HikeArizona.COM

by Leigh Zinsmeister - Oct. 12, 2009 11:18 AM
The Arizona Republic
Phoenix firefighters on Monday morning rescued a man who slipped while hiking on Camelback Mountain on Sunday night, authorities said.

The 30-year-old visitor from out of state hiked the south side of the mountain, which has no trail, said Capt. Dorian Jackson, spokesman for the Phoenix Fire Department.

The man reached the summit and was taking panoramic photographs of the city when he slipped and apparently found himself about 200 feet below the summit, authorities said.

The hiker called 911, and a helicopter lifted him out around 2:30 a.m. Monday, Jackson said. It is unclear how long the hiker, who did not require hospitalization, was on the mountain.

Jackson said the man did not know the north side of the mountain has a hiking trail.

Don't let this joker go anywhere near the Superstitions!!!!!! Bolds and underlines were done by me.

So, because he had slipped and fallen while on the summit, regardless of whether or not he came up a trail, he has no business being on mountains? I hope you never climb a mountain and have an accident. Also, don't leave the state, since any accidents you might have will relegate you to "joker" status.

I disagree, Camelback hiking info is easily found to anyone caring to look. He is probably a see it, climb it type fellow that was completely unprepared and is not used to the fact that some mountains in the west of the US have routes too steep to be hiked.

However, how did he fall 200 feet and not need hospitalization...something about that report doesn't make sense.

He bounced off his ego, all the way down!

nonot wrote: However, how did he fall 200 feet and not need hospitalization...something about that report doesn't make sense.

Yea, sounds like he "slid."

jhodlof wrote:So, because he had slipped and fallen while on the summit, regardless of whether or not he came up a trail, he has no business being on mountains? I hope you never climb a mountain and have an accident. Also, don't leave the state, since any accidents you might have will relegate you to "joker" status.

The point is that the south face of Camelback Mtn (very very steep, and the footing is very very loose) is no place for someone who is unfamiliar with the mountain to be at night. That's an accident waiting to happen even if one is very familiar with the mountain, and it's daylight. Furthermore, it's irresponsible to go off-trail hiking at night in an unfamiliar and dangerous area because it puts other people (i.e. rescuers) at risk. It's meaningless that he fell/slid from the summit rather than the south face because he put himself and others @ risk by virtue of having gone up the south side.

As for me I'm not stupid enough to go hiking out-of-state (or anywhere else for that matter) without doing at least some research. Knowing myself I would probably perform extensive research, ESPECIALLY if the hike in question is not a walk in the park.

Additionally, Mr. Joker broke the law: "ALWAYS stay on a designated trail. Phoenix city ordinances prohibit trailblazing." Courtesy of the Phoenix Mountain Preserve website.

Of course Mr. Joker has a right to enjoy the outdoors in an appropriate and legal manner. It's not as if information on Camelback Mountain is that hard to get. I wonder how in the heck he accessed the south face of Camelback. Did he come from someone's backyard? I never claimed that he has no business being on mountains. However, he has no business being on mountains in an irresponsible manner. I also hope that I never climb a mountain, and have an accident. However, if I did it would be a true accident rather than the result of stupidity and lack of preparation.

JamesLyding wrote: Knowing myself I would probably perform extensive research, ESPECIALLY if the hike in question is not a walk in the park.

Camelbak is a walk in the park, just not the way he did it.

Local "knowledge" is not always helpful. The first time I came to AZ, I was advised that Camelback would take about three hours each way and would probably kill me. It was late December, so maybe they thought I'd meet my doom in the crevasses among the glaciers near the peak.

big_load wrote:

JamesLyding wrote: Knowing myself I would probably perform extensive research, ESPECIALLY if the hike in question is not a walk in the park.

Camelbak is a walk in the park, just not the way he did it.

Local "knowledge" is not always helpful. The first time I came to AZ, I was advised that Camelback would take about three hours each way and would probably kill me. It was late December, so maybe they thought I'd meet my doom in the crevasses among the glaciers near the peak.

At least the Camelback yeti didn't get you.

Back in 90-91 I was told you could mountain bike it. Before the internet and considering I'd never checked it out more I believed that for several years

If he scrambled up south mountain at night and is unfamiliar with it, that isn't very bright. If he scrambled up it in the evening, took pictures, fell and knocked himself out and regained consciousness hours later to call for help, then that is a different matter. The police blurb doesn't given enough details to simple say he has no business being there. Not knowing there is a trail there doesn't mean that he didn't do any research on the mountain. If a trail was the only qualifier to make a peak summit-able, then mountains would be a whole lot less interesting.

wrote:If he scrambled up south mountain at night and is unfamiliar with it, that isn't very bright. If he scrambled up it in the evening, took pictures, fell and knocked himself out and regained consciousness hours later to call for help, then that is a different matter. The police blurb doesn't given enough details to simple say he has no business being there. Not knowing there is a trail there doesn't mean that he didn't do any research on the mountain. If a trail was the only qualifier to make a peak summit-able, then mountains would be a whole lot less interesting.

You make some good points, Jim_H. However, what he did is illegal, and it's illegal for a reason. The Phoenix Mtn Preserves are small, isolated islands of paradise smack-dab in the middle of unadulterated urban sprawl. Those of us who live down here don't want people going wherever they want in the Preserve because we'd prefer to keep as much of the area as-pristine-as-possible for as long as possible. Again, it's the law, and it not only protects the Preserve, but those of us who enjoy the area.
He had no idea what he was doing because taking the route he did is illegal, and violating simple rules like staying on trails only hinders the future enjoyment the rest of us want to enjoy in the Preserve, and puts the people who are charged with rescuing him in danger. Perhaps he knew it was illegal, and didn't care. We'll never know unless he comes out and explains himself.
Furthermore, it's not very difficult to learn about the routes to the top of Camelback because it's the second-most-popular trail in one of the largest urban areas in the country. 3.5 seconds of a Google search would have told him a better way to the top (considering that from what we know his goal was to take panoramic photos from the summit), much less the extensive information available on this site.
I understand your belief that mountains are a whole lot less interesting when summiting them is confined to doing so via a marked trail, but the Phoenix Mountain Preserve only exists due to the grace of God (and Mayor Driggs...), and those of us who enjoy it responsibly don't want people screwing it up.
-Jim

big_load wrote: Local "knowledge" is not always helpful.

That's for sure. I was at Slummit Hut about a month back and had to intervene when I overheard one of the staff telling some poor lady from who-knows-where that the Finger Rock trail goes right up to the base of Finger Rock and is only a "Couple of miles long as he remembers it."

jhodlof wrote:If he scrambled up south mountain

For what its worth, it was Camelback.

Those of us who live down here don't want people going wherever they want in the Preserve because we'd prefer to keep as much of the area as-pristine-as-possible for as long as possible. Again, it's the law, and it not only protects the Preserve, but those of us who enjoy the area.

What gets me is there are spots(in the preserve) where you can only go with the right people guided tours, but can't go on your own. Some idiot who's not gonna respect property isn't gonna respect it whether its illegal or not.

rlrjamy wrote:Those of us who live down here don't want people going wherever they want in the Preserve because we'd prefer to keep as much of the area as-pristine-as-possible for as long as possible. Again, it's the law, and it not only protects the Preserve, but those of us who enjoy the area.

What gets me is there are spots(in the preserve) where you can only go with the right people guided tours, but can't go on your own. Some idiot who's not gonna respect property isn't gonna respect it whether its illegal or not.

I'm not familiar with this. I know there are guided hikes that cost money, but I've never heard of areas in the Phoenix preserves that require a guide.

I'm going off of memory here... it seems South Mountain used to have guided hikes to off limits areas during various sun positions.

JamesLyding wrote:Phoenix preserves that require a guide.

My bad. I meant the Mcdowells. The right people didn't mean an official guided tour. Off-trail glyphs etc.

Ah. I can understand not wanting the great unwashed masses having access to off-trail glyphs, but in Phoenix "ALWAYS stay on a designated trail. Phoenix city ordinances prohibit trailblazing." I can't vouch for the Scottsdale. The tragedy is that 10,000 people who enjoy nature in a responsible manner are usually outweighed by one dingus who's out there to get his rocks off by destroying something.