Another Lost hiker rescue on Washington

[dug]

Right, every other time an inexperienced hiker has hooked up with someone in the mountains, then left on their own while the more experienced hiker waited several hours to get help (with our without a suggestion to do so), we acted differently.

Oh, wait....

 

[Mike P.]

I'm truly at a loss as to how to understand most of the comments here. I mean, we've read almost exactly the same story in UL about a hundred times in the last couple of years, and each time the vast majority of the comments on this board are something like, "Wow I can't believe that person just didn't think before going on that hike, how could anyone go out on that kind of trip without some semblance of preparation?" In this case, an inexperienced, ill-prepared, generally ignorant newb Naudakumar (aka Pokey) heads out on an ambitious day hike - no map, no compass, no extra clothes, no headlamp. He gets himself lost in rapid fashion, and ultimately needs to be rescued. The only difference between this and the hundred other cases is that Naudakumar asked someone for a ride to the mountains. Yet almost no comments (with a couple of notable exceptions) in the entire 4 pages even begin to suggest that Naudakumar may share some of the blame here. Am I to believe that by asking for a ride to the mountains, I'm absolved of any responsibility for my own well-being? That if I then require rescue as a result of my own ignorance and stupidity, it's someone else's fault? The moral of the story, at least to me, is don't ever give anyone a ride to the mountains. Or maybe I need to keep wavers in my car. Jeez.

What we don't know is what Pokey's experience was. (he's got some now) We don't know Kochman's either but assuming the comments from the UL are his, he sounds like he has some & he had more than Pokey.

Does pokey have some responsibility? You bet, but you often don't know you've bitten off more than you can chew until you've bitten it & it's in your mouth..... As members of the choir here, it's easy to know that newbies can get experience going on AMC Chapter Hikes. If you grew up in an outdoors family, you learned things. If your an MIT student (you're book smart) maybe from another country you don't know any of that. Do we know Kochman's age? At 50 I'm assuming college age folks are in better shape than I am, or at elast tolerant of more trail (or jogging) punishment. In my 20's I knew that there was still a wide variance of being "in shape"

We don't know if they agreed, they were only sharing a ride. A few years ago, I picked up another member here for a Wildcat winter trip & we passed our Moderator. Very little contact before or after the hike, he hiked faster than me but I don't think we would have left each other. (Pokey - me had the keys) We stayed together up to the first jct. At the jct of 19 mile & WRT, he went to the hut as he knew the caretaker. I went up WCT trail & waited for him at A peak. We stayed pretty close the rest of the way. The difference was we both knew the terrain. I don't get the feeling there was much discussion between these two about their experience & knowledge of terrain. The experienced guy knowing there was a difference should have driven that conversation unless he wasn't that experienced, he just less of a newbie. A novice looks experienced to someone who never has hiked.

My wife & I led a middle school group to Greenleaf many years ago. (Our Moderator was on that trip too ) just before our trip we had a cancelation or two, Dave filled one spot & a boy who had camped & backpacked with the Boy Scouts filled another. About 1/2 way up, the boy took out his knife & cut his jean legs off. (warm for mid-may but not crazy warm) he was really struggling. I had made the assumption he could handle this. While being the sweep & talking more to him, their troop went only a mile or two over flat ground, would set up camp & then use that as base for day trips with nothing as tough as a trip up Lafayette.

My first Mansfield trip I played both the newbie & driver. I went solo, only a Rand McNally as a guide. I had to stop at a couple of VFD's along the way for directions. Finally got to Underhill & srudied the map at the park office, I had no trail map. Couldn't read a topo. Not until I got back & figured out the Nose wasn't the highest point. Couldn't see that above treeline as it was socked in & raining on a cold rainy June day. My old raquetball shoes were soaked. Don't remember if I had a flashlight or not, I was very paranoid about turnaround times then, probably no light. I was probably one mistake away from needing a rescue or a slip & fall. (but no one would have known I was missing until....?) No one else was responsible but no one else drove me to this location.

Many newbies learn on their own & we all were newbies once, in many cases we learned from experienced others. (I couldn't read a map but years of hunting with no map & finding my way back to the car helped navigate in the woods, thanks to Dad)

 

[griffin]

Yet almost no comments (with a couple of notable exceptions) in the entire 4 pages even begin to suggest that Naudakumar may share some of the blame here.

