Touring - Stretching and Challenging the Ingenuity? (specific example, general principles)

Here is one specific example (from a bike tourist/multi-modal tourist/adventurer who loved being out there on his own, with nothing to rely on but his own ingenuity):

You are out in Alaska. You go into a remote area during the spring. You set up a base camp for a couple of months. When the time comes and you are ready to go, and you're actually trying to leave, you discover that the river you crossed a couple of months earlier, while coming in, has now swollen because of the warmer weather and increased snowmelt. The current is way too strong, and the crossing is much too dangerous.

You can go back to the base camp, but you've lost some weight and food is low. You can forage and hunt, but it isn't easy and there might not be enough calories. If you can make it for another couple of months, the river will be lower and passable again.

So one option is to wait it out.

The actual person (who was in this situation) decided that he was trapped. There may have been some other alternatives to those he had in mind, though.

So the challenge is this: if you were in that situation, and decided to leave rather than wait, how many ways can you think of that might get you out of the situation?

(One other aspect: you aren't carrying any electronic devices that would allow you to make calls.)

How many possibilities, how many ways out can you come up with?

I have no idea, but I'm curious: what did he actually do after deciding he was trapped? Did he wait? How a single cyclist can possibly carry enough food for few months in the first place unless he can hunt?

Adam

Hmmm, this sounds vaguely reminiscent of Jon Krakauer's "Into the Wild".

Probably the best possibility is to avoid going into the wilderness in such an unprepared state to begin with.

Speedo

So the challenge is this: if you were in that situation, and decided to leave rather than wait, how many ways can you think of that might get you out of the situation?

What is the terrain like? What sort of tools do I have access to?

First thing I'd do is scout up- and down-river, while hunting and foraging for food, to see if I could find a better crossing point. I'd probably begin rationing food immediately. I'd do both regardless of whether I decided to wait it out or try and escape.

From there, the next actions depend on what resources I have available: How much food do I have? Are there trees nearby? Do I have an axe or saw? Rope? What is the terrain like? How wide is the river? What's the air and water temperature?

Yeah, agreed: more info needed.

Adam

Yeah, agreed: more info needed.

Adam

Christopher McCandless (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Christopher_McCandless)

Yeah, agreed: more info needed.

Adam

The short answer is: he ate some bad stuff, messed up his guts and starved to death alone, slowly.

OK, so he took off into wilderness unprepared and he chose to die starving while there was a tram quarter mile from where he was. Brilliant. Why was the word "ingenuity" used here?

Somehow I can't find this story inspiring or feel bad for him. But... he has a webpage on Wiki and he's a hero :rolleyes:

I'm much more awed and inspired by this couple's life: http://www.downtheroad.org/

A.

What is the terrain like? What sort of tools do I have access to?

First thing I'd do is scout up- and down-river, while hunting and foraging for food, to see if I could find a better crossing point. I'd probably begin rationing food immediately. I'd do both regardless of whether I decided to wait it out or try and escape.

From there, the next actions depend on what resources I have available: How much food do I have? Are there trees nearby? Do I have an axe or saw? Rope? What is the terrain like? How wide is the river? What's the air and water temperature?
That's the sort of thing I was trying to get at.

Air and water: water is way cold. Probably in the thirties, possibly mid-thirties.

River is raging, about a hundred feet across, and more than chest deep.

Food: virtually none left. There are wild berries and mushrooms, but getting enough calories from them is virtually impossible.

Hunting: you have a .22 long rifle with scope.

Game: scarce. A good day might be two squirrels. There's some chance of moose and caribou, but they have been scarce.

Trees: scrubby spruce, maybe eight-inch diameter and less than twenty feet tall.

Tools: minimal. One hunting knife. No axe. No saw. No rope. Some twine and parachute cord, but not a lot. A basic hand sewing kit.

Terrain: Slow hiking due to thick brush and absence of trails.

Weather: Heavy rain (though you don't know how long it will last), followed by temperate August/September weather.

You're underweight -- if you were 5'8", you'd weigh about a hundred pounds, maybe a bit more. (If taller or shorter, scaled up or down proportionately.) If you lose another ten pounds, you will be seriously weak.

