Devil's Lake Accident 4-1-07

It does matter and John K hits the nail on the head. We need to protect a climbers "image" now because when it comes down to an access issue in the future at some town hall meeting a person will stand up and oppose the climbing simply because they think we are dangerous thrill seekers who are aiming for suicide.
These type of incidents reinforce their fears and threaten access for all. I wish it were not this way but this is how it works in the US.

JLP, people getting in over their heads on El Cap is an separate issue of designating good climbers from bad ones, hiking and climbing are totally separate activities and that is our point. Of course there may be be some overlap somehow but usually not.

okay, what fear?

It's good to read you're looking to protect my image. The next time I'm looking to smash my brains all over the rock, at least I know it'll be a sexy smash.

The question of "climbers' image" is a particularly pointed one around here, because Gibralter Rock got closed to climbing after what was unequivocally a climbing accident.

But if you dig deeper into the Gibralter case, I think you'll find that it quickly turned into a situation where *one* local official was just adamantly opposed to climbers at Gibralter, was unwilling to even engage in discussion of the issue, and none of the other local officials were willing to cross her. In the long run, climbers' image turned out to be irrelevant.

Beyond that, I think both Peter and JLP are right to point out that there is a continuum between hiking and what we consider climbing. Except where we are trying to learn how to prevent accidents, drawing boundaries isn't really that informative or useful. Not to mention that its often impolite.

I think sometimes we try to draw these boundaries because we want to assure ourselves that what happened to someone else is not that likely to happen to us. We would just be fooling ourselves. What we do know about fatal accidents at Devils Lake is that many more of them happen while people are unroped than roped ... which is all of us most of the time.

Jesse, we are sorry for your loss. A friend of mine, Ben Carlson-Berne, died a few years ago in the Tetons while alone and unroped. It doesn't really matter whether he was "climbing" at the time, I'm sad he's gone.

Doug makes some great points and made me think a bit.

But I must disagree about Gibralter and the climber's image. I dug deep into finding out why we can't climb at Gibralter early this season in an effort to gain access when the DNR regained control of Gibralter early this year. I spoke with many DNR officials and read emails that a DNR officer forwarded to me that were between him and a very rude climber who tried to gain back access in early 2000. All this man did was hurt our chances. He was very impolite and downright rude. He made "climbers" look bad. I know for a fact that even if we were to get through many of the hurdles involved with reopening Gibralter, it would be stopped higher up because of their view of climbers. That one official that is adamantly opposed to climbers at Gibralter has a reason in her mind for thinking that way. Also, along with many other reasons for Gibralter being closed, the town does not want to afford the rescue team needed for the area. If they realized that not many climbers get hurt, but it's more the hikers getting in over their heads, they might have a different view of climbing in general. Are they going to close Gibralter to walking too because of a hiker getting too close to the edge and falling off. Of course not. But their image of climbing gives little chance to expect the same. All that said, the image of climbers is not the main reason for Gibralter being closed, but it is one of the many.

Doug wrote: "I think sometimes we try to draw these boundaries because we want to assure ourselves that what happened to someone else is not that likely to happen to us."

When I climb, I know the danger, it's always in my mind. I know it could just as easily happen to me. I try make it a point not to take unneeded risks. Such as free soloing. But I must admit, I have gone up some pretty risky access before and felt the immediate danger. I am very lucky not to have died a few times already.

Mark, "What Fear?" The fear that other people will hurt themselves and that makes them uncomfortable and therefore they would rather ban an activity then deal with any consequences. If we banned everything where people have gotten hurt we wouldn't be doing much would we?

Doug, I believe "image" was an issue at G-Rock. Correct me if I'm wrong but didn't this woman refuse to discuss climbing because her distant relative died while "climbing" but if fact he wasn't, he was hiking.

I also believe there IS a distinct difference between "climbing" and "hiking", it is noted in above posts. The easy part being that if a person is using a rope, they are a climber. There is some climbing that doesn't involve ropes but that usually includes climbing shoes and a chalk bag, these people are also climbers. Someone with out these is a hiker. Of course there will be special cases whre this definition is not clear but I think we can say "Generally speaking...." The story does become slightly murky in cases such as the Grand, I solo'd it in boots, was I then a hiker? I would have to say that "yes" I was a hiker that day and had I fallen I would have preferred it classified that way to negate the effect of my poor decisions on the climber community. If we don't classify ourselves the wrong people will do it for us. Classifications might be "impolite" but they are necessary in the eyes of the law and the viewing public.

Yes, there are incidents where "climbers" get hurt and those too reflect poorly on the climbing community but it is important to eliminate those incidents where it is not a really climber getting hurt but a person getting in over their head.

Sometimes there is no way to prevent an accident and people should realize that's what it was, as accident.

John & Nick,

I guess I think of "image" as "what most people think of when they think of x."

The instances you are pointing to are cases where specific individuals, a Lodi municipality official and a DNR official, have strongly-held-and-not-open-to-examination views. (Actually, the DNR person I'm thinking of isn't totally a lost cause.)

To people like this, "image" is irrelevant because they don't care what anyone around them thinks. In the case of the Lodi official, we have data (and I do mean data) to show that climbers' image among Columbia County landowners/taxpayers is just fine, but she refused to even consider it. Improving climbers image or climbers' image getting worse, it's all beside the point to people like this. Unfortunately, sometimes these people are in positions of influence.

You get my drift. I don't think climbers have an image problem in Wisconsin: we are enshrined in the state Administrative Codes as an appropriate use of State lands.

It doesn't matter that the people in the area are climber friendly. The person or people we need to gain have a scewed view, or image if you will, of the climber. Use whatever word you want there, but there is a reason for that person to be so against climbing. Therefore, they have a bad view of it in their mind.

Doug Hemken wrote: I think sometimes we try to draw these boundaries because we want to assure ourselves that what happened to someone else is not that likely to happen to us.

absolutely. good thoughts in that overall post, Doug.

"Ah, they're just a couple of hikers anyway; we've got all this gear or these sick skillz" --- yeah.

Frankly, I'd rather to put the fear in the local soccer-moms that I'm devil spawn looking for my next pillage. or the next intergalactic kegger, whichever comes first. and that I use the rope strictly for medicinal purposes; course then they'd probably ... yep.

Jesse, I know Jay (the "administrator") and he is 100% stand-up guy and I know for a fact he meant no disrespect and would never had done anything to hurt you or your family. We are sorry for your loss.

Certainly no disrespect was intended. It saddens me that our quibble over semantics has caused Jesse any more pain.

In my opinion, this whole discussion has reached its conclusion. We seem to be going over the same old things here. The accident was tragic, no matter what terms we decide to use. Let's just leave it at that.

Jay Knower wrote: 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 was browsing this site out of curiosity since my brother Ed in the 1970s fell at Devils Rock while hiking. He lived crippled and in pain until his death several years ago.
is their a way to find out how many hikers(not climbers) have died on these trails over the years?
I’m not a lawyer -I’m writing a memoir that includes this part of his life.

thank you to the writers that have been sensitive to those that died. Ed wasn’t a risk taker just out with friends for a hike 

This article appeared in the Madison paper over a decade ago:  https://madison.com/news/pain-and-death-at-devil-s-lake-treacherous-rock-formations/article_88c0fdc4-3ff9-522f-9fe5-c19cef04c5d2.html .See also madison.com/news/how-were-b… .

There have been other fatalities since, as you would expect, both climbers and non-climbers.
In this one, https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/authorities-identify-madison-man-in-fatal-fall-at-devil-s/article_6e52d6f8-9506-5524-82e1-8ace7c08cda1.html , a hiker fell off the ledge at the base of Devil's Doorway, landing next to climbers who attempted CPR.

And here is another accident where someone fell off an overlook: https://madison.com/wsj/news/local/mcfarland-woman-dies-in-possible-fall-at-devil-s-lake/article_631a7266-a085-11e1-9b09-0019bb2963f4.html .

The Park does not keep records.  It might be interesting to call up the Baraboo Ambulance squad and see how many fatalities they have responded to at Devils Lake over the years.  The 70s would have been long before they had training in high-angle rescue.