Accident in Constrychnine

[oldno7]

If personal responsibility goes the way of the dodo bird, canyoneering will die a slow death.

I think if one is to be held up as culpable, there would have to be an intent to harm or injure.

I haven't been witness to anyone in the community with that intent.

arrogance--YES

intent to injure or kill--NO

[oldno7]

If personal responsibility goes the way of the dodo bird, canyoneering will die a slow death.

I think if one is to be held up as culpable, there would have to be an intent to harm or injure.

I haven't been witness to anyone in the community with that intent.

arrogance--YES

intent to injure or kill--NO

[Brian in SLC]

I think if one is to be held up as culpable, there would have to be an intent to harm or injure.

One of the degrees of culpability would be your intent to harm or injure. But, there's varying degrees of culpability. Lower on the blame game scale are being reckless and negligent.

As an example, and, Tom might remember this from his climbing and Boulder daze... Paris Girl. A key bolt hanger on that route was sabotaged and had you climbed up to it, clipped it and fell, you'd have died. So, intent to harm and injure? Most likely. They never caught the person who did it, even with a reward offerred.

Are folks that remove bolted anchors in canyons culpable for injury to folks who get hurt/killed if the anchor option they're left to use is "less safe"? Are they culpable if they promote and leave low margin of safety anchors? At some level, I think so.

Sure, personal responsibilty goes a long ways. But, sometimes people follow the Pied Piper over the cliff too...

The canyon community is a big tent. There's a very wide bell curve of risk tolerance in the canyon population. To me, this risk thing isn't centered for the average canyoneer. Its shifted to the side of more risk, and, less margin of safety. And, those chickens will come home to roost...

[hesse15]

Even Mr. Cabe has similar culpability. He has been aware that a two-bolt anchor and perhaps a via-ferrata ladder were really needed for public safety at this location and yet,

via ferrata are fun!!!!
could somebody put one at the MIA exit in Kolob exit please!!!!!!!
I will PAY for taking a step ladder ferrata up instead of the crappy trail......
if bolts and hanger were not so expensive and require good skills to place them right I am all over to set the canyons "EURO STYLE"
they are so much fun!!!!!!

[blamkin86]

Are folks that remove bolted anchors in canyons culpable for injury to folks who get hurt/killed if the anchor option they're left to use is "less safe"? Are they culpable if they promote and leave low margin of safety anchors? At some level, I think so.

I'm a newbie (say 10 technical canyons) so I have little dog in this fight. However, using your argument, anyone who passed over an unsafe anchor, yet left it sitting there, would be equally culpable. I just don't get how that's reasonable. Many people downclimb what others rap. I do not take responsibility for what someone after does on a rap. Conditions change. Perfect webbing I leave is then bashed by wind, sand, water, rocks, and time. I am not responsible for those changes, that's simply ridiculous.

What's more likely, by far, is that someone found an unsafe anchor and removed it. This group then put up their own unsafe anchor and someone got hurt. I think that sucks, but I'm not convinced that this group isn't the most culpable of anyone. Suggesting someone else is culpable is just continued lack of acceptance of responsibility. No one outside of this group is responsible for the anchor that failed.

[Iceaxe]

Suggesting someone else is culpable is just continued lack of acceptance of responsibility. No one outside of this group is responsible for the anchor that failed.

^^^THIS^^^


Tap'n on my Galaxy G3

[Brian in SLC]

However, using your argument, anyone who passed over an unsafe anchor, yet left it sitting there, would be equally culpable. I just don't get how that's reasonable.

I'm not arguing "equal" culpability, just that there is "some" culpability. In some cases, it may exceed, equal, or be less than. All up for debate.

Are you your brother's keeper? Or not? You turn a blind eye, look the other way? Maybe ignore an unsafe situation, then, when you hear someone got hurt or killed because of your inaction, your choice to not get involved, you wouldn't feel at least a little tinge of guilt? Especially if you pass on by knowing that you're leaving an unsafe situation for someone else? A timebomb?

Because, I think a "reasonable man" would feel badly for passing by, turning the other cheek.

Don't get me wrong...its hard to interject yourself into other peoples' situations but from a safety standpoint, if I'm out and about, see an unsafe situation like an unsafe anchor, and, I have the time and means to fix it, why wouldn't I?

