Thursday June 13th 2019 " A Rough day up on the Rock Pile"

[TEO]

A story... When my son was 10 we planned a trip to Crag with a buddy of mine. My buddy bailed last minute but my son and I pressed ahead as it's a very familiar trip for us. On the first night, I got hit with a tooth abscess, which was nearly incapacitating. We gingerly retreated down Hinks and Amphribrach and I barely made the long drive home in the worst pain of my life. I ended up in the ER later that night and had an emergency extraction the next day. I was very aware on the hike down how exposed my son was. With me incapacitated (or nearly so) he was more vulnerable. The small group size increased the impact of an injury.

On an aside to the main topic, this is a good reason to carry left-over, post-surgery pain meds in your first aid kit. Many years ago, I was on a hike and we had almost the exact same scenario, except that we were nine miles deep in the Adirondack wilderness. Someone had percocet in their first aid kit, and just one pill made the pain tolerable enough to for the person to hike out. They had an emergency extraction, too.

 

[skiguy]

On an aside to the main topic, this is a good reason to carry left-over, post-surgery pain meds in your first aid kit. Many years ago, I was on a hike and we had almost the exact same scenario, except that we were nine miles deep in the Adirondack wilderness. Someone had percocet in their first aid kit, and just one pill made the pain tolerable enough to for the person to hike out. They had an emergency extraction, too.

Good idea if you have already had surgery. I guess you could just go get a root canal for the heck of it. I have been on numerous expeditions for extended periods where a Dental exam has been part of pre trip preparation. Good idea to keep up on those xrays! The other potential scenario that can happened is something rogue with in your food source. Back in the early seventies before dry food had taken a real hold a friend of mine bite down on what turned out to be a piece of bone and lost a filling. We were at Guyout and it was early evening. It was a long night. Of course we were dining on one of the specialties of the day....Hormel Dinty Moore Stew!

 

[TEO]

We don't know what Mr. Clark was wearing, but he had on five layers. From the Union Leader article, "Although Clark said he was dressed in five layers and felt he was prepared, the cold was more extreme than he expected." I carry three extra layers, and feel that I'm well prepared for most conditions.

Showing his bias and ignorance, Major Dave Walsh said, “'I don’t know his physical shape, but he’s 80 years old.'” According to the Union Leader article linked above, "Clark said he enjoys 20-mile walks a few times a week . . ." and we know that they had hiked Marcy and Mansfield over the two previous days, though the elder Clark didn't summit Mansfield due to a fall where he bruised his tailbone.

What I have seen reported is what his five layers were, and what knowledge or warning they had about the weather above treeline. But based on the what has been reported, the notion that they were negligent in my view is laughable, and sadly indicates that we are no longer allowed to make mistakes or misjudgements when hiking. Only the flawless and infallible should apparently be allowed to hike.

 

[dug]

On an aside to the main topic, this is a good reason to carry left-over, post-surgery pain meds in your first aid kit. Many years ago, I was on a hike and we had almost the exact same scenario, except that we were nine miles deep in the Adirondack wilderness. Someone had percocet in their first aid kit, and just one pill made the pain tolerable enough to for the person to hike out. They had an emergency extraction, too.

Ran into a similar story and happened to have a few leftovers in my kit. They did make a big difference. Not that it was a carry-worthy injury, but still a painful one and the meds helped.

 

[peakbagger]

We don't know what Mr. Clark was wearing, but he had on five layers. From the Union Leader article, "Although Clark said he was dressed in five layers and felt he was prepared, the cold was more extreme than he expected." I carry three extra layers, and feel that I'm well prepared for most conditions.

Showing his bias and ignorance, Major Dave Walsh said, “'I don’t know his physical shape, but he’s 80 years old.'” According to the Union Leader article linked above, "Clark said he enjoys 20-mile walks a few times a week . . ." and we know that they had hiked Marcy and Mansfield over the two previous days, though the elder Clark didn't summit Mansfield due to a fall where he bruised his tailbone.

