Two climbers have been rescued by helicopter on the North Face of San Jacinto. This follows another rescue on Skyline the day before
http://www.mydesert.com/article/2009030 ... 1/90303009
http://rmru.org
Rescue on Snowcreek - San Jacinto
The RMRU report doesn't say much about why it happened other than that the snow was soft and going was slow.EnFuego wrote:I heard about that from another board member. Was stupidity involved? Were either rescuees from this board or the San J board?
Either way, glad there both down and safe.
Don't think these two are on any of the local forums.
rumor has it they wanted to goto sizzler. http://www.mtsanjacinto.info/viewtopic. ... 3&start=15
This brings us to a new topic: Why is Sizzler still in business?hikehigh wrote:rumor has it they wanted to goto sizzler. http://www.mtsanjacinto.info/viewtopic. ... 3&start=15
I hope none of you eat there. Gotta look out for the group's health.
" He reports the climbers started ascending on Saturday but went off their route and by Monday had run out of food. "We want to thank everybody here," Hillery said of the Riverside Mountain Rescue Unit and sheriff's department. "We thought it was going to be a two-day climb. But we didn't know the trail. We didn't realize how steep the peak was.""Hikin_Jim wrote: The RMRU report doesn't say much about why it happened other than that the snow was soft and going was slow.
source: http://www.laobserved.com/archive/2009/ ... ed_off.php
There is another info on a Andrew Hillery of Long Beach....although this person was 23 years old in may of 2008(vs a 24 years old rescued)
"Hillery currently lives in Los Angeles and has developed his own training regimen-running barefoot.
After finishing the 26-mile-long Los Angeles Marathon, Hillery wasn’t satisfied with the workout he was getting by just running. So, he shirked his shoes and hit the soft sands of California’s beaches and its rough roads.
He regularly treks 10 to 20 miles every few days barefoot, now, and said the whole experience has made his legs so much stronger.
“It’s so much better, especially for glacier climbing. Every move you have to press down on the ice,” he said. “When I strap on shoes now, it’s like a joyride.”"
source: http://movingmountainsmagazine.blogspot ... chive.html among others... although there is no mention of any of those 7 summits ever summited. There is a mention of climbing Denali(guided, 7 days stay at mountain) but again they could be different people.
I posted the above to say that while they may not have been in trouble, with added skills, a different take may have been said.
In canyoneering, you can be in trouble without "being in" trouble...that being important because the next obstacle might be the one where the trouble becomes real. So we think of it as warning signs to alert us we have a skills deficiency and need to not just take it as a stroll.
So despite the statement that they were not in trouble, I think they could have easily later have been in trouble, so it was a good rescue. There is a difference in the person being rescued as that person may have a convienent reason for needing the ride ....and not the reason the rescuers think of...but I think it all boils down to its a good rescue.
The other part is that any potentially unneccessary rescue increases risk, but thats something that S&R accepts. Very difficult for some rescuees to accept if even another rescue is in question for at a future date, once they know all the risk that goes into it. I think it best to give kudos to the S&R, but also inform on the risk involved in any rescue and let the chips fall where they may so as to minimize trully unnecessary rescues.
In canyoneering, you can be in trouble without "being in" trouble...that being important because the next obstacle might be the one where the trouble becomes real. So we think of it as warning signs to alert us we have a skills deficiency and need to not just take it as a stroll.
So despite the statement that they were not in trouble, I think they could have easily later have been in trouble, so it was a good rescue. There is a difference in the person being rescued as that person may have a convienent reason for needing the ride ....and not the reason the rescuers think of...but I think it all boils down to its a good rescue.
The other part is that any potentially unneccessary rescue increases risk, but thats something that S&R accepts. Very difficult for some rescuees to accept if even another rescue is in question for at a future date, once they know all the risk that goes into it. I think it best to give kudos to the S&R, but also inform on the risk involved in any rescue and let the chips fall where they may so as to minimize trully unnecessary rescues.
-
Cy Kaicener
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:19 am
Snow Creek has just been climbed to the peak - Mar 4
http://www.summitpost.org/trip-report/4 ... inish.html
http://www.summitpost.org/trip-report/4 ... inish.html
Taco del Rio is even mentioned in this Summitpost article.Cy Kaicener wrote:Snow Creek has just been climbed to the peak - Mar 4
http://www.summitpost.org/trip-report/4 ... inish.html
The pictures from this post look magnificent. I do a lot of work with the agency that owns the land around Snow Creek. I wonder if I can get permission to hike through there? Hmmmmm??
Evil Ice Pirate corporation have control. Resist not.EnFuego wrote:Taco del Rio is even mentioned in this Summitpost article.Cy Kaicener wrote:Snow Creek has just been climbed to the peak - Mar 4
http://www.summitpost.org/trip-report/4 ... inish.html
The pictures from this post look magnificent. I do a lot of work with the agency that owns the land around Snow Creek. I wonder if I can get permission to hike through there? Hmmmmm??
you evil ice pirates 
BTW for my above post they are the same person.
http://watershednews.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -face.html
.."Route-finding was perhaps the most difficult part of the ordeal, the climbers said.
"We were just trying to keep the summit in our eyes," Cannizzaro said. "We thought we knew where to go, and here we are four days later - starving."
Their primary error was leaving the Snow Creek drainage, Hillery said.
"We did it twice, to get around the steep rocks," Hillery said. "That was our mistake. You have to stay in the creek.""
-----------------
Yeah, something like that...
L O S T 
But they did stay together and took the ride out
no need to belabor whether or not they could have dealt with the end or not or if they are "experienced"...imo.
BTW for my above post they are the same person.
http://watershednews.blogspot.com/2009/ ... -face.html
.."Route-finding was perhaps the most difficult part of the ordeal, the climbers said.
"We were just trying to keep the summit in our eyes," Cannizzaro said. "We thought we knew where to go, and here we are four days later - starving."
Their primary error was leaving the Snow Creek drainage, Hillery said.
"We did it twice, to get around the steep rocks," Hillery said. "That was our mistake. You have to stay in the creek.""
-----------------
Yeah, something like that...
L O S T But they did stay together and took the ride out
no need to belabor whether or not they could have dealt with the end or not or if they are "experienced"...imo.-
Cy Kaicener
- Posts: 163
- Joined: Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:19 am
We now have a trip report in their own words by the two guys rescued by helicopter after four days on Snow Creek
http://hillnbatt.com/summit-attempt-san ... snow-creek
http://hillnbatt.com/summit-attempt-san ... snow-creek
The only part I could not quite understand was - were they going to come down the "Tram" or were they planning on down climbing?
That being said, why not leave the packs, tent, and extra gear on day two, go summit, come back, spend the night and down climb out of there?
Trying to haul that much gear up Snow Creek without extra food seems to me a bit "Foolish", especially if it was their first attempt and the one guy was out of shape?
I'm surprised that he didn't address more of what the plans were with family either?
This could have had a much more "Dramatic" ending.
I do not think I would ever post that I wanted "Sizzler" - that might have been "Exhaustion Induced Dementia"?
That being said, why not leave the packs, tent, and extra gear on day two, go summit, come back, spend the night and down climb out of there?
Trying to haul that much gear up Snow Creek without extra food seems to me a bit "Foolish", especially if it was their first attempt and the one guy was out of shape?
I'm surprised that he didn't address more of what the plans were with family either?
This could have had a much more "Dramatic" ending.
I do not think I would ever post that I wanted "Sizzler" - that might have been "Exhaustion Induced Dementia"?