And, sure, conditions change, and, you might not have much influence in that kinda thing. But...this isn't "stuff happens". When you chop an anchor, we're past talking about wind, water, rockfall, time...

What's more likely, by far, is that someone found an unsafe anchor and removed it.... No one outside of this group is responsible for the anchor that failed.

Well, a number of folks who posted on this thread were there. What say ye, people of the canyon that day? Was the anchor sling that failed in situ, or, was it fresh? My bet is that it was there.

Also, there was an anchor consisting of a crappy piton and a bolt, which, were removed. Culpability.

Edit to add: as a newbie, but, still an active (or inactive for that matter) canyoning person, you got a full on dog in this hunt.

Or, to use a recently overused expression, let's hope you don't get too much skin in this game...ha ha...

[blamkin86]

Brian, for what it's worth, one of my best canyoneering buds was in the very first group on this hike.

I don't know if it was new webbing or not, but she looked at it, and found it frayed in a very minor way - and rapped on it anyway.

Likely this information did not make it back to the second - or third - or whatever, group.

My point is, removing a bad anchor, and replacing it with the perfect anchor, isn't good enough for a group who raps later. That group should look, and make their own decision. That is where this group failed.

The other point I'm trying to make is, I believe someone did make that canyon safer by removing the piton. This group clearly didn't watch the anchors, and probably would have rapped off the unsafe piton to the same or worse results.

Finally, be sure that while my posts may read as critical, I'm trying not to be. I'm new at this and have made, and certainly will make, more mistakes as I go. I just don't see myself blaming someone else, if I rap off something without looking at it.

[blamkin86]

Edit to add: as a newbie, but, still an active (or inactive for that matter) canyoning person, you got a full on dog in this hunt.

Or, to use a recently overused expression, let's hope you don't get too much skin in this game...ha ha...

Me too brother.

Since October of last year, I've done Cameltoe, Three canyon, Ramp and Cistern, left fork of Leprechaun, both forks of blarney (one fork twice), Slideanide and I just this Sunday did the south fork of Maidenwater (FANTASTIC!). Probably a couple others I forgot.

Our group has had two accidents - one "hair in pirana" episode that required a second rope and savior, and one "helmet into wall" bad start that included the belay person doing their job perfectly. I've been first and LAMAR, and feel pretty confident with the anchors. I have a terrible fear of heights but watching on video I rap pretty good.

[flatiron]

Are folks that remove bolted anchors in canyons culpable for injury to folks who get hurt/killed if the anchor option they're left to use is "less safe"? Are they culpable if they promote and leave low margin of safety anchors? At some level, I think so.

Baloney! He says very nicely. Or is it Bull----! Come on now, that is plain ridiculous. And not reasonable. Nobody is responsible for making, or using, good or bad anchors except me and my immediate group. (and If I don't agree with or trust my group than I find like minded partners or go alone.) Any anchor I come across is usually very much appreciated, but in no way expected, demanded, or assumed to be safe. It's on me, not you.

[Brian in SLC]

My point is, removing a bad anchor, and replacing it with the perfect anchor, isn't good enough for a group who raps later. That group should look, and make their own decision. That is where this group failed.

The other point I'm trying to make is, I believe someone did make that canyon safer by removing the piton. This group clearly didn't watch the anchors, and probably would have rapped off the unsafe piton to the same or worse results.

Wasn't just a crappy piton that was removed. I believe the history was that a bolt was placed to back up the piton anchor, then, removed and replaced by a more robust bolt. Then the entire anchor was removed. So, not fair to say that the "unsafe piton" was the only part of that anchor.

When I see folks out climbing, and, they only clip into one anchor on an anchor consisting of multiple points, I'll mention that its just as easy to use both, then, why not clip into both?

And, I'm surely not suggesting that anyone that comes across any anchor in place shouldn't evaluate that anchor. Absolutely.

Moral culpability.

Its an interesting conundrum of sorts. How much to blame is a soloist, say, an Alex Honnald, for promoting high end free soloing on rock climbs? (As an aside..., Alex soloed Moonlight, Monkeyfinger and Shunes in Zion in a day recently...blows my mind). Someone less talented emulates him...falls...fingers are pointed. Sure, personal responsibility is one thing, but, really, you don't think a promoter has any culpability?