What I have seen reported is what his five layers were, and what knowledge or warning they had about the weather above treeline. But based on the what has been reported, the notion that they were negligent in my view is laughable, and sadly indicates that we are no longer allowed to make mistakes or misjudgements when hiking. Only the flawless and infallible should apparently be allowed to hike.

There have been several reports of F&G staff talking to hikers they have rescued on the way out. The hiker thinks its just general interest but F&G uses it as evidence in preparing the complaint. Best idea is to consider your Miranda rights You have the right to remain silent. Anything you say can be used against you in court. You have the right to talk to a lawyer for advice before we ask you any questions. You have the right to have a lawyer with you during questioning. If you cannot afford a lawyer, one will be appointed for you before any questioning if you wish. If you decide to answer questions now without a lawyer present, you have the right to stop answering at any time

 

[DougPaul]

PLBs change this somewhat, but DougPaul has reported here that he was unable to reach his sat phone when he spiral fractured his femur up on Livermore Rd.

A correction:
* Didn't have a sat phone, did have a cellphone.
* Had a signal and successfully called 911. However, by this time there was someone (without a phone) with me who could have skied out and gotten help. It just would have taken a bit longer...

FWIW, this was a low probability, high impact situation. (I was skiing on easy terrain at the time and a blowdown "jumped out" and grabbed my ski.)

Comment on the Clark incident: I don't recall any info on where they were when they split up. It might have been low enough that Mr. Clark could have returned easily on his own. (If so, he presumably chose to continue.)

Doug

 

[TEO]

Comment on the Clark incident: I don't recall any info on where they were when they split up. It might have been low enough that Mr. Clark could have returned easily on his own. (If so, he presumably chose to continue.)

From the aforementioned Union Leader article, "About a half-hour into the hike, Clark said he told his grandsons to go ahead." We can infer that they were on the Tuckerman Ravine Trail before the intersection with the Lion Head Trail when they split.

 

[DayTrip]

From the aforementioned Union Leader article, "About a half-hour into the hike, Clark said he told his grandsons to go ahead." We can infer that they were on the Tuckerman Ravine Trail before the intersection with the Lion Head Trail when they split.

And that makes me wonder even more. A seasoned and experienced hiker only 30 minutes into the day got into such bad trouble he had to be rescued? I got the impression he was rescued where they split up because he underestimated the difficulty of the trail and was cold and tired but they also indicated that he was carried out to Auto Road so I presume he went up Lion Head to treeline somewhere after they split up. Did I miss a piece of info? If it was only 30 minutes into day it seems much more plausible that Clark was perfectly fine when he told kids to go on ahead, which makes then decision seem perfectly normal. I need to go back and reread the article again.

 

[dave.m]

On an aside to the main topic, this is a good reason to carry left-over, post-surgery pain meds in your first aid kit. Many years ago, I was on a hike and we had almost the exact same scenario, except that we were nine miles deep in the Adirondack wilderness. Someone had percocet in their first aid kit, and just one pill made the pain tolerable enough to for the person to hike out. They had an emergency extraction, too.

As it turns out, I had the tooth inspected by dentist the day prior to leaving. I grind my teeth and worried I had cracked a tooth. She diagnosed it as occlusal trauma, which is something I became familiar with prior to getting a mouth guard. There was no obvious sign of abscess st that time.

Putting this in classic risk terms, I did the obvious things to reduce the threat but it still happened.

