How many times have you heard that if you're lost you should stay put, build a fire and wait for rescue? The following article is a compilation of a number of email's on this subject from the National Mountain Rescue Association lister.

It starts out with John Wehbring of San Diego Mountain Rescue asking:

I don't know how many of you caught Sunday's Dateline NBC episode on winter survival, but it prompted me to write about something that has been bothering me for years. On TV, a survival expert showed the host what to do if you become lost in a mountain environment, including building a shelter and a fire. I didn't have any problem with what he taught, it was his admonition that if you are lost you should stay put and wait for rescue. Almost all the survival manuals and instructions say the same thing: IF LOST, STAY WHERE YOU ARE.

The only problem is, in the 34 years I've been involved in search and rescue, many of the people we were looking for walked in before they were found. When I was younger I was lost twice, and both times walked out. I have no idea how many other people walked out of a similar situation, but there must have been a lot.

The point is that whether it is prudent to attempt to walk out depends on many factors, and to just stop and wait for help may not be the best option. For about ten years I taught a survival course, and I maintain that if you are an adult in command of your faculties, the thing to do if you become lost is to stop, sit down, analyze your situation, and then decide if it would be better to wait or to walk. There are many factors to consider in this decision, some of which I'll list here and others are unique to the situation:

• Time elapsed since you became lost. Distance traveled.
• Weather forecast. Terrain. Time until dark. Estimated walking speed, estimated time available to walk.
• Equipment: map, compass, flashlight, bivy gear?
• Number in party and their condition. Experience.
• Who knows where you are and when you are expected back?
• What is the possibility for a rescue attempt? Helicopter search?

Once you decide to walk you must develop a plan and stick with it. The plan should include what to do if you do not reach your objective in time (darkness, e.g.) and have to stop and wait.

I agree that, with children, it is best to teach them to stay and wait for help (Hug-a-Tree), but adults should be able to make a reasonable decision, based on the relevant factors.

In the TV show, the participants stopped about 10 am on a sunny, calm day to make camp because it took them a long time to collect enough firewood. If there were still 7 hours of daylight, they might have been able to figure a way out, especially if nobody knew they would be missing for several days. This is a good subject for discussion. What do others think?

Jason Roosa from Bay Area Mountain Rescue answered:

On the other hand, if a big chunk of a lost person's wilderness survival skills come from Dateline, it might be wise to weight their decision towards sitting tight. We've all been in terrain where "walk down hill" or "follow a stream" would more likely lead us deeper into the bush. It's a good point that many (most?) lost people end up walking out, but that observation doesn't take into account people who end up going deeper into the bush and never get a chance to tell us about their story.

As for the "build a fire" strategy, collection of firewood probably takes more time and energy than are saved by its warmth. However, the psychological effect of a fire might outweigh the cost.

Ken Zafren, MD, FACEP Chairman, Medical Committee of the Mountain Rescue Association, answered:

Jason, building a fire makes the person much more visible for searchers.

Ken Jason answered with:

I don't know about the fire idea...I'm sticking to my guns. If we want to get info to the inexperienced public about what to do when lost, I don't think that the priority should be "build a fire." I'll argue that arranging shelter, finding water, and conserving energy would be the main priorities.

I think that we tend to project our skills when we think about what other people would be able to do in a bad situation.

I'm sure that most of the people on this list would have no trouble at all building an adequate fire in the wilderness, but we've all seen people have trouble starting a fire in a fireplace with dry kindling and an endless supply of matches.

What about somebody with no experience who has only a few matches and wet firewood? I would really put fire in the luxury category...if it works, great, but if not I think energy would be better spent putting together adequate shelter and finding some water.

The big problem with spending all day walking around or gathering firewood is that it burns calories that would be better used keeping the body warm. Without food to replace those calories, it would only speed up hypothermia.

I agree that somebody lost in the Sierra or the Northwest might have access to tons of bone-dry tinder for most of the year, and that a roaring fire will quickly draw the attention of searchers. From the original e-mail, though, I thought that the discussion was about winter survival.

It might be very difficult to collect enough firewood to keep a big fire going continuously in deep snow.

I hope this puts some more "fuel on the fire." Tee hee hee.

John Wehbring adds a few more comments to the discussion.

Thanks everybody for your opinions - I'll add some more of my own. I wasn't confining my inquiry to winter survival; the decision would apply to getting lost in any terrain or weather, and to any person regardless of their ability. Sometimes I think we underestimate what lost people can do to save themselves. As you all know, the main thing is to keep calm and don't panic. That's why I said, "...an adult in command of your faculties."

I would agree that those who have no experience in the outdoors should, under most conditions, just stop and wait; however, a large percentage, maybe most, of our subjects have some experience. Take hunters, fishermen, and berry pickers. They are always getting lost because they forget to keep track of where they are, but they usually find their way back okay. Same with backpackers who take the wrong fork in the trail. They backtrack until they're on the right trail. In other words, they use their knowledge of terrain association to find their way back.

I had to laugh when Jason mentioned the old canard "If lost, walk downhill or follow a stream". My father used to tell me that when we lived in the country, but I soon figured out that he didn't know it could be wrong. If that is the only exit plan a person can come up with, they probably shouldn't try.

I used to teach my students to first consider going back the way they came, even though it might be uphill, because they might recognize landmarks. Flat, featureless areas are another matter. One of the places I got lost was in a huge beaver-dammed forest swamp where everything was the same in every direction. The only way out was to go straight in one direction. Tough, without a compass.

If you have absolutely no idea where you are, how far it is to safety, or in what direction, you have no alternative but to stay put. In our county, however, most people will have some idea of these. Except in the desert areas, it is usually possible to figure out a direction. Regardless of which direction you walk, if you walk straight in ANY direction at a rate of one mile an hour, you should come out on a trail or road in less than 12 hours. The trick is to walk straight, avoid obstacles and be in good enough condition to walk that far.

In many places you must hit a specific target, not a "catch" feature like a road. Remember the tragedy on Mt. Hood when a school group didn't take a compass bearing while descending and missed Timberline Lodge? They compounded their situation by not stopping when they were rested and able to dig proper snow caves. People died in that one.

Another situation happens when the chosen route leads into dangerous terrain. Riverside MRU always sends a search team down Tahquitz Canyon because people lost on Mt. San Jacinto get into its drainage, see the bright lights of Palm Springs down below and try to walk down to them. Only problem is, the canyon steepens to waterfalls, trapping them. So walking is not always a good idea.

On the other hand, some people will try to get out regardless of what they are taught because they think they can do it. And, for the most part, they are successful; I've seen it happen, time after time. All I'm saying is that the option should not be categorically excluded in survival classes. Since people are going to do it, instruction should include how to plan the escape and how to travel (slowly and carefully).

Rod Knopp, Coordinator Idaho Mountain SAR answered with:

Excellent discussion! Experienced people sharing knowledge and ideas can only further the cause.

The following comment is worth keeping in mind: "I think that we tend to project our skills when we think about what other people would be able to do in a bad situation." I would also suggest that we tend to project our experiences and ideas based upon on our local topography, climate, and mission load. I would not argue with any of the concepts presented based upon their application to the area of the presenter. I would suggest that the application of any of those concepts applied in the abstract may be a mistake.

Any safety education should be presented based first of all upon the intended audience. The message to snowmobilers should be different than to a group of Cub Scouts! A message that is to be presented to a mass audience in a 30 second sound bite must be entirely different from a 3 hour presentation to a hunter safety education class. Likewise a presentation to a group of outdoor
leaders also must be different from a show and tell at an elementary school.

Local circumstances should also affect the message we deliver. Climate, terrain, proximity to an urban area, type of outdoor activity of the people involved, etc. must also be considered. A presentation to a backpacking group must consider the type of equipment that they would likely carry. If the group hikes in southern California in the summer the message must be different than to a group in Colorado in the winter.

Safety education can be presented in the context of raising awareness to the hazards in the outdoors or it can be presented as skill sets. Attempting to raise the awareness of the public as a whole may be a more effective use of SAR teams time than attempting to make individuals into mean lean survival machines. Those individuals who would be motivated to spend the time needed to develop the mental skill sets required to make appropriate decisions in adverse conditions are probably not the most likely people to become our customers. Safety education to those people may be preaching to the choir.

Raising the awareness of the public at large through focused messages based upon the above issues may save more lives than training people to survive.

The last entry in the discussion was from Rob Cate:

What I am getting at is that unless people are taught basic wilderness survival skills (i.e., Boy Scouts, Hug-a-Tree, wilderness survival etc....), they become motivated by fear and will begin walking.. I seem to be leaning more towards children in my argument but it holds well for all people.

The program on TV was not bad in itself. The idea of educating the public was probably the aim; it just wasn't done in depth enough. The basic "weekend warrior" probably has the mentality of "I'm not really lost, , , I'll just go over the next ridge," which in some areas is fine (like my county); the problem is that with this mentality somewhere more remote the subject simply wanders deeper into the wilderness. I like the idea of public education and our rescue group is working towards a winter seminar for the coming winter. But I worry about the very basic ideas the tv program gave out.

Ed.: I did not add or edit any of the words of the people mentioned in this discussion, but in reading them I thought that the ideas expressed might be of interest to the members of the Unit. When next asked by friends what should I do if I get lost you might think about this discussion.

These minutes are unofficial and subject to approval at the next regularly scheduled board meeting.

CONVENED: 19:38.

BOARD MEMBERS PRESENT: Fran Martoglio, Ken Capron, John Kirkman, Chris Berryman, Gus Bush, Stan Kartes, Bill Weber, Rick Wire, Alan Givotovsky (past pres).

OTHER MEMBERS PRESENT: Jeff Sharp, Rod Scott, Tracy Berryman, Darin Brenner, Tim Greminger, Phil Pletcher, Greg Long.

TREASURER'S REPORT: Victor Caro

• Monthly report accepted as presented for 1-1-01 through 1-31-01 (Full report is attached to the official meeting minutes.)
• Fran read the report.

KIT REPORT: Tracy Berryman

• Tracy had the totals in kit sales for 2000.
• Chris made a motion for $2,000 to be allocated for the Cache remodel. It was seconded and passed.

OPERATIONS REPORT: Gus Bush

• Jan. 7, body recovery.
• Jan. 24, ELT Search (Turn around).
• Feb. 13, meeting for OPS Leaders at 6:00pm.

TRAINING REPORT: Russ Brinton

• Chris gave report.
• Jan. general meeting was Cold Weather Injuries; 25 people attended (taught by Roger Ternes & Jim Eustace). 13 people attended Sat. & Sun. training.
• Feb. Basic Training in Litter Rigging with Fran and Stan.
• MOFA training Feb. 7, 10, and 11^th.
• Alan presented a few different training opportunities that will be posted on the reader board at the Cache.

EQUIPMENT REPORT: Ken Capron

• Ken is looking into the litter attachment hardware.
• Ken picked up new body bags.
• Ken is looking into patient emergency bivy sacks.
• Discussion concerning replacing the 400 foot rope.

COMMUNICATIONS: Stan Kartes

• Darin has new pager.
• John Miner has new pager.
• Looking for someone in the Unit to take over the Pager service.

SAFETY & EDUCATION: Rick Wire

• April 21-22 BOALPS training.

MEMBERSHIPS REPORT: Chris Berryman

• Kenny Downs was voted in as Field Support.

FINANCE REPORT: Bill Weber

• No activity.
• Signatures need to be updated for the Vanguard and money fund accounts..

SARVAC: Fran Martoglio

• No activity.

MAST: Bill Weber

• No activity.

OLD BUSINESS:

• On Feb. 10 TMRU hosted WMRA meeting.
• Chris discussed organizing the rescue gear and buying an outdoor storage shed.

NEW BUSINESS:

• Ken reviewed the history of TMRU and wants to create a historical file.
• Fran gave a report on the MRA conference:
  a) Improving mountain rescue technique.
  b) Free exchange of information.
  c) TMRU needs to be accredited Feb. 2002.
  d) Discussion concerning the Forum, should it be distributed electronically.
  e) MRA conference June 21 at Snoqualmie Pass, WA.
  f) MRA delegate (Jeff Sharp).

MEETING ADJOURNED: 21:47

Respectfully yours,

John Kirkman, Secretary

©Copyright 2000 Tacoma Mountain Rescue