3 hikers die from fall after crossing warning barrier in Yosemite

[king tut]

It seems to me like a lot of people commenting on this may have never actually visited the falls. When you hike this trail, you most likely have climbed the Mist Trail that goes directly under the falls and climbs up next to the falls. These are not small falls, this is a big, impressive waterfall. You notice how powerful and deadly it can be long before you climb above it and get to the river portion of it. You do not need signs or warnings, I think most cultures understand the theory of gravity and what would happen if you went over the falls.

I do feel terribly about the person dying on Half Dome. That last section is one scary climb and descent.

A lot of these arguments just sound ridiculous to me. I equate them to somebody stepping in front of an 18 wheeler and getting squished. Are there signs telling you of the dangers of stepping in front of an 18 wheeler on the highway? No. You should inherently know that it will kill you.

 

[hikerbrian]

Yosemite Park is a lot like many other parks in the US.

When you create, promote & profit from a theme park, that is visited by families from every cultural background in the world, don't you have a responsibility to do everything possible to ensure the safety of your visitors?

No. No you don't. Yosemite is not a theme park. I respectfully disagree with that assertion on every level.

Taking your argument to its logical conclusion, there are only two options for Yosemite: either close it down as a national park, or erect giant fences and place all visitors in seat-belted conveyors that wind through the attractions (exactly like the "theme parks" you mentioned). That is what doing "everything possible to ensure the safety of your visitors" would entail, and I think it would be a travesty.

And while Yosemite certainly does have its share of expensive accomodations, you left off of the list Camp 4 ($5/night), the 12 other campgrounds within the park (<$20/night), and a nearly limitless number of free camping options less than 5 miles outside the park off of the forest roads. I can assure you that these options do get used - by the "few climbers and backpackers" that you dismiss.

I'm as sensitive as the next guy to tragedies such as these three deaths, perhaps moreso than most - I lost a friend who fell while free-soloing in Yosemite a couple of years ago. I sympathize greatly with those who are mourning. But to think that further sanitizing the park is either a reasonable course of action or that it will solve the problem is falacy.

 

[--M.]

It seems to me like a lot of people commenting on this may have never actually visited the falls. When you hike this trail, you most likely have climbed the Mist Trail that goes directly under the falls and climbs up next to the falls. These are not small falls, this is a big, impressive waterfall. You notice how powerful and deadly it can be long before you climb above it and get to the river portion of it.

...

*Snap* for this, it's true, and, depending on the season, you get a pretty good shower much of the way up.

However, the trail keeps with the riverside far beyond (above) the falls, and it is easy to bypass the barriers and warnings all along the line. The same is true in an even greater extreme with the cables themselves.

None of this happens in a vacuum: there's group-think involved at every decision point. It did not escape me the first time through, untethered, that an 800-foot no-fall zone is asking for trouble in an untrained 'hiker.' I went again the next year with a leash and quadrupled my pleasure by not being continuously aware of my possibly-impending death. Others, on the other hand, ran and danced up the cables as if they were nothing (while still others froze in fear and impacted everyone's safety).

There's a good discussion of what should be expected in these situations in Howe's "Not Without Peril." There's a court case involving (iirc) a young lady who went over the lip into Tuckerman's. If one came upon a huge waterfall alone and off-trail, none of these issues would present themselves. It's only once we add the thousands of people that things become less clear.

A theme park, however, it ain't; and I don't think anyone's actually asking for that!

 

[Craig]

Can we agree?

Can we agree there's room for improvement in the visitor death rate?

A 2007 study indicates there were 112 deaths in Yose over a 10 year span ending in 1999. Thats an average of 11 deaths per year.

The average yearly death rate is now at 12-15.

While most companies, over the past 15 years, have become increasingly more safety conscience implementing policies and procedures to mitigate hazards, Yosemite's death rate has been rising.

Most industrial hygienist, believe that all accidental injuries and deaths are avoidable. The goal of most companies is 0 recordable injuries a year. A yearly death rate of 12-15 would be inconceivable in a work setting or any family friendly venue anywhere in the US. I'm pretty sure the folks that work at Yosemite are not exposed to hazards that could likely result in injury or death.

