Bogley

[hank moon]

deserthiker wrote: Huh? I think it does matter as a point for discussion.

For discussion fodder, I agree. But...

The reality is the pipe wasn't there. If it had been there, maybe she would have tried to use it to cross the pothole and fallen in a different manner. Maybe the pipe would have broken, shifted, etc. A hold might have broken. Rockfall. Snake startle. Hold broke. Foot slipped. Pipe too hot to hold. Baby eagle attack. The scenarios in which she might have died in a different manner are endless. That is why *in reality* it doesn't matter.

One can spend time debating what would have happened had the pipe been there, sure, and good thoughts may come out of such, but that's about it. This accident was probably caused by the classic cocktail of inexperience, inadequate preparation, lack of attention, human error, etc. In short, the same cause of prolly 99%+ of all accidents.

The pipe is just a pipe. I'm with Shane - get rid of the things. That way the expectations going in won't be (for the conscious person) pipe dependent. What if those pipes had been logs? Would the logs have made it into a guidebook as suggested descent aids? Hope not.


deserthiker wrote: My 2 cents are that a pipe there would help greatly in a rescue situation, and perhaps would have prevented this accident from occurring. The pipe was originally placed there because other groups had needed it.

MayBMayBMayB. But why focus on the pipe? As long as we're in fantasyland, we could talk moki steps, rebar ladders, hammers, hooks, ropes, COMPETENCE, etc. If only the couple had been competent...if only some canyon stud like perhaps a couple of K's eagle scouts, etc. If only...if only...

[rockgremlin]

deserthiker wrote: Huh? I think it does matter as a point for discussion.

If you choose to remove bolts/pipes/whatever from a canyon that have been used in the past to aid in descent, you could cause someone to have an accident. This was an example of worst case.

Iceaxe wrote: Not if she broke her arm and fell in, climbing the pipes would be much harder then climbing a rope with loops tied into it.


My 2 cents are that a pipe there would help greatly in a rescue situation, and perhaps would have prevented this accident from occurring. The pipe was originally placed there because other groups had needed it.

Assuming the pipe was there, they may not have tried the slabby traverse that I suspect resulted in the fall, but shimmied over the pipe the way many used to do it. I would do the pipe shimmy over the slabby traverse if it were me.

Nice attempt to dodge the issue Ice. You supposition is correct, climbing the pipes would be hard with a broken arm, but you are assuming the broken arm would have occurred with the pipes in place, which I do not believe, or think is at least debatable.


I can do nothing but agree with this post.

[rockgremlin]

hank moon wrote: The reality is the pipe wasn't there. If it had been there, maybe she would have tried to use it to cross the pothole and fallen in a different manner. Maybe the pipe would have broken, shifted, etc. A hold might have broken. Rockfall. Snake startle. Hold broke. Foot slipped. Pipe too hot to hold. Baby eagle attack. The scenarios in which she might have died in a different manner are endless. That is why *in reality* it doesn't matter.

One can spend time debating what would have happened had the pipe been there, sure, and good thoughts may come out of such, but that's about it. This accident was probably caused by the classic cocktail of inexperience, inadequate preparation, lack of attention, human error, etc. In short, the same cause of prolly 99%+ of all accidents.

The pipe is just a pipe. I'm with Shane - get rid of the things. That way the expectations going in won't be (for the conscious person) pipe dependent. What if those pipes had been logs? Would the logs have made it into a guidebook as suggested descent aids? Hope not.



I can do nothing but agree with this post.


:lol8: I'm easily influenced today...

[Iceaxe]

If the pipes should stay or go has always been a point of contention.... All I was stating above was that I had done the canyon with and without pipes and prefer it without..... but a little more on the pipes...

The orginal pipes mentioned in Kelsey's guide became bent into a U shape from use and evenutally became useless to cross the potholes. You can't pole vault or tightrope using a pretzel.