Are we reading the same thread? Because I don't see people letting Naudakumar off the hook. Debating/discussing whether or not Kochman had any responsibility here is not the same as suggesting that Naukakumar had none. It doesn't have to be either/or.

 

[hikerbrian]

Are we reading the same thread? Because I don't see people letting Naudakumar off the hook. Debating/discussing whether or not Kochman had any responsibility here is not the same as suggesting that Naukakumar had none. It doesn't have to be either/or.

Maybe we're not reading the same thread, because I find two posts, maybe three if we're going to be liberal, that are critical of Naudakumar; and they're very general posts, not directly related to the decisions he made that ultimately precipitated his rescue. On the other hand, I see a couple of dozen posts that say Kochman is a terrible human being and should be strung up by his eyelids. This balance of posts suggest to me that those participating in this conversation feel that Kochman bears a large part of the responsibility, while Naudakumar is a poor hapless newbie whose only mistake was to trust the big mean Mr. Speedy. My opinion is quite different: I would put responsibility somewhere around 99.9% on Naudakumar.

What three items would have prevented a rescue? A map, a compass, and the ability to use them affectively. That is where the focus should be. My opinion, obviously.

 

[Maddy]

Maybe we're not reading the same thread, because I find two posts, maybe three if we're going to be liberal, that are critical of Naudakumar; and they're very general posts, not directly related to the decisions he made that ultimately precipitated his rescue. On the other hand, I see a couple of dozen posts that say Kochman is a terrible human being and should be strung up by his eyelids. This balance of posts suggest to me that those participating in this conversation feel that Kochman bears a large part of the responsibility, while Naudakumar is a poor hapless newbie whose only mistake was to trust the big mean Mr. Speedy. My opinion is quite different: I would put responsibility somewhere around 99.9% on Naudakumar.

What three items would have prevented a rescue? A map, a compass, and the ability to use them effectively. That is where the focus should be. My opinion, obviously.

I think both Speedy and Pokey made serious errors because they were both pretty clueless. I think Speedy really believed that Pokey would be just fine so he pursued his peak. Pokey, being a newbie, was not aware of what he did not know with regards to hiking.
Map and compass? Why would I need that? Isn't there a path that I just follow?
Why would I need a flashlight? The sun doesn't set for hours yet.
Extra clothes? It's warm out.
Food? I just had bkfst. I have a Snickers.

I have met hikers just like Pokey. They had no idea there was a network of trails, much less that certain ones took you off in different directions. They certainly carried no map. After stumbling upon them, and seeing their distress, I did accompany them back to their vehicles. When I started hiking I didn't know you could get a trail map, and I certainly never in my wildest dreams thought I might need a compass. To be honest it wasn't until other hikers shared with me that I started to put it all together.

Maybe Speedy had more hiking experience but he certainly never ran into anything like this before. I still don't know how he was doing 5-10" checks unless they were above treeline where you could get a visual.

I think another thing to consider is the fact that they were both youngish and probably feeling quite "invincible". That is a syndrome many young folks, if not all, experience to varying degrees. And it certainly can get you into a big heap of trouble.

IMHO they are both responsible. This certainly could have been avoided. I think Sabrina is right. If there is a fine, they should share it!
I think the bottom line is we are responsible even if we did not appreciate that we were doing everything wrong at the time. Live and learn!

 

[Dana]

Until we know exactly what was agreed between the two, it's impossible to say who is to blame. The explanation attributed to Speedy doesn't say. They well may have agreed, "If we become separated we'll meet back at the car." Certainly an experienced hiker wouldn't want to abandon his summit attempt to nursemaid a newbie who was only sharing a ride and might well choose to divert into a less demanding hike. OTOH, waiting to check on Pokey periodically (at least until 0930) implies some degree of responsibility, whether intended, implied, or assumed.

 

[wisher]

All else aside, I don't understand why Kochman didn't explain how to hike safely, for example making sure Naudakumar had at least the minimum to support an unplanned night in the woods. It seems irresponsible to agree to give a novice a ride up, hike with them (at least for a bit), and not at least make sure they had at least a modicum of preparation. I'll reserve judgement on the rest since I wasn't there, but there are at least three versions of this story - Naudakumar's, Kochman's, and what really happened.

 

[Tim Seaver]

Yuval Responds

Yuval has added some more information in a comment on the same UL article:

Yuval Kochman said:

I now realize that there's a pretty heated discussion going on in VFTT. As I cannot post there but I saw that members are reading the comments here, I will post a few more clarifications. I am aware that I have made mistakes, but leaving someone behind because he's too slow is not something that I did or would do. F&G removed this accusation from the story in their site, after I turned their attention. In any case, here are some points. Before the hike: I told Vinoth what were my travel plans, including mileage, elevation gain etc. My big mistake was, that I didn't realize that to a beginner these number wouldn't mean anything. I did suggest to him that instead of joining me he could go on an easier hike in the area by himself and we'd meet in the evening; he preferred to attempt the hike with me. We agreed in advance that if he is not up to it, then at an early stage he will turn back and go to the car. In my mind, that stage would have been Glenn Boulder or even the rocky outcrop before that, which is the first place on the trail where you get a view that makes the way up worthwhile - that's about 1.5 miles from the road. However, he disappeared even before that. On the trail: I stopped every 5-10 minutes, waited for him to get to where I was, chatted a bit, then set off again. After the fact I know, that when he went off into the ski trail, I was just a 100 yard up the main trail. Of course I should have stopped at that intersection, it's just that the tiny ski trail never hit me as a trail junction. When I realized what had probably happened, I ran into the direction of the ski trail that made more sense to me, calling his name to no avail. Then I thought the following: what are my chances of finding him in the woods, not knowing in which direction he might have gone? Very low. What are the chances that he finds back the trail or the road? Very high. We're talking about a clear day, perfect weather, road is 1 mile from there in the obvious downhill direction, you can actually hear the traffic from that point. Bushwhacking to the road in a very slow pace would take no more than 3 hours, while there's still 11 hours of light remaining. No cliffs around the trail where he could have fallen off. I considered it a very low-risk situation, and the fact that it turned out into a problem does not mean otherwise. Low-probability events do happen sometimes. I also thought that anyone I report this to would think the same. Maybe I was wrong. Anyway I kept hiking, almost running, making no stops, in order to be back in the car well before dark. Interaction with AMC people: The people at the information desk were not random people selling souvenirs. They were knowledgeable about the surrounding trails, and made good guesses as to where he might come out to the road. They were also under the impression that it was their responsibility. They kept suggesting to do things before "taking it to the next step". It was not until 8:30-9 PM that they suggested that I call F&G. There definitely could be problem here of a gap between what is expected of them, and the way they perceive it. Driving back to Boston: That was only after speaking to the F&G officer who said that there is nothing to do at the moment and Vinoth would have to spend the night in the woods. Of course I did not feel comfortable with going back, but it was not my car and I had no option to keep it. My plan was to get a few hours of sleep, then look for contacts of his, as well as talk to friends of mine and organize people to go up there and help F&G with the search. That would have been more efficient than acting by myself. My main lesson: I will never again associate my hike with someone that I do not know, unless I do it for educational purposes.
(Report Abuse)
June 14, 2012 9:47 pm

 

[Red Oak]

Well there you have it,Mr. Kochman says he might be wrong!It might well be the a.m.c.'s fault and he had to get the car back.Pokey had to spend the night out,so might as well get the borrowed car back.....I am on the fence on this one. Hikerbrian is correct in the most absolute sense of self preservation but still not sure about Mr. Kochman's actions...... subjective comment;I get a kick out of mr. Kochmans scientific method way of explaining his logic.Glad I went Florida state where we learned our navigation techniques by learning how to get to Mike's beer barn!Not a mit dig,my uncle used to teach there[physics]I keep telling my daughter that book smarts needs to be complimented with street smarts,case and point here.....peace

 

[bikehikeskifish]

If Yuval Kochman wants to post here, please send me an e-mail via the "Contact Us" link below. I can make you an account, or I can post your e-mail on your behalf.

This may be the first time we have actually gone from speculation on a press release to an actual first-hand account.

Tim

 

[Maddy]

I would love to here from Vinoth to. I hope he is not totally mortified and has given up hiking because he got off to a rough start.
What a terrible way to start off, getting lost and needing a rescue.

I like the banter that goes back and forth with some of our topics. It's a learning tool for me even at my "tender" age.
I think we offer our interpretations based on our own experience and the facts that are presented. If new info surfaces, then we can modify or change our positions. IMHO it's not about "judging" or some base desire to condemn someone, but rather to learn what could have been done differently. In this case we can perhaps rethink how we interact with newbies and perhaps help to make their hiking experience a more positive one. How boring would it be if we were all the same. I can't imagine VFTT being reduced to gear and trail conditions only chatter. I think most of us try to keep an open mind and hope more info surfaces.

I to am still on the fence with this one and like Red Oak's observations and analysis of this situation. I also agree that
" Hikerbrian is correct in the most absolute sense of self preservation".

If nothing else, this is why I now have a PLB. These lost hiker stories scare me even more in my "golden years".

Red Oak

Well there you have it,Mr. Kochman says he might be wrong!It might well be the a.m.c.'s fault and he had to get the car back.Pokey had to spend the night out,so might as well get the borrowed car back.....I am on the fence on this one. Hikerbrian is correct in the most absolute sense of self preservation but still not sure about Mr. Kochman's actions...... subjective comment;I get a kick out of mr. Kochmans scientific method way of explaining his logic.Glad I went Florida state where we learned our navigation techniques by learning how to get to Mike's beer barn!Not a mit dig,my uncle used to teach there[physics]I keep telling my daughter that book smarts needs to be complimented with street smarts,case and point here.....peace

 

[TDawg]

I'm still just kinda baffled that Vinoth was a mile or so from the road, uninjured, and couldn't get out on his own in 11 hours. It was bike week and surely there were loud bikes within earshot. Smart enough to attend MIT, but can't punch his way out of a wet paper bag?

Wonder what he was doing all that time? There better have been a long nap involved.

Anyhoooooo, glad everyone's alright and hopefully learned something.

 

[griffin]

Maybe we're not reading the same thread, because I find two posts, maybe three if we're going to be liberal, that are critical of Naudakumar; and they're very general posts, not directly related to the decisions he made that ultimately precipitated his rescue. On the other hand, I see a couple of dozen posts that say Kochman...

Right, but as i said, that doesn't mean people are letting Naudakumar off the hook and I'm not seeing anyone suggesting that he's above criticism - that just means we're gobsmacked at Kochman's reported actions. We do read about unprepared hikers all the time, People driving someone up and then leaving them there (again, as initially reported)? That's a whole new conversation.

I wonder if Naudakumar tried staying where he was once he was lost, thinking it would make him easier to find? The time frame strikes me as curious as well. (and by "curious" I mean "way more interesting to ponder than the prospect reporting I have to do")

 

[Chip]

It was bike week and surely there were loud bikes within earshot.

OHMYGAWD ! Someone found a way to blame bike week !

 

[funkyfreddy]

Well, there's a flip side: some casual aquaintance whom you've met through a friend of a friend at a party hears you're going to the Whites this weekend and asks for a ride, he'll share gas. Ok, you think, I'd planned on going solo, but if this dude wants to chip in for gas, fine. Turns out the dude's not too good with the outdoorsy thing, is it your responsibility to abandon your trip in order to babysit the newb? Depends on a LOT of factors.

I remember the discussion you're referring to, Maddy, and I'm sure we could have that heated discussion all over again here... I'll leave it with the ironic and fitting, "All blanket statements are flawed."

LOL.... I had EXACTLY this experience..... to say that the "dude" wasn't comfortable with the "outdoorsy" thing would be putting it mildly.....

I took this acquaintance to Harriman St. park after they badgered me into taking them hiking. We got on the AT and about a half mile into the hike they ask "Is it uphill the whole way?" I hadn't been out of NYC for a month and wanted to get some hills and some miles in but got stuck w this person in a thunderstorm because they were so slow..... was kind of funny...... the guy told me that Harriman should post warning signs at the trail head about flies

One more note...... going camping with someone for the first time can bring it's own risks as well...... I could tell you stories about babes in the woods but I don't have time to type all afternoon

 

[skiguy]

Well, there's a flip side: some casual aquaintance whom you've met through a friend of a friend at a party hears you're going to the Whites this weekend and asks for a ride, he'll share gas. Ok, you think, I'd planned on going solo, but if this dude wants to chip in for gas, fine. Turns out the dude's not too good with the outdoorsy thing, is it your responsibility to abandon your trip in order to babysit the newb? Depends on a LOT of factors.

I remember the discussion you're referring to, Maddy, and I'm sure we could have that heated discussion all over again here... I'll leave it with the ironic and fitting, "All blanket statements are flawed."

IMO it only depends on one factor. How important is the hike for you. Plans can be adjusted. The mountains will be there alot longer than any of us here will be. Enjoying some time with another individual whom I agreed to lead far outweighs a change in plans. If I have to come back some other day to complete the intended hike then so be it or just say no and hike solo like the original plan. No flipside for me.