Weekly we read, on these forums, “what were they thinking” stories. Stories of folks putting themselves and others at risk in ME, NH, VT and NY because they just don't know any better. Luckly, it appears, the vast majority of those folks go home no worst for the wear.
Now picture thousands of those folks crammed into a small valley with access to numerous natural hazards, most of those hazards within walking distance of their hotel rooms. All of them with signs and trails that invite the visitor to come play around me. Most folks are mesmerized by the "beauty on duty".
The shear number of visitors multiplied by the number of hazards is surely driving the number of deaths. With the rising rate of visitors at Yosemite, this trend is like to increase if more active preventive measures aren't implemented. Obviously the passive (signs, barricades) preventive measures have been unsuccessful.

Clearly the vast majority of visitors to Yosemite are tourist that are exposed to hazards without the requisite wilderness skills to appreciate the forces they are exposed to. I think those type of visitors are the norm and their percentages will increase over time. I think more needs to be done.

So, is there room for improvement in the visitor death rate
or
are we saying (as a hiking community) it's OK to sacrifice a few for the enjoyment of the many?

 

[DougPaul]

A 2007 study indicates there were 112 deaths in Yose over a 10 year span ending in 1999. Thats an average of 11 deaths per year.

The average yearly death rate is now at 12-15.

These numbers don't mean much without the corresponding numbers of visitors for each time span. And are the differences statistically significant?

So, is there room for improvement in the visitor death rate
or
are we saying (as a hiking community) it's OK to sacrifice a few for the enjoyment of the many?

I can't speak for anyone else, but IMO one cannot protect everyone from themselves. A serious attempt might involve fencing everywhere (including the rim of the canyon...) and restricting all activities (no hiking, no climbing, 10 mph speed limits, etc....). The hiking and climbing community would be up in arms.

They already put fences at popular viewpoints and warning signs. Perhaps they can be improved, but there will be costs (more than just monetary).

BTW, the rest of the world isn't completely safe either.

Doug

 

[JacobH]

http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/park-statistics.htm

Wilderness Use (number represents permits issued plus an estimate of users without permits)

Hikers:
53,139 in 2010;
52,610 in 2009;
45,907 in 2008;
43,401 in 2007;
40,804 in 2006 and
40,728 in 2005

Permits:
18,632 in 2010;
18,777 in 2009;
15,156 in 2008;
15,125 in 2007;
14,141 in 2006; and
14,222 in 2005

Overnight stays:
142,864 in 2010;
142,623 in 2009;
124,817 in 2008;
112,049 in 2007;
82,484 in 2006; and
81,870 in 2005

Looks like a pretty steady increase of hikers/"wilderness users" in the past 5 years that would match the ~25% increase in deaths, yes? Perhaps the # of deaths is even *low* based on the # of visitors?

 

[DougPaul]

http://www.nps.gov/yose/naturescience/park-statistics.htm

<table deleted>

Looks like a pretty steady increase of hikers/"wilderness users" in the past 5 years that would match the ~25% increase in deaths, yes? Perhaps the # of deaths is even *low* based on the # of visitors?

Your table gives estimates of the number of wilderness users. (Are all hikers considered to be wilderness users or only hikers in specific areas?) The numbers in Craig's post are total numbers of deaths for the entire park (eg including automotive accidents). I cannot determine the number of wilderness deaths from the article linked in Craig's post.

For the numbers to be meaningful, we have to compare apples to apples--no pears or oranges allowed. We also have to apply a statistical test to the numbers to see if the differences are meaningful.

Doug

 

[king tut]

A dozen deaths out of 4 million visitors to a rugged national park is not a high number. I am willing to wager that more than a dozen of those 4 million people died after visiting the park this year via car accidents, natural causes, etc... Deaths are likely up due to the river volumes being up. Using stats to validate your biased viewpoint can create erroneous conclusions. The world will always produce risk takers and glue sniffers, sometimes unlucky people die, and other times dumb people survive what should have killed them. Maybe you can save one idiot from killing himself by installing barriers around miles of rivers, but that same person might just die later after drinking a bottle of vodka and driving 90 miles an hour. You can only do so much to protect people from their own poor choices.

