HikeArizona.COM

LAKE MONTEZUMA, AZ -- Four hikers were found Monday after getting stranded near Wet Beaver Creek in Northern Arizona over the weekend.

Officials with the Yavapai County Sheriff's Office said they received a report of four overdue hikers in the Waldroup Canyon, Wet Beaver Creek wilderness area on Sunday morning.

The man reporting the missing hikers, whose son was one of those missing, said the group arrived at the area on Friday morning and were expected back on Saturday evening.

YCSO said the four hikers, identified as 28-year-old Steven Smith and his 21-year-old wife Megan Smith of Glendale, and their friends, 27-year-old Jeremy Borie and his 24-year-old wife Alana Borie of Phoenix, were reportedly experienced hikers and climbers.

The group had camping gear on hand as well as food and other supplies and was prepared to spend the night if necessary.

Forest patrol deputies said they were able to locate a vehicle belonging the group parked in a trailhead area.

But due to the ages of the hikers, and their reported preparedness for the hike, rescue operations were delayed until Monday morning. Deputies were assisted with aerial search operations by Arizona Department of Public Safety Air Rescue.

YCSO officials said the group was found a little after 10 a.m. on Monday and flown to safety.

The hikers reported that they had not expected the extreme rock climbing and boulder hopping conditions, not to mention the number of deep pools that required swimming and flotation of gear. (OK - so you have and have read SOME of the guidebook, but chose to ignore the MANY DEEP POOLS, and "lots of swimming" parts?)

They told officials a 'canyoneering' guide indicated the hike could be completed in about 16 hours, but rescue personnel said the hike should be allowed at least two to three days to complete.

I believe that the 'guidebook' says "TIME NEEDED: This loophike is about 35km but it's hot and dry on the
mesa top, then lots of swimming back down in the canyon.. Strong fast (well, i guess that they will never consider themselves THAT) hikers can do it in 2 days, but 3 days may be best for some.
MAIN ATTRACTIONS: .... MANY DEEP SWIMMING POOLS

AUTHOR'S EXPERIENCE: With an early morning start he went up the Apache Maid Trail #15, but had to explore in the heat of the day to reach Waldroup Place. Then into the canyon and out the bottom in 2 FULL DAYS with a total walk time of 16 HOURS.



Well.... at least they are publishing their names, so we'll beware.

Jeff MacE wrote:I'll go ahead and be the jerk that argues they should have tried to lift her and left the trees alone.

I was also thinking to myself why they did not put her in a harness and hoist her out. Heck my days in the corps when we needed to be inserted or extracted into or out of a location where there was no LZ, we rigged up a harness and were either inserted or extracted by means of spy rigging.

Infra wrote:

Jeff MacE wrote:I'll go ahead and be the jerk that argues they should have tried to lift her and left the trees alone.

I was also thinking to myself why they did not put her in a harness and hoist her out. Heck my days in the corps when we needed to be inserted or extracted into or out of a location where there was no LZ, we rigged up a harness and were either inserted or extracted by means of spy rigging.

Exactly; presumably, they had a basket or something else, as well.

Infra wrote:how many people overestimate their competency and back country skills, and underestimate how gnarly the terrain can be in Arizona.

When confronted with something beyond their skills and experience, most people have a built-in alarm that tells them to bail out early on and most people listen to it. I'm interested in what makes some people oblivious to that feeling of "this is not what I should be doing". It's not much different from that feeling of dawning awareness of being off your intended course.

I think most of the people who get into these situations believe that they are pushing their personal boundaries. Getting out of their comfort zone, if you will. This is usually a positive thing, but the issue seems to be, time and time again, that they never really understood their own personal limits to begin with.

Folks who follow regimented workout schedules and\or who are very experienced at a given sport or activity can look at a plan and know if it is too much to handle or merely a "challenge." Inexperienced or poorly-conditioned individuals seem to think that they are backing down by being practical because they lack the necessary frame of reference to understand where the line is drawn in the first place. They then head-out and get themselves into trouble.

Case-and-point? Exhibit A: Hauling "5#" of ungainly camera gear along instead of extra water.

big_load wrote:I'm interested in what makes some people oblivious to that feeling of "this is not what I should be doing".

I had that same thought a couple days ago. Outdoor survival seems to be perceived as a given to some.

I think its a sense that some people are just born with, and others aren't. Everybody is born with different levels of abilities: athletic, artistic, business, politics, etc.

Everything can be taught and practiced, but someone with natural ability will usually excel at something without needing as much practice.

Some people can trek across antarctica blindfolded and end up within 100 yards of their intended destination, while others can't find their car in the mall parking lot.

Left brain, right brain kind of stuff...

See, I never get lost out in the woods, desert, etc.. but I'm useless finding a car in a parking lot.

dysfunction wrote:.. but I'm useless finding a car in a parking lot.

I've noticed an odd phenomenon: although I sometimes forget which row I parked in, my legs always remember the distance to within a couple cars, even when I don't consciously remember anything at all about parking.

yep, I'll end up in the right pew.. often the wrong church though

Jeff MacE wrote:I think most of the people who get into these situations believe that they are pushing their personal boundaries. Getting out of their comfort zone, if you will. This is usually a positive thing, but the issue seems to be, time and time again, that they never really understood their own personal limits to begin with.

Folks who follow regimented workout schedules and\or who are very experienced at a given sport or activity can look at a plan and know if it is too much to handle or merely a "challenge." Inexperienced or poorly-conditioned individuals seem to think that they are backing down by being practical because they lack the necessary frame of reference to understand where the line is drawn in the first place. They then head-out and get themselves into trouble.

Case-and-point? Exhibit A: Hauling "5#" of ungainly camera gear along instead of extra water.

I agree 100%. It happens with my friends whenever they come hiking with me. They're in good shape, but don't always recognize the risks of treating the wilderness like an elementary school playground (i.e. climbing loose or unstable rock). I hate to sound like an overly-neurotic mother, so I usually cover up my concerns by saying "dude I really don't feel like carrying your a-- out of here tonight."

azpride wrote:

Jeff MacE wrote:I think most of the people who get into these situations believe that they are pushing their personal boundaries. Getting out of their comfort zone, if you will. This is usually a positive thing, but the issue seems to be, time and time again, that they never really understood their own personal limits to begin with.

Folks who follow regimented workout schedules and\or who are very experienced at a given sport or activity can look at a plan and know if it is too much to handle or merely a "challenge." Inexperienced or poorly-conditioned individuals seem to think that they are backing down by being practical because they lack the necessary frame of reference to understand where the line is drawn in the first place. They then head-out and get themselves into trouble.

Case-and-point? Exhibit A: Hauling "5#" of ungainly camera gear along instead of extra water.

I agree 100%. It happens with my friends whenever they come hiking with me. They're in good shape, but don't always recognize the risks of treating the wilderness like an elementary school playground (i.e. climbing loose or unstable rock). I hate to sound like an overly-neurotic mother, so I usually cover up my concerns by saying "dude I really don't feel like carrying your a-- out of here tonight."

Over the years I've had many of the same conversations with people. Indeed, years back, an older climbing buddy routinely told me the same things. ;) Nowadays I'm much more selective about hiking or climbing companions in order to avoid that very issue. However, people that like to fall down and go "bump" are good for comedic relief in the right setting...

its been about 5 years but could they have tousched down the helicopter at the junction of waltroup canyon and wet beaver creek

So I just read this on AZCentral. The most amusing part is the comments, which will of course only be available for a few days, and are not worth quoting all in this thread. But the very first comment references the difference between "hikers" and "hunters" who get lost. I'd say I disagree with the premise, but it's interesting that people see a difference.

As for the storm, it was predicted well in advance, so even hunters who left early in the week should have known that there was a possibility for bad weather. I made a conscious decision to go cut my Christmas tree on Monday, but I also knew that I needed to be back on a paved road before afternoon because that's when it was going to get bad. But I also had all the supplies necessary to spend two nights in my truck if I got stuck, though obviously I preferred not to. I'd think hunters still out there are similarly prepared.
http://www.azcentral.com/news/articles/ ... rs-ON.html

More than 25 hunters were still missing in the Flagstaff on Wednesday night after the snow left them trapped, officials said.

As of 8 p.m. on Wednesday, eight to 10 hunting parties were thought to be stranded, according to Coconino County Sheriff's spokesman Gerry Blair.

Blair said many of the stranded parties went up to hunt elk last week and were stranded after the storm hit and brought as much as 3 feet of snow on Monday.

He added that some hikers had cell phones and were able to contact police after they went missing or were reported overdue by families.

Arizona Game and Fish and the U.S. Forest Service were assisting in the search on Wednesday along with a team of trained volunteers.

Blair said the teams would meet Thursday morning to attempt to estimate the threat to each party and prioritize rescue missions.

Climbing tragedy renews beacon debate
Many climbers are opposed, and have even lobbied against proposed law
The Associated Press
updated 1:22 p.m. MT, Sat., Dec . 19, 2009

PORTLAND, Ore. - When a rescue team came on Luke Gullberg's body at the top of a Mount Hood glacier and tried to figure out what had become of his climbing partners, they looked up at a forbidding rise of ice and snow.

They saw no sign of Katie Nolan and Anthony Vietti on the 1,500-foot Reid headwall, no gear in bright color standing out from the monochrome, no trail. And they heard no radio signal.

Had Nolan and Vietti rented a $5 locator beacon and had they been able to activate it after whatever misfortune ended their climb on Dec. 12, the searchers below might have been able to pinpoint their location. The two are presumed buried beneath several feet of snow and ice.

It's the second time in three years that a search and rescue operation on the 11,239-foot mountain has failed to turn up climbers who went up the mountain without signaling devices and got into deadly trouble.