When you fully promote techniques and equipment that reduce the margins of safety in a sport like canyoneering, I think you're culpable for the consequences.

Even the Marlboro man got cancer...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marlboro_Man

[Slot Machine]

Are folks that remove bolted anchors in canyons culpable for injury to folks who get hurt/killed if the anchor option they're left to use is "less safe"? Are they culpable if they promote and leave low margin of safety anchors? At some level, I think so.

In Zion, you would have a point about the bolt removal. But in the North Wash / Roost? No way Mr. Brian. Bolt-free is the name of the game out in those parts. The margin of safety is closely correlated with your skills, tools and attention to details.

Sure, personal responsibility is one thing, but, really, you don't think a promoter has any culpability?

Publishing a fun activity, or an achievement (in the Honnald case) it is not the same as promoting an inherently dangerous activity. So no, they don't even have a light dusting of responsibility. (Love the phrase inherently dangerous BTW, been using it a lot to describe a certain product lately)

If I choose to use a wingsuit, swing from Corona Arch or rap from a Sandtrap, then the results of that action belong to me. If somebody emulates me, they will have to consider what they are doing before they act; so that action belongs to them.

[rick t]

In Zion, you would have a point about the bolt removal. But in the North Wash / Roost? No way Mr. Brian. Bolt-free is the name of the game out in those parts. The margin of safety is closely correlated with your skills, tools and attention to details.



Publishing a fun activity, or an achievement (in the Honnald case) it is not the same as promoting an inherently dangerous activity. So no, they don't even have a light dusting of responsibility. (Love the phrase inherently dangerous BTW, been using it a lot to describe a certain product lately)

If I choose to use a wingsuit, swing from Corona Arch or rap from a Sandtrap, then the results of that action belong to me. If somebody emulates me, they will have to consider what they are doing before they act; so that action belongs to them.

We have been here before, but I will say again that I agree with Brian, and am calling BS on your "bolt free is the name of the game in those parts" In what parts? And says who?
The fact that you may chose to do a canyon without using bolts in no way gives you the right to tell everyone else that recreates on that federal land that they have to play by your dillusionary "rules". What is the big problem with you doing the canyon the way you want and someone else doing it differently? On what basis does someone- anyone, presume to have the right or authority to tell everyone else that they have to do it "your" way or not at all?
I rapped off of the old piton numerous times, and while my 200 lbs may have caused some flex in it, I found it well placed, solid, and safe. And THEN Tom placed a good bolt next to it, to back it up, giving two solid points, and making the rap that much safer than it was before, and obviously much safer than it is now. And eliminating the webbing factor on the rap, with the rope running through quick links on the face, instead of 10 feet of webbing that ran back and forth on top of the rock wall.
Did the chopper of both the new bolt and the historical piton "cause" Bruces accident? No. The rappeller is responsible for making sure what he is getting on will hold him.
At the same time, and I have no doubt that this will eventually end up in court, likely as a result of a fatality, the overly zealous, and still anonymous (probably for that reason) chopper, or anyone else who chops or advocates the same on federal lands, materially contributed to the accident, and when that time comes I have no doubt will be found to be held at fault for it, cetainly at least for having contributed to it.

[Slot Machine]

We have been here before, but I will say again that I agree with Brian, and am calling BS on your "bolt free is the name of the game in those parts" In what parts? And says who?
The fact that you may chose to do a canyon without using bolts in no way gives you the right to tell everyone else that recreates on that federal land that they have to play by your dillusionary "rules". What is the big problem with you doing the canyon the way you want and someone else doing it differently? On what basis does someone- anyone, presume to have the right or authority to tell everyone else that they have to do it "your" way or not at all?
I rapped off of the old piton numerous times, and while my 200 lbs may have caused some flex in it, I found it well placed, solid, and safe. And THEN Tom placed a good bolt next to it, to back it up, giving two solid points, and making the rap that much safer than it was before, and obviously much safer than it is now. And eliminating the webbing factor on the rap, with the rope running through quick links on the face, instead of 10 feet of webbing that ran back and forth on top of the rock wall.
Did the chopper of both the new bolt and the historical piton "cause" Bruces accident? No. The rappeller is responsible for making sure what he is getting on will hold him.
At the same time, and I have no doubt that this will eventually end up in court, likely as a result of a fatality, the overly zealous, and still anonymous (probably for that reason) chopper, or anyone else who chops or advocates the same on federal lands, materially contributed to the accident, and when that time comes I have no doubt will be found to be held at fault for it, cetainly at least for having contributed to it.