I believe the orgianl pipes were removed because they became useless and dangerous as they provided sharp ends to fall onto sticking out of the pothole. So as far as Kelsey's guidebook goes it was already outdated because the stright pipes he mentioned were replaced by useless pretzels several years ago.... and the couple was not useing Kelsey's guide....

So you guys are arguing over something (useful straight pipes) that has not existed for several years. This is like arguing if a chokestone should be replaced that was washed out three years ago. According to hesse it should be replaced because it was mentioned in Kelsey's guidebook. :roll:
.

[ajroadtrips]

hank moon wrote: What if those pipes had been logs? Would the logs have made it into a guidebook as suggested descent aids? Hope not.

Nature removing things is different than a person removing something to meet their own standards and ego. Especially something that had a long standing history of being there.

hank moon wrote: MayBMayBMayB. But why focus on the pipe? As long as we're in fantasyland, we could talk moki steps, rebar ladders, hammers, hooks, ropes, COMPETENCE, etc. If only the couple had been competent...if only some canyon stud like perhaps a couple of K's eagle scouts, etc. If only...if only...

I focus on the pipes, because had been there traditionally, so were not fantasy. They were in Tom's description, as well as Kelsey's. If nature had removed them, fine. Nature did not.

Bent pipes, straight pipes, who cares? I would take a bent pole for assistance over nothing. The more you have to work with, the more likely you will be successful I think. I believe you are trying to argue you did the community a service by removing the pipes. From my perspective, you did not.

I posted, because the incident gave me pause to realize what I do in canyons anchor wise has an effect on others. I generally try to be a conscientious canyoneer and build (or re-build) solid anchors that are easy for others to find an use. This incident has re-affirmed that, and made me (personally) very unlikely to ever remove bolts or pipes. I don't want other peoples safety potentially compromised because of my judgment that something is or is not necessary.

[Iceaxe]

deserthiker wrote: Nature removing things is different than a person removing something to meet their own standards and ego.

And if the lady had of fell and impaled herself on the end of a bent pipe sticking up your stance would be what?

The pipes were not removed because of ego, I believe they were removed because they had become a serious danger. And since the canyon is easily reversible at this point no trap had been set for the unsuspecting.

:cool2:

[Jaxx]

I think the general feeling of everyone is, Go expecting no anchors or pipes or bolts, if you run into one of these then you don't have to figure out a different way. I hate to think that people are going into canyons ill prepared because of what is in a book.
Canyons change daily it seems, get the best beta you can but expect some differences.

disclaimer: I am a canyon noob so take everything I say with a grain of salt... :haha:

[hank moon]

deserthiker wrote: Nature removing things is different than a person removing something to meet their own standards and ego. Especially something that had a long standing history of being there.

ha ha...you need to change your password - looks like hesse's pirated your account. :mrgreen:

The pipes are prehistoric and thus fall into the same category as a log, rock, or other canyon variable. Just because MK chose to put them into a guidebook (and maybe Tom, Shane could be lumped, too, but thankfully they can update their descriptions immediately) doesn't make them sacred.

Whether nature or humans (who are a part of nature, but have the choice to exist outside of it) removes the pipes is immaterial. The FACT is that if the pipes were not there, there would be no reasonable expectation on the part of would-be descenders that the canyon contains "permanent" aid. I would not go into a canyon without preparing for contingencies. One such contingency in KR would be prepping for pipe absence or just simply pipe non-use. What if the pipe had a couple dead deer wrapped around it?

Or, for my best friend Alicia: dead snakes? :haha:

The flipside FACT: regardless of whether the pipes stay or go, one should go prepped for a pipe-free descent. It's just common sense.


deserthiker wrote: If nature had removed them, fine. Nature did not.

Sorry, i must have missed something. Can you tell me how the pipe was removed with any certainty?

[ajroadtrips]

hank moon wrote:
Stop the slings and arrows and answer the question:

deserthiker wrote: If nature had removed them, fine. Nature did not.

