I am so happy for Mary that she was found safe. I was praying all week for her safe return home. I hope you are able to see this.

I was sure she would be found alive. I live all the way across the country in PA, but I followed this story daily. I felt for some reason that it would have a happy ending. I'm glad she was found. Nice to have such a happy ending.

So I'm glad that she was found, albeit through no effort on her part. Let this be object lesson on exactly what not to do when you hike ALONE in the wilderness. First, bring a map...Second, when you actually realize you'
re lost, how about STAY PUT!! Third, when you leave a note for SAR, how about ACTUALLY doing what you say you're doing, like continue down stream not up. Oh and next time you waste thousands of dollars of resources due to your complete lack of personal responsibility, remember this is the 21st century and handy little devices like, oh I don't know a CELL PHONE or GPS might be the difference between a successful outing and getting somebody killed looking for your sorry butt~!!

I've been following the news all week hoping to hear of success in finding her safe. YEAH! yet...at the same time, i was solding her for her lack of hiking wisdom when traveling the back country. I'm of the belief that folks who think solely of themselves and travel solo and without proper 10 Essentials are unwise....and a little bit selfish.

I don't understand how people who claim to be experienced hickers go out without the needed equipment. Ie cell phone, compass, matches, rain gear. There are thousands of hours and dollars used in rescueing these "experienced Hikers", instead of helping those in real need.

People - she had a cell phone. They don't work in this area.

Regarding earlier comments:

Cell phone as necessary hiking equipment? This is a federal Wilderness area. Like many other hiking areas in this region, lack of cell service makes the phone a useless piece of junk.

Continue down stream? Again, this depends on location, which has not been well defined in the reports. If she was still in the Stetattle drainage, this would have helped. If she had crossed over into a neighboring drainage, she likely would have met the same fate as James Kim last November in Oregon -- death by hypothermia, because the creek goes a looonnnggg wwaayyy before reaching any sign of human activity.

The person lost near Soleduck Falls earlier this summer came out at Lake Mills, more than 10 miles out of the search zone. She survived due to much better weather. Decades ago, my survey crew mates took a "shortcut" down a dry creek bed, missing the correct drainage by about 50 feet. Had they stayed on that course, they would have had a miserable week trying to reach the next road. By staying on the trail, I got to reach the truck in daylight, radio for help, and have a warm meal that evening.

In most cases, staying put is the best choice. When that fails (e.g. Kim), then staying on the road or trail is much better than bushwacking cross-country.

"Experienced hiker"? That label is not self-proclaimed, but is attached by an unknown third party. Like many buzz-phrases, it is nearly meaningless.

As for being prepared so SAR doesn't waste time and risk themselves: sure, people must take responsibility for themselves. But though misfortune and human error can be reduced, they cannot be eliminated.

As it is, premature death from bad lifestyle choices (bad diet and lack of exercise) far far exceeds death from accidents during outdoor activities. Hiking solo is not ideal, but it is still better than vegging out in front of the TV for lack of a hiking partner.

Hiking without a care without the 10 essentials vs. laying on a 'couch' 'veggin out' (is there something wrong with watching TV? I find that-- among the most opinionated and most poorly informed of all-- are people who watch little TV), are not only choices, how about hiking a less remote area for example. Drawing such a stark contrast and then making some oblique reference to a personal health issue as some justification for endangering the lives of those who might die looking for you, does not seem like a very good arguement for hiking 'solo'.

Further, Cell phones are required by all climbers in Mt Rainier nationl Park, a wilderness area, so I guesss when it comes to carrying 'useless pieces of junk'.... That comment sugguests that you have a issue with technology, so I may assume that you would prefer that the SAR not use, radios, helicopters, Infrared sensors... And stick to good old 19th century technology, because in this one instance the hiker didn't or couldn't use their cell-phone? How would you know necessarly that it wouldn't work before hiking miles into the 'wilderness'? So therefore its a piece of junk, that is a very dangerous message to send.

It really helps to get the facts before you start commenting about the situation. Mary did indeed have matches and made a fire the first few nights she was lost, but the matches ran out. She had water to drink initially but once it ran out she did not want to drink the water from the creek because it could have contained bacteria that might have made her sick which would have made her situation much more dangerous. Cell phone's don't work in remote areas such as the one she was hiking in and thus she was unable to tell her friends that she was going to hike in a new location.

hats off to the S.A.R., you guys don't get enough credit for all the dangerous work you do to bring people home.

LG, cell phones, and bad assumptions ---

Where do you get the requirement that climbers on Mt. Rainier must have cell phones? Just three months ago, the head climbing ranger asked the climbing community for comments about which services work, or don't work, and where (http://mountrainierclimbing.blogspot.com/2007/06/route-updates.html). Another of his cell discussions portrays them as optional.

I am not a climber, but am one of the Park's hundreds of volunteer trail patrollers. The vast majority of visitors stay down in the forested areas, where cells are clearly not required and service is very sparce. It is nonexistent in the areas I patrol, as the lower topography blocks access to towers outside the Park.

I've been a hiker and an electrical engineer since before cell phones were invented. I even designed cellular system test equipment back in the days of "irrational exuberance", so have a passing familiarity with the service requirements. The towers are illegal in Wilderness, so service depends on reaching towers outside. Within the Park, this is practical only from the higher elevations reached by a few climbers.

Since cellular was introduced, I have watched as service coverage maps expand. But they still have huge swaths of white space through much of the PNW and Rockies where I travel. Technology and economics prevent blanket coverage anytime soon, and if the backcountry purists have their way, these "white spaces" will never be filled in.

Good old 19th century hiking technology is still essential. Electronics are an optional supplement, lacking sufficient coverage to be a replacement.

In the backcountry I do carry a cell phone -- to keep it from trailhead car prowlers. When turned on, it usually shows zero bars.

Fact, She was not equipped for the hike she undertook.
Fact, She changed her plans at the last minute without notification.
Fact, She hiked in a remote area without a map.
Fact, She went out alone without telling anyone where she was or knowing enough about the area to reasonably insure her safety and the safety of those sent out to 'rescue' her.
Fact, She left instructions to SAR and then inexplicably went in the opposite direction and continued to move around without apparently any credible reason, complicating the search.
Fact, She was incredibly fortunate to survive.
Fact, I hope this lesson on WHAT NOT TO DO is not lost on those that would make silly excuses on her behalf.

More for LG --

I see no evidence that this subject was hiking "without a care", only that she exercised some bad judgement. Good judgement and wisdom come from experience. Experience comes from -- bad judgement. Ideally, all such wisdom would derive from other people's experience, but few people are ideal.

Stupidity is not yet a crime. When it becomes so, few people will gain good judgement.

In the time and place I grew up, there was little expectation that outdoorsfolks should expect a rescue by government or third party SAR. Most people knew someone close who, if not lost, was at least unexpectedly stuck out overnight. But nearly all subjects made it out on their own feet before family and friends escalated to the sheriff. Injury was more common, but real tragedy was rare. Actually, it still is rare.

Now, excessive fear of danger in the wilds, and of crime in "civilized" zones, is causing too many people to stay indoors without exercise. The resulting obesity, diabetes, and cardiovascular disease is causing far greater mortality than the actual dangers of the outdoors.

When the lives of SAR members are becoming endangered, then the proper response is to pull back the SAR. Educate the users as much as possible. But the health benefits (physical, mental, and spiritual) of the outdoors are too valuable to discourage people from participating.

Even solo.

