Forum Index > Trail Talk > Search Underway for Missing Backpacker Olympic National Park 08/06/21
 Reply to topic
Previous :: Next Topic
Author Message
coldrain108
Thundering Herd



Joined: 05 Aug 2010
Posts: 1858 | TRs | Pics
Location: somewhere over the rainbow
coldrain108
Thundering Herd
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 11:28 am 
Sculpin wrote:
someone has to hike last. As far as we know, this was the only flaw with the safety plan for the group being cross-examined here.
"Keller was hiking on her own after the group left Home Sweet Home headed for Camp Pleasant where they intended to meet for lunch." Sounds like she wanted to hike alone or was left behind for some reason. It doesn't sound like she just fell behind. If I intentionally separate from a hiking partner we have specific hourly meetup points (junctions usually). I only separate if I know the other person is at least as skilled as I am (ie I'm not the "leader" we are co-leaders) and has everything they need to make do if we don't reunite as planned. A good leader would never let one of their party get so far behind that they get lost. I will hike slower than slow if required by the group. Its never a race! I'm actually proud of my SKT skills. And strangely enough I always get to where I want to be...good planning and never biting off more than I can chew - I leave that fun to the climbers and the type 2 fun set.

Since I have no expectations of forgiveness, I don't do it in the first place. That loop hole needs to be closed to everyone.
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3579 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 12:56 pm 
moonspots wrote:
Randito wrote:
I am more interested to understand how the group dynamics developed that resulted in the entire rest of the group to proceeding and leaving this hiker navigating on their own.
Agreed, this seems to be the crux of the problem to me. I was also curious about why she was airlifted out to medical facilities. Is this standard procedure, or had everyone in group already left for home, or maybe she was slightly injured/dehydrated? Anyway, good that she's back.
I think I read on one of the FB posts that she was dehydrated. I could be wrong about that, but am pretty sure. Rumi

"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3579 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 1:03 pm 
Randito wrote:
Sculpin wrote:
Oh c'mon. It's more or less impossible to keep a large group within sight of each other on a trail for any extended distance. Especially if it's dusty.
It's not impossible at all. I've been on and lead hundreds of group trips and all it requires is a little organization. I guess since I was the "dorky little brother" on family backpacking trips and was frequently "ditched" by my older sisters, who were supposed to hike with me while my dad charged ahead to get the best campsite. I place a high importance on never leaving someone behind by themselves on outings.
Exactly! Even on informal hikes, I try to always maintain contact with the slower people, whether they like it or not. Sometimes I have to be sneaky and/or stealthy about the contact. I have led groups of adults and teens in hiking and backpacking trips. Maintaining group contact is not as difficult as it may appear, but it does take a conscious effort. There are no guarantees of safety, but a bit of thought and effort really mitigates the posibility of someone becoming separated and lost. Rumi

"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Cyclopath
Faster than light



Joined: 20 Mar 2012
Posts: 7697 | TRs | Pics
Location: Seattle
Cyclopath
Faster than light
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 1:09 pm 
RumiDude wrote:
I think I read on one of the FB posts that she was dehydrated. I could be wrong about that, but am pretty sure. Rumi
I've heard and read that almost everybody is dehydrated by the time they get rescued, regardless of what they needed rescue for. So it makes sense.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 1:31 pm 
Randito, about keeping groups together wrote:
It's not impossible at all.
We've had discussions about this issue before. My father led groups of boy scouts over the Olympics - the Quinault/Elwha and Quinault/Duckabush traverses - all through the 1940s and early 1950s and never lost a kid. His big "rule" on pack trips was "We go in together, we come out together." So no, it is definitely not impossible to keep a group together.

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Foist
Sultan of Sweat



Joined: 08 May 2006
Posts: 3974 | TRs | Pics
Location: Back!
Foist
Sultan of Sweat
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 1:44 pm 
I feel like you guys are arguing from two unreasonable extremes. It is *possible* to keep everyone generally within sight, except during sections with very limited visibility, and then you quickly regroup after those sections. And obviously that's what you need to do with a group of kids, or maybe a group of tourist adults who hired you to guide them. But otherwise, it's not reasonable or practical. But at the same time, you should still occasionally stop and wait to make sure everyone is there. I stop at every junction and stream crossing or other spot that might be tricky or confusing, or even if there haven't been any of those, while I'm still comfortable turning around and hiking back to the last spot I saw the other person/people, whichever comes first. That's my rule of thumb. Even so, it's possible someone just does something weird in the short period of time when you're not with them. Here, do we know how far past Home Sweet Home the group was when they realized she was lost? I don't think we do. Could be they were only fifty yards ahead of her, around a bend, and she wandered off in a spot where it hadn't occurred to them that she would wander off. And then they waited for her at the next stream just a quarter mile later for a long time. Maybe they even backtracked all the way to HSH and couldn't find her, so they realized they needed to hustle back to the TH to get help.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Kim Brown
Member
Member


Joined: 13 Jul 2009
Posts: 6900 | TRs | Pics
Kim Brown
Member
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 2:00 pm 
You all are arguing like a bunch of Pharisees. Maybe she had to take a dump and didn't want a guard standing nearby. A whole lot of hikers separate for a whole lot of reasons and don't get lost. She did. She was found. And so it goes.

"..living on the east side of the Sierra world be ideal - except for harsher winters and the chance of apocalyptic fires burning the whole area." Bosterson, NWHiker's marketing expert

reststep, Foist
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Randito
Snarky Member



Joined: 27 Jul 2008
Posts: 9495 | TRs | Pics
Location: Bellevue at the moment.
Randito
Snarky Member
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 2:15 pm 
Sculpin wrote:
So how do you organize a hike such that the first person in an 8-person group never loses sight of the last person in the group? That's what you said you could do.
I didn't say that was my strategy. One strategy is to have one of the stronger hikers designated as "sweep" and they bring up the rear , traveling slower than they are capable of. So as a Minimum there are at least two people at the back of the group. The other useful strategy is to regroup at intersections. Regrouping at 1st divide would have been helpful here. In this case we don't know why the group choose to not Regroup at 1st divide, nor why they choose to have a single person bring up the rear.

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
RumiDude
Marmota olympus



Joined: 26 Jul 2009
Posts: 3579 | TRs | Pics
Location: Port Angeles
RumiDude
Marmota olympus
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 2:17 pm 
With a group of teens, I had a highly developed system to keep track of everyone and yet hike at different paces. I had a leader at the front and I took up the position of sweep. I also had radios so the sweep could communicate with the lead. Other rules and systems were applied because I was responsible for these kids and did not want to face a parent over a tragedy. With adults it was different, though I always was sweep. When in an informal group we almost always paired off or similar. My rule was to never let the last person get too far behind by stopping and waiting till I saw them coming. It isn't necessary that everyone be able to have everyone else in sight all the time to kinda assure that people don't get lost on social trails. Ya just have to use a bit of common sense and be willing to check on one another on occassion. I guess as a Boy Scout, I developed the habit of looking after one another moreso than many people today. Some things in Scouting were less than desireable, but this trait is a good one I think. Rumi

"This is my Indian summer ... I'm far more dangerous now, because I don't care at all."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Ski
><((((°>



Joined: 28 May 2005
Posts: 12798 | TRs | Pics
Location: tacoma
Ski
><((((°>
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 3:17 pm 
Foist, I do not believe it's unreasonable or extreme to institute some sort of "system" that assures people do not get left behind. The groups my father took over the Olympics were groups of 35-40 young boys. That was prior to the imposition of regulations which limited group sizes. I cannot imagine very many stretches of trail on the Olympic Peninsula that allow a clear line of sight that would allow you to see all members of a group that size, unless it was a coastal beach hike. They used a "buddy system" and assigned a point man and somebody to bring up the rear to make sure no stragglers got left behind. If it can be done with 35-40 young boys, it most certainly can be done with adults. And yes, Kim does bring up a valid point about people straying away from a group for any number of reasons. That part of it's fine. The part of it that's not fine is that nobody stopped to wait for her, and (obviously) nobody bothered to check and ask "Hey, where's So-and-so?"

