The loss of a life on the traverse to the Slips is sobering and a tragedy for the family. My thoughts go out to them. However, if the kids were on their way to climb at the Slips, why weren't they harnessed in? FOX news mentioned that the site has become something of a "party spot", and there are other indicators that they weren't climbers. Personally, I suspect that if the traverse had remained a single-rope Tyrolean, this would not have happened. Forest Service/County officials will be removing the rope "bridge" ASAP according to the news story.

Last Monday, 5/15, there was no lower line. Someone put it up between then and Saturday.

The Tribune story notes that the "slip" is a "bridge" with one rope for the feet and one rope to hold on to. There is no mention of the fact that this should be crossed with the safety of a harness and that it's primarily in place for use by climbers. It seems to me that this is irresponsible and misleading of the Trib. Anyone want to send them an editorial? (or think it's appropriate?)

This is an unfortunate incident that affects everyone. Clearly, the family and friends of Nikki are suffering the most. Our hearts go out to them. It is unfortunate that media outlets spin this in a way that hurts the climbing community. Perhaps an explanation in a letter to the editor is in order.
The first time I climbed at the Slips this year, there was only one rope. I climbed at the Slips the day before this unfortunate incident. Someone had cut an old dynamic rope in two and tied two lines across the stream (one paralleled the static rope, the other was intended for feet). My buddy and I avoided the dynamic ropes all together because it looked manky, it was soaking wet, and if we had walked on the lower rope, we would have been up to our knees in the water.
After hearing about this on KSL news, I blamed myself for not thinking about removing the ropes that I knew were dangerous. I hadn't realized at the moment I was crossing that people would actually attempt crossing without a harness. However, an inexperienced person is more likely to cross if there is a foot rope.
The Sheriff's office has known about the traverse for years, and I doubt they will remove it (that was the impression I got from the TV interview with the deputies). If any action is to be taken, the climbing community should be involved.
My hope is that this incident will bring safety to the forefront. And maybe we'll get lucky and an Eagle Scout will build a bridge for us.

John J. Glime wrote: "Was there any reason why the lower 'foot' section hadn't been taken down as was our consensus last year? Anyone willing to go take it down now?"

Frankly, John, I am infuriated buy your comment. It is completely disingenuous.

I addressed the issue of the dangerous nature of the double-rope traverse, last year, in two long climbingsaltlake.com threads in which you took part. The overwhelming response to my concerns was that I was an overreacting troublemaker, who should find something better to do with his time. The thread was called "Tyrolean", and, for some reason, it seems to have disappeared from the site archives. I did, however, recover several of my post from here:

http://www.mountainproject.com/v/utah/wasatch_range/big_cott>>>>>

My efforts to make you all aware of the real danger were met with insults, harassment, and the general attitude that I should go away. In fact, one of you told me to go back to Boulder. This happened for one reason - SELFISHNESS. There was absolutely no need for the lower rope, especially considering that there is an easy walk-in approach to The Slips crag.

Your comment demonstrates that you have learned nothing from this incident. Every one of you, who brushed off my warning with insults and harassment, should be ashamed of yourselves. This young girl's life is over, and her family will carry the heartache and burden of that loss for the rest of their lives. John, it has been awhile since that thread, and my thought is that you might have been one of the few, who eventually expressed some empathy for my concern. Although I appreciate that, it does not change the fact that you all took the situation so lightly. I, most of all, am ashamed at myself for letting you all bully me into not chopping the rope down last year. I was new to the climbing community, and, after so much resistance, decided to leave it in your hands. That won't happen again. I have never before encountered a more self-centered attitude than I did from the people, who participated in the Tyrolean thread.

It is time for this climbing community to wake up and take responsibility for its actions. This type of accident should never happen again. It could have been easily avoided, had we been united in the goal of being careful not to create deadly situations in public places - especially where children visit.

My heart goes out to that young girl's family, and I hope that the Salt Lake climbing community will eventually give them reason to believe that our future actions will be worthy of their confidence and respect.

