There are very few roads and people in the High Sierras, and Red Meadows pack station is basically it when it comes to services.
Surrounded by smoke, changing winds, and uncertain information, they had to try and get information through very low bandwidth, high latency satellite text systems (I have an InReach, and it's great, but leaves a lot to be desired).
I'm impressed with their retelling of the story and am glad they made it out safe.
I don't necessarily think their decisions were terrible, but as far as reading it for lessons/critique goes:
- I read a lack of knowledge with the roads making decisionmaking harder. More research on their intended route and their possible alternate routes would have made things easier. (And the "downed bridge" is a planned bridge replacement with a published detour. That shouldn't have been a surprise to begin with). Lots of people do tons of research on the trails, alternates, have detailed maps, and so on, but don't do the same amount with their access routes.
- They should have had someone on watch in shifts in the overnight. If it comes that way and you're going to have a chance, it isn't going to be when the first moment you realize something's gotten worse is by waking up choking, in an inferno, or by not waking up at all.
- They should have gotten moving earlier. A few hours rest to recover isn't entirely ridiculous if they were unable to continue/couldn't follow the trail at night, but you don't need 9 hours of sleep and a leisurely 2 hour morning after waking up. Especially not when when you say "The smoke felt closer than the day before" for conditions.
If you exit through Red’s Meadow, you should be safe
The lesson to learn is often "just don't go". Fire season in california is becoming like avalanche season in places like BC. When the danger level is high, the only real answer is to avoid the area altogether. You check the prevailing conditions (the posted avalanche/fire danger) and if you choose to go you do periodic spot-checks on the terrain you are walking over. If the underbrush is too dry, the temperature rises, you see/hear thunderstorms, or you get reports of fires in similar areas, it is time to evac. Waiting until you see smoke is not good.
They were hiking in the mountains during a heatwave with already a few fires nearby. The takeaway is "don't be stupid" but I doubt they learned their lesson, because their particular situation was pretty low-key.
They had a weeklong backpacking trip planned, hiked to where they thought they would start it, encountered smoke and potential fire, and had to hike back out. Leisurely. Enough to get a solid 9 hours of sleep. Doesn't quite qualify as the life-in-jeopardy kind of event that the polish and presentation of the blog make you think you're in for.
I'm a little more interested to hear about the folks who were actually in danger and barely escaped.
There are some good lessons in what you shouldn't do, perhaps not intended so, but still interesting.
We don't have many forest fires here in Norway, but we do have very harsh winters. Every year a family or group of people are trapped in a blizzard and die. And most of it could have been avoided by following the "Norwegain Mountain Code"[1], which I imagine is similar all over the world. Turning back before it's too late, seeking shelter, and not exhausting yourself when you realize that you're in trouble. I'd be very worried if people in my group started getting nauseous. That's when you start making those deadly mistakes.
Turning back the millisecond the danger is known.
There are certain warning signs that should not be ignored. Each group sport has them and over time you learn to follow some protocols or you have to find yourself some new friends.
For cycling in the Midwest, it's lightning strikes. There is no place to shelter and the storm can move faster than you can, so after the first strike, everyone is counting time to see if they're getting closer. If they are, you turn back for shelter, even if home is in front of you. Most of the time that's a foreshortened outing, but on one occasion we had to double back to the half-way point and wait it out. Even though that meant a lot more time out there and a longer route than we planned.
When they mentioned the black smoke and continuing forward, it made me angry. I had a sudden flash of the conversation that had us holing up, dripping wet, in a little town in the middle of nowhere. It was clear who was going to win the argument before we turned around, even though it wasn't what we wanted to hear. We all knew the rules, clearly these people don't.
(Over the years I've come to recognize how above average that group was in organization skills, but one should still aim for a solid grip of basic safety routines from inclement weather to common injuries and avoiding/treating heat stroke and exhaustion)
Then again, wildfires can move 100 miles in a day, about 10x faster than a human. Like a viral pandemic, you have to make decisions before it feels dire. It sounded like though that they got enough information early on via satellite communicator to realize it wasn't an immediate threat. I think the author is guilty of mild over-dramatization.
Also, they had 7 days to complete the rest of their hike. I suspect the stats for the hike out weren't too difficult, but the cumulative effects were.
Exactly this. Never underestimate how important a good snack can be to improving morale in a difficult situation.
In many situations just a bit of chocolate can literally be the way to lift the mental fog of war and make it significantly easier to keep plodding through whatever stressful situation you are dealing with.
A good snack really does work magic.
If the person is sleeping 9 hours and dining on smoked salmon and mussels, is it really the "escape" from danger they made it out to be?
Almost seems like they wanted to go South because that's the route they came in on? Even though they were heading straight for the fire, which seems like lunacy to me.
They had a clear way out right back from where they came in. And they took it, but made it seem much more dramatic than it was.
Given that, who in their right mind decides that this is a good time to go hiking in this area?
Saying "September is usually a great time" is a pretty moot point. It's usually not well above 100 across the entire state in September.
Edited to say - I am very glad they made it out safely. If you are considering backpacking anywhere in California this summer, please remember that we are having fires in historically unprecedented locations.
It’s really something to see the entire west coast on fire right now. We live up in a forested valley in northwest Oregon, and got blanketed with smoke yesterday. Happened quickly and was the worst smoke I’ve experienced since the Camp Fire blew into Los Altos, CA, a while back. Our area of Oregon hit the top of the wildfire risk chart yesterday for the entire west coast, at “critical” — hot and dry with gusts of winds reaching 65MPH.
Happily woke up to relatively calm, clear-ish skies today.
We’ve spent a decent amount of money getting rid of brush, and trees, to create a “defensible zone” around the home. That’s one of the most impactful things that can be done to mitigate the risk — make sure flammable plants and trees are far from the house, use hardscaping (stone, gravel) around the foundation, and keep anything within 30-100’ well irrigated. Also, don’t allow leaves etc to gather under porches, gutters. Make sure vents are well screened.
The forest becomes more wilderness but we’ve been doing a bunch there as well: limbing trees up to reduce the risk of “ladder fires”, getting rid of brush, cleaning up old access trails in case a fire crew needs to come through.
Fires are pretty awesome events — experiencing them first-hand gives you a sense of scale that’s impossible to convey through pictures alone. The people in this story had quite an experience, and it’s fortunate how many people escaped that fire.
But fires are both natural, and increasing in destructiveness due to a combination of factors (including climate change). Definitely stay aware, and if you live in a wildfire zone, get moving on preparations and preventative measures.
This is the future, folks.
Total technical aside: is this a submarine for a new version of exposure?
With that said, hiking into a high-risk area with already a few known fires nearby is just stupid and it could've been really bad. I'd like to hope they learned their lesson.
You can complain about their photography all you want, but I suspect most experienced hikers would agree that these people didn't make any bad decisions here.