 

[sierra]

I do find it annoying that people think that he was reckless just because he's 80. A 40 year-old could have made the same mistake. Unless there is evidence of reduced mental faculties, then it's not a useful generalization; it's just a way for people to build a narrative that matches up with their own biases.[/QUOTE]

I agree, I do not think age was factor, we both could be wrong. He was obviously a casual hiker, like 90% of the hikers out there. Climbing mountains has always fascinated me, in the sense that it is a fairly complex endeavor. To the average hiker it is not, it's a walk in the woods to have some fun. There lies the rub. Casual hikers have a weak skillset. They can walk and they can follow most trails, that might be it in most cases. Weather, terrain, food, water, objective dangers, wildlife, injuries, these all require proper education. Many simply do not have it. Unlike many other pursuits, mountain climbing can actually kill you. The board up in the summit building is long with people that found this out the hard way. People like to analyze these rescues to find out what went wrong, I do too. But at the end of the day, regardless of the specific reason or reasons. It boils down to not being skillful enough. Even avid hikers in a lot of cases are really not that educated, they just get lucky nothing bad happens. I've come upon 3 scenarios in my years that were dire. In all three, the group was standing there like a deer in the headlights, no idea how to remedy their situation. Mountain climbing is like any career to me. The more education you get, the more successful you will be. Fail to educate yourself, one day you will get unlucky and you might not see a paved road again. Many on this site are well educated in mountain climbing, it makes it a nice place to talk about stuff. I had to leave all the 4k pages. A bunch of people who think they know what's going on, but if you analyze their augments, its obvious they don't. The old man bless his heart made many mistakes not just one or two. He's damn lucky he might see 81. If I was his family, I'd find him a safer hobby for his golden years.

 

[TEO]

And that makes me wonder even more. A seasoned and experienced hiker only 30 minutes into the day got into such bad trouble he had to be rescued? I got the impression he was rescued where they split up because he underestimated the difficulty of the trail and was cold and tired but they also indicated that he was carried out to Auto Road so I presume he went up Lion Head to treeline somewhere after they split up. Did I miss a piece of info? If it was only 30 minutes into day it seems much more plausible that Clark was perfectly fine when he told kids to go on ahead, which makes then decision seem perfectly normal. I need to go back and reread the article again.

Based on his quotes in the Union Leader article he was not in bad trouble 30 minutes into the hike, he was simply moving more slowly than his grandchildren, and didn't want to hold them up.

From the article:

". . . Clark said he thought he and his grandsons had planned well for the trip, mapping out their routes and coordinating a spot to meet should they miss connecting on the trails.

"'We planned for that,' Clark said. 'It would be quicker and they would know where I was all the way up.'"

 

[dave.m]

I've always thought its appropriate for the climbing/hiking/skiing community to discuss these events so we can all collectively think through our risk decisions. Questioning things isn't the same as blaming the victim - although that can happen.

Stepping back for some perspective, I think we might do well to consider some framing questions, which I offer or somewhat rhetorically.

1) Is it morally acceptable for a person to go into a wild place despite its mortal risks? Does the morality of this change when doing so is likely to invoke a rescue that would likely put the rescuers at risk?

2) Does society have a moral obligation to send rescuers after risk takers who willfully and intentionally take on risk? Does this change when conditions are such that the rescuers might face mortal risk themselves? Does this change when the risk taker does or doesn't adequately understand the risk they are assuming?

3) How should society fund rescue? Is this a "goods and services" sort of thing that should be provided by a free market solution on a fee for service basis? Or is this a social service to be funded out of commonized taxation?

4) Do land managers have a moral or legal obligation to alert visitors of the land that they may face mortal consequences in a manner similar to the legal concept of an "attractive nuisance"? Are posted signs sufficient or are barriers of some sort required?

5) Do land managers have a moral responsibility (to the land and/or future users) to protect the land from over use?

IMO, the WMNF is long, long overdue for a permitting system for trailhead access. Permitting systems are excellent ways to control visitor volume, encourage better distribution of use, and to educate. The number of these incidents seems to me to be an indication of a "freedom of the hills" and "live free or die" type of mentality run amok. The trails, campsites and parking lots are overrun and people wander up the mountain utterly ill equipped.

Also IMO, it's morally wrong to treat rescue as a goods and service on fee for service basis. I'm somewhat callus and rejecting of the line of argument that the cost of rescue should be either socialized or privatized based on a judgement of whether or not the victim was using good judgement. Either we as a society rescue travelers in wild places or we don't. We can never really sort out the just from the unjust climber as this thread demonstrates.

Diving back into the weeds... the age of victim is certainly a factor in the decision to split the party or to even attempt the hike. Really anybody trained in managing risk in the backcountry on behalf of a group would recognize that population demographic as being more likely to run into trouble. On average, an 80 year old body is different than a 50 year old body is different than a 20 year old body. The margins are thinner.

 

[iAmKrzys]

After reading Union Leader article I don't have any issues related to family separating (intentional at the urging of grandfather) or Mr. Clark's age (hiking daily 20 miles probably keeps him in better shape than most hikers going up Mt. Washington.) I do wonder however about three things:

1. Why did Mr. Clark not turn around to descend below tree line if things were not going well? Was his judgement affected by hypothermia until it was too late?
2. Why didn't he carry a cellphone? If he were able to communicate with his grandsons this might have been a non-event. Before I get flamed for advocating over-reliance on technology let me just say that I believe that many close calls are avoided because of cell phone use and we just don't get to read about them. Also a cell phone by itself is not a substitute for proper preparation for each hike but only a useful addition to one's survival strategy where service is available.
3. According to the article he did not have a flash light. Apart from accidental omission this would be a sign of poor planning and perhaps insufficient mountain hiking experience.

 

[Grey J]

"3 is an ideal party size in bad weather"


I see your point regarding safety in redundancy but one could also argue that it triples the chances for something to go wrong.

 

[DayTrip]

Based on his quotes in the Union Leader article he was not in bad trouble 30 minutes into the hike, he was simply moving more slowly than his grandchildren, and didn't want to hold them up.

From the article:

". . . Clark said he thought he and his grandsons had planned well for the trip, mapping out their routes and coordinating a spot to meet should they miss connecting on the trails.

"'We planned for that,' Clark said. 'It would be quicker and they would know where I was all the way up.'"

Yes I went back and reread. I misunderstood the 30 minute detail in my original reading. It makes me feel much better about the kids decision to go on ahead at grandfather's urging. That would have been back in the trees without a full look at the weather, the trail hadn't become challenging yet and the grandfather likely did not seem weak and distressed at that point.

As I've mentioned in my original comments, even with my misread, I don't think being 80 or splitting the group in itself was necessarily wrong or negligent. Without knowing what kind of gear the kids had I still question their choice to go on to summit once they saw the weather at treeline. If the grandfather didn't have the right gear I suspect the grand kids didn't either. The grandfather clearly made a lot of bad choices and pushed himself to far when he knew he was probably making a mistake. I don't find this situation to be negligent though as defined by the state for billable purposes. I think most reasonable people in this scenario would have made very similar choices and the majority of them would have probably made it back down without incident. I think the press sensationalized the incident focusing on Clark's age and the fact that young kids "abandoned him" on the mountain. I doubt most people saw the follow up articles and passed judgement without much information.

 

[Raven]

"3 is an ideal party size in bad weather"


I see your point regarding safety in redundancy but one could also argue that it triples the chances for something to go wrong.

"One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, ain't nothing beats teamwork ". Ed Abbey

 

[dave.m]

As I've mentioned in my original comments, even with my misread, I don't think being 80 or splitting the group in itself was necessarily wrong or negligent. Without knowing what kind of gear the kids had I still question their choice to go on to summit once they saw the weather at treeline. If the grandfather didn't have the right gear I suspect the grand kids didn't either. The grandfather clearly made a lot of bad choices and pushed himself to far when he knew he was probably making a mistake. I don't find this situation to be negligent though as defined by the state for billable purposes. I think most reasonable people in this scenario would have made very similar choices and the majority of them would have probably made it back down without incident. I think the press sensationalized the incident focusing on Clark's age and the fact that young kids "abandoned him" on the mountain. I doubt most people saw the follow up articles and passed judgement without much information.

We hiked with our kids a lot. Both participated in the outdoor programs at their colleges. One went on to be a trip leader and got her WFR. The other does trail work. My kids aren't mountain rock stars but they didn't just fall off the back of the turnip truck either.

