Devil's Lake Accident 4-1-07

Tracy Roach wrote: I constantly read posts from hikers who call themselves climbers when they are summiting the peaks via the walk ups and have no intention of ever actually climbing the stone. It gets under my skin because it is done in a publicly viewed forum that I know the media accesses regularly, especially when there is an incident. So we've got the media calling hikers climbers and the hikers calling themselves climbers. It�s no wonder why there is so much confusion. It frustrates me more when I hear them call climbers hikers. I heard a local station call one of the world�s most adventurous climbers who had passed a hiker. I saw just how quick the media was to get a story out without doing the necessary research. It was very disrespectful in my opinion. I do like the idea of press releases coming from climbers. I think it would be a catalyst to getting the correct information out to the public and I think that is very important. With access issues constantly popping up, inaccurate and sometimes negative publicity is not something that our lifestyle needs.

Devil's Advocate here...

dictionary.reference.com/br…

dictionary.reference.com/br…

The actual definition of climb is really nothing more than ascend or go up and a climber is one who ascends. There is no actual separation between whether you have a chalk bag and sticky shoes or not so despite the fact that some "climbers" may be annoyed by the fact that hikers are categorized into this group by actual definition they really aren't wrong, the media that is. I understand the desire to separate the two so as that this group isn't identified with that group but if you climb the stairs to work everyday you are "climbing". I'd like to see the pioneer climbers get into this debate and give their thoughts to those who are offended by people looking to summit peaks and calling themselves climbers as opposed to hikers. Would you say that the Sour Dough Boys (First Acensionists of Denali's North Summit) were hikers?

It seems to me that you guys have basically set out to get the media on track with the current modern perceptions and definitions of what "Climbing" is in it's respective styles? I think that saying that you climbed Long's Peak today Via the Keyhole is completely justified. Would you say I hiked Denali or Everest? No you would say I climbed Everest. Now if you did a new route on Everest or Denali or Long's for that matter which no one else has ever done and very few in the future will ever do well then you earned yourself official bad ass status...but you still don't try to call the guy who does the easier routes a hiker.

I bid you guys good luck and would even consider letting you use my name but before getting so offended by the media and the use of the term climb take a look at where the word came from and how one outside of this community would perceive it. Everyone I've met who isn't climber has always thought that climbers are crazy and major risk takers and the truth of it is that people looking to ascend things climbers or hikers are taking risks and sometimes things go sour people get hurt or even die. It sucks but maybe that's why it's so fun.

Jeff-

Your use of dicitonary definitions in this matter is intriguing. Unfortunately it's completely a waste of time. We are not dealing with what Webster (or any other dictionary for that matter) states a climber to be. We are dealing with what the public perceives those definitions to be. Yes it is all about that ever so fuzzy little word perception. So the definition that matters is the one that the public as a whole perceives it to be.

Further many of the headlines in this specific case refer to "Rock-climber" and not just "climber" which I'm sure you'd agree paints a much different picture in the mind of the perceiver (read public). Suddenly that picture in their minds starts to look a whole lot more like you and me than it does a dad out with his teenage son and some friends scrambling in a talus field.

The point to all of this is that the people this tragedy struck were not engaging in the activity the public perceives them to have been engaging in when the media reported this unfortunate incident as a climbing accident. As such a dictionary defintion has no bearing here.

It's not about elitism it's about the media not spinning stories in order to boost their ratings and make more money as a result of these types of tragedies. All the while dragging the name of a "vibrant and safety-conscious group of climbers" as Jay put it, through the mud.

Doug Hemken wrote: We need them to revisit the New Sandstone closure. The closure has no compelling rational basis, which encourages scofflaws. If they had a *good* reason for the closure, they'd find that climbers would actually help them enforce it! And we need to let Evans know that we would like to see Gibraltar opened to climbing. People do not respect Columbia County's closure now, and you see lots of fresh chalk.

Doug, This is such a good idea. How do we do this?

Jay, I/we should probably just phone him. Someone want to suggest a couple of good dates for a meeting?

With respect to the definition of "climber," I think Jeff makes a good point that to the broader public, anyone whose goal is the summit of a mountain or rock is a "climber." You should always keep that in mind, and don't expect it to change anytime soon!

But public officials have to work with legal definitions, and officials need their definitions to be more precise than that (statisticians also have to have clear definitions, as for example with accident statistics). If we took "climber" in its broadest sense, then no one would be allowed to walk to the top of Gibralter Rock or walk to the top of the New Sandstone. (I believe this is actually the intent at Mill Bluff, but I'd have to know more about the archeology of the area to be sure.)

