Devil's Lake Accident 4-1-07

I've heard some rumors of a rockslide at DL last night, however the only information I can find on the internet is this:

wkowtv.com/News/index.php?I…

Does anyone out there have any better information?

Thanks,
James

More info, some conflicting and some plain bad:

wiscnews.com/bnr/news/127447

channel3000.com/news/114935…

wbay.com/Global/story.asp?S…

chippewa.com/articles/2007/…

The articles I see tend to support what Jason has to say about this incident. Sounds to me like they were scrambling in the talus fields and were not actually rock climbing as most of us would define it...

This has been a problem for quite some time: The news media refer to all accidents regarding rocks at DL as "climbing accidents." I think the defining characteristic should be if the person involved in the accident had climbing shoes or a chalk bag. If the person is lacking these things, he is not a climber and the headline should read "Hiker falls at DL."

I don't mean to sound callous, but this inaccurate reporting hurts the shaky public image that climbers labor under in the Midwest. Unlike at other areas, climbing is not part of the public consciousness.

Maybe we could change this inaccurate reporting. I'm thinking of a press release, or a petition of sorts that calls for accurate reporting about accidents at DL. We could certainly get a bunch of names on a document that proposes a clarification of terms (ie., the hiker vs climber distinction). We could send this to the news organizations in WI.

Do you think this is a good idea?

I think this is a great idea, as these stories are horribly reported. Take for instance the following sentence appearing on the Channel 3000 website:

"The rope rescue team was called in and located the victim's body at about midnight in an area called Tassle Fields, WISC-TV reported."

The first problem I have with this is that there is no area called the "Tassle" fields. I'm sure this a typo and they meant "Talus" however even if this were the case it is still bad reporting and shows a lack a research indicative of a blatant attempt to get a headline out and not an informative piece of journalism. Saying a climbing (or hiking) accident happened at an area called the "Talus Fields" is akin to saying that a car accident happened at an area called "The Intersection".

This kind of reporting is very irresponsible in my opinion and only meant generate Nielsen ratings, website hits, and newspaper sales. It needs to stop.

I think the more dangerous error is the confusion of the "hiker" from the "climber." Apparently, every person who sets foot on the rocks becomes a "rock climber."

Sure, they will always get the facts wrong, but I think this error has been repeated over time and among all WI news organizations.

I guess I'm trying to say that we should pick our battles.

I agree Jay. I'm not saying the "tassle" error is the most egregious error, I'm saying it is further evidence of the lack of journalistic responsibility.

I would say that this type of error is important to our "case" so to speak. It provides verifiable evidence of factual inaccuracy (as known areas at the Lake and Talus are probably fairly well defined), which is unfortunately not the case regarding the climber hiker distinction.

We as a climbing community can say that this person was not a climber, but the public will turn to the media for the "truth" as to what constitutes a climber. The media will in-turn define climber as whatever generates the most revenue for them. Of course this means as broad of definition as possible because headlines related to climbing accidents mean sales.

James, do you have evidence for the "broad definition = sales" argument? I ask this because, if money is involved, it's unlikely that they will change anything.

No, but I have reasoning:

Premise #1:
Headlines involving the phrase "climbing accident" (or similar) generate public curiosity.
Premise #2:
Public curiosity generates Nielsen ratings, website hits, and the sale of periodicals.
Premise #3:
Nielsen ratings, website hits, and the sale of periodicals all generate ad sales.
Premise #4:
Media company revenues are based largely on the sale of advertising.
Premise #5:
The broader the definition of the word climber is, the more stories that can use the phrase "climbing accident" (or similar) in the headline.

I'll leave the inferences to you...

I think this is a really good idea.

James, regarding premise #1, I'm unconvinced. I think hiker accidents would generate just as many sales, maybe more given the population's familiarity with hiking rather than climbing.

Andy, would you put your name to a document that seeks to clarify the hiker vs climber confusion?

I would be glad to Jay.

I think the hikers are lulled into a false sense of security by the fact that they only hear about "climbing accidents" at DL. They take the mentality with them, that the trails and the slopes are safe, because people are climbing on them all the time. When in fact we stick to trails and gulleys in most areas. I think we need to get the hikers aware of the risks they take when they stray off trail. Last year someone died the exact same way, and was labeled as a climber. Hell, I've scrambled around those slopes with a pack full of gear and damn near broke my neck, we know how you can get into those situations. The hikers just don't realize that those talus slopes need to be respected and they're better off staying on the trails to enjoy the view. Leave the adventuring in the car, unless you are prepared for the responsibility.

I say this with the best intent. Like Jay said, I'm not trying to be callous, my sympathy to the families, and the teens who were there.

Jay,

With respect to Premise#1 I think the keyword is curiosity, and as you've stated the public already has a familiarity with hiking. As such headlines related to climbing accidents create a so to speak "double whammy" of curiosity.

I don't want to get into an argument with you about a very subtle distinction. Ultimately we agree that this should be changed, my point is that it will be difficult given the profit motive of for the media companies. Ultimately why should they take the time (and therefore expense) to ferret out the truth when they can just report whatever the Park Service and/or rescue team tells them (which is I'm sure what is going on here). Not to mention the participants in this incident probably would report themselves as rock climbing because that's what they probably thought they were doing.

Ultimately the solution lies in better education of the public as a whole, which in my is unlikely because it takes effort to learn and most people don't have the time or desire to put forth that effort.

I agree with you James. Education is key. The distinction needs to be made between climber and hiker, and climbing and scrambling.

James, am I to understand that you will not put your name to the above mentioned document?

You have some good points about things not changing, but I'd rather try to change things and be pleasantly surprised if they do, than sit back and complain about things not going well.

I'm thinking that this document (circulated also to the park service) would be a form of education.

Jay,

No I'm not saying I wouldn't put my name on such a document, I'm simply saying I doubt its effectiveness. I would be happy to sign a document supporting this distinction being made in the media. I just don't think it will change much.

I agree with Jay. We should get a document out. I agree that it will be hard to change the public image, but trying is better than just bitching. You're right though James, the public is too lazy to care.

I think we need to get the word out to collect names...I'll work on a rough draft.

Here is a copy of an email I sent out to a bunch of people:

Hello all,

A hiker has again fallen at Devil's Lake and the newspapers are calling him a "rock climber." This seems to represent the most recent example of the media confusing the term "hiker" with "climber." As far as the papers are concerned, as soon as a park user steps off the trail and onto the rock, he becomes a "rock climber," and any negative fate that might befall him is reported as happening to a rock climber.

This confusion of terms sheds a negative light on the climbing community in Wisconsin. As we all know, climbers are not thought of highly around WI, as climbing isn't really in the collective consciousness that it may be in places like Colorado or Utah. If the public continues to hear of "rock climbers" falling at the Lake, the public is not getting an accurate sense of what climbing at DL is all about.

I propose a simple way to distinguish between a hiker and a climber: if the person has climbing shoes and/or a chalk bag, he is a climber. If he lacks these things, he is not. I am thinking that we should all relay this distinction to the media.

Would you support an open letter, to be circulated among the media and the park service, that reinforces the distinction between "climber" and "hiker"? The letter would include the following information: to report that a "climber has fallen" is inaccurate unless the "climber" has climbing shoes and/or a chalk bag in his possession.

If so, please let me know if you would add your name to such a letter. Also, please forward this email to anyone who you think might be sympathetic to the purpose of this open letter.

Thanks,
Jay Knower

P.S.: I mean no disrespect to the hikers who get hurt or die at the Lake. I simply think that the event should be reported as accurately as possible.

Jay, the Hiker vs Climber media definition is a nationwide thing -- it's something that caused the AAC to do an entire case study to show the actual cost of either user group given a rescue response situation.

It isn't gonna matter how much you try to educate the media; the only ones in that industry that care are responsible journalists, not mass-media reporters, due diligence seems to go out the window when there is a live report that needs to go on the air.

Mark,

You may be right, but I would rather try to set things straight among the local community. Maybe this will resonate with one editor; maybe things will be reported differently in the future. Maybe not. At any rate, I'd rather try.

It seems that the main discrepancy with the inaccurate reporting highlighted here is that it may disrupt the access we as climbers enjoy in WI. As many people before me have stated, climbers have a tenuous foothold for access in many of our few areas. To do anything to preserve access to these areas would benefit the entire midwest climbing community. I would support, to the best of my ability, any effort that could maintain access.

On another note, it would be interesting to know the actual numbers; climbing injuries v. hiking injuries. Any speculation?

Ian