Yikes.

Certainly Rick, I'm not telling you what to do. I was simply pointing out the current ethic in non-Zion areas. From what I can tell, the vast majority of the community likes and appreciates this ethic, because it keeps the canyons clean and challenging.

To answer your question about 'one way vs another', I think whatever way you descend a canyon is fine, but I also have the right to remove any trash you leave behind; candy wrappers, webbing, quicklinks or bolts.

Secondly, bolts fall under the ‘leave no trace’ ethic, do they not? Don’t all outdoorsman revere this ethic? (Not rhetorical, honest questions that I hope you answer.)

And lastly, I like your word dillusionary, and think it applies to your hypothetical court argument. Are you implying that once bolts are intalled anywhere, in any canyon on federal land, that it will one day become illegal to remove them?

Bob

[unimog]

I guess if you consider bolts as "trash", then maybe the "vast majority" of the community might not be in agreement. I hear the argument about whether to put in new bolts, but if you are advocating cutting of existing bolts that add to the safety of me, my family, and friends, I'd say that is closer to vandalism than a moral choice based on community consensus.

[Scott P]

Are you implying that once bolts are intalled anywhere, in any canyon on federal land, that it will one day become illegal to remove them?

It seems to be headed the other way, though at a snails pace.

Bolts are already illegal in many areas (for example much of North Wash) and it seems slowly, but surely the areas where they are banned is growing.

From what I can tell, the vast majority of the community likes and appreciates this ethic, because it keeps the canyons clean and challenging.

Most (not all) experienced canyoneers do seem to lean towards natural anchors. Maybe not a "vast majority", but a majority none the less (at least it seems that way to me).

[Slot Machine]

I guess if you consider bolts as "trash", then maybe the "vast majority" of the community might not be in agreement. I hear the argument about whether to put in new bolts, but if you are advocating cutting of existing bolts that add to the safety of me, my family, and friends, I'd say that is closer to vandalism than a moral choice based on community consensus.

I see adding bolts in the first place, in most cases outside of Zion, as vandalisim. You could add stairs too, like in Lower Antelope, but would that improve the canyon's overall quality? Safter, but not better, IMO.

HEY, @Iceaxe , @Sombeech , @accadacca can we get a survey for this thread? Apparently we need to measure the pulse of the canyoneering community...

Do you view bolting in the North Wash, Robbers Roost, The Swell or Cedar Mesa as vandalisim?

A. Always.
B. In most cases.
C. Not usually.
D. Never.

[Scott P]

HEY, @Iceaxe , @Sombeech , @accadacca can we get a survey for this thread? Apparently we need to measure the pulse of the canyoneering community...

I'm betting that the results will be based on how much experience one has.

I'd imagine overall that a majority of experienced canyoneers would lean towards natural anchors, while a majority of people fairly new to the sport would lean towards bolts. Of course there would be many exceptions to that, but I'd guess that it would lean that way.

[Slot Machine]

I'm betting that the results will be based on how much experience one has.

I'd imagine overall that a majority of experienced canyoneers would lean towards natural anchors, while a majority of people fairly new to the sport would lean towards bolts.

Hmmm... you are probably right.

But I'm hopeful. Our first North Wash canyon was West Blarney. We didn't think it needed bolts at the end of the day, even though it kicked our butts. YMMV.

[Iceaxe]

Please don't vandalize canyons that lie above your skill level. You may want to experience them in their undamaged state someday. They will always be there and you have plenty of time. It's not about ego or risk, it's about humility and respect.

Responsible canyoneers should always come prepared to replace anchors in canyons--preferably with natural anchors. To assume the existence of bolts or other fixed anchors is irresponsible. To curse their replacement by a natural anchor is absurd. Steel fasteners can fail and when they do, it will be suddenly and without warning. If predictability is desired then perhaps a climbing gym would be more appropriate for your recreation instead of a natural and dynamic canyon.