|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Aug 25, 2005, 6:08 AM
Post #1 of 10
(5940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
Having good angel could save your life, I guess I was lucky cause one week before this accident; my partner and I were climbing on the same area. lawsuit is not going to bring back the deads, its just going to add more laws and pain to those who enjoy been with nature.
MS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/nationworld/2002450234_yosemite24.html
Wednesday, August 24, 2005 - Page updated at 12:00 AM
'99 tragedy could threaten future of climbing at Yosemite
By Eric Bailey
Los Angeles Times
CRAIG KOHLRUSS / AP
A National Park Service helicopter with geologists aboard hovers around the face of Glacier Point in Yosemite Valley in Yosemite National Park the day after the June 13, 1999, climbing death of Peter Terbush.
YOSEMITE NATIONAL PARK, Calif. — The rumble began high on the sheer cliff wall, like faraway thunder before a storm.
A slab of granite as big as a railroad boxcar had let loose 1,300 feet up Glacier Point's age-worn face. The million-pound rock cartwheeled and shattered, tracing a plume of dust downward toward Peter Terbush.
In his last earthbound moments, Terbush turned to a long-ago climbing lesson taught by his dad. As a little boy first astride a mountain, he learned to always protect a partner at the end of the rope. Never let go.
The broad-shouldered 21-year-old held fast to the nylon lifeline lashed to a friend 60 feet up. Another buddy on the ground scrambled for cover as the boulders hit, exploding like bombs.
Fate let his two friends escape with lacerations. They found Terbush's body crumpled in a ball, his hands still gripping the rope.
Six years after the rock slide, his parents suspect that mankind's handprint atop Glacier Point — most notably a bathroom water system prone to overflow — lubricated the cliff face, provoking a flurry of rock falls, including the June 1999 tragedy that claimed Terbush.
His parents have poured their grief and suspicions and search for answers into a $10 million wrongful-death lawsuit against the National Park Service. "My son understood the risks of climbing," said Jim Terbush, himself a climber. "But he didn't know the conditions on Glacier Point had been fundamentally changed."
The legal battle has sent reverberations around Yosemite and the climbing community beyond.
Park officials have a ready argument — and an admonition: No one can know when a rock fall is going to happen. And a ruling against the park, they warn, could all but kill climbing in the Yosemite Valley.
Climbers contend their sport is the ultimate test of personal responsibility. The lawsuit goes beyond geology and public policy. To climbers, it challenges a basic tenet.
"We're at risk every time we go up," Sean Kovatch, 20, said recently during his first Yosemite climbing trip. "And sometimes people don't come off the mountain."
He took up the family avocation, learning to climb with his dad at age 9. He even launched his own climbing club in elementary school. One after-school climb ended with his being rescued by his dad and the Castle Rock Fire Department.
Jim Terbush was a physician for the U.S. Navy and at American embassies from London to Singapore. As the family journeyed to the corners of the world, Peter Terbush was always in the mountains. He climbed in the Himalayas, the Dolomites, the French Alps.
Back in the United States, Terbush attended Western State College in Gunnison, Colo., where he majored in geology and built an inseparable cadre of friends who thought nothing of driving 10 hours to Zion National Park for a weekend of climbing, returning exhausted just in time for Monday classes.
By 21, he was teaching climbing classes, earning a reputation for skill and safety. "Good skills!" he'd yell to climbers displaying a nice bit of technique. He talked endlessly of becoming a climbing guide. But he knew something was missing — a trip to Yosemite, one of the climbing world's crucibles.
His last few days of life were spent mostly on flat terra firma.
He and a few college buddies tried scaling El Capitán, but an equipment failure prompted a retreat. Instead, Terbush and Joe Kewin hiked in the ethereal beauty of the Yosemite high country. They basked in meadows hugged by salt-and-pepper granite hills, took in the saw-tooth fusion of rock and sky.
Back in the valley, a night before they were to leave, Terbush joined Kewin and Kerry Pyle for dinner at a Curry Village pizza joint. Some daylight was left, so they decided to climb a lower section of Apron Jam, a route below Glacier Point. They played rock-paper-scissors to decide who went first. Pyle won. The rock face was still warm from the day's sun.
Suddenly, boulders were cascading like howitzer shells. Pyle tried to lash himself to a couple of bolts in the rock but got hit by shattered fragments and decided to just hang on. Terbush locked in the belay rope.
"Pete's dead!"
In nearby Curry Village, visitors screamed and ran as a dust cloud rose over the valley's southeast edge. Rock shrapnel punched holes through tent-cabins. Powdery residue settled like snow.
When the cliff finally stopped falling, Pyle still clung to the face. He heard Kewin shouting below.
"Pete's dead! Pete's dead!"
The rock that struck him in the head was the size of a basketball, Jim Terbush said. His son died instantly, mercifully.
Kewin, who had scampered to a safe spot hugging the cliff side, pried the rope from his friend's rigid hands to lower the dazed Pyle to the ground.
Park officials declared Peter Terbush a hero, citing how he had hung on to his friend in a selfless act of bravery.
He was cremated with a climbing sling over his shoulder, bandoleer style, and his climbing boots. At the behest of Jim Terbush, his ashes were spread by a captain in the Argentine Army's climbing corps at more than 22,000 feet on Aconcagua, the highest peak in the Americas.
Not long after his son's death, Jim Terbush heard about geologist Skip Watts and his provocative theory about Glacier Point.
Watts, a Radford University professor, had come to Yosemite in 1997 to help a graduate student investigate the aftermath of a huge rock slide a year earlier that had killed one man on the ground and injured 14 others. That slide occurred at Happy Isles, around a bend from the rock fall that killed Terbush.
Preparing to rappel off the cliff face, Watts was surprised by the smell of sewage wafting from leaking pipes at the old bathrooms atop Glacier Point. He theorized that the errant effluent helped trigger the 1996 rock fall.
His curiosity grew as rock falls occurred in November 1998 and May 1999. Then on June 13, 1999, the slide that killed Terbush let loose in the same area.
Studying a photograph, Watts traced the fractures on Glacier Point's rock face. Arching upward, the cracks continued to the bluff top, where Watts discovered what he considers the culprit: water overflowing from a 300,000-gallon storage tank.
That leaking water, he concluded, pooled in fractures and put pressure on the rock, acting like a lever to start a slide.
The geologist eventually obtained Park Service records he contends correlate water overflows in 1998, 1999 and 2000 with subsequent rock falls. When the tank wasn't overflowing, Watts said, the slopes were relatively quiet.
"The situation at Glacier Point is very unnatural," said Watts, who believes the Park Service should reconsider the danger to crowded Curry Village, in the shadow of Glacier Point. By the time Terbush was killed, "it would have been reasonable to have warning signs."
A battle for access
Jim Terbush, already pursuing an exhaustive records request of any Parks Service information dealing with Glacier Point, embