Disasters are a part of Zion National Park's history

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Barron

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Sombeech

I guess there will always be the division.

The same could be said about Aron Ralston, although he didn't die. While most who read his story hail him as a "brave hero", there are the few who call him an idiot for going alone.

Since he's still alive, I'll call him an idiot. :haha:

---

Sidebar: does anyone else here refer to their Leatherman as their "Ralston Tool"?

---

No--but occasionally going through canyons when you come to ckockstones, they have been referred to as Ralstones.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by oldno7

No--but occasionally going through canyons when you come to ckockstones, they have been referred to as Ralstones.

---

i believe ram coined that one

I know a lot of folks now call the down Bluejohn out Horseshoe the Ralston Route.

I have to admit that in privite converstations I have been harsh on the persons responsible when reciting the story of the scout leaders who led their troop into this disaster. Yes, it WAS a disaster, because it was unforseen. Semantics, whatever. We have all entered into climbs, canyons, whitewater rafting, etc when our little voice was screaming "NO!" Most times we come out unscathed, some times we have a fiasco, some times a near-death experience. In the Kolob disaster, poor judgement cost lives. A tragedy. My condolences to the families.

I agree that we can and should learn from tragedies such as this. I always read the details in any accident in the backcountry and learn from them. This way, their deaths may not have been in vain.

Speaking ill of the dead is something I would never do on a forum, though. Name calling is just plain insensitive. It is just inflammatory and doesn't help us learn from others mistakes. Let it go already!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Deathcricket

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat

My guess is that a big majority of us on this forum have made similar mistakes and were just lucky. If my son died in a car accident while not wearing a seat belt, and some asshat posted a message saying "what a fool!", I wouldn't have a very high opinion such a person.

Nat

---

This isn't the same level as "forgetting" to wear a seatbelt though, would you agree? This is the equivalent of your son standing on the roof of the car and falling off going 50 miles per hour. Intentionally putting oneself in a hazardous situation and knowing the danger involved.

Your point about offending the families of the victim is well put though. I just can't fathom the "majority" of people on this forum have made similar mistakes. I've done some stuff that others would consider extremely stupid. My first post in this forum 2 years ago was of me doing some "stunt rappelling" and I was bitched out left an right about it. So I would consider myself a risk taker for sure compared to a lot of people here. But I never would look into a whirlpool and think I could swim it. If he had jumped in and the current was "deceptively strong" and overpowered him? Ok he gets a pass. I've swam in the ocean and rip currents are amazing and very sneaky. But he tossed his pack in and it sucked so hard he couldn't pull it out! I suspect even others in the group probably helped him try to pull it out. There is no way he jumped in that pool to retrieve the pack and didn't know how strong the current was.

---

Clearly they made a big mistake, and it was their (the scout leaders') responsibility. But as obvious a mistake as standing on the roof of a car going 50mph? I don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not sure what the creek looked like at that time. Probably not as deliberately reckless. Also realize, this was 1993 and everybody was less experienced with canyons. There were no public forums and very little public beta public beta on canyons or technical canyoneering. By 2009, we have learned a lot from an accumulation of others experiences and mistakes as well as our own.

I probably overstated it in saying that a big majority have made similar mistakes, but many of has have made stupid mistakes canyoneering that could easily have lead to "disaster". I know I have.

In any case, I'm hardly defending their decision, or saying the incident shouldn't be honestly analyzed (although it has been analyzed for some 15 years, and I'm not sure if I have learned anything new about the incident on this thread). It just seems to me that all of the name calling ("dipshit" etc...) is gratuitous and I still can't see what purpose it might serve.

Nat

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Richard Barron

Sidebar: does anyone else here refer to their Leatherman as their "Ralston Tool"?

---

It was actually a cheap leatherman knock off. Every time I see a cheap knock off I think how am I going to cut my arm off with this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat

Also realize, this was 1993 and everybody was less experienced with canyons. There were no public forums and very little public beta on canyons or technical canyoneering.

---

I think Nat nailed it.... the biggest problem was the scouts didn't have enough experience or information to know they were in trouble.

:cool2:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat

Clearly they made a big mistake, and it was their (the scout leaders') responsibility. But as obvious a mistake as standing on the roof of a car going 50mph? I don't know, I wasn't there and I'm not sure what the creek looked like at that time. Probably not as deliberately reckless. Also realize, this was 1993 and everybody was less experienced with canyons. There were no public forums and very little public beta public beta on canyons or technical canyoneering. By 2009, we have learned a lot from an accumulation of others experiences and mistakes as well as our own.

I probably overstated it in saying that a big majority have made similar mistakes, but many of has have made stupid mistakes canyoneering that could easily have lead to "disaster". I know I have.

In any case, I'm hardly defending their decision, or saying the incident shouldn't be honestly analyzed (although it has been analyzed for some 15 years, and I'm not sure if I have learned anything new about the incident on this thread). It just seems to me that all of the name calling ("dipshit" etc...) is gratuitous and I still can't see what purpose it might serve.

Nat

---

You know, I'm going to have to be forced to agree. This is a great argument point. Just because this was 1993 and they really had no beta and easily available information about the dangers.... I guess it's kind of unfair for me to bitch "they should have known better". Because really, where would they gather that information? I will subtract my Darwin Award and agree they just made a really really really bad judgement call. I guess since I've seen people drown I have a healthy fear of the water and forces it generates, so that could be affecting my judgement also. *sigh* I just hate being wrong but will admit there is a lot of truth in what you are saying. Excellent post!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Iceaxe

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat

Also realize, this was 1993 and everybody was less experienced with canyons. There were no public forums and very little public beta on canyons or technical canyoneering.

---

I think Nat nailed it.... the biggest problem was the scouts didn't have enough experience or information to know they were in trouble.

:cool2:

---

The LEADER had been down Kolob before. Those of us who have been down Kolob know that it is not a very big canyon, and not all that much water yields impassable conditions.

So I disagree with your assessment that the LEADER did not have sufficient information to make a good decision. The scouts - the kids had no way to make a decision other than to trust their leaders.

Tom

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat

In any case, I'm hardly defending their decision, or saying the incident shouldn't be honestly analyzed (although it has been analyzed for some 15 years, and I'm not sure if I have learned anything new about the incident on this thread). It just seems to me that all of the name calling ("dipshit" etc...) is gratuitous and I still can't see what purpose it might serve.

Nat

---

+1


James

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat

In any case, I'm hardly defending their decision, or saying the incident shouldn't be honestly analyzed (although it has been analyzed for some 15 years, and I'm not sure if I have learned anything new about the incident on this thread). It just seems to me that all of the name calling ("dipshit" etc...) is gratuitous and I still can't see what purpose it might serve.

Nat

---

it serves the purpose of showing the quality of tom jones' character. how did you get so full of hate and vitriol ? daddy not love you ? mommy love you too much ? string of failed relationships leave you bitter ? you a borderline personality ? trying to get all the mileage you can from that "emperor" image you foster ? maybe try doting husband, patient father, selfless philanthropist. those would be something worth defending if they would ever fit you. oh... wow. baseless personal attacks and name calling IS fun ! thanks tommy !

you just don't get it tom, and you never will.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goofball

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by nat

In any case, I'm hardly defending their decision, or saying the incident shouldn't be honestly analyzed (although it has been analyzed for some 15 years, and I'm not sure if I have learned anything new about the incident on this thread). It just seems to me that all of the name calling ("dipshit" etc...) is gratuitous and I still can't see what purpose it might serve.

Nat

---

it serves the purpose of showing the quality of tom jones' character. how did you get so full of hate and vitriol ? daddy not love you ? mommy love you too much ? string of failed relationships leave you bitter ? you a borderline personality ? trying to get all the mileage you can from that "emperor" image you foster ? maybe try doting husband, patient father, selfless philanthropist. those would be something worth defending if they would ever fit you. oh... wow. baseless personal attacks and name calling IS fun ! thanks tommy !

you just don't get it tom, and you never will.

---

+1

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedMan

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by goofball

it serves the purpose of showing the quality of tom jones' character. how did you get so full of hate and vitriol ? daddy not love you ? mommy love you too much ? string of failed relationships leave you bitter ? you a borderline personality ? trying to get all the mileage you can from that "emperor" image you foster ? maybe try doting husband, patient father, selfless philanthropist. those would be something worth defending if they would ever fit you. oh... wow. baseless personal attacks and name calling IS fun ! thanks tommy !

you just don't get it tom, and you never will.

---

+1

---

Uoh. Tough Crowd. :ne_nau:

T

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RedMan

No Tom, we just don't think its appropriate to make personal attacks on the dead. Apparently you have no problem with that.

---

Interesting reading this thread 7 years later.

Yes, perhaps "dip****" was too strong a word. And clearly the responsibility for this tragedy lies with one person. (Read the book).

I don't like where this thread started - my behavior was poor. But remember what a mudpit Bogley was in those days. Looks also like several of my posts were hacked.

But back to RedMan's statement -

response: oh, poor Osama Bin Laden. such a mis-guided soul. It is such a shame that people are still saying bad things about him. He's dead, can't we all be nice to him?

Now, Mr. Fleischer was no monster, like Bin Laden, just an ordinary human being with not very good judgment and an inability to admit error in a timely fashion. Heck, it only takes me 7 years to admit error...

:moses:

Quote:

---

Looks also like several of my posts were hacked.

---

No, it was some glitch when Bogley switched over to a new version some years ago. After the switch, with any older post that had an apostrophe, the remaining text wouldn't show up after the apostrophe.