***
What if scouting hadn't worked? [it would have worked for CM -- downstream was a steel cable, and old hand-operated tram (parked on his side of the river) from a former USGS hydrology station. Upstream a couple of miles, the river was 'braided' or spread out into channels that were shallower and possibly able to be crossed] -- what if in your case, though, you tried looking upstream and downstream, and the river was too cold, wide, and raging, and you had to find another way?

How many possible ways out can you find?

OK, so he took off into wilderness unprepared and he chose to die starving while there was a tram quarter mile from where he was. Brilliant. Why was the word "ingenuity" used here?

Somehow I can't find this story inspiring or feel bad for him. But... he has a webpage on Wiki and he's a hero :rolleyes:

I'm much more awed and inspired by this couple's life: http://www.downtheroad.org/



A.

Looking at it from a different point of view -- not McCandless, but *you* in that situation, how would you get out? How many ways can you come up with to get out?

I'm not just looking at this one situation -- it is an example. People do get into all kinds of binds on bike tours, and stimulation of ingenuity is part of the game. Some play it safer, some are intense gamblers.

Part of the thrill for McCandless was the level of challenge.

If you choose very mild challenges, it's different. You're not in the game.

One writer said it this way, "Most people choose to live a very safe life, and so they die very safely."

McCandless chose another way, and I have to respect the way he did it (from certain points of view at least). He was *living* -- if you read his letters and journals, he says things like, "It's in the great triumphant joy of living to the fullest extent that meaning is found. God it's great to be alive."

I'm not exactly defending him. I don't think he had it entirely figured out. But everyone who met him seems to have appreciated the degree to which he was inspired and intense about living. As he put it when he had lost quite a bit of weight: his way of living was taking a toll on his body, but his spirit was soaring.

I'm interested in that aspect, and in the awakening of life that can come when you're out there facing intense and real challenges, rather than spoon feeding yourself all the time.

This is an aspect of self-supported touring. No one is holding your hand and nursing your wounds and carrying and babying and coddling you all the way.

You're out of the comfort ruts (which seem, in part, to put people to sleep).

If I've got nothing better to do (and apparently that's the case) I start working on a bridge. Or a raft. Or both. If there are enough big rocks in the area, I'm going to start piling them in the river to create a bridge. If there are enough downed trees or limbs, I'm going to figure a way to lash them together into a raft. If I can steer the raft close enough to the opposite bank that I can bail out and make it the rest of the way, I'm golden.

But yeah, hopefully I don't put myself in that position in the first place.

That seems like a viable possibility. There might have been some empty containers around that probably could have served to increase buoyancy.

How many other possible ways out are there?

While I've always admired McCandless' desire to challenge himself, I'm disappointed because his greatest challenges came from his lack of forethought and knowledge. He was quite willing, but not so able. If only he had thought to challenge himself by adequately preparing.

A couple of the many alternatives to starving to death: make a signal to attract attention or figure out one of the many ways to cross the river.

While I've always admired McCandless' desire to challenge himself, I'm disappointed because his greatest challenges came from his lack of forethought and knowledge. He was quite willing, but not so able. If only he had thought to challenge himself by adequately preparing.

A couple of the many alternatives to starving to death: make a signal to attract attention or figure out one of the many ways to cross the river.
There's something that is unresolved about these two approaches -- (1) the heightening of life and energy that can come from strong, vivid, real challenges on one side (McCandless was engaging this approach), and (2) the lowering of the adventure when one has safety nets or is overprepared.

Overpreparation/safety vs. underpreparation/danger.

Real danger often has a very sobering-awakening-energizing quality. As does radical self-reliance.

Self-reliant touring is toward one side of the spectrum; sagged and catered and chaperoned touring is toward the other side.

One question would be, What would bring that kind of energy to a self-reliant tour?

Are there ways of doing it without seriously risking (or too seriously risking) death or serious injury?

Are there other forms of risk or challenge or whatever else might bring a heightened or more-energized level of living?

Niles: You're creating a false dichotomy. Or comparing unalike things. Or something. Being prepared for the unknown, or educating yourself so that it is known, is not the same as being sagged and catered. Conversely, being underprepared or uneducated is not the same as engaging with risk. Your use of the phrase "radical self-reliance" suggests you might be a fellow burner. To me, that means knowing what you're getting into and being prepared for it.

