No, the headline should be: "Hiking for a week on remote Isle Royale NP without a map—what could go wrong?"
Agreed. I try to take a there-but-for-the-grace-of-God attitude and not Monday morning quarterback other people's wilderness mishaps, but this story is a real head scratcher for me.
This story sounds like a fundamental planning failure—a classic single point of failure—rather than an unreasonable objective for an Isle Royale hike. He clearly neglected the basics, making this outcome highly predictable.
Yes.
How do you head out for a week without a paper map and compass?
I can't imagine ever heading into any sizeable wilderness without a well-protected paper map and compass and/or without knowing how to use the compass. GPS is great until you can't use your device for any reason. Also, in my experience, really learning to navigate the old-fashioned way makes one much more observant of the local geography even when not looking at the map.
He could have easily carried a separate satellite communicator attached to his body.
We never carried any satellite communication device until 2019. IMHO, really knowing we would be on our own encouraged us to be very thorough about planning and to constantly take risk management into consideration. One important consideration for risk management is the likelihood of running into other people if you've got a problem. (For example, on a 150-mile 10 day loop in Ontario's Woodland Caribou Provincial Park in July 1997, my wife and I encountered just four other people. However, even in the most off-the-beaten-path parts of the BWCA, we rarely string together more that a day or two without encountering other groups.)
On the other hand, now that we do carry a satellite communication device, I keep it on my body in a shock-proof, waterproof case (which is ridiculously redundant, because the device itself is significantly water and shock resistant).
The hiker mentioned, "I studied for a year... I thought it would be similar to Pictured Rocks, and that just wasn’t the case."
I have a really hard time understanding this statement. Pictured Rocks is on the South Shore of Lake Superior, off of the Canadian Shield, with a transitional forest ecosystem. Isle Royale is in the middle of the lake, on the southern fringes of the Shield, and its forest is fully boreal. In other words, the climate, the ecosystem, and most importantly the geology, and therefore the
terrain, are radically different between Pictured Rocks and Isle Royale even though there is not too much distance between the two. Perhaps more importantly, Pictured Rocks gets well over 200K visitors over the summer whereas Isle Royale gets perhaps less than 10 percent of that.
Furthermore, moving seven hours away from his last known transmission location was a massive error.
This!