# Search for Missing Hiker Abandonded



## Stephen (Feb 8, 2005)

http://www.fosters.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20050208/NEWS0201/50208028

-Stephen


----------



## cbcbd (Feb 8, 2005)

That's sad 


oh geez:
"but he was known to leave standard routes to find new ways through the wilderness."


----------



## pedxing (Feb 8, 2005)

Sad indeed.


----------



## Mike P. (Feb 11, 2005)

Almost "Into the Wild" like in that area if off trail more than 20 yeards, he may never be found.  Very unfortunate, without family close by seems unlikely that he left an itenerary so someone would call SAR in a timely fashion.

As a sometime solo winter this is certainly eye catching.  I rarely leave the trail though.  (may bushwhack from S. Imp to Camp Dodge to bypass some of the Route 16 walk but that is it.)


----------



## Caleb (Feb 13, 2005)

I've been stewing about this for a while. The F&G folks sure seemed awfully relaxed in their efforts to find this guy.   I know I don't have enough of the facts to make a proper judgement, but they did have an itinerary on the guy's car at the trailhead yet it took them ten days to ratchet-up a search. Yeah I know the temp's weren't that low,  and I realize some of the guy's route was Wilderness,  thus rating a lower SAR priority, but still...ten days to satisfy themselves the guy might be in trouble? sheez..!!!  

note to self: don't screw up in the Whites.  C


----------



## David Metsky (Feb 14, 2005)

They guy left no word with anyone, there's little info to go by, just a very rough route left on the dashboard.  It takes a lot of resources to do a search when there's not much concrete evidence where he might be.

Massive search and rescue operations shouldn't be organized without some clear evidence.  With limited resources, you can't mount such an operation on sketchy details and a car that's been abandoned for 2 weeks.  No one even reported him missing officially.  Based on his past hiking experiences, it's unclear that a search of any kind would be fruitful.

 -dave-


----------



## Caleb (Feb 14, 2005)

Leaving an itinerary on the dash of a car parked at a trailhead isn't the smartest way to stay alive, but at some point I think it does become compelling evidence of misadventure. I still think the response was slow.  C


----------



## Max (Feb 15, 2005)

I don't usually jump into these discussions, mostly because there are a lot of assumptions made.  But without personally knowing the "victim" (if he can be called that at this point), it's pretty difficult to be speaking for him.  Some possiblities:

1.  Maybe the guy doesn't want to be "saved."  We all like to feel we are do-gooders, helping those in need.  But there are people out there who just don't want that.

2.  If he has few if any relatives in the area, or he is just a loner, maybe he just sees no need to provide any information to anyone regarding what he likes to do with his spare time.

3.  Maybe he's like me.  I don't leave notes on the dashboard of my car saying "I'll be gone hiking for 10 days in the Pemi, so you got until then to break into my vehicle, which is parked in this seldom-patrolled area, and steal all my stuff."

Bottom line is, it's unfortunate, and I don't want to come across as a heartless SOB, but second guessing without the facts accomplishes nothing.

<off soap box now...return to regular lurking mode>


----------



## Stephen (Feb 15, 2005)

Max you make some very good points. To launch SAR without better info is foolish. and risks the lives of some very good, good-hearted people. The responsibility all lies with the hiker. He chose A) to hike solo and B) to not be specific with anyone with his itinerary. 

Caveat viator.

-Stephen


----------



## Caleb (Feb 15, 2005)

Stephen said:
			
		

> ... The responsibility all lies with the hiker. He chose A) to hike solo and B) to not be specific with anyone with his itinerary.



What about the collective rsponsiiblity we all have for each other as human beings?  The very fact SAR teams exist underlies this important  principle.  
So the question is not the worthiness of SAR, but the quality of it. In this case I do question the quality of it.  So much so that I plan on inquiring about it with F&G themselves.  like I said, I've been stewing about this, building momentum of my own, a product of writing down my thoughts here. I have not passed judgement on F&G,  nor do I expect to.  but if their efforts were sub-standard it should not go unnoticed by the hiking public. C


----------



## David Metsky (Feb 16, 2005)

I guess we'll have to disagree then.  I see no reason to launch a serious S&R based on the information at hand.  If the car was parked two weeks before it was noticed, then no search is going to be useful.  At this point, there's no confirmed knowledge that anyone is truely missing.  I can't fault F&G based on the facts as presented.

The collective responsibility you mentioned also extends to the S&R personel, the budget of F&G, and other people who might need rescue in the future.  It's not an absolute, requiring a full scale S&R several weeks after the fact with no detailed knowledge of the hiker's goals, state of mind, plans, or route.

What precisely do you think F&G should have done, and why?  Critiquing F&G, examining their practices, questioning their performance is fine, it should be done on a regular basis.  However I still don't see anything specificly done wrong here, could you point out what you think they should have done and why?

 -dave-


----------



## Weary Wanderer (Feb 17, 2005)

Hi Max, you know I daresay the police has taken into consideration all these ASSUMPTIONS. :idea: 



			
				Max said:
			
		

> 1.  Maybe the guy doesn't want to be "saved."  We all like to feel we are do-gooders, helping those in need.  But there are people out there who just don't want that.
> 
> 2.  If he has few if any relatives in the area, or he is just a loner, maybe he just sees no need to provide any information to anyone regarding what he likes to do with his spare time.
> 
> ...


----------



## Caleb (Feb 17, 2005)

[quote="David Metsky" 

What precisely do you think F&G should have done, and why?  Critiquing F&G, examining their practices, questioning their performance is fine, it should be done on a regular basis.  However I still don't see anything specificly done wrong here, could you point out what you think they should have done and why?

 -dave-[/quote

As this point I don't know any more specifics then we've all heard. USFS was out checking stickers and found a car and an itinerary at a trailhead. A few days later the car was still there, buried under snow,  so the FS  reported it to F&G. 10 days after that, F&G initiated a search.  

I still haven't called F&G but hope to tomorrow. C


----------



## Caleb (Feb 18, 2005)

Ok, today I talked to the F&G Sergeant who coordinated the initial search. 

According to him, even though the information they had was far from conclusive,  they assumed OVERDUE HIKER from the very beginning. He said they started searching immediately for the guy as soon as they were notified.  The initial response was a search of the iimmediate area, and  within 24 hrs they had walked/searched up and down Twinway and Galehead.  So it looks like the newspapers got it all wrong.  How the papers managed to miss the fact that F&G was out there searching all along is beyond me.  

I am fullly satisfied that F&G performed with professionalism and honor. C


----------



## David Metsky (Feb 21, 2005)

I'm glad to hear that F&G had answers for your very valid questions.  It sounds like it's an unfortunate situation.

 -dave-


----------