Entering into a dangerous situation can be more sobering when you're fully aware of the potential dangers than if you plunge in unaware.

In situation like this the worst you can do is to stay put. I'd start walking looking for another passage, try to find a log or build a raft to cross the river and die trying to find my way out, not sleeping. But anyway, any sane, reasonable person, would come more prepared. It was stupid and ignorant of him to think he can survive in the wild on his own without preparations and training. McCandless had no approach, no method, no plan, he was either stupid, loony or... wanted to die like this so this was elaborate suicide. So, there is a difference between facing a danger and walking into a suicide.

Adam

I don't think he had it entirely figured out.

The fact that he died due to his lack of preparation would be some evidence that you've made a painfully obvious observation here.


But everyone who met him seems to have appreciated the degree to which he was inspired and intense about living.

As I recall, the truck driver who dropped him off in the wilderness with a minimum of equipment thought he was a nut who would run into trouble.


In the whole spectrum of "adventure" activities, bike touring is not that dangerous, risky, or extreme. You can do things to ratchet up the challenge (based on where you travel, equipment choices, etc.) but I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at.

Niles: You're creating a false dichotomy. Or comparing unalike things. Or something. Being prepared for the unknown, or educating yourself so that it is known, is not the same as being sagged and catered. Conversely, being underprepared or uneducated is not the same as engaging with risk. Your use of the phrase "radical self-reliance" suggests you might be a fellow burner. To me, that means knowing what you're getting into and being prepared for it.

Entering into a dangerous situation can be more sobering when you're fully aware of the potential dangers than if you plunge in unaware.
Yeah, there might be a false dichotomy in the sense that there are other options besides the two mentioned. Those two aren't the only choices or approaches. There are other possibilities.

But I don't know exactly which other ones really work. It's one thing to say that there are other approaches. It's another to specify them. And it's yet another to learn or find out which ones really work and which do not.

So what are other approaches that actually work?

Overeducation or over-self-education about handling the dangers takes some of the spice and thrill and challenge out of it, or it can and often does.

The sink or swim approach to education has an undeniable special quality and potency about it.

A radical taking of responsibility for oneself and one's actions is another angle on the approach.

In the sink or swim case, it may be involuntary; but it can also be done voluntarily.

In situation like this the worst you can do is to stay put. I'd start walking looking for another passage, try to find a log or build a raft to cross the river and die trying to find my way out, not sleeping. But anyway, any sane, reasonable person, would come more prepared. It was stupid and ignorant of him to think he can survive in the wild on his own without preparations and training. McCandless had no approach, no method, no plan, he was either stupid, loony or... wanted to die like this so this was elaborate suicide. So, there is a difference between facing a danger and walking into a suicide.

Adam
He liked to be out there on his own in unknown territory, and to deal with it using his own intelligence and resourcefulness.

He used to lead his cross country running team out into scary and unknown forests, so they had to deal with it.

He was a very intelligent guy. There's plenty of evidence of that. I think all the people who gather together his mistakes and label him with a set of flaws are out of touch with the full truth. He had many other sides and accomplishments. If you take anybody and gather a few put-downs together (which you always can if you want to), you can make them look pretty bad. But that approach is lacking in truth or honesty in the sense that it omits, or it pretends to have a full and accurate picture when it really doesn't at all. There's plenty of evidence of McCandless's gifts and intelligence.

Personally, I think it was a form of intelligence to do what he did. It took courage and intelligence to step out and experiment the way he did.

Yeah, he died. Other people have died doing something they loved. I'm not sure it is worse or more stupid than not really living (because you're not doing something you love to do).

He went in, in his own words, confident that he could handle anything he had to deal with. And he did a pretty good job of it, for quite a while. Others who have tried it say that it isn't easy to do.

To me, a central oversight was his unawareness of the essential importance of keeping your weight and strength above a certain level. He wasn't careful in that area. Once his weight got below a certain point, his strength and mental clarity were almost certainly affected. And his decisions and choices were affected. Otherwise, he might very well have made it.

I don't think he wanted to die. He wanted to live more fully. That was probably the central thing he was looking for -- a fuller and truer way of living. He talked about the way many people are just living a lie. He wanted something else.

http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Niles H. http://www.bikeforums.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=10244479#post10244479)
I don't think he had it entirely figured out.
The fact that he died due to his lack of preparation would be some evidence that you've made a painfully obvious observation here.

Yeah, when you put it that way. What I meant was that he had some dynamic ideas (or living, as opposed to strictly theoretical, ideas) that had some real merit, but also were not yet completely mature or thoroughly worked out. He was in the process of experimenting and working them out.


http://www.bikeforums.net/images/misc/quote_icon.png Originally Posted by Niles H. http://www.bikeforums.net/images/buttons/viewpost-right.png (http://www.bikeforums.net/showthread.php?p=10244479#post10244479) But everyone who met him seems to have appreciated the degree to which he was inspired and intense about living.



As I recall, the truck driver who dropped him off in the wilderness with a minimum of equipment thought he was a nut who would run into trouble.

Yeah, I almost said something like "many people" or "virtually everyone who got to know him" -- but I left the word everyone half expecting someone to jump on it. The word has several definitions, though. My bet is that some dictionaries cover the shade of meaning that allows for some degree of license. There is a usage of the word that allows for not-exactly-literal meaning. Like the word permanent when speaking about a permanent employee or a permanent job or a permanent coat of paint. Nothing (or virtually nothing, in the physical world at least) is permanent in the literal sense. Certainly many things that are described with that word are not literally permanent. "Everyone" knows this intuitively.

That truck driver (Gallien may have been the name) made a variety of other remarks about McCandless as well. And he was impressed by his energy and determination, and his personality, and the way he stuck to his guns in a discussion. And I believe he, along with many others, said that he made a strong impression, and not an entirely negative one.

He also thought, as I recall, that Chris wouldn't last long at all and would throw in the towel pretty early in the game -- when he found out it was harder than he thought, to do what he was trying to do.


In the whole spectrum of "adventure" activities, bike touring is not that dangerous, risky, or extreme. You can do things to ratchet up the challenge (based on where you travel, equipment choices, etc.) but I'm not sure I understand what you're driving at.
Finding ways of making it more real.

Finding ways of making it more real.

Here in Seattle, the outdoors are real enough (in fact, at my kids' high school, "Into the Wild" is required reading, and each year sparks the kind of discussion shown in this thread). Plenty of people here enjoy outdoors activities -- from mild to wild -- and there are tons of training opportunities. Unfortunately, though, each year a few folks die -- recent "real" examples (not made-up Internet adventures) include deaths by falling off cliffs, getting buried in avalanches, or encountering severe weather while climbing mountains. Sadly, some of these accidents occur to really well prepared people, with plenty of experience, so it's clear that while the odds can be tilted, the chance of disaster can't be eliminated.

Isn't that real enough?

As for me, I've tried to make sure my kids get the right kind of training (widely available, and not that expensive) for the outdoor activities they pursue. My son, for example, had winter-camping survival classes and wilderness first aid before he was 18.

Are you advocating that young people are more noble, more attractive, or more romantic when they go off half-cocked (no matter how bright)? I'd prefer mine come back alive.

Here in Seattle, the outdoors are real enough (in fact, at my kids' high school, "Into the Wild" is required reading, and each year sparks the kind of discussion shown in this thread). Plenty of people here enjoy outdoors activities -- from mild to wild -- and there are tons of training opportunities. Unfortunately, though, each year a few folks die -- recent "real" examples (not made-up Internet adventures) include deaths by falling off cliffs, getting buried in avalanches, or encountering severe weather while climbing mountains. Sadly, some of these accidents occur to really well prepared people, with plenty of experience, so it's clear that while the odds can be tilted the chance of disaster can't be eliminated.

Isn't that real enough?

As for me, I've tried to make sure my kids get the right kind of training (widely available, and not that expensive) for the outdoor activities they pursue. My son, for example, had winter-camping survival classes and wilderness first aid before he was 18.

Are you advocating the young people are more noble, more attractive, or more romantic when they go off half-cocked (no matter how bright)? I'd prefer mine come back alive.
Good points.

Think back to when you were coming of age, though. When I look back, some of the best times were the totally unexpected situations that I had not been prepared for, full of the unknown. Being picked up, when I was sixteen, by a slightly older French girl while wandering the streets of a small town in Italy for the first time. Taking off on my own and telling no one. Hitching across the country. Telling my father when I was 18-19 where he could get off, and that I would be doing what I planned anyway.

I'm not claiming to understand all the factors involved; but I think being on your own, especially at that age -- mid or late teens, early twenties -- has an undeniable magic.

There is something about striking out on your own that is special, like a bird taking its very first flights.

Telling dad, in one way or another (and it doesn't have to be insensitive or brutal necessarily) that you will fully claim you age of majority and *personhood* (recognized as such by the constitution and other laws) -- and the full set of rights that go with it, including freedom of decision and movement, and all the other freedoms and rights -- and that he can get over it, has its own special savor.

Mr McCandless made some very bad decisions and it cost him his life.Glorify it all you like but he is still dead. The world is littered with the graves of mostly young men who have done the same thing since time began. Generally the people that think there is some kind of greatness/ nobility in this are not the ones that find/ recover the remains. I'm am pretty sure Mr McCandless would have traded the fuller and truer life he was living for the lie the rest of us are living, for a ride out and a ham sandwich any time in the last month he was alive
Cheers

Yeah, he died. Other people have died doing something they loved. I'm not sure it is worse or more stupid than not really living (because you're not doing something you love to do).

He went in, in his own words, confident that he could handle anything he had to deal with. And he did a pretty good job of it, for quite a while. Others who have tried it say that it isn't easy to do.

To me, a central oversight was his unawareness of the essential importance of keeping your weight and strength above a certain level. He wasn't careful in that area. Once his weight got below a certain point, his strength and mental clarity were almost certainly affected. And his decisions and choices were affected. Otherwise, he might very well have made it.

I don't think he wanted to die. He wanted to live more fully. That was probably the central thing he was looking for -- a fuller and truer way of living. He talked about the way many people are just living a lie. He wanted something else.

With a bit more preparations and thinking he could have lived the life he wanted for many years to come. Loving something doesn't imply you have to die doing it, you can live and love your life if you think about what you're doing and do it right. He was foolhardy, not heroic. People should learn from his mistakes, not admire them.

I would love to leave the urban jungle behind and live in the wild, by myself, I'm getting sick of civilization but I know I'd die if tried that. I'm not prepared, I'm weak, I lack the knowledge and skills to survive.

Adam

So what can we learn from him -- both from the mistakes and from the good or true or useful points?

I think he was on to something. Yes, he made mistakes. But why throw the truth out with the falsehood? Why not keep the true and build on it, or keep it going, or take it further?

From his writings, it was clear that the times he felt most alive were not always times of danger. So maybe danger isn't the key element. It might be one or more other things.

I think if McCandless had really wanted to get out he would have found a way (unless his brain was affected by malnutrition). He was certainly no dummy; he had lived in wild before. So, in my opinion, the question posed by the original post cannot be answered by looking at what McCandless did or didn't do. I can only conclude that he didn't really want to cross the river that badly for whatever reason.

If I had encountered the same situation, and assuming I could walk and sustain myself, and that I really wanted to cross that river because I thought I might die if I didn't find a way, I would have walked down the river. Maybe I'd find a bridge, or a village or...something. Simple!

I would start a big forest fire and hope the authorities came to put it out before it consumed me! :) Or maybe try and start a fire in an area where it may not take over the entire forest?

I don't think danger or risk are the key elements. It's freedom and being on your own that are the key elements. Freedom from rush and crowds, from commercialism and advertising, freedom from noise and pollution. No one else controls you and tells you what to do, you are in control of your life and free to do whatever you like. BUT, you're not free from responsibility of keeping yourself alive and learning the new way of life. You can't just walk out of civilization and live in the wild. He just made some silly and grave mistakes that didn't allow him to enjoy that freedom for too long.

Adam

I think if McCandless had really wanted to get out he would have found a way (unless his brain was affected by malnutrition). He was certainly no dummy; he had lived in wild before. So, in my opinion, the question posed by the original post cannot be answered by looking at what McCandless did or didn't do. I can only conclude that he didn't really want to cross the river that badly for whatever reason.

If I had encountered the same situation, and assuming I could walk and sustain myself, and that I really wanted to cross that river because I thought I might die if I didn't find a way, I would have walked down the river. Maybe I'd find a bridge, or a village or...something. Simple!


While I understand this viewpoint, it strikes me as fairly naive.

Drowning while trying to cross a raging 33 degree river is probably one of the most dangerous wild situations that hikers/backcountry enthusiasts can face. To all who advocate that he should have 'just crossed the river' I would suggest that it is FAR easier said than done.

Your other assumptions about being able to walk and sustain yourself are also more difficult than they seem. The large nighttime/daytime temperature differential, combined with insufficient calorie intake meant that realistically, mccandless could probably only venture a day or two from his schoolbus shelter before dying of exposure. IM sure the fact that he couldnt just 'walk out' to civilization was painfully obvious to him at the time.

The man died because he was underprepared and surprised by changes he didnt expect. Many far more experienced explorers than mccandless have died because of the same reasons.

I would start a big forest fire and hope the authorities came to put it out before it consumed me! :) Or maybe try and start a fire in an area where it may not take over the entire forest?

Starting a large fire would be very selfish and stupid of you. No offense intended. a Smaller signal fire would make some sense, but there is not much in the way of fuel in the tundra/heather, and a large fire does require quite a bit of wood. furthermore, foraging for fuel and food would quickly deplete your reserves of energy, and eventually hasten starvation.

Niles H. wrote:
Overeducation or over-self-education about handling the dangers takes some of the spice and thrill and challenge out of it, or it can and often does.

As an alpine and rock climber, and an ex-helicopter pilot, I totally disagree with this concept. There are some thing that if not done correctly are going to kill you. Would you get on an airliner if the pilot told you he didn't pay attention to emergeny procedures because it would take the fun out of an engine failure! There are enough things that can go wrong and create "excitement" without puposely being ignorant.

I am an avid bike tourer, but self supported bike touring, except in the most remote spots, is about as low risk as you can geet. We are seldom very from from help, and are accesible by road. Usually getting on the cell phone or flagging down a motorist takes care of most "emergencies". The biggest risk to us on tours is getting hit by a vehicle.

I agree that starting a forest fire would be a bit extreme . A medium sized signal fire would be noticed though. July/ August is fire season and at least where I live fire patrols are flown on a regular basis. An axe would be very useful in this situation, but again, that was an item that Mr McCandless decided he could do without. Another one of a number of small decisions that led to tragic consecuences for him.
Cheers

As an alpine and rock climber, and an ex-helicopter pilot, I totally disagree with this concept. There are some thing that if not done correctly are going to kill you. Would you get on an airliner if the pilot told you he didn't pay attention to emergeny procedures because it would take the fun out of an engine failure! There are enough things that can go wrong and create "excitement" without puposely being ignorant.

I am an avid bike tourer, but self supported bike touring, except in the most remote spots, is about as low risk as you can geet. We are seldom very from from help, and are accesible by road. Usually getting on the cell phone or flagging down a motorist takes care of most "emergencies". The biggest risk to us on tours is getting hit by a vehicle.

+1

Niles H. wrote:
Overeducation or over-self-education about handling the dangers takes some of the spice and thrill and challenge out of it, or it can and often does.

As an alpine and rock climber, and an ex-helicopter pilot, I totally disagree with this concept. There are some things that if not done correctly are going to kill you. Would you get on an airliner if the pilot told you he didn't pay attention to emergeny procedures because it would take the fun out of an engine failure! There are enough things that can go wrong and create "excitement" without puposely being ignorant.

I am an avid bike tourer, but self supported bike touring, except in the most remote spots, is about as low risk as you can geet. We are seldom very from from help, and are accesible by road. Usually getting on the cell phone or flagging down a motorist takes care of most "emergencies". The biggest risk to us on tours is getting hit by a vehicle.
I agree with the part about being prepared for certain situations. But I would say that the conclusion can be overgeneralized.

It applies to some situations (the airplane example would be one). But the opposite principle may apply in other situations.

There are bike travelers who overprepare and overschedule and overorganize their trips. There are others who just go, with basic but minimal plans -- and they tend to have, in some cases at least, a freer and better time of it. Certainly they are freer from conceptual cages, and obedience to the mandates of plans and schedules.

Some dangers are worth training for. Others may be better met with one's own resourcefulness. If you know what to do at every turn, if it is all laid out, the scope is reduced for originality, creativity, resourcefulness, ingenuity, and living in a more direct-and-unmediated-response kind of way. Spontaneity has something to be said for it, in many situations at least.

Exactly where the line should be drawn -- between what deserves careful preparation, and what deserves to be left to spontaneity, originality, resourcefulness, ingeniousness or creative intelligence -- isn't entirely clear.

I still say that not having a safety net adds tremendously to certain situations, whether the safety net is outside help or some kind of conceptual equivalent, or pre-planned responses stored in the brain that you can reach for, to hold your hand when needed.

Having none of that, and using one's own response-ability is at times worth something -- maybe for the sense of originality of living that can accompany it.

Otherwise you're doing something equivalent to painting by numbers. Things have been laid out for you.

That can take away from some situations.

As someone pointed out, it is much easier to say there are many ways out, than it is to come up with specific, workable ways -- and it's still another thing to implement them in real life.

There may be ways across a swift river like that (possibly even many ways), but what are they exactly?

One way that hasn't been covered yet is to build a kayak. People did this for many thousands of years, using things like tree branches, saplings, and bones for the framework. Animal skins were often used to cover the framework. There are other materials that could probably be used -- canvas, inner tubes, pitch-covered cloth, plastic, or some combination of those.

Constructing or burning a large SOS in a clearing nearby would be another possibility.

It could be combined with other approaches. Several could be tried together, to increase the chances that one of them would work.

Any other specific ways out?

Apparently McCandless was doing reasonably well for some time, even after he decided to stick it out at the base camp/bus. He was very thin, but he probably would have made it through, if it hadn't been for something he ate that removed the small margin for error that he still had left. He got very ill, and attributed it to "pot. seeds" in his journal. Jon Krakauer had them tested, and they did not contain enough toxins to be the problem. So Krakauer changed his theory to a toxic mold on the seeds. But that might not have been it either. He seems to assume that McCandless's self-diagnosis (that it was the fault of the pot. seeds) was correct. But self-diagnoses are notoriously flawed, and McCandless was also eating a lot of wild mushrooms. Anyone who has done much of this (hunting and consuming wild mushrooms) knows how sick a person can get from eating some of those mushrooms, even when they are identified correctly. It seems at least as likely that it was mushrooms. Or it might have been something else.

Something made him very ill, at a time when he couldn't afford the extra burden.

Otherwise, he probably would have made it for at least a couple of more weeks, until the three parties of moose hunters arrived on ATVs and found him, or until the river went down.

His 'solution' -- to go back and wait it out -- was actually a more workable and intelligent choice than it seems. And he might have made it if it hadn't been for the illness.

...
Something made him very ill, at a time when he couldn't afford the extra burden.
...


Or not. (http://www.terraincognitafilms.com/wild/call_debunked.htm) The site in the link has a pretty good analysis that indicates that he simply starved to death over 113 days.

Speedo

He left a record in his own journal about the illness. The illness does not exclude starvation.

Niles, I agree with you about risk and spontaneity when it comes to some things. I don't do ACA routes because I don't want to know where the next (fill in the blank) is, or the grade or the length or grade of next hill. When taking risks, it is only exciting when you are aware of the risks involved. I think you actuall have to know you are taking a risk, which may take some research. Doing something risky out of ignorance shouldn't count! If you venture out "into the wild" naive and unaware of the consequences of your actions, I suspect the amount of excitement generated is minimal. I believe that the more you know about a "dangeous" activity, the more risks you are willing to take and the consequences of an error are generally greater. When you know that the risk you are taking can have serious consequences, that is when the adreneline starts to flow.

I think this situaion is like a lot situations gone bad. There is not one big mistake in judgement, but a series of small mistakes that lead to a tragedy. If any one of the those seemingly unimportant decisions were different the outcome may have been completely different.