Because of these closures, and because the phrase "climbing activity" appears in the Wisconsin Administrative Code, I think it is important that Supt. Evans and other officials use the term "climber" in a more restricted fashion.

Here is the definition of "climbing activity" in NR45.03(8f):
“Climbing activity” includes any of the following:
(a) Ascending or descending steep rock walls, ice walls or artificial structures, usually with the assistance of specialized rock
climbing equipment including ropes, webbing and carabiners.
(b) Practicing the use of specialized rock climbing equipment
near the ground.

Shoes don't define the climber. I see lots of beginners roped up; I've seen a few barefoot - and totally bare - people roped up; I almost never see rock shoes when ice climbing; and I often wear approach shoes when aid climbing. All on Wisconsin state lands.

I'd have to argue against chalk based on most of the same examples.

Obviously to us, ropes do not define climbing.

I think it would be fair to define climbing as using one element of a set: using "specialized climbing equipment" probably covers 99% of what most of us consider "climbing".

Since Jay was the only one willing to do the work he did, it seems a bit petty to now be "arguing" about what kind of definition he gave to "climber". I gave him my opinion when writing this, but I did not do the work so I am not going to complain. That said, if the state has a definition as to what it means to be a "climber", in the future it seems like that would be the best definition to use when addressing the state (i.e. the use of 'specialized equipment', seems to me shoes could be included in this).

There is good intent behind this thread, lets not have it break down into petty arguing over 'what is a climber'.....INMHO.
-ron-

Yeah, I did what I did. I got positive feedback from all of those listed at the bottom of the statement.

I have no interest in people telling me that I should have done it differently now, after the fact. Doug, if you or anybody else wants to do it "better," then by all means do so. You can add my name.

I wasn't really suggesting any changes rather a view from the other side and things to take into account before climbers get angry about other people categorizing themselves into this group or that.

Feel free to add my name to the list if it isn't too late.

JasonH wrote:Anyone else catch the article about this accident in the Wisco State Journal yesterday? Quoting from the article "He was not a technical rock climber, he was doing what we call 'scrambling,' just sort of climbing up through the rocks," said Schmelzer [assistant park superintendent Steve Schmelzer]. "He had no technical rock climbing gear, no helmet or climbing shoes."

The article is online, here: madison.com/wsj/home/local/…

IMHO, the article goes the "balanced" route, presenting the scrambler on 4-1, on the one hand, and a case from a few years ago of a bad fall with an experienced climber. It mentions there were 12 incidents last year, but doesn't break down the numbers for "climbers" vs. "scramblers". Kudos to the park official, and the WSJ, for at least starting a discussion on "scramblers".

This seems to be a fairly well thought out piece, while it doesn't draw the distinctions as clear as most of us would like; it is certainly a huge improvement over the original reports.

Yes! I was surprised at how much effort the WSJ put into doing a better job. I really didn't think your letter would have much of an effect ... glad you proved me wrong. Thanks, Jay and Nick.

A few things that came to mind as I was reading. One, Schmelzer seems to have presented stuff more clearly than Evans usually does. Two, Hesselberg was still confused about "non-designated use", and managed to go from "an area with no designated use" to "an area not designated for public use." Very different meaning.

The other thing was the Forsythes. I think they were the ones who tried to sue the Park and the State, after the 1991 accident. Because of Wisconsin's outdoor recreation liability statutes and "non-designated use", they didn't get very far. I think that's the only time anyone has threatened to sue in the last 15-20 years.

The fatality in September? Wasn't that the climber who was camping down at the Old Sandstone? He didn't fall "while climbing"?

Doug Hemken wrote:The fatality in September? Wasn't that the climber who was camping down at the Old Sandstone? He didn't fall "while climbing"?

I think the incident in September and the Old Sandstone Incident were different. Pretty sure the thing in September was a guy out hiking with his girlfriend. We talked about it here then:

mountainproject.com/v/midwe…

James is correct.

The accident at old sandstone was several years ago. I was told by someone that knew the victim well, it was believed he was sleep walking and fell of the cliff.

Ok so im just sitting around one day on the computer looking up climbing accident and yes this is a climbing accident, and i stumble across this accident here and read and read what everyone has to say. some say its a shame and some throw there two cents about how its rediculous about a head line how wasnt a climber but a hiker. My dad James alvin kotlewski who was 36 not 35 or 37 was a climber screw your shoes and your powder he has been climbing for 25 years. and for a administrator on a website to be going on with this bullshit is an insult on climbers around the world. Congradulations your are talking shit about a fellow DEAD climber. and i cant belive you have a guideline saying dont be a jerk when your being the asshole yourself i personally cant wait to tell my uncle about this im sure you will be hearing from my family.

You completely missed the point of this, please read again Jesse and we ARE sorry for your loss.

WOW Jesse. Settle down. No one here spoke any ill will of your father. This was not a rock climbing accident. Read the report madison.com/wsj/home/local/…. People die every year at all sorts of national parks. The reason the distinction between hikers and climbers is so important in Wisconsin, is that here, climbers are already looked upon in bad light. So when a hiker gets hurt at the lake, and they report it as a climber getting hurt, it gives the public even more reason to think rock climbers are irresponsible and can't keep themselves alive. When in fact, most climbers in WI practice very safe climbing techniques.

And as far as your family is concerned, we are all very sorry for your loss. Death is not a joke. But coming on this website to scold us for having an educated discussion and threatening us with "hearing" from your family is hardly a mature response to this incident.

Jesse Wardinski wrote:Ok so im just sitting around one day on the computer looking up climbing accident and yes this is a climbing accident, and i stumble across this accident here and read and read what everyone has to say. some say its a shame and some throw there two cents about how its rediculous about a head line how wasnt a climber but a hiker. My dad James alvin kotlewski who was 36 not 35 or 37 was a climber screw your shoes and your powder he has been climbing for 25 years. and for a administrator on a website to be going on with this bullshit is an insult on climbers around the world. Congradulations your are talking shit about a fellow DEAD climber. and i cant belive you have a guideline saying dont be a jerk when your being the asshole yourself i personally cant wait to tell my uncle about this im sure you will be hearing from my family.

Jesse,

I'm extremely sorry for your loss, and you and your family have my deepest condolences, I can't even begin to imagine what it's like to lose a father in this manner.

The statements that were made here were made by people using the information available at the time. Because we were mistaken in assuming (again based on the information available at the time) that your father was not a climber or climbing at the time of the accident -- we started a conversation about a common problem in how the media reports accidents (both climbing and non-climbing) at Devils Lake and other Wisconsin climbing areas. This is not the first time this issue has been discussed, and unfortunately I doubt it will be the last.

Ultimately our purpose in discussing this issue was and is to promote the dissemination of correct information by the media in any type of accident so that people can become better educated about the risks involved in the activities they and others participate in, as well as promote and maintain access to climbing areas. I'm almost certain that as a climber your father would have approved of these goals.

This website has an entire area devoted to the discussion of climbing accidents for this purpose. Much of the discussion in these threads is an attempt to figure out what happened, what went wrong, and how best to prevent it in the future. Admittedly there are people who at times make callous and insensitive remarks (internet anonymity is largely to blame here), and that is a shame because it clouds over the purpose of these threads. I know Jay's intent was not to cast any negativity over your father's character - nor do I think that his remarks did. I think we all were trying to get to the bottom of this, and none of us had all the information. If you were there and can shed light on to what actually happened that night I think the climbing community and your father's legacy would be better served.

Regards,
James

edited by me: I removed some of my post because I felt it could be offensive to the family involved. Our intentions are in general, not just this incident.

The majority of the deaths at Devil's Lake were caused by people hiking through the talus fields. Talus fields kill people every year. Each time I see a hiker at the lake walking through the talus, I warn them about how dangerous it is and I show them a better route to take. I would hate to be around when someone does get hurt and I never said anything.

Looks like you missed the point too JLP. This started as using the recent accident as an example of hikers being labeled as climbers. It happens all the time, and if you read the post, it happens all over the country.

Sometimes it takes an accident like this for the rest of us to start thinking about it and ways to prevent it and stop the news from misrepresenting the entire sport.

Here is a made up example of what we are trying to get at:

Say a guy decides he is going to fly up in plane, and jump out of it without a parachute and aims for a body of water, thinking he will survive. Instead, he hits the ground and dies. A news reporter writes a story and the headline reads "Skydiver killed in fatal accident".
This man had no training, no gear and no protection ie. the parachute. Would you still consider this man a skydiver.

John W. Knoernschild wrote:Looks like you missed the point too JLP. This started as using the recent accident as an example of hikers being labeled as climbers. It happens all the time, and if you read the post, it happens all over the country. Sometimes it takes an accident like this for the rest of us to start thinking about it and ways to prevent it and stop the news from misrepresenting the entire sport.

We have this issue in Phoenix all the time. A hiker tries to scramble up some cliff in the mountain preserve, slips and falls and must be heloed out, and they call him a 'climber'. 99.99% of the time it is a hiker in over their head who becomes injured, yet the media labels the person a climber. It is frustrating to the climbing community in general.

Does it really matter?

The only issue that needs to be discerned is rescue cost which is more applicable in differentiating search from transport.

Being a "technical climber" doesn't make anyone above the danger from a fall hazard.