Sorry, i must have missed something. Can you tell me how the pipe was removed with any certainty?

Unfortunately I cannot find the original information I had on it. In addition to the post Hesse linked to, there was discussion from someone on the group who did the removal of the pipes. I thought it was Ice's group. The WHO doesn't matter, but I am certain someone either posted on the group or e-mailed me a trip report about.

There is a post on the canyons group from April 06 saying the pipes were there in 99 (Tom Jones), and insinuating they were still there in April 06 (Brent), but I believe they were removed by the time I did it in late spring 06, because we did not find any at the big keeper. I would speculate they have been missing a little over a year.

Nature did not remove them, or nature did and someone else told me they did to brag.

:roflol:

[hesse15]

Shane I did some research, and I CANNOT find A single posting about the pipes been UNSAFE

but mostly these ones
do you have any single oneabout danger?
:ne_nau:
from egroup
apr 10 06"There was plenty of "plumbing" to help us through the tight
spots, especially for some of the more "waistline-challenged," me
included. "

"With the pipe in place, the canyon is a cool romp, and quite unlike
other Swell Canyons. Without the pipe in place, the canyon is a cool
romp with some interesting obstacles"

"The pipes really don't bother me much. They are more durable and
easy to evaluate than ropes and are interesting historical trash from
nearby. "

"I am somewhat sad that the standard of the canyon is reduced
somewhat by the pipes"

Iceaxe wrote:
And if the lady had of fell and impaled herself on the end of a bent pipe sticking up your stance would be what?

The pipes were not removed because of ego, I believe they were removed because they had become a serious danger. And since the canyon is easily reversible at this point no trap had been set for the unsuspecting.

:cool2:

[hank moon]

Iceaxe wrote: And if the lady had of fell and impaled herself on the end of a bent pipe sticking up your stance would be what?

Wish i'd thought of that one...

[Iceaxe]

hesse15 wrote: Shane I did some research, and I CANNOT find A single posting about the pipes been UNSAFE

The old stright pipes were ruined and bent beyond practical use. And you know this because I just told you... after that you can spin the details any way you wish.

Now if you want to argue against bending pipes left in canyons feel free.

If you want to argue if the pipes are thrash or ancient artifact be my guest.

I'm of the mind set that commonsence dictates you go prepared for conditions to have changed from the beta/guide/forum post you are using.... I also warn the readers of my website that this is a good idea.

"The information listed is the conditions we found on the day we did the adventure, conditions in the outdoors change, use caution and go prepared."

I believe every other sprayer of beta has a similar warning....

:cool2:

[hesse15]

perhaps adding the following
"conditions in the outdoors change because dammn people go out changing canyon conditions (pulling out bolts /pipes whatever) ,because THEY THINK if you are not skilled enough, like they are, you are not suppose to be there."


THAT IS A MORE TRUE STATEMENT
so condition change because damn people decide what is the standard for others whithout taking in account the consequence of their act and the responsability with that.


[quote="Iceaxe"]
"The information listed is the conditions we found on the day we did the adventure, conditions in the outdoors change, use caution and go prepared."

[quote]

[Iceaxe]

hesse15 wrote: THAT IS A MORE TRUE STATEMENT

What color is the sky in your world? :ne_nau:

One major storm system through the state changes the canyons much more then all the humans do in 20 years time....

:popcorn:

[hesse15]

I agree with that
a flood change the high spur hike in a rappel,
and i do not blame weather,weather does not do thing with INTENTIONS
but i still blame human actions because are VOLUNTARY taken

if wind put a tree on the highway i will not blame it
if a damn dude put a tree in the highway I WILL!!!

still is the same tree just THE INTENTIONS are different. :roll:



Iceaxe wrote: hesse15 wrote: THAT IS A MORE TRUE STATEMENT

What color is the sky in your world? :ne_nau:

One major storm system through the state changes the canyons much more then all the humans do in 20 years time....

:popcorn: