LS
I've just posed a question in a separate post about PLB/Spot/ In Reach etc which will cover some of the ground.
New to form and dont want to tread on toes - is it ok to respond here within Intro thread or should I post elsewhere? That question posed, I'll type away and ask Admin to move it if required? Hope that OK.
1. VERY ( capitals intended ) pro PLB. Other post gives some better detail. Seem to me to just be plain common sense. However, painfully aware that common sense can at times prove to be anything but! So welcome feed back from the MRT/SRT experienced members.
I'm principally a deer stalker. The safety record on that is fantastic, but one of the wisest teachers I ever met only had one tenet 'what if'.
2. That leads into the old saw of freedom/ safety equation. The 'freedom' of the outdoors is a big draw to me in terms of what I do professionally and personally. That cuts in many directions, but includes a good measure of self reliance - and not least responsibility. I think that it likely something we all share.
I can fully appreciate the outlook of a person out to test themselves and push limits - the challenge if you like. That could be a simply bimble through a forest park to free climbing in the Alps - its an individual thing.
In terms of adventure - I got a lot of that out of my system in previous lives!
Particularly as a professional I am very conscious of my responsibility on the safety front - in both terms of wandering around with firearms, knives etc, dealing with large wild animals and the need to return paying clients back safely if you're going to collect a tip!
There are challenges and risk a plenty to manage, without any need nor desire to push boundaries. Whenever I'm driving the Argocat colleagues start whistling the 'little old lady' tune from the Lady Killers - which suits me just fine.
I detail all that just to set context for the concept of outdoor freedom for me.
On the flip side you have the people that by profession or devotion put themselves in the position of responding should I get into difficulty. Ultimately they make a choice to do that. And yet whenever I hear that put forward as 'justification' by some herbert who got into trouble through ignorance or silly mistake it always rings as fatuous. I can never get out of my head that a. my actions may impact upon others directly and b. those same actions may mean people have to spend time helping me and as a result are not available to help another.
Long winded way of saying that self reliance should include consideration of others. I suppose the word is consequence.
3. Balance - I doubt there ever will be - there are too many imponderables. Nature only ever sits in balance on the BBC
, in reality nature is dynamic and that applies to this topic too. But I would argue that without spice life and society ultimately tends toward bland. And tht bland isnt a passive state - its one ultimately of atrophy. Those that push boundaries perform a crucial role in society as a whole - but not to the exclusion of meriting a clip round the ear at times!
4. The only TV 'Survival' Personalty that has - I think - really mentioned PLBs etc is Les Stroud. Several big names have published recent works with kit lists that do not include any form of modern distress beacon. That sits uneasy with me in terms of how it potentially reflects on their view of the topic they instruct within the commercial context of it.
'This weeks show - we drop Brad Bicep on the Skeleton Coast where he will seek shelter, conserve energy/ water and activate his PLB' - its just not going to syndicate is it.
LS - your question receive and hopefully understood in good spirit etc and hopefully reply reads the same.
Andy