"I shall wear white flannel trousers, and walk upon the beach. I have heard the mermaids singing, each to each."
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
Schroder
Member
Member


Joined: 26 Oct 2007
Posts: 6696 | TRs | Pics
Location: on the beach
Schroder
Member
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 3:41 pm 
coldrain108 wrote:
If I intentionally separate from a hiking partner we have specific hourly meetup points (junctions usually). I only separate if I know the other person is at least as skilled as I am (ie I'm not the "leader" we are co-leaders) and has everything they need to make do if we don't reunite as planned.
I've always used this practice too

Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
solohiker
Member
Member


Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 1075 | TRs | Pics
Location: issaquah
solohiker
Member
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 4:57 pm 
Actually they did wait at Camp Pleasant- their planned lunch stop. When she didn’t show they spent the night there (hoping she’d catch up) rather than going farther (original plans for the day). They had previously re-grouped for a water stop at HSH, so a mid-morning water-stop HSH and a lunch break at CP would have seemed reasonable at face value as far as keeping everyone from getting too separated. Armchair quarterbacking says maybe waiting at top of the divide would have been a good idea, but it appears she was still on the trail at that point, so while it would have been prudent it wouldn’t have prevented her from inadvertently picking up a way trail later on (just conjecture this is what happened but it fits with where she was found). Did someone go back to HSH from CP to try and locate her? Maybe they did (reports don’t have to include every detail) and went back to CP - hoping she had been just off trail taking a photo when they went by, they’d find her reunited with the crew and all well - but alas no. The next day two went forward to Staircase where they could report her missing and the rest went back the way they came in hopes of finding her. Hindsight says they could have checked out a way trail at a prominent turn if it looked like it could have been mistaken for the trail from the other direction. But how far down do they go when they have no idea whether they’re looking in the right direction? I guess my point is - while it’s easy to say in hindsight shoula-woulda-coulda it’s entirely possible this group was acting responsibly in waiting overnight at their lunch stop and did what they could to try and find her even before help could arrive. The question going through my mind is why she didn’t simply follow the way trail back to the main trail once she figured out what had happened? She would have been found possibly that night and for sure the next day. Instead of 4 days later. Maybe she got hurt. Reports don’t mention anything but dehydration, which might have been prevented if she had come back to the main trail sooner.

I have never been lost, but I'll admit to being confused for several weeks. - Daniel Boone
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
graywolf
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 808 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim
graywolf
Member
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 8:47 pm 
According to the ONP press release, they were at Camp Pleasant when they realized she was missing.
Foist wrote:
Here, do we know how far past Home Sweet Home the group was when they realized she was lost? I don't think we do.

The only easy day was yesterday...
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
graywolf
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 808 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim
graywolf
Member
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 8:51 pm 
solohiker wrote:
Actually they did wait at Camp Pleasant- their planned lunch stop. When she didn’t show they spent the night there (hoping she’d catch up) rather than going farther (original plans for the day). They had previously re-grouped for a water stop at HSH, so a mid-morning water-stop HSH and a lunch break at CP would have seemed reasonable at face value as far as keeping everyone from getting too separated.
HSH to CP is about 6.6 miles of separation - that's more than what I consider reasonable.

The only easy day was yesterday...
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
graywolf
Member
Member


Joined: 03 Feb 2005
Posts: 808 | TRs | Pics
Location: Sequim
graywolf
Member
PostMon Aug 09, 2021 9:20 pm 
solohiker wrote:
Did someone go back to HSH from CP to try and locate her?
According to the ONP press release: "Members of the group hiked back to the location she was last seen but were unable to locate her."

The only easy day was yesterday...
Back to top Reply to topic Reply with quote Send private message
   All times are GMT - 8 Hours
 Reply to topic
Forum Index > Trail Talk > Search Underway for Missing Backpacker Olympic National Park 08/06/21
  Happy Birthday speyguy, Bandanabraids!
Jump to:   
Search this topic:

You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum