240 people haven't returned from the Oregon woods since 1997

[vibramhead]

There are a lot of people missing out there.

[MarsIsCobra]

There are a lot of people missing out there.

A warm sunny day at the trailhead can sometimes turn cold, windy and wet 4,000 feet up. Pack responsibly

thanks for the post

[payslee]

Interesting article. And that number is astonishingly high - 240 people in 15 years?!

Also what caught my attention is the assumption that nearly all these people "just got lost". The sheriff talked about not being able to build a fire and such, leading to their death. They kind of throw in a few other possibilities at the end, but there are plenty of grow operations in the mountains in Lane and Douglas counties. Not to mention sasquatch and aliens

Maybe it's true that 15ish people every year get so lost even searchers can't find them, and it's a reflection of my own biases, but it seems a lot harder to not make it back because you get lost and froze or starved to death than because somebody helped you not make it back.

For example, that girl up in Skamania County this summer - you don't get so far away walking barefoot in the dark that 100 people searching for you for a week can't find you - unless you meet someone along the way who turns your journey elsewhere.

Anyway, the advice was mostly all good and the story was fascinating. Maybe it's my morbid curiosity, but I want to know more about these cases. Where did they each happen? Were there groups or pairs or was everybody alone? Were they hiker, hunters, tourists, mushroom pickers? Good scary campfire stories to tell your friends the next time you're out camping.

-payslee

[Lurch]

The state actually keeps fairly good records, and publishes an Annual SAR Report. You can dig through 2012's HERE

From 1997 (as the article says) 2.7% of missing persons are still missing.

For 2012 there were 561 missing males, with 27 still missing (4.2%) and 231 missing females, with 8 still missing (3.2%).

I think it's difficult for most people to comprehend how extensive a search area can quickly become, even after just the first operational period. If for example, you drop a 1 mile radius around the IPP there's over 87,000,000 sq ft (2,000+ acres). Granted we prioritize and section things out appropriately, but it's still a LOT of ground to cover if someone is off trail and the terrain is passable. A lot of those still missing, missing persons were on multi-day backcountry backpacking trips in relatively remote areas. Without any information to go on other than a trailhead and (maybe) a proposed route, the amount of resources and time required to cover that sort of ground is mind boggling. Throw in high country where snowfall could bury a deceased subject for multiple months and that number is not surprising to me. It's never ideal to have to call a search off, and it's genuinely heart breaking every time

[hikerbot]

Out of curiosity, does anyone know how the percentages for Oregon (8% found dead, 2% never found) compare to other state's lost in the backcountry statistics?

Also, I suppose this might belong in the discussion from a couple weeks ago, about neutral vs. bright colored clothing while hiking. How long does it take you to find the hiker in this photo?

Credit: https://www.facebook.com/findmattgreene?ref=profile

Now imagine, if this was someone who was immobile or unconscious. It wouldn't be that hard to miss them.

[retired jerry]

or imagine it was someone further away?

[vibramhead]

Now imagine, if this was someone who was immobile or unconscious. It wouldn't be that hard to miss them.

Excellent point!

[Rustygoat]

Wow...that's a pretty big number. Thanks for sharing the article.

[BrianEdwards]

Puts things into perspective seeing it put like that

[pdxgene]

You could almost combine this thread with the one in idle chatter about the lucky person finding the jewels from the plane that crashed into the mountain fifty years ago.
Of course you'd have to find out if any of these 240 people had any valuables on them when they disappeared..