I'm not sure I agree with these last two posts. Though the argument is valid and should be considered, I think a more appropriate point of discussion is not necessarily how often the items are used, but rather the implications of having them vs not. Even if the item is only used once in a lifetime, if that item literally is a life saving device, then the price is worth it. Now that's not to say that a cheaper alternative that would also work but maybe not as well shouldn't be considered instead - of course this is highly dependent on the individual situation. But from my experience, no matter how often something is used, the more important factor is how important that item is. A tourniquet for example. If my buddy's leg gets blown off, that thing had better freaking work - no excuses. Now a recovery device may not be as important, but then again, each person should consider their individual operating conditions. If a traction device prevents a situation from becoming deadly, then it should be seriously considered to be of very high quality and operation. But that's also not to say that other things, such as an appropriate winch and recovery gear, should not be considered more or less effective/important. But naturally ever situation and operating condition is different and highly varied. I'm just saying that I think there are more important things to consider other than the cost vs. amount of use comparison.