Hi Ronin...

Thanks for your reply.

Just for the sake of explanation, the TV show had to do with animals and how they have adapted to survive in extreme environments. The experiment was to show how humans respond to conditions that animals have no problem dealing with. So, no, there will probably not be any discussion about how hypothermia is just one "abnormal state" condition that can lead to adverse outcomes. Actually, that topic will be covered collectively in other episodes.

With regards to that topic, we regularly discuss hyperthermia here, especially in the summer time (which I realize it is now in most parts of the US, just not here in AK) and how it can be quite deadly quite quickly. Fatigue is something that comes up from time to time as well. If you look back over the past year or two you'll see that we discuss multiple causes of adverse outcomes, though each one may be discussed independently, and often in response to a well publicized event.

As for a paternalistic attitude, I guess we view that differently. The way I view it, those of us who volunteer with SAR organizations are putting our lives on the line when we go out on a search. I feel that those of us who choose to respond to lost and injured hikers and climbers do have a responsibility to ourselves to educate the public as much as we can. Accidents happen, unpreparedness happens, stupidity happens - we go no matter what caused the need. But we do feel better putting ourselves on the line when we've also had opportunities to raise awareness about the things that can and do go wrong out there. We tend to find ourselves most often looking for "inadvertent" hikers - people who make spur of the moment decisions to take a quick hike, get turned around and then end up lost. Up here also most "overdue" hikers aren't lost, just delayed by weather (or wildlife encounters!). Truth be told, we really don't have to do many "rescues" here in the Anchorage area - not of hikers anyway. Most of our "rescues" are hunters, snowmachiners and 4-wheelers who get stuck and have to spend an unprepared night or two out. Different audience, I know. Why might that be? Perhaps because we've done a good job of making sure people are prepared when they take a planned hike.

I personally don't believe in using scare tactics to raise awareness, but perhaps in an effort to be brief and to the point, messages come across as heavy handed. On this forum in particular we have a responsibility to err on the side of overpreparedness for newbies because taking a cavalier approach toward packweight could end up getting someone hurt or worse. The sad fact is that we live in a litigious society, and those who are responsible for the content of this site could conceivably be at risk legally. Even if a lawsuit is frivilous, the site owner is not immune to this risk!

So, the bottom line is that we have to respect that we all bear a certain responsibility toward the site owner (who is a private individual) to make sure that the content of his site is responsibily presented - even if it errs on the side of caution. We can and do have some great discussions about the tradeoffs between weight, comfort and safety. Newbies should understand that lightweight is to be aspired toward, not a starting point. Start heavier, go slower, travel less distance, take notes. As time on the trail and experience increases, decreasing packweight can become a reality. We all have lists, but if everyone here were to put their lists side by side, I'll almost guarantee that each one will have its own personal variations. I believe this may have been one of the points being made - that lists are too individual to be a "safe" place to start for newbies. Perhaps the best approach to dealing with your concerns would be to start a thread in the newbie forum on things that can go wrong in general, and how to recognize and minimize those risks.

Peace,
MNS