Cell phones would not work, my radio couldn't hit our repeater. I'm the pilot who found her. I was checking this web site to find a copy of the story and found this blog.... She should not have been up there alone, but she was. I grew up in these mountains and spent 16 yrs in the Marine Corps and would never go alone. A simple broken ankle can kill you. I have seen the aftermath of solo wilderness adventure up close and often. In today's day and age, if you must go alone, you should invest in a personal gps locater or (ELT). Or don't go if you don't tell someone EXACTLY where you intend to go. Knowledge is very light to carry. People need to know their own limitations, and realize that mother nature does not care. Don't sugar coat what goes on out there. On that very friday (on a slow day) there was a hiker who broke a leg, a hiker who was stung so bad by bees they had to be hospitalized, and a kyaker who was missing. All within range of my radio. The difference was they were not out alone. I always file a flight plan or arrange for flight following, and I carry an ELT.
All that aside, finding her on friday, was one of the best rescues I have ever had. I really thought it would be a recovery. Her friends and family were very greatful to my co pilot and myself. She did well with the expierence she had. I was very happy we found her.... Landing in the river was a bit tricky and my buddy had to get his boots wet to go get her. He asked her if she wanted to go for a helicopter ride. She said yes....

PS: We didn't tell anyone about the bears we had seen... there were lots of bears...

LG, cell phones, and bad assumptions ---

(originally posted yesterday, but diverted for manual approval and ignored. Trimmed for a retry.)

Where do you get the requirement that Mt. Rainier climbers have cell phones? In June, the head climbing ranger asked the climbing community for comments about which cell services do and don't work, where. (URL deleted to avoid KING5 abuse filter.) Another day he portrayed cells as optional.

I'm not a climber, but am one of the Park's hundreds of volunteer trail patrollers. The vast majority of visitors stay below treeline, where service is very sparce. It is nonexistent in areas I patrol.

I've been a hiker and engineer since before cell phones were invented. I designed cellular test equipment in the days of "irrational exuberance", so have some familiarity with service requirements. The towers are illegal in Wilderness, so service depends on reaching towers outside. Within the Park, topography blocks signals to most non-climbers.

Since cellular was introduced, I've watched service expand. But the coverage maps still have huge swaths of white space through much of the PNW and Rockies where I travel. Technology and economics prevent blanket coverage anytime soon, and if the backcountry purists have their way, these "white spaces" will never be filled in.

Good old 19th century hiking technology is still essential. Electronics remain an optional supplement, lacking sufficient coverage to be a replacement. Unfortunately a number of folks do use cell phones as an excuse to not carry traditional essentials.

In the backcountry I do carry a cell phone -- to keep it from trailhead car prowlers. When turned on, it usually shows no bars.

Bad Assumptions;

Note yesterdays story about a man who hiked 40 miles out of the NC wilderness to get help for his injured wife. First he had a map, GPS and oh my god (even in lew of irrational exuberance) a CELL PHONE. Which he was able to use to contact emergency services that with the aid of the exact location of his wife resulted in a successful outcome!! What bad assumptions are connected to this story? I think that this is a perfect example of everything that I've been trying to comminucate to our backcountry 'purists'.

Look, I've climbed Mt Rainier several times, and each and every time, even without 'towers' atop the volcano, get this, my phone actually worked!! Further, even if your phone doesn't display 'bars' or is capable of making calls it will, particularly at night 'ping' cell towers. This information can be used to locate a specific phone. Information that may lead to finding a lost hiker. Why wouldn't you want that potential life saving capability with you, even on the off chance that it may or may not provide the one critical piece of information that could save your life?

Why suggest that people should keep their cells phones with them only to keep them from being stolen? Talk about 'purist' nonsense. Your tone suggests that you'd rather that cell phones had never been invented because they somehow block your enjoyment of the backcountry. You've referred to them as 'useless pieces of junk', I wonder if Mrs. Tenscher would agree.

Sorry LG, didn't see your NC story, because I was backpacking in the coastal Olympic NP, without cell service. But I did see Monday's story about 11 Scouts and leaders lost for a day in NC, without cell service.

Your cell worked atop Mt. Rainier. Duh! That is 8000 feet above local terrain, giving a direct line-of-sight to dozens of towers outside the Park. Of all fringe reception areas, such peaks are the best spots to try for a radio signal. But how is your service at Paradise, Narada Falls, and Longmire, below local terrain?

You asked: "How would you know necessarly that it wouldn't work before hiking miles into the 'wilderness'?" This question is backwards. Cell service started in the urban cores and is still expanding out. Coverage maps show it has not yet reached many poorly- and un-developed areas. Absent contrary information, the only realistic assumption is that any given backcountry area has no service. Any service is a bonus, not a likely helpline.

You blasted Mary for, among other things, not using a cell phone. Several sources reported that she one, but the area had no coverage. Looking at a topo for her location (you did look, didn't you?), coverage appears highly unlikely. Coverage maps of Verizon, T-mobile, Cingular, and Sprint-Nextel show blank space there.

James Kim died in part because of no cell service. Yes, a late night 'ping' saved his wife and kids, but that was a exceptional case driven by a high profile and very good luck. I see too many folks using this chance as a primary line of rescue. They are more likely to earn a Darwin Award.

As for your portrayals of me -- wow, what shining examples of the dangers of jumping to conclusions. They need not be addressed.

You seemed to have ignored the arguements that prove my point.

My phone has worked nearly everywhere on Mt. Rainier, not just on 'duh' the summit. You've proved my contention when you say 'high up, with a clear line of sight' phones work!Mary was able to move 'duh', and seemed to not understand that capability.

Again, you seem to have a personal issue with cell phones. At this point I'm sure I've gotten the point across that having access to as many of the tools and essential items that a hiker can reasonably carry, plus this knowledge will help in an emergency.

P.S. Now how did they find Tanya Rider? Was that from her cell phone 'ping'? Hmmmmmmm
Guess that proves the point again. And guess where she was... deep in a ravine. Oh my!

Three prime examples...

Saturday, May 15th - Climber Scott Richards called Mount Rainier National Park on a cell phone requesting a rescue for his climbing partner Peter Cooley at 6:10 am, Saturday May 15th. The two-person team was ascending Liberty Ridge near 12,000 feet when Cooley’s crampon caught and he fell while leading. Richards was on the opposite side of the ridge crest when the accident occurred and was able to stop the fall using a hip belay. Cooley had fallen approximately 30 feet and hit his head, sustaining severe head trauma including a skull fracture as well as injuries to his left arm and leg. At roughly 6:30 am Ranger Mike Gauthier advised Richards via cell phone to chop out a platform, secure their tent, and stabilize and prepare Cooley for a lengthy evacuation. Scheduled cell phone calls were arranged to conserve the team’s cell phone batteries.

On June 3rd, Doug Thiel, 40, and his two climbing partners summited Mount Rainier via the Emmons Glacier Route. On their descent, Thiel started to experience a great deal of knee pain. At 3:30 pm, the Park received a cell phone call from Thiel’s team detailing the accident and requesting assistance.

Bruce Penn and Al Hancock departed White River to climb Liberty Ridge on June 13, 2004. It took them three days to reach the base of Liberty Ridge. On the third day, while looking at Liberty Ridge, Penn voiced concern to Hancock about the steepness of the route and his ability to climb it.On the fifth morning, June 17th, Penn knew that he could not complete the climb and called 911 on his cell phone to ask for assistance.

Three clear examples!!!

Too suggest that bringing a cell phone on a hike/climb is a bad idea due to a false sense of security it provides is, of course, nonsense.

No one in this thread has suggested that hikers should not carry cell phones.

I challenged criticism of a hiker for not using a cell and thereby endangering searcher's lives. It is well known that this and many other areas have little or no service, rendering the phone useless. Cells are an option, a personal choice.

"Three prime examples", one best-case site, a peak not representative of PNW backcountry. Ranger Mike solicited comments -- have you submitted yours yet? (OK, he already knows about Liberty Ridge.)

Tanya Rider: 7 days (a span few hypothermics survive), a ping narrowed to a 10-mile-diameter (much larger than Stettatle drainage) in a dense carpet of suburban cell service (opposite of tower-free NCNP Wilderness).

This was national news because it was so unusual. Otherwise, it wouldn't take a week to break the privacy barricades, and Mary's search could have immediately traced her ping log away from Darrington onto Hiway 20 before going silent.

You criticize Mary for turning uphill, then say she could have moved "high up" to get service. Never mind that the local peaks are not high enough, had she been equipped to climb. Even the helicopter could not get service.

Cells are not yet good enough to be an essential or an obligation.