So, politicians, rescue crews, mountaineers and others are debating once again whether to require such climbers to carry locator beacons.

The recent rescue mission has raised the question, "When are you going to stop the carnage on Mount Hood?" said Jim Bender, a commissioner in Clackamas County on the south side of the mountain.

"People are dying for no reason," said Bender, a longtime climber who said he had been up Mount Hood several times. "We need to find a way to protect them and we need to find a way to protect the people's resources."

State, county, federal jurisdictions
A bill to require Mount Hood climbers to carry beacons on winter expeditions failed in the Oregon Legislature in 2007. Bender hopes the Legislature will revisit the question, or the state's congressional delegation will take an interest.

He said the county commission will take another stab at a requirement that climbers carry locator beacons. Commissioners have previously run into a restriction on the kind of agreements they could make with the U.S. Forest Service, which manages the mountain.

It's a mystery to many who don't venture above timberline why the stiffest opposition to requiring beacons comes from the elite mountaineers who volunteer their time and put themselves at risk to get people off the mountain.

Beacons can be useful, but climbers should have the freedom to weigh the safety benefits of any piece of equipment against its weight or how it might impede their agility on a mountain that can rain down ice and rock at any moment, said Steve Rollins of Portland Mountain Rescue, a leader of Mount Hood search and rescue operations.

Mountaineers also warn that requiring the devices can lead some climbers to take undue risk, figuring on a rescue if they get into trouble, and that beacons aren't always going to lead to rescues.

Even as they found Gullberg's body, Rollins said, the snowpack beneath the feet of the members of the mountain rescue team was "shooting cracks" and making a "whumping" sound.

It was, he said, Mother Nature screaming about avalanche danger. That only rose during the search.

"I do not believe that we could have gotten there even if we had a beacon," said Rollins.

Infringement on freedom?
One state official argues against such a requirement on grounds of personal liberty.

"The land is public, and I'm not a real big fan of mandating what people have to take with them when they want to go for a walk," said Georges Kleinbaum, search and rescue coordinator for the Oregon Office of Emergency Management.

Besides, he said, enforcement would be impossible. "It's a big mountain," he said. "Are you going to put a ring around it, or force everyone through an entry point?"

As many as 10,000 climbers attack Mount Hood each year, based on the free permits for which they-self register.

"That argument that it infringes on their freedom, I just think that's baloney," said Sheriff Joe Wampler of Hood River County on the north side of the mountain.

Wampler led the 2006 search and rescue that ended with one climber's body found in a snow cave. The bodies of two others have never been found.

Cost is a consideration, Wampler said. The 10-day effort in 2006 cost the county $5,000 a day in overtime, part-time pay, food, fuel and other expenses. There's also the cost of military aircraft missions, sometimes accounted for as part of training or flight-hour requirements.

But, Wampler said, the safety of searchers and the potential for rescue is paramount.

"I just want every opportunity to find them if they turn up missing," he said.

Even if a beacon signal doesn't lead to a rescue, he said, it would tell authorities where eventually to find the body, often a concern of relatives. He calls for beacons to be required above timberline throughout Oregon.

Charley Shimanski of Evergreen, Colo., president of the national Mountain Rescue Association, said the group knows of no similar requirement anywhere in the country, for beacons or any other safety equipment. At Mount McKinley in Alaska, he said, climbers have to sit through an instructional video before they go up.

There are a variety of locator devices, of a size between cell phones and TV remotes. The $5 Mount Hood rental beacon is older technology, and rescuers wouldn't tune in until somebody is reported overdue. Outdoor stores sell devices that use GPS and satellite technology to send immediate distress signals. They can weigh 5 to 9 ounces and cost up to $400.

Climbers lobbied against
In 2007, the Oregon House passed a bill to require Mount Hood climbers in winter to carry locators. It passed the House but died in the Senate when committee Chairwoman Vicki Walker wouldn't hold a hearing.

"I got lobbied heavily by the climbing community," she said. A family friend and climber argued, "We know what we're doing. We'll take them if we want them. Don't force this on us," she said.

"Well, I'm not so sure anymore," she said. "We're losing a lot of folks out there."

She has since left the Senate for a federal job. Senate President Peter Courtney said he hasn't heard strong calls yet for a bill to be considered at the Legislature's monthlong session in February, and the topic should get a full hearing.

That might mean no action until the Legislature's full session in 2011, and the urgency for it will fade, said State Rep. Carolyn Tomei of Milwaukie, a backer of the 2007 bill.

"When these tragedies are in the people's minds," she said, "that's when we can get the public's support."

In this case, anyway, a beacon would only have made the bodies easier to find. It doesn't seem that there was ever a reasonable chance of rescue.

Yes, let's equip everyone with a spot and PLB, that way even more SAR resources can be wasted! Anyway, as has been shown, PLB's and Spots give you a false sense of security. If you make a bad decision, it's not a magic pill that makes you wake up at home safe and sound. RIP.

By the way, there's a recall out on the SPOT-2 units.