 

[Stan]

Can we agree there's room for improvement in the visitor death rate?
...

So, is there room for improvement in the visitor death rate
or
are we saying (as a hiking community) it's OK to sacrifice a few for the enjoyment of the many?

I expect that park management ponders park safety in anticipation of each season and each time policies, improvements, maintenance and budgets are formulated. That is pure speculation based upon the professionalism I have observed at the levels of management involved with these issues (I don't have the same confidence in the entry level staff but that is a whole 'nother discussion).

It wouldn't surprise me if more trails require a permit in the future, the permit consisting of a screening for preparation and a requirement to attend a brief indoctrination. This is a comparatively benign way to improve safety without diminishing the outdoor experience and is already a requirement for some backcountry permits.

Craig expresses sincere and humane concern for the safety of others which IMNSHO is highly commendable but, unfortunately, when implemented at the point of danger rather than at the point of building knowledge and character, creates a hermetically sealed environment enjoyed only by those who thrive in such a cocoon. As in so many aspects of life, the absence of risk has a corresponding absence of opportunity.

 

[JacobH]

A dozen deaths out of 4 million visitors to a rugged national park is not a high number. I am willing to wager that more than a dozen of those 4 million people died after visiting the park this year via car accidents, natural causes, etc... Deaths are likely up due to the river volumes being up. Using stats to validate your biased viewpoint can create erroneous conclusions. The world will always produce risk takers and glue sniffers, sometimes unlucky people die, and other times dumb people survive what should have killed them. Maybe you can save one idiot from killing himself by installing barriers around miles of rivers, but that same person might just die later after drinking a bottle of vodka and driving 90 miles an hour. You can only do so much to protect people from their own poor choices.

I agree with most of what you said, although I don't think anyone is trying to use stats to validate their viewpoint. I think we're just asking, is Yosemite dangerous? Which I think we can all agree on a simple "Yes, parts of it". Which then leads to the question "Can we make it safer". Again, I think we can all agree that the answer is "Yes"... but at what cost? To what extent do you take safety precautions? Rails the entire length of the trail? Higher fencing? Relocate/remove the trail? All of these things, including the current safety system in place, affect the tens of thousands of people that visit (and come out alive).

I'm a big fan of self-sufficiency. In my opinion, they knowingly crossed a railing that they knew was put there for their protection, and paid the highest price. They could have jumped a barrier on a highway and been playing in traffic. That doesn't necessarily mean we need higher Jersey barriers.

edit: And Stan also makes the good point about risk. I think the railings present remove the chance of a "accident" out of the equation and place the burden of "choice" solely on the person who jumps the barrier.

 

[JohnL]

It's not like these people died because of poorly built bridges or dangerously designed roads or slippery rocks at the scenic overlooks or blind crosswalks on steep downhill curves or gift shop bookshelves falling on top of them. Some of them have died because of a poor judgement that some luckier people could have walked away from and learned a lesson. Those lucky ones became 'experienced' while the unlucky ones became a statistic. There is a term for the way they died; it's called death by misadventure.

And I'm not sure how you would 'improve' the death rate? Do you know the causes of all of those deaths? Maybe half of them died from lightning strikes? Or heart attacks? Or some drunk backed up his camper over someone else's tent? Without root cause you can't fix anything.

The more inexperienced people you have making bad judgements the higher your chances that those people will suffer dire consequences. It doesn't matter whether they are city slickers or suburban dweebs wandering around in the natural parks or country rubes invading the streets of Manhatten or Rome. People are gonna die because they did something stupid or they didn't heed warnings or went somewhere they weren't supposed to go. Sometimes it's a matter of making a choice that just flat turns out bad. These things happen. You ain't gonna stop people from making bad choices no matter how high you build that fence. And if you build that fence big enough, you might eliminate the deaths because you won't have anybody coming to the park.

People are attracted to places like Yosemite and the Grand Canyon and Niagara Falls and walking over the Sydney bridge and the highest fastest curviest roller coaster and race tracks and scuba diving and white water rafting and parachuting because of the intoxicating proximity to danger. And like Icarus, some of them fly too close to the sun. It's a part of human nature and like the allure of proclivity, it won't be stopped. People will always find a way over, around or through your fence.

