HikeArizona.COM

The October 2010 edition of Backpacker Magazine has a one-and-half page article on dayhiking down Grandview Trail and doing the loop around Horseshoe Mesa. The article has several dangeous mistakes that can get someone in deep trouble. Here's the message I sent to the editors:

The Oct. 2010 Grandview Loop Hike article has several mistakes. (1)A photo taken from the Western Arm of Horsehoe Mesa is incorrectly labeled. I believe this is a photo of Vishnu Temple, not Zoroaster. Big problem if one attempts to orient to Zoroaster and not Vishnu.

(2)One gallon per person per day is not enough for the Grandview, even in cool weather.

3)You do not pass the cookhouse to get to the East Horseshoe Mesa Trail---you turn after going past the mine opening. If you go down to the cook house you have missed the turn off and will have to double back to the south to connect with the East Horseshoe Mesa Trail. If you head east at the cookhouse, you will go past the designated campsites and toilet and then stumble around looking for the trail down. If you go west at the cookhouse you will drop off Horseshoe Mesa and may or may not find water in Cottonwood Creek.

Please correct this mistake---someone down with minimal water and trying to re-supply at Miner's Spring will be left high-and-dry.

Doing the loop off Grandview can be dangerous--hikers have missed the return trail and instead head out across the Tonto---and run out of water. Last summer, a day hiker did die after he went down and headed across the Tonto Plateau.

Has anyone else read or seen this article in Backpacker?

nonot wrote:People who are not from the southwest do not understand the difficulties with hiking long distance in the desert - while you can hike 30 miles in the midwest on flat ground under a lush canopy, take 3 bottles of water, and not even be that tired afterwards, I know of few people who can manage 30 miles as a dayhike in the desert landscapes, given the elevation and rocky nature of the terrain.

I'll take it a step further - even on flat ground the ambient and radiant heat of a summer afternoon here is enough to make even fit people drop in under ten miles, let alone 30.

Canyonram, if you do not plan to resupply at Miner's spring, no amount of water is enough for 3 days - unless you're capable of carrying 5-7 gallons of water with all your camping stuff - the max limit I would ever carry is 3 gallons. If I need more than that, it's an indication I need to replan.

All the navigational or planning errors you describe can only be attributed to poor judgment by the late Mr Brunelli. He was solely responsible for his fate, not the NPS, nor any magazine or publication.

nonot wrote:He was solely responsible for his fate

I agree...we all are responsible for our own actions. Sometimes smart well prepared people make mistakes or have accidents and sometimes unprepared people press their Spot button and get water or saved and we foot the bill in one way or the other. Whenever someone dies doing what they love.....sometimes it tragic and sometimes its not.

Hello Nonot,

Read the full published Oct. 2010 Backpacker article. It will keep me from having to restate the major error in the article----they are sending the reader on a three day loop hike with one gallon of water per person with incorrect directions on how to get to Miners Spring to resupply.

The situation with Mr. Brunelli was a year before the publication of the Backpacker article. I was not ascribing any responsibility to the yet-to-be published article for what happened to Mr. Brunelli. His situation does illustrate what can happen if you head down unprepared into that particular part of the Canyon. I was not assessing any liability against NPS, Backpacker magazine, etc. in his case. From what I know of his situation, I believe he did act on his own accord and suffered the consequences. Unless there is other evidence, I believe he was responsible for his fate be it missing a sign post or heading off on an impossible hike. When you push your personal envelope, you are responsible.

As to the Backpacker article in the Oct. 2010 issue, I believe the publishers of Backpacker do have a responsibility for correct information. If someone is injured as a result of following their incorrect information, I'm pretty certain the magazine would have some legal liability. A reader should have a reasonable expectation that they will have a safe hike if they follow the prescriptions in the article. Liability law applies here.

Canyonram wrote:Liability law applies here.

I don't believe it does. Backpacker screwed up directions to the spring, shame on them, that doesn't mean they are responsible for the deaths of anyone hiking in the canyon. Write them a letter so the correction appears in letters to the editor in the next month's mailer.

I believe the permits for the Grand Canyon (that you must sign as a legal document) state that the hike leader is responsible for their party, not backpacker magazine, not the GC backcountry info brochure they send you in the mail, not the GC backcountry office, not the NPS, and not some website you read beta off of. The trip leader, the one applying for the permit, is responsible for planning, researching, and leading their party, planning for contingencies, and ensuring all their members get in and get out.

The argument can equally be made that anyone foolish enough to trust one source of beta without making contingencies or backup plans is negligent. This is especially true when planning multi-day outings into a wilderness area. Otherwise your sentiment is a sobering thought to anyone who's written an trip description on HAZ.

I hope you never watch Bear Grylls on TV! If you think backpacker is bad, you may very well have a heart attack watching his insipid show.

nonot wrote: Otherwise your sentiment is a sobering thought to anyone who's written an trip description on HAZ.

HAZ is a hobby for Joe Bartels. Participation is the preferred donation. If you wish to make a financial donation, select an amount then click the Donate button. Or send to Joe Bartels PO Box 451 Scottsdale AZ 85252
oh wait...
WARNING! Hiking and outdoor related sports can be dangerous. Be responsible and prepare for the trip. Study the area you are entering and plan accordingly. Dress for the current and unexpected weather changes. Take plenty of water. Never go alone. Make an itinerary with your plan(s), route(s), destination(s) and expected return time. Give your itinerary to trusted family and/or friends.AND MOST OF ALL DON"T BLAME JOE(I added the caps).

