3 hikers die from fall after crossing warning barrier in Yosemite

[Maddy]

Unfortunately this isn't the first and it won't be the last.
Some people really do believe from the bottom of their hearts that "rules are made to be broken".
They scale tall fences and enter the cages of wild beasts, they get caught it avalanches after reading signs that warn them "high avalanche danger... yet the pull to ski the danger is calling their names. How many have died or been hauled out of the Ottaquechee gorge in little VT? Why not a giant waterfall or a not so giant waterfall??? Fireworks blow off how many appendages each year at the family barbecue? Ultimately I don't think we can protect people from themselves. Some do indeed push the envelope to extremes and welcome the risk to their lives to do so. Just one more adrenalin rush PLEEZE!

As long as man walks the earth these things will happen regardless of how many "warnings" are
erected. Someone on the boards wrapped it up in nutshell..."if they live it's experience, if they die it's a tragedy." Of course there are all the ones in between, the quadriplegics, the devastating brain injuries, etc.

Short of posting the national guard yielding sub-machine guns at every "dangerous area" in the national parks, and other "high risk places" that people frequent, IMHO there is precious little or nothing that can be done to stop these people from courting death. They will find a way around it, through it, or into it, and we all know the "rest of the story".

 

[bikehikeskifish]

At the same time, think about all the things we would never have done if we hadn't any envelope-pushers... I won't elaborate further but everyone can surely come up with a handful of things somebody once was called "crazy" for.

Tim

 

[Maddy]

At the same time, think about all the things we would never have done if we hadn't any envelope-pushers... I won't elaborate further but everyone can surely come up with a handful of things somebody once was called "crazy" for.

Tim

You are 100% right. There will always be the T seeking personalities who survive to entertain us all.
A great example are all the rad films that go on world tour with Banff each year.

 

[Raven]

Ultimately I don't think we can protect people from themselves. Some do indeed push the envelope to extremes and welcome the risk to their lives to do so.

This is absolutely true and if they (we? you? me?) are not putting anyone but themselves in danger by their own choices I don't think it is anyone else's business to tell them not to.

It's another sad story of competent people who made a choice that cost them their lives. That's sad but it's their (our) choice. It's no one else's right to choose for them, you, or me.

Everyone knows what the fence means. Stay on your side. Choosing to ignore that is their right, regardless of rules. We live in a world of free will. There are consequences for all of the choices we make. Society attempting to erode that free will is every bit as big a tragedy as these truly sad deaths. That's not to say an extra sign or warning here and there is not a bad idea. However, at the point of controlling people's choices when they affect no one but themselves (and obviously those close to them), crosses the line IMO.

BTW, A recently engaged woman fell into the Niagara River not far from the falls this summer when posing for a picture. She had crossed the fence to stand on a rock next to one of the most obviously powerful sections of river in the world and fell in. She was very fortunate to have been rescued by a tourist boat driver who put himself and others at risk by heading toward the falls to save her. At least two people made risky decisions in this case that could have resulted in death(s).

If all risk is removed by putting nature behind glass, I'm no longer interested.

Respectfully,

 

[JacobH]

I think Ed Viesturs is a great example of someone who takes a calculated and methodical approach to what some would call "crazy" things, with safety as goal #1. It's possible to do "crazy" things, with a bit of self-discipline, and not get yourself killed.

Then again, going with the Himalaya/Veisturs theme, people who are guided to the top of Everest often don't have any mountaineering skills. The difference being, of course, that they pay someone to make those safety decisions for them. Even then, nothing is guaranteed. Guides have made bad calls too. I'm sure most people know the Everest '96 story... and the IMAX expedition that followed the next week (case in point).

 

[DougPaul]

I think Ed Viesturs is a great example of someone who takes a calculated and methodical approach to what some would call "crazy" things, with safety as goal #1. It's possible to do "crazy" things, with a bit of self-discipline, and not get yourself killed.

Viesturs is still engaging in a very dangerous game. Many (most?) die before they reach 14 (8km peaks). To survive it one has to be much more than careful--one has to be very lucky too...

A weakness in this analogy is that Viesturs is a top-tier expert taking calculated risks. The three deaths that are the topic of this thread are the result of presumably non-mountaineers taking what would be regarded foolish risks by skilled mountaineers.

There is also the element of ex post facto logic (Monday morning quarterbacking if you prefer...) going on here--those who take big risks and survive are lauded as heroes, those who take big risks and die are denigrated as fools. The determining difference between the two outcomes is often only luck...

Doug

 

[JohnL]

Really? I’m not sure I know anyone who would consider either one of the three people who died as heroic (or even brave) if they somehow managed to survive, either prior to or after going over the falls. They would be considered damned lucky and foolish as opposed to dead and foolish. (I hesitate in calling them fools because one foolish act does not make one a fool. There are some people who create a lifestyle out of foolish acts but I can’t say these folks did that.)

Getting back to the safety point, I don’t think anyone here is saying that they are not for safety. The analogies of rangers at the Grand Canyon checking for food and water or the ski patrol in the NH ravines have more in mind than safety. I am sure they have added these as preventive measures to also minimize the exposure on their limited rescue resources. One can only imagine how many people were ‘rescued’ on the Bright Angel Trail before these measures were put into place because they only carried a 16 oz bottle of Coke. I don’t think the ranger’s actions were altogether altruistic though safety is a big factor.

C’mon, we’re all for safety but to be realistic, as hard as you try, you aren’t going to save everyone. These three people deliberately ignored the warning signs, ignored the fences, ignored the bystanders yelling at them to return as well as members of their own group who were yelling at them. They knowingly put themselves in a situation that they absolutely knew was dangerous and lethal. Eyewitnesses said the people had looks of horror on their faces as they went toward the brink. They knew. They knew. But they did it anyway. How are you gonna stop that? You won’t. But…but if you do completely stop the deaths and injuries, you’ve also eliminated the experience. Game over.

JohnL

 

[Craig]

C’mon, we’re all for safety but to be realistic, as hard as you try, you aren’t going to save everyone.
JohnL

Holy crap, is that a chink in the armor of the false dilemma that’s permeated this discussion. lol

 

[JohnL]

....a chink in the armor of the false dilemma.....

Does this have a meaning?

JohnL

 

[Craig]

Does this have a meaning?
JohnL

I definitely could have been clearer, but I wanted to express myself in a funner way.

Holy crap, is that a chink in the armor (crack in the thinking) of the false dilemma (black or white thinking) that’s permeated (spread throughout) this discussion.

Capisce?

It's been my impression of the opposition's posts, with the exception of a handful of folks, the theme has been the same. It's either this or that (black or white). Additionally the message has been the same, again with the exception of a handful. Folks do dumb things and you aren't going to change that.

i.e. Do nothing or build a barb wired fence. Do nothing or have gondola rides. Folks do dumb things that can't be stopped so do nothing. Whatever is done will effect me so do nothing. I don't have enough information about the subject so do nothing. A few deaths are inevitable so do nothing etc, etc.

My hope has been that something new would brought to the table, but this theme continues.
I saw these couple of words in your post as, perhaps, the first sign that the black and white thinking might be softening up.

C’mon, we’re all for safety but to be realistic, as hard as you try, you aren’t going to save everyone.

In my post #54 I asked, “Perhaps we can compromise? Perhaps a more balanced approach?”
No one has attempted to answer that question yet.

Can we compromise? Can we have a balance approached (try to address everyones concerns) to trying to eliminate some of these deaths? Or is this issue still black or white? Do nothing or create something thats going to be a blight on the landscape.

Do we have anything new to bring to the table or is it still “this or that”?

I'll apologize in advance if I don't response for awhile but I'm going to bang some 14ers. It's likely I'll be exposing myself to dangerous conditions without any barb wired fences. Don't know when I'll be back in civilization.

 

[JohnL]

Have fun. Be safe. We'll talk (virtually) when you return.

JohnL

 

[Raven]

Do we have anything new to bring to the table or is it still “this or that”?

Perhaps not new, but maybe from a different angle.

IMO the problem is not fence or no fence, sign or no sign. Ultimately, it's bad decision making, whether the first to climb over the fence or one of the others who follow. Bad decision making is mitigated by good parenting and good education among other things (e.g experience).

I would suggest that a good idea may be to start with some improvements to those two concepts. Also, the knowldge and experience will be universally applicable, not only to saving one's arse at the local waterfall.

Have a blast on the 14ers. Make good decisons, and thank whoever gave you the gift to do so.

Edit: Just to be clear, this is in no way condemning parents or teachers (formal or otherwise, related to this tragedy or not)...only suggesting I see this as a way to fewer needless, avoidable deaths.

 

[Bob]

this thread is getting silly

 

[sierra]

I definitely could have been clearer, but I wanted to express myself in a funner way.



Capisce?

It's been my impression of the opposition's posts, with the exception of a handful of folks, the theme has been the same. It's either this or that (black or white). Additionally the message has been the same, again with the exception of a handful. Folks do dumb things and you aren't going to change that.

i.e. Do nothing or build a barb wired fence. Do nothing or have gondola rides. Folks do dumb things that can't be stopped so do nothing. Whatever is done will effect me so do nothing. I don't have enough information about the subject so do nothing. A few deaths are inevitable so do nothing etc, etc.

My hope has been that something new would brought to the table, but this theme continues.
I saw these couple of words in your post as, perhaps, the first sign that the black and white thinking might be softening up.


In my post #54 I asked, “Perhaps we can compromise? Perhaps a more balanced approach?”
No one has attempted to answer that question yet.

Can we compromise? Can we have a balance approached (try to address everyones concerns) to trying to eliminate some of these deaths? Or is this issue still black or white? Do nothing or create something thats going to be a blight on the landscape.

Do we have anything new to bring to the table or is it still “this or that”?

I'll apologize in advance if I don't response for awhile but I'm going to bang some 14ers. It's likely I'll be exposing myself to dangerous conditions without any barb wired fences. Don't know when I'll be back in civilization.

Just curious what 14ers on are your list to do?

 

[Bombadil]

another Yosemite death...

Not pertinent to the 3 that died in the falls but I came across this article today. Another death at Yosemite...
http://news.yahoo.com/teen-dies-fall-yosemite-hiking-trail-030428638.html

 

[Maddy]

Not pertinent to the 3 that died in the falls but I came across this article today. Another death at Yosemite...
http://news.yahoo.com/teen-dies-fall-yosemite-hiking-trail-030428638.html

One more sad and tragic accident.

Read the comments. It appears quite a few folks feel that recommending people use "caution and common sense" in the park would not be highly effective in preventing these tragedies. I especially like the one that read "Have you seen any of that lately?"

It appears the people in charge have a plan. Educating tourists and not placing any more warning signs because they want to keep the park wild. Personally, I think it's a good one.

i think I might add one more thing. A very LARGE fine if you have to be plucked out and endanger other people's lives.

 

[Raven]

It appears the people in charge have a plan. Educating tourists and not placing any more warning signs because they want to keep the park wild. Personally, I think it's a good one.

That sounds like a good start. I'm open-minded to most solutions as long as they're based primarily on personal responsibility.

Bob, how is the thread getting silly? Just curious as to what you are referring?

 

[DougPaul]

i think I might add one more thing. A very LARGE fine if you have to be plucked out and endanger other people's lives.

This has been (and should be) discussed elsewhere...

Fines/fees for rescue discourage people from calling for help when they need it. This results in more deaths and more serious rescues later.

Doug

 

[DougPaul]

Personally, I don't see cause for such a fuss...

The park administration has already placed warnings and fences at the most popular dangerous spots (eg just above Vernal Falls). People who choose to ignore the warnings and cross the fences do so at their own risk.

The warnings and fences are not free--they decrease the naturalness of the Park.

FWIW, I have been there (hiked the Mist Trail up to Vernal Falls and past to Nevada Falls).

For those who haven't been there, there are trip descriptions with pics at http://yosemitefun.com/yosemite_vernal_falls_trail.htm and http://www.yosemitehikes.com/yosemite-valley/mist-trail/mist-trail.htm The first link has a pic that shows the guardrail at the viewing point just above the falls. The victims probably crossed the fence to the right out of the pic.

Map: http://mapper.acme.com/?ll=37.72694,-119.54224&z=15&t=T

Video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fQpHGO9CQf0 This video shows the (fenced) viewing platform above the falls (a large flat rock), the power of the river, and the (wet) approach trail.

Doug

 

[Maddy]

This has been (and should be) discussed elsewhere...

Fines/fees for rescue discourage people from calling for help when they need it. This results in more deaths and more serious rescues later.

Doug

Only offering a suggestion. Someone had requested ideas on how this problem might be resolved. I agree we shouldn't enter into yet another debate about fees for rescues. It always ends in a complete debacle!

The pics are absolutely wonderful. Fantastic place.