I may be guilty of youthism in saying this but there are very few 19 year olds who I would entrust a 14 year old in bad weather on Mt Washington. Nothing against my kids, but I wouldn't have trusted either of my kids at 19 in that situation. And they've each summited multiple peaks in the Presis and both had done a traverse up there long that age.

Maybe this 19 year old had sufficient training and experience to take care of a 14 year old up. I hope so. It would be pretty remarkable though.

Regarding the victims age... Walking 20 miles a few time a week in central Ohio is impressive. But, I grew up very close to that and it's not that impressive. It's not dead flat like up my Lima but it's pretty flat and on it's own wouldn't strengthen the proprioceptors and support muscles that give us good "trail legs". I think this is something that those of us who work out in gyms and on the road regularly and then go hiking understand well.

If this story had been repeated and everything was the same except the victim's age was changed to 50, I think those of in the hiking community would correctly point out that walking, while providing a great base for hiking, isn't the same has hiking the high peaks in the northeast. And hiking 3 high peaks in a few day's time is asking a lot in terms in terms of recovery. If his age was 50 and not 80, we would correctly conclude that he probably bit off more than his body could handle in terms of recovery time and a lack of deep trail fitness. Most of us have been there.

Muscle mass and recovery issues are more profound in 80 year olds than they are in 50 year olds. That's not agism. The same thing is true comparing 50 year olds to 20 year olds?

Age is definitely an issue here and walking 20 miles several times a week in central Ohio, while noteworthy, isn't enough to make age not an issue, particularly on the 3rd hike in a several day window. IMO.

 

[Raven]

"3 is an ideal party size in bad weather"


I see your point regarding safety in redundancy but one could also argue that it triples the chances for something to go wrong.

"One man alone can be pretty dumb sometimes, but for real bona fide stupidity, ain't nothing beats teamwork ". Ed Abbey

 

[dave.m]

"3 is an ideal party size in bad weather"


I see your point regarding safety in redundancy but one could also argue that it triples the chances for something to go wrong.

Yes. In classic risk terms, increasing the group size increases the threat (chance of something going wrong) while decreasing the impact (the consequence).

I've encountered the recommendation of a party size of 3 in several sources. Can't remember. The general line of thinking is this allows for the ability of 1 person to stay with an incapacitated victim while the other goes for help. It's worth noting that this rule of thumb comes from "back in the day" before the availability of cell phones, sat phones or PLBs.

I think solo travel in hypothermic conditions is particularly risky. One of the pernicious things about early hypothermia is the clouding of judgement and the erosion of will. I've seen it a few times and have been on the other side of it (altitude and exhaustion). Groups of 3 can help monitor the well being of others in the party and can help make better decisions when operating at the margins. They can also be worse depending on the experience of the party.

The victim in this situation transitioned from fine to fetal position. That doesn't just happen. It happens in stages and a team of 2 or 3 who know the signs to watch for would have seen the early stages and could have made better decisions on behalf of the victim even as his decision making and will were diminishing. (Aside: it's not clear to me that the kids would have had the training, skill or equipment to respond to recognize or respond to early stage hypothermia and if they didn't, that would be an indication that the party was in over their head relative to the conditions.)

Perhaps I'm old school. But IMO, splitting up contributed to this outcome.

 

[TEO]

Dave.m, all of your points are good. I would agree that they made at least a couple of errors, which as we often see in analysis of rescues and recoveries, compound. My problem is the first the notion that they would be charged with negligence, and be fined for their rescue. The State of New Hampshire seems to think that if you make any mistake while recreating in the outdoors, you are negligent, and should be fined. Furthermore, this decision is made by an individual, which as this case and others have shown, seem to lack an awareness of reality.

Secondly, it is disappointing that the public—including VFTTers—excoriates the hikers with little knowledge of the situation, while making huge assumptions, and a seemingly no awareness of their own fallibility.