You are here

Ignoring Warning Signs Leads To Four Accidents In Four Days At Same Location In Yosemite National Park

Share

The pool below Lower Yosemite Falls on a typical summer day. NPS photo.

The Lower Yosemite Fall Trail at Yosemite National Park is a favorite with visitors, but despite warnings from park officials, some tourists just can't resist getting off the trail. The result earlier this month was four consecutive days with 911 calls due to accidents near the footbridge over Yosemite Creek.

There's a good reason this trail is so popular with visitors'”the short, easy walk provides what the park website calls "spectacular views of both Upper and Lower Yosemite Falls" during the months the water is flowing. The park staff also has some good advice that they try to disseminate via a variety of methods, including a description of the trail on the park website. It cautions: 

"Stay on the paved trail. Above the wooden footbridge that crosses Yosemite Creek, the rocks and boulders are slippery even when dry. Scrambling off-trail in this area has led to serious injuries."

That's good advice, but of course some visitors assume it doesn't apply to them, and on many days you'll find quite a crowd scrambling around on the boulders near the bridge or swimming in the river. That activity resulted in a recent rash of injuries that prompted calls for help to the park's Emergency Communications Center on four days in a row.

On Sunday, August 3, a 45-year-old male was upstream from the footbridge, standing on a rock, when his foot slipped out from under him and he slid down the face of the rock to the ground. As he slid, he struck his head on the rock, and was bleeding behind his left ear.

On Monday, August 4, a 19-year-old female, while scrambling on a slick boulder at the base of Lower Yosemite Fall, slipped and took a five-foot sliding fall off the boulder. She was unable to walk, so she was extricated by a Yosemite Search and Rescue carryout team. She suffered a serious ankle fracture that will require surgical repair and will have an extensive period of recovery.

The following day, August 5, a 14-year-old female lost her grip while scrambling on a boulder, slid headfirst down the rock and injured her left wrist while trying to slow her fall. The victim told emergency responders she was nearly certain she had fractured her wrist; the good news: no fracture was noted on a subsequent x-ray, and she was diagnosed with a severe sprain.

Finally, on Wednesday, August 5, a 45-year-old male slipped and fell while scrambling on uneven terrain not far upstream from the footbridge, spraining his ankle.

After a four day pause, yet another incident occurred in this same area on Sunday, August 10. A 26-year-old male was scrambling on the rocks between the footbridge and the base of the waterfall when he slipped and fell, sustaining a large scalp laceration which required "repair" at the Yosemite Medical Clinic.

 

Alternate Text
The bridge near the falls is close enough to get pretty wet from the spray when the falls are flowing strongly. Photo by Jay Bergesen via Flick and Creative Commons .

Park officials note that "Although it is not illegal to scramble up to the pool, it is strongly discouraged due to the risk of injury and also for the risk to responders of these incidents. While you may see many people doing this during your visit, please remember how truly dangerous it can be and make smart choices."

 

"Even though it is tempting to leave the trail and scramble to the bases of Yosemite'™s waterfalls, especially as water levels drop, the boulders at the base of waterfalls are always treacherous. Even when dry, the granite rocks remain surprisingly slick, having been polished smooth by the pounding, falling water most of the year."

Is convincing everyone who visits parks to use good judgment in such situations a lost cause? Based on the above recent examples, that seems to be the case.

A review of this trail on a popular on-line travel site help sums up the difficulty in promoting public safety in locations such as Yosemite:

"Once you reached the Lower Falls, just enjoy the view and take a photo or two from the bridge. Then you walk around the bridge towards the boulder and climb around the obstacle to get close to the water fall...We get very closed to the water fall and had fun getting across the boulder, rocks and people who are coming down. It is fun experience but there is a warning sign that it is "Danger" so be careful and make sure you have a good shoe to walk up and down these boulder which could get slippery when wet."

And a second on-line "reviewer" of this trail notes:

"Most people stay back at the fence area snapping pictures from far away but if you have the inclination to look past the "dangerous to climb" signs you'll be able to really appreciate the beauty of nature."

It's pretty clear that far too many people "have the inclination."

Comments

The subject of charging for rescues has come up before on NPT:

 

/2008/04/national-park-search-and-rescue-should-rescued-help-pay-bills

 

I have known quite a few SAR folks, both volunteers and paid NPS; most were opposed to billing victims because it might cause some to delay calling for help and make their situation worse.  I agree with Rick B that there is very large gray area between irresponsible and unlucky. It's really difficult to envision even more bureaucracy deciding quickly & fairly who gets charged and who doesn't:

 

"...society rescues people all the time–auto accident victims, home fire victims, mumbling homeless people, war refugees, plane crashes, hunters, illegal immigrants, single mothers, old folks, the jobless, drunk local bubbahs – and at far greater cost than wilderness hiker rescues. Many of those lamentable situations are the result of life decisions every bit as poor and irresponsible as the most careless hiker, but few thinking people would dispute the value of providing these safety nets."

 

http://www.backpacker.com/blogs/62


I agree tahoma, not to mention floods, earthquakes, rockslides, etc. Thank you for the post.


But what about a family from Brooklyn

Easy.  When they come in the gate they get an envelope offering S&R insurance.  They put a buck or two per person in the envelope and drop it off at the visitor center or other location - or even pay at the gate.  They are covered for the length of their stay. 

And are you really certain that auto insurance always pays no matter what?

If it is a covered loss the insurance company pays.

 


it might cause some to delay calling for help and make their situation worse.

And whose fault is that?

Actually a stronger argument would be that it creates moral hazard.   But then having the public pay already does that. 


Interesting.  Someone who is usually calling for smaller government and less expense to taxpayers now wants to expand the role of a government agency and turn them into an insurance company.

;-}


As noted above, the question of charging for rescues has been discussed a number of times on the Traveler, but the concept of visitors buying insurance raises an interesting question.

Why not allow parks to use revenue from entrance and other user fees to pay for search and rescue costs, rather than tapping appropriated funds? In a sense, anyone paying an entrance fee would then be helping underwrite SAR costs.

The legislation authorizing fees is currently under review, so this would be a good time to consider that approach. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but I don't believe SAR costs are among those currently allowed for funding from fee revenue.

If you look at the "big picture" of all dollars available to a park from all sources, ultimately SAR costs will take money away from some other projects, no matter which account is tapped for those expenses ... and not every park collects a fee. However, for those that do, this approach would at least eliminate the argument that taxpayers who never visit a park are having to help pay for rescues, including those described in the above story that could have been prevented by more prudent decisions by visitors.

 

 


No Lee,  I would expect the insurance program to be privately administered and fully self funding thereby reducing the expense to taxpayers. 


Oh.  Private insurance companies with death panels like we had before ACA?

Perhaps Jim Burnett is on to something.

As for insurance companies always paying for covered losses -- tell that to my neighbor whose company refused to pay medical costs for an injury until she got one of those awful attorneys to go after them.  In the end, the company paid out seven times the original claim.  I guess they win some and lose some when they try to protect their bottom line.  But in the end, we all pay for higher premiums.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.