KC

KEN- no one in the climbing community can or should be blamed for what happened. Safety in the mountains requires knowledge, experience and awareness of one's surroundings. As we all know accidents happen in the mountains, we are so vulnerable in such a hostile environment that to stay safe one must be fully involved and aware. When entering the wilderness you must realize you are leaving this safe flat world and entering into the world that man is only able to visit and not live, for sustaining life in such a hostile environment is impossible.

Jake,

Your comment is pure bulls##t, and you need to sit down and think about what has happened here. I know as well as anyone what the rules of nature are. This is different, and this community needs to start paying attention to how their actions affect others.

That area is not the wilderness. It is a high-profile tourist stop, which sees traffic from children all of the time. That lower rope was utter nonsense, and it should have come down when we all last discussed this.

KC

Tragedies surrounding recreation are particularly hard to swallow on any level. The argument as to what they were doing there (whether it was recreation or not) is a mute (moot?) point as the net result is that it involves the climbing community there. Pointing fingers, name blaming, and getting upset with each other is not concise use of our energy towards a better goal. Things may have been said (or ignored), and actions may have been taken (again, or ignored) that could have changed the outcome of this event, however the outcome is still the same. What we can do now is look at what we have and as a community find something constructive and useful out of all this... learn from these tragedies and formulate plans to better our future.

What I would like to see is a sign posted explaining the dangers (not as obvious as it would seem), how they can be countered, etc. Basically as with all things, proper education is the key, and it's unfortunate that these young teens either weren't educated properly of the risks, or that they choose to ignore them (whichever the case may be). A posting that you absolutely should be clipped in would not detract from the overall experience IMHO and I think would help educate those that know a little less rope skills. Unfortunately, not much can be done for those that blatantly choose to ignore such safety measures.

Thanks, John, for coming to the understanding of how serious this situation is.

Per my last Email response to you, I am posting our conversation here. It is not my intention to embarrass you, nor should you feel that way. My reason for posting them is that your initial feelings are probably consistent with those of some of the other members here, who aren't yet seeing the big picture. My hope is that the progression of our conversation will help to enlighten those individuals. Again, thank you for taking this seriously.

Ken


Email transcripts:

Ken,

I am not sure why you are angry with me. Yes, initially last year, I thought your argument was a waste of time, but you and everyone else that posted persuaded me that the foot section should be removed. (To be honest, of the perhaps 5 times that I have ever climbed at the slips I never once saw a foot line.)

It was my impression that we as a community agreed that the foot line was to be removed. Was it not? According to Rebecca, the foot line had been removed and at some point in the last week it was re-installed. For all we know the kids who wanted to go party in that area installed it so that they could more easily get across.

Even if you remove the rope Ken, someone is going to put it back up. The real problem is that a group of teenagers took a stupid risk. Of course I sympathize with the grief of the family.

Regards,
John


Ken,

I just want to say that I mis-spoke. I had earlier only read the tribune article, but having just read the deseret news article, I see that those kids did not install the lower rope. It was in place when they got there. I agree with you that it there should not be a foot rope over the river.

-John


Thank you, John. I was going to light into you, per your first Email. I am glad to see that you understand the problem here.

The bottom line is that this girl is dead, and she wouldn't have been, had that rope not been there. I don't want to say too much until I calm down. I haven't slept well since I got the news.

Ken



Ken,

I am not trying to justify anything, but you could not have stopped that rope from being there. It wasn't there last week, and suddenly there it was. Each of us make choices everyday, none of us know which wrong choice is going to be our last. Those kids made a choice, and now they are going to suffer the rest of their lives. There is no way anyone could continue to keep that rope from going back up. Going across that rope at dusk/dark was a choice. Whomever put up that foot rope last week made a choice. They are things that we can't always control. I agree, if that rope, or both of those ropes hadn't been there, that girl would not have fallen into the river. She is dead, and that is a terrible thing.

I am sorry that your fear came to pass.

-John


John,

Let's save each other from a circuitous discussion, in which the carrot perpetually dangles just out of reach.

The lower rope was there last year, and it was still there at time of Nikki Bernhisel's drowning. It was erected by climbers, and we all knew it was there. The issue was discussed at length in the Tyrolean thread, in which I voiced my concern in detail. We both know how that concern was received.

Now the inevitable has occurred, and it is no surprise to me. Rather, I am stunned at the denial of this climbing community to accept culpability for allowing this threat to exist in one of our "high-profile", recreation areas. This is a classic case of everyone wanting to sweep our mistake under the carpet.

Frankly, John, and if I am correct in that you are a school teacher, your remarks about a fifteen year old girl being responsible for her own actions are appalling. There is a reason why fifteen year olds can't even procure a driver's license. They have not had enough time on the planet in order to develop sufficient judgment. This is not my personal opinion; it is an observable fact, and I tried, tirelessly, to get that point across to you all last year. Again, we both know how I was received.

You say that we can't control who erects these rope bridges. In one sense, you are correct, although we could have taken a communal stand against it, just as many of you are about Dean's ascent of Delicate Arch. This climbing community didn't - purely out of expedience. You all enjoyed the convenience of that rig, in spite of the real threat that it posed to children, who lacked the judgment to be fully aware of the danger associated with its improper use.

The only reason that so many climbers are upset with Dean is because his actions stand to jeopardize their fun. It doesn't matter to them whether or not he was actually guilty of a crime. All that matters to them is that they might lose out on their privileges. This abject selfishness seems to be a recurring trend among climbers.

You say that you are sorry that my fear came to pass. Why is that? Are you sorry for my personal anguish, for Nikki's grieving family, or are you simply saying it to placate me, because this incident makes you uncomfortable?

Yes, my question is pointed. In fact, it is razor sharp, because I want you to understand how serious this is. We are not talking about a temporary problem. Nikki's life is over at fifteen. She will never taste another breath of air, and we are partly to blame. As much as I tried to convince you all of that, I am just as guilty, because I did not take action to remove that damn rope.

Just as I had no problem foreseeing this tragedy, I see another one if this climbing community doesn't take action to prevent a repeat performance. The architects of that Tyrolean did not have permission from the forest service to erect it, and we should make it clear that we do not condone the practice of illegally building such apparatus in recreational areas frequented by tourists. We should never "illegally" place them anywhere. It is irresponsible, and it is also a perfect way to jeopardize future access.You all talk about Dean's having threatened access. Then don't be hypocrites. Do what's right, instead of what most conveniently serves your own purpose.

This Email is a response to yours, although the message is meant for the entire community, Therefore, I am posting it on MP. You are welcome to Email me with your concerns, although I would prefer to discuss this in open forum, because it involves everyone.

Regards,

KC

As of Wednesday, May 24 of 2006, ALL ropes have been removed and a pink warning sign has been posted on the trail down to the river crossing.
The warning sign contains information about the dangers of high water and does not mention the Tyrolean traverse at all.

Well my vote is that either one or two ropes should be present, whatever happens to be there... In addition to a general warning sign, an instructional sign showing the safe ways of crossing both types of rope setups (a tyrolean and a double line 'bridge') should be present too. Finally, information showing how to cross simply by walking in from the storm mountain area should be present as well. This way all who go there are warned, instructed, and even given a safer option... and yet many of us can still enjoy the more technical crossing if that be our choice.

As to whether or not the foot rope caused the accident I think is an inconcise argument. IMHO the accident was caused by not being clipped into a rope. Not having a 'safety net' (almost literally) of being clipped in, the consequences of slipping off the rope is much higher than if they had been clipped in. I personally don't see the one rope any safer than the two rope crossing except the fact that a tyrolean would discourage those that don't have the ability to be clipped in. Still, in the end, it's still the human factors problem of them not choosing the safer option of clipping in that caused the tragedy. I could easily imagine someone just hooking their feet over and inch worming across the tyrolean too, which also wouldn't be any safer.

If I'm not mistaken, you can actually hike into the Slips from the Storm Mountain picnic area. It seems to me that we, as a climbing community, might prevent a lot of future grief if this were more widely known and accepted. Aren't we out there to get a workout and enjoy the outdoors anyway?

The debate over culpability is disturbing to me:

Climbers knew the bridge presented a potential hazard but still put it up.

The authorities knew it was there, but didn't take it down (previous to the accident).

The teens should have been at least aware/responsible enough to know that raging, cold water is dangerous.

As I believe Ken pointed out, pointing fingers does no good. The least we, as a climbing community, can do is take the long way in to this "popular" climbing area, making the safety of the rope bridge a non-issue. It is one more in a pile of real or imagined offenses that as a total threaten access, not to mention the reputation of climbers. I like to think that most climbers are safe, aware, responsible people. The ones that I know surely are. And I hope that's the way the non-climbing public can see us. Currently, I don't think we're doing ourselves any favors.

To Matt,

The solution is simple. Submit a proposal to the park service. Afterall, managing that land is their responsibility, which makes them directly culpable for everything that happens withing its boundaries.

To Rebecca,

You post is refreshing. Thank you.

Briefly, thanks Matt, for mentioning the hike-in approach while I was busy composing my post.

One more note, regarding signage including "instructions" for using the rope bridge: that opens a whole world of responsibilty and legal issues, not to mention that it ignores the fact that the rope bridge is indeed illegal on forest service land. I'm all for the suggestion of getting an Eagle Scout to build us a permanent, permitted, legal bridge.

Hey! Maybe some of us could volunteer to build a bridge! (I don't personally have the skills/knowledge to spearhead such a project, but I would definitely help!)

The events that have traspired at the slips has effected my family in a devastating way, Nikki happened to be a close friend of my sisters she was not present during the time of the accident but wishes she was due to her being an experienced climber and knowing you don't put yourself in any situation like that without being hooked in. I would be more than happy to volunteer time to help put in some type of permanent bridge and I know my sister would also be more than willing to help as well.

I'd also be willing to volunteer my time to build a bridge... I have quite a lot of prior experience building houses, and actually building a similar bridge for my Eagle Project.

I know there's an inherent risk, but frankly I thought the Tyrolean was simply a LOT OF FUN! I also think the Tyrolean impacts the environment a lot less than a bridge. However, if the Park Service, and the general climbing community's consensus is for a bridge (in the interest of everyone's safety), then I'll be happy to back that up with my time and labor.

Here's a statement from the SLCA:

"The recent tragedy at the river crossing at the Slips climbing area has brought attention to climbers’ practices on Forest Service land. Currently we have a number of un-maintained rope bridges which are used to access climbing in the Wasatch. The Forest Service has an official view about these structures: they are not permitted. As a result, if the Forest Service comes across one, they will tear it down. (They make an analogy with snowboard/ski jumps, which they also break down.) The Forest Service, along with the Sheriff’s Department, took down the rope bridge at the Slips. If another rope bridge appears there, it will be taken down. There is access to climbing at the Slips via a trail from the Storm Mountain campground. The approach time is around 15 minutes. Currently the Forest Service is undecided about whether to place a permanent bridge over the river at the Slips or to leave the area accessible only via the hike-around during high water times. Their argument against a permanent bridge is the lack of good parking opportunities for the Slips climbing area.

Any questions about climbing on Forest Service land in the Salt Lake area should be addressed to the Salt Lake Ranger District (801 733 2662)."

I hope this helps clarify the situation. In my opinion, the bridge has an outside chance, but I agree with Rebecca that the walk-around is a pretty simple solution. Also, signs are a no-no, so it is up to the community to disseminate the information. On an up note, we are helping Volunteers for Outdoor Utah to coordinate a crag day at the Slips, in the fall. I will post up when it is confirmed.

Until the water goes down, the Slips will have a well deserved break in the action.

I just want to say that "Forest Service Land" is actually your land. It is the public's land. You have a big say about what happens on your land. If the idea of a bridge is important to you, I would highly recommend that you contact the number that Jon mentions above, or email our local Wasatch-Cache District Office.