JohnL

 

[DougPaul]

A dozen deaths out of 4 million visitors to a rugged national park is not a high number. I am willing to wager that more than a dozen of those 4 million people died after visiting the park this year via car accidents, natural causes, etc... Deaths are likely up due to the river volumes being up. Using stats to validate your biased viewpoint can create erroneous conclusions. The world will always produce risk takers and glue sniffers, sometimes unlucky people die, and other times dumb people survive what should have killed them. Maybe you can save one idiot from killing himself by installing barriers around miles of rivers, but that same person might just die later after drinking a bottle of vodka and driving 90 miles an hour. You can only do so much to protect people from their own poor choices.

Read Craig's 2007 study link--much of the above is broken out. It is easy to tabulate victims and SAR missions, it is much harder to tabulate the number of people taking part in each class of activity and the number of unreported injuries. Without the missing data, it is impossible to estimate the risks of each activity.

The hiking accidents tend to cluster near the more popular trails in or near Yosemite Valley including Yosemite Falls Tr, Mist Tr, and Vernal Falls Tr... (In case you can't remember back that far, Vernal Falls is the site of the 3 deaths.)

Doug

 

[griffin]

So, is there room for improvement in the visitor death rate
or are we saying (as a hiking community) it's OK to sacrifice a few for the enjoyment of the many?

I'm not saying we shouldn't look at whether there are ways to improve visitor safety, but I think it's worth keeping in mind that no one is sacrificing anyone else for their own personal enhanced experience. It's not as if we have an "experienced hiker" contingent insisting on a more wild and dangerous environment at the expense of the unknowing Griswold families of the world.

The Griswolds aren't going to places like Yosemite thinking it's another Disneyland. They're going precisely because it ISN'T Disney. Because it IS more wild (for lack of a better word).

 

[Craig]

Perhaps we can compromise? A more balanced approach?

This is a tough crowd, but not unexpected given the audience the message was being delivered to. It's kind of like trying to sell ice to an Eskimo.

I'm sure folks view this issue through many difference colored lens.

Some probably see this as a statistical issue: “Give me the raw data, I'll crunch the numbers and tell you what you want to know”.
Others most likely see it as a moral issue: “What are we talking about here? One death is one death too many”.
Some may view it as a practical issue: “I'm confident in my knowledge & abilities to do whatever I want to do on public lands or anywhere else. If you don't, that's your problem not mine”.
I'm sure some folks see it as a philosophical issue: Why are humans always trying to manipulate nature for their pleasure. Nature, as it's name implies, should be left natural”. Or as John Muir wrote, “Brought into right relationships with the wilderness, man would see that his appropriation of Earth's resources beyond his personal needs would only bring imbalance and begat ultimate loss and poverty by all”
It's probably seen as a monetary issue by some: “I pay enough taxes now. What is it going to cost to fix the problem and is the cost commensurate with the value added”?
Or others see this issue as a combination of the above among others.

I’m glad everyone has had the opportunity to voice there opinions on a issue that transcends the Yosemite example.

I, do however, believe more can and should be done to protect the visitors at Yose.
Hiring interns during the heavy use summer months and positioning them at especially dangerous areas like, the top of Vernal falls, to educate on the dangers and the history of the area might be a viable option.

At the Grand Canyon they have adopted this strategy of greeting hikers at the beginning of the canyon trails to make sure their supplies (water, food, etc) are adequate for their itinerary.

Of course the NH ravines, in winter, have the forest service and ski patrol meet folks entering the ravines to educate on the ever changing conditions and dangers. Their avalanche website has probably saved countless injuries and deaths.

And the summit steward on Mt Marcy that educates folks about the fragile alpine zone while trying to herd the crowds onto durable surfaces.

Sorry, I don't have statistical data to validate my assumptions of positive outcomes to the previous three examples.

As Jimmy Carter said in his Nobel Lecture - "We must adjust to changing times and still hold to unchanging principles."