I recall reading that Bruce Gillies, the solo hiker attempting Deer Creek-Thunder River who died in the attempt, was prompted to do this particular hike after reading about it in Backpacker Magazine: ( dead link removed )

I then went to the Backpacker website and tried to search out this particular route description. Not surprisingly, it is no longer available at the website. You take the link for the Deer Creek-Thunder River hike and get an error message: ( dead link removed )

The Feb. 2007 issue of the magazine is still online (wonder if Backpacker Mag editors know??) with the trail description here:
http://books.google.com/books?id=Hj4EIf ... &q&f=false

Been too many years ago that I hiked down this way---I tagged along with two other hikers who knew the route. Anyone on the forum able to look at the Feb. 2007 article and spot any major errors that may have sent Bruce Gillies down the wrong way?

I think your taking it a bit overboard trying to hold a magazine liable for a persons death on a hike. I don't care if it was bad info or not. I would never take a magazine article use it as my sole guidance for a hike, that's what maps and research are for.

Personally I think 1 gallon is fine for that hike (with resupplying at the water sources). I would hike down to Cottonwood or Hance creek depending on which way I dropped off the Mesa for night 1, hike around the mesa and stay at the other side for night 2 and hike out on day 3. Even if the article describes the turnoff wrong and he somehow misses the signs and wanders around atop the mesa he's only 3 miles from the rim. Turn around and hike out.

I think if liability had ever been an issue with publications, whether they be magazines or guidebooks, then it would have been addressed before in the courts. And I have never heard of that happening, although I suppose people have tried. If I thought I might get sued because of a mistake in an article I have published, probably I would decide to write about something a bit safer. Maybe I should take up composing magazine articles about cooking (oh, but wait, you might burn yourself) or knitting (yikes, could stab yourself with the needles or trip over the yarn) or scrapbooking (sheez, some poor reader might die of boredom).

Anyway, I don't think it's happenin' or we would have heard about it by now. Somewhere in that magazine there is likely an editor's general statement about hiking at your own risk, that they are not responsible.

azbackpackr wrote:cooking (oh, but wait, you might burn yourself) or knitting (yikes, could stab yourself with the needles or trip over the yarn) or scrapbooking (sheez, some poor reader might die of boredom).

I think its high time Backpacker magazine add Hikearizona.com as one of their "must see places"

How special!

Some more postings by those who have not read the Backpacker Magazine article that forms the basis of this thread yet they have a definite and rigid opinion about the content. Is this an example of doing your research regarding a hike? It's not about what an experienced Grand Canyon hiker can accomplish and how much (or little) water they can get by on. It is about someone who is not calibrated to desert hiking who may read the article and follow the trip description. Three miles back up Grandview with no water is enough to drop a hiker not acclimated to the Canyon combination of desert hiking, sun exposure, low humidity, elevation gain and altitude.

There are attorneys and lawfirms who do nothing but deal with the liability issues surrounding risk management and outdoor injuries. Because you may have not heard about legal liability issues and lawsuits in outdoor recreation doesn't mean they don't exist. Here's some additional material to not read but comment on:

( dead link removed )
( dead link removed )

A standard reference text regarding liability issues in outdoor recreation:
"Legal Liability in Recreation, Sports, and Tourism, Third Edition" BY Bruce Hronek, John Spengler, & Thomas Baker
A sample chapter is online at: ( dead link removed )

For those only able to communicate by posting 'Smilies' and who may be more visually oriented, there is a Powerpoint Presentation for downloading at this web page as well.

@Canyonram
People have opinions and your not gonna change them. Whether someone has or has not read the article isn't gonna change how people feel about personal responsibility.

...Go follow their directions, get in trouble, suffer... then sue the magazine. That will determine the issue nicely.

That will only determine your attorney's efficiency, just ask O.J.

te-wa wrote:I think its high time Backpacker magazine add Hikearizona.com as one of their "must see places"

I plug HAZ on the Backpacker forums every chance I get. I don't know if it helps any, but I'm trying. :wlift:

Canyonram wrote:It is about someone who is not calibrated to desert hiking who may read the article and follow the trip description.

The same goes for anyone that reads any trail description posted on the internet or in an article. To include the thousands that are on this very website.

Maybe you can dig through each one with a comb and see if anyone made mistakes. The backpacker article had a few errors, get over it, write them about. Knowing that the errors are in there you may just get held liable as an accomplice should something happen.

Canyonram wrote:How special!

Some more postings by those who have not read the Backpacker Magazine article that forms the basis of this thread yet they have a definite and rigid opinion about the content.

We get it. There are errors in the Backpacker Magazine article. The errors could potentially cause someone to miss a spring and/or die. Is there something we are missing with my brief summary?

What? Well, sure, there are legal liability issues in outdoor recreation. No one's debating that! Just ask the Boy Scouts of America how many times they have been sued (and often lost) over injuries and deaths of Scouts. We did not think anyone was talking about tour companies, Boy Scouts, or other leaders of outdoor recreation being sued--they get sued all the time. We were talking about a magazine being sued. Different subject. I think someone could surely try, but I think in most cases, the judge would throw it out of court.