Jonathan,
Is there any way we could try and negotiate use of the overflow parking at the picnic area for climbing. Even if we were allowed on non-holiday weekends or something. It is true there is inadequate parking along that road and people often walk or stand on the road while getting into and out of their cars. I know it'll never happen but it might resolve that part of the problem. They're pretty serious about collecting fees up there.
Clay

I am always surprised that more people do not walk over to the Slips from the picnic area instead of using the stupid Tyrolean. I think this is due to the fact that most people are unaware of the hike and follow the crowds across the water. The parking area (east of the picnic area by the chainlink at the mouth of Mule Hollow) is large, away from traffic and free. From there you have a nice walk to the crag; and in the end, the hike is much more enjoyable than the climbing.

I spoke with Deputy Sheriff Kevin Sheffield yesterday. They are pursuing a case of criminal negligence in the matter, so if climbers set up a temporary tyrolean, they should be prepared to explain. As an ex-climber and hiker, he has a thorough understanding of the situation, and has climbed at the Slips in the past. He knows how easy it is to walk around, as well.

Of course, no one knows who is responsible for setting up the traverse in question, but we ought to spread the word to those who might install it in the future.

Yes, you can walk into the slips from storm mountain however you have to pay for access........

Jake,

That is incorrect. You only have to pay for access at Storm Mountain if you park in their parking area/lot or if you are going to use the picnic tables, etc.

John, my experiences with forest personnel are very biased and one sided. They seem to me like lifeguards in the wilderness, pretending to be second only to god, and in the case of storm mountain-threatening to call the authorities for not paying the access fee.

As of June 19 a new Tyrolean was put up with a foot rope...Very gurly looking by the way. I took down the foot rope but left the Tyrolean, not knowing what the community's view of the matter was. It looks that there should not be anything up at all to keep good standings with the officials; is this correct?

Does anyone agree? Is there action being taken to create a better solution. Seems like no matter what, climbers of all degrees will climb this epic crag. I realize there is an alternative way to get there, but why not create a wood bridge like the rest of the dangerous areas in BCC. I’d be willing to donate, and I am sure others as well. It seems like a better solution to the problem than the city taking matters into their own hands. Cutting that rope down was the dumbest thing they could do.

I have a different opinion. I wouldn't object to a bridge, though the above SLCA statement indicates available road parking is a major issue. Continuing to put up tyroleans, though, just isn’t helpful, given the FS isn’t in a place to tolerate them after an unnecessary, tragic death. I agree users of the backcountry have to be self-reliant, aware of, and ultimately responsible for the risks, but often teens just aren't in a place to evaluate and think consequentially well enough to avoid such tragedies (I sometimes wonder how I lived through this period, but am very glad I did!). And the Wasatch (esp. Storm Mt.) is unique in its proximity to a large city with all kinds of user groups. Given a death and the burden of guilt for those kids who “thought” they knew what they were doing, is so hugely overwhelming, I can see why the FS and Sheriffs are removing “home-grown” tyroleans. I love adding a hike (even as little as this one) to a climb, and generally find areas requiring a hike to be cleaner, less trodden, and higher in aesthetic value. So my opinion would be the better solution is to let this area be open to those willing to hike in to it…or work in constructive ways (ie, the Access Fund, letters) to lobby for a bridge.

Why does everyone want a bridge? The walk-in is about half a mile long and probably takes 15 extra minutes max. If a bridge was built it would take money that could be used elsewhere and detract from the aesthetics of the area. I know that sport climbing is all about the moves of a climb so a "long" approach detracts from the nature of the climbs but take a minute to think how a bridge would really affect the slips. A bridge will allow a new group of people into the slips. People who want to go out and get drunk and/or think that it is hysterical to deface the rock with spray paint. The slips will inevitably turn into an area like lisa falls with trash and graffiti every where. This would ruin one reason the slips is so great. So take the extra minutes and walk in or don't climb until late summer when it is safe to cross the river.

As far as putting in a bridge - or walking around. Both of those options make the access a lot easier and safer wouldn't you agree. If that's the case why don't we all just hike to the top of the climbs, or use a ladder to climb to the top or get a helicopter ride. We can get stronger by just doing safe pull ups then we don't have to worry about other people's bolt placements or anchor placements or rock placements getting pulled out of place. we could also put foam around every hard surface while we drive so we don't get hurt and everyone will have a safe time. :)