Missing hiker spotted alive in Gila Wilderness (6:40 p.m.)

"... And, federal law prevents a helicopter from landing in the wilderness..."

So, you can't land a helicopter in the wilderness to save someone's life?

So the federal law banning helicopters in wilderness areas applies to SAR operations? Someone in the Forest Service has lost their darned mind.

Anyone who hikes alone in the wilderness and initiates search & rescue operations should be required to pay back all expences associated with the rescue. The National Forest service should not allow people to go hiking in the back country alone

So how much did this cost me?

Wow wrote:

"... And, federal law prevents a helicopter from landing in the wilderness..."
So, you can't land a helicopter in the wilderness to save someone's life?

He was lost and had food. He wasn't dying. Helicopters are of course allowed to rescue people in the wilderness. But, it was impractical and unnecessary.

I've been on several lengthy hikes in the Gila, and there aren't a lot of places for a helicopter to land. In hindsight, I'm glad nobody got hurt.

As a person with a liberal bent, I can't help but point out that funding cuts have led to trails that are poorly maintained. You have to climb over and under fallen trees. Signs are missing. Thirty years ago, when funding was better, it would have been more difficult to get lost or hurt.

Thank goodness he's been found. It sounds like he handled the situation well -- he stayed put and created a signal.

Another arrogant hiker claimed by the wilderness area in the Gila. How many deaths will it take and how many precious resources sucked dry by these stupid people?
This bozo or his family should be forced to pay New Mexico back for money he has cost this state, as well as Grant County.
And don't bother us with the details of the wimps back home in Texas about what they are going to do, or how careful DF Mason was to have food, water and a phone...he's still a moron for getting lost and costing us taxpayers our money.
Once again, it's time to root for nature to step in. Weather, animals, slippery rocks. Fools should get what they deserve.

Wow! I ain't never goin' outside again!

Brian Dear wrote:

So the federal law banning helicopters in wilderness areas applies to SAR operations? Someone in the Forest Service has lost their darned mind.

This happened around 20 years ago with a lost boy scout as well and although he was spotten by a helicopter crew they weren't allowed to land and get him. Needless to say his father was a bit freaked out. I can't help wondering why people are so angry about providing search and rescue for others especially for outdoors recreation. People should always have some kind of professional backup for any situation, why is it OK for their to be cops on the street but not Ok to have rescue in the wilderness? Why the resentment? The forest service are out of their minds to even lable these areas wilderness rather than just forest the public should have access to for recreational aesthetic and economic purposes. As for the guy, things happen people fall, they have heart attacks, they become disoriented. It doesn't mean we should leave him there to die. And as for the trails being out of maintainence? If the eco groups would stop suing for every little thing under the sun and the forests were used for multiple use and economic benefit again, then money would flow to those trails as it used to in the day. Hope the guy is OK. We have had our share of ill or unprepared or just lost hikers come into our ranch and several were no OK. So for his family's sake we should all hope for the best and pitch in to ensure humans element isn't left out of the equation. Helicopters should be used to ensure human safety where possible.

Main thing, he was found alive and well
yes there are stupid people that hike and get hurt, and the rules are dumb, but this hiker was found alive and well. as for him going by himself that was dumb.
remember there are animals/rocks/trees/holes or whatever t hat can do harm.

Jamie Lopez wrote:

Another arrogant hiker claimed by the wilderness area in the Gila. How many deaths will it take and how many precious resources sucked dry by these stupid people?
This bozo or his family should be forced to pay New Mexico back for money he has cost this state, as well as Grant County.
And don't bother us with the details of the wimps back home in Texas about what they are going to do, or how careful DF Mason was to have food, water and a phone...he's still a moron for getting lost and costing us taxpayers our money.
Once again, it's time to root for nature to step in. Weather, animals, slippery rocks. Fools should get what they deserve.

I agree 100% with your premise. You should be exponentially more outraged, then, by the vast sums of time, money and manpower wasted on the hundreds of illegal aliens that the Border Patrol has obligated itself to resuce from the deserts and mountains all year long. I hope your at least as vocal about that issue. At least this guy was an American citizen exploring and enjoying the outdoors as well as coming from out of state to spend money here before going back home.

Wow wrote:

"... And, federal law prevents a helicopter from landing in the wilderness..."
So, you can't land a helicopter in the wilderness to save someone's life?

See number 24
http://www.donaanawild.org/wilderness.php

Some Guy wrote:

<quoted text>
He was lost and had food. He wasn't dying. Helicopters are of course allowed to rescue people in the wilderness. But, it was impractical and unnecessary.
I've been on several lengthy hikes in the Gila, and there aren't a lot of places for a helicopter to land. In hindsight, I'm glad nobody got hurt.
As a person with a liberal bent, I can't help but point out that funding cuts have led to trails that are poorly maintained. You have to climb over and under fallen trees. Signs are missing. Thirty years ago, when funding was better, it would have been more difficult to get lost or hurt.

You must be reading a different article than I am. I read the hiker put out an SOS. From the air, how do you tell if the guy has food and water? Where in the article does it state that it was impractical and unnecessary? How do you know how practical it was from the article. It doesn't say, "too many trees to rescue the fool" anywhere. All it says is the helicopter isn't allowed to land. That's all.

I have to wonder if it wouldn't cost less to land the aircraft and pick the guy up as opposed to keeping four people on the ground to spend the night with him? You get him out, and it's over. Otherwise you've got a rescue mission, sans helicopter, still in effect the following day.

I think the first blogger was right to question not putting the aircraft on the ground.

Once an aircraft can determine the location of a hiker in distress, then ground personnel can respond accordingly. Common sense is needed all around. Personally, I would not be hiking alone in the Gila. That is some tough territory - I've done it on a horse. When one ventures alone into that sort of back country, one should be prepared for the consequences.