might pitcure as the pefect poster boy for "Early cardiac death". Most seem either reasonably fit, to even very fit in appearence (outwardly).

That lead me to further beleive that many of those that did ultimately suffer cardiac deaths (or incidents) likely may not have been in any "risk" groups or had any other significant warning signs. In my experience, these tend to be in the "genetic predisposition" catagory, as opposed to the "lifestyle" one. So when I read.

Wilderness deaths may be prevented by focusing attention on cardiac health in wilderness users older than 50 years and on water safety.

In the conclusions for the study, my eyebrows raised. What good is focussing on cardiac health of wilderness users, if the primary "victim" of cardiac death in wilderness are folks with a predisposition to cardiac problems, which I beleived to be the case. That kinda called into question the validity of the data. If that was gonna be a conclusion of this study, they probably had been better to go the further step in determining if those caridac death were "lifestyle" (when fitness levels certainly could effect) or "genetic" (in which it makes little difference) in nature, and there is a difference.

Sorry for the confusion to you Tim (Inge).

 

[snowbird22]

In reference to hiking SOLO any time of year...

You shouldn't fly a plane solo...
Some plane crashes aren't found for days or even months. However, if every plane had another flying alongside, the crew of one plane could report any mishaps the other had, including the location of crashes. Survivors could then be rescued almost immediately.

I kind of had to laugh reading this I am sure your making a joke but I can't resist to comment here. Been a pilot for several years trying to do the airline route right now. Its a tough business now. However, back in the day when I was a student pilot to my solo flights. I was terrrified to fly solo. I was only 16 at then time which I think made it worse. I literally got sick everytime I had to go by myself. Not so much locally but long distance. As a student pilot out Beverly MA I need to to fly to Orange MA Laconia, Sanford, Portland, etc by myself. When I read this post I couldn't help but laugh because I thought of the same thing. I was going from Laconia to Portland. Normally a twenty minute flight in a piper. Well, I was concerned with getting my flight plan open with flight service that I ended starying of course and ended up over Sanford about thirty miles south of where I was supposed to be. In my head I said the exact same thing "I shouldn't be flying an airplane by myself" LOL Well just my two cents....
Oh, in case you don't know, the entire area around here, even way in Northern Maine is a radar enivironment. You may not have to talk to them but they can see you. Anytime I go anywhere always do flight following so they know who you are and where you are going. If you lose your engine and need to set it down you just squawk 7700 on the transponder and you are red flaged on the radar and you communicate on frequency 121.5 and they will send helicopters! Also before you hit the Bushes you turn on your ELT so then helecopters can find you.

Chris

 

[RoySwkr]

I assume when you mention "tools" your referring to a suport structure upon which to build the fire. Such as a wire mesh or garbage can lid. So we don't have to build a log support.
...
In un-snowy condition, I agree with your statement. My point was about winter. ...All the trees are and branches are covered with snow. The ground has a 3 to 6 ft snow pack. The majority of the dead wood is undersnow and very little wood is dry.

Actually I'm thinking about axes & saws. The typical camper of 40 years ago carried one or both, and often a belt axe on day hikes.

Sometimes trees can be encased in ice but often it's just snow on top which can be shaken off and lower branches are often snow-free. Even with 6 feet of snow you will find dead branches and the tops of dead trees. Back in the '70s the Signal Ridge Trail was a walk in a birch tunnel and in an emergency you will have all the bark you need, now the spruce is growing in and you have that too. With the axe you can reach the dryer wood underneath.

Maybe you never get tired John but I remember a Bonds trip many winters ago when one hiker gave up and built a fire near Hellgate Brook. When we got back there was a cube of like 4' x 4' x 4' of burning material and we could have spent the night there comfortably, I think some would have preferred that to stumbling out the Wilderness Trail in the dark.

Whether fitness is good or bad is relative, kind of like more 4wd than 2wd get stuck and when they do they get stuck worse. If you have trouble X miles from the road, the more fit person will have expended less energy to get there and will need less time/energy to get out. However if you have trouble Y hours from the road it will take longer for the rescuers to get there if you hiked faster to get there than if you hiked slower. And given that more fit people probably do longer (in hours) hikes and are more likely to push if conditions are poor or they feel bad (how do you think they got fit), fit people may be in more trouble when they get in trouble.

As to cardiovascular risk, the report just says that you will reduce heart atteacks in the backcountry if you make people more aware, that could just mean they will have them at home where it won't bother fish & game. And people like the guy who tried to lug a backpack full of rocks around Hancock Loop for conditioning on a hot day the first trip of the season, might well have avoided a heart attack entirely if they stayed home and watched TV with air conditioning.