Should we abandon self-reliance in the mountains?

With the invent of sat phones and the like can we ethically still have an ethos of self-reliance while out in the mountains? 

Hang on, let me ask Siri. 

Sat phones have been around for ages. Can we wring our hands about backwards hidden messages on record albums instead?

You may want to expand on your thesis. Why would it not longer be ethical to "have an ethos of self-reliance?"

Yeah those sat phones have prevented anyone from dying in the mountains for decades.

Oh wait....

I have reliance on Iridium.

In this context self reliance is just a conceited way of proudly saying that if someone gets hurt, but not killed, they're probably going to die as a result of their injuries.  Why is abandoning this a bad thing?  Sure.  If you're going into the mountains, then you should be reasonably capable of dealing with self rescue and first aid, (and more importantly avoiding epicing in the first place) but realistically if your partner breaks their ankles and suffers a disorienting concussion that will potentially kill them over the course of 24-48 hours, you'd be pretty psyched to have the ability to call for help.  If you'd left the 3 oz inreach mini at home because of some ethical bs about being self-reliant in the mountains and your partner died as a result, you'd (hopefully) feel like an ass.

The only satellite phone I’ve ever seen was in Jurassic Park.
This isn’t a joke. I’m being serious.

Maybe the question was about actual ethics not just the limited way we use it in climbing. Is it ethical for me, as a father and primary source of income for my family, to eschew satellite phones and access to rescue in the name of self-reliance when I have an option to increase the chances of coming home? Is it ethical to leave the inreach at home, this subjecting my partner to a greater risk of death?

I don’t own an inreach or sat phone, but this is a (potentially) valid question(if it’s not just a tradiban troll). At what point is the mantra of self reliance unethical? How much unnecessary risk is ethical for one to take?

You could use your LACK of a Sat phone as evidence of your self reliance in the mountains ... that's what I do ...

World peace will never be achieved without worldwide interdependence.

: Nanga Parbat and Modern Remote Mountain SAR

I’m a sailor as well as a climber. I use a GPS Chartplotter every time I venture out of harbor.  But the bottom line is when the GPS goes down, there are paper chart backups below and the know how to use them. I see mountain travel as no different.
 There’s absolutely nothing wrong with using these systems to simplify our lives or add a level of safety in the mountains or at sea. But when all else fails, every sailor/hiker/climber should be responsible for his or her own safe passage and safe return. 
 The unfortunate part of the advent of this new tech is that I see far too many people at sea and in the wilderness who don’t possess basic navigational skills and assume that when the crap hits the fan, a chopper is a Sat phone call away or the iPhone will point the way home. 
So to answer the question. Not only can we but we should and those Of us with experience should also make every effort to pass on that knowledge and ethic.

 

Tradiban wrote: With the invent of sat phones and the like can we ethically still have an ethos of self-reliance while out in the mountains? 

I don't know, man. But let's discuss the relevance of climbing achievements in the age of instagram.

I enjoyed the discussion in the Runout podcast with Andrew and Chris (where tradiban got this topic).

I'd like to think that backcountry technology and rescue accessibility changes, but doesn't eliminate, the self-reliance ethos.

Like Andrew says, self-reliance might now mean being prepared by having these devices, which can make a rescue more efficient and more safe for rescuers. From a SAR perspective, Spot and InReach have definitely helped us minimise risk to rescuers and eliminate the search element.

To me self-reliance means being prepared to deal with challenges and uncomfortable situations without calling for a rescue, and self-rescueing if it comes to that. If using the device to initiate a rescue is the smartest thing to do at the time, then your self-reliance ethos will be bruised, but it'll be worth it.

There was a rescue in summer 2018 where a party wasn't prepared to descend the Goat Wall in the dark. Self-reliance would have been starting earlier, turning around earlier, bringing a headlamp, or being willing to have an unplanned bivvy (it was not cold). Instead, the Navy made two attempts to pick them off with a helicopter, the second being successful, and delivered them to terra-firma in time for breakfast. There were no injuries.

If self-reliance is dead, this will become commonplace, so we better hang on tight to what we have left of this ethos!

I hate this weird macho gatekeeping attitude that implies having more options is ruining something.

Sat phones are a tool. PLBs, EPIRBs, radios, and cell phones are tools. They're no different than the signal mirrors or whistles that people carry, just more effective. Your health insurance plan (assuming you have one) has more of an impact on self-reliance than any of these. After all, even keeping the plan requires the assistance of other people.

Unless you believe that you should never accept the assistance of others when out in the wilderness, to the point of injury and death, the "ethos of self-reliance" has nothing to do with tools.

If you don't take it that far, if you believe that accepting the aid of others is acceptable when injury or risk of death is imminent, then I believe that not only are these tools useful, but required. In the ethos of self-reliance, you have an imperative to minimize your impact on others. In the event that SAR is required, a PLB can drastically reduce their risk and level of effort. It may also minimize injury, thus reducing the eventual load on emergency / medical services.

This argument has never been about communication devices. It's just another rehash of "technology is making people lazy and ruining X." Which is fine. Debate that - are more people going into the wilderness without the necessary skills? Is this societal or is new technology enabling and encouraging this? - but leave the scapegoats out of it.

Tradiban wrote: With the invent of sat phones and the like can we ethically still have an ethos of self-reliance while out in the mountains? 

Are you saying that  it is impossible to be self-reliant because "sat phones and the like" have killed it?

You are only as tough as you believe yourself to be. Wilderness travelers can (and should!) still be self-reliant, even with an item like that in your pack.  

The climbing party I was with yesterday passed some time while bushwhacking while discussing a similar topic yesterday.  We were talking about the difference in risk tolerance between NA and Europe.  I had heard a statement recently that European climbers are more risk tolerant but that didn't strike me as being correct.  Climbing in the Alps is relatively low risk compared to some areas in the US, at least in the Cascades which is the range I'm most familiar with.  They might be more tolerant of the risk of suffering from an injury but my experience in the Alps is that a helicopter is minutes away for anything that would deserve an ambulance in the US.  Closer to home there are a few organizations that'll fly for a distressed climber but typically it's only if there is "threat to life or limb" and if weather is bad even that's doubtful.

I've been out one time when the party I was with pulled out the sat phone to call for help when someone loosely affiliated with the party broke their back.  He refused assistance and got himself back to the trailhead but a helicopter would have been a much better choice.

Properly used satellite communication doesn't change the equation very much since help is still likely to be several hours away at best.  Abused communication of any sort (like calling for a helicopter because it got dark on the Goat Wall) should not be tolerated.

Filed under White People Navel Gazing.

It's really, REALLY hard to move when something is broken below the neck and arms. I like being relocated to an ER without having to move. Paramedics could be twiddling their thumbs while my broke, shivering ass is out there. No pride and ego wasted from this guy! 

Tyler Johnson wrote:...If you don't take it that far, if you believe that accepting the aid of others is acceptable when injury or risk of death is imminent, then I believe that not only are these tools useful, but required...