Good talk

 

[hikerbrian]

Craig,

The reason I, personally, find your argument disagreeable is that you're trying to model the wilderness as a business (comparing it to theme parks, etc.). I don't believe that is a tenable comparison. There are far too many differences, and over-simplifying the wilderness experience, in my opinion, will almost certainly lead to an overall less valuable experience for most people.

Just to scratch the surface: theme parks have one singular mission: make money. Of course there is a focus on safety, but that is ONLY for the purpose of protecting profits. You are kidding yourself if you think Disney has some other, altruistic motive. Because the purpose of the organization is clear cut, all components of that organization can be evaluated in terms of that singular mission.

In contrast, the "mission" of wilderness areas is far less obvious. Ask the park service and any 100 visitors to the Valley what the most important component of the wilderness experience is, and you are likely to get many, many different answers. As soon as you over-emphasize one component (safety, in this instance), many other components are likely to suffer. To be clear, I'm not suggesting that a zero value be placed on safety, I'm suggesting that safety is one component of a very large and complex, sometime undefinable, wilderness experience. For that reason, applying business principles and oversimplifying the experience is certain to lead to an overall devaluation of said experience. My opinion, of course.

Your suggestions, which boil down to placing educators in key areas, are not completely disagreeable, but I think execution would actually be quite challenging. For example, what exactly does the educator do at the top of Vernal Falls? Yell out periodically, "Hey, don't climb over the fence, it might kill you"? Sit next to a display that shows consequences and talk with anyone that approaches them? (Would the target audience ever actually approach the display? Does the existence of the display further remove an element of the pristine?) What if the educator sees someone climbing over the fence anyway, is it their job to try and stop them, or again yell out, "Hey, you might die!" I think this approach is actually not as simple and inocuous as it might appear.

 

[Billy]

I am so f'ing sick and tired of new rules and regulations because of stupid people, or smart people who make stupid decisions. Everyone knows what the damn fence is for. I'm not insensitive to their deaths, I'm sure they were nice people with families who loved them. But don't go changing things because a few people f up.

Other than that, I have no strong feelings on the matter.

 

[Craig]

The reason I, personally, find your argument disagreeable is that you're trying to model the wilderness as a business (comparing it to theme parks, etc.).

I didn't compare wilderness to theme parks I compared Yosemite Valley to Theme parks.
It's a matter of perspective. I see more parallels than differences.

Your suggestions, which boil down to placing educators in key areas, are not completely disagreeable, but I think execution would actually be quite challenging.

I’m sure this could be implemented in a variety of different ways based upon the demographics, message, desired results etc. It was just one suggestion. I’m sure there are others.

We could discuss, ad nauseum, the merits of the numerous details of the numerous issues that surround this subject but it seems most folks don’t see safety as an issue in this case, so I don't see the point.

 

[B the Hiker]

On the contrary, Craig, I suspect most folks do take safety seriously; it's simple the one's who don't who get into trouble.

Isn't this the point? The location had ample warnings and a barrier, and these kids simply ignored them.

Accidents will happen, but the point is that this was an avoidable accident--all they had to do was follow the warnings.

To this extent, we can ask whether some kind of learning ranger/volunteer might have helped. Sometimes certain folks simply need an extra voice to help prime them to think in a certain way--I know I certainly did when I was younger.

 

[dug]

Craig, I agree. There should be signs spelling out the warnings about the falls. And, they should put some type of barrier in front, so someone couldn't just walk in there without taking at least a second and think "why is this here, it must be more than to keep all the fish in?" That would go a long way.

Oh, wait...

 

[Craig]

On the contrary, Craig, I suspect most folks do take safety seriously; it's simple the one's who don't who get into trouble.

I didn't say folks don't take safety seriously. Perhaps I could have could have been clearer. See emphasis below.

We (the forum members) could discuss, ad nauseum, the merits of the numerous details of the numerous issues that surround this subject but it seems most folks (forum members) don’t see safety as an issue (problem to be solved) in this case (3 folks going over falls), so I don't see the point. (I don't see the point of discussing something that’s not a problem to most)

i.e. if there is no disease why discuss the merits of different causes and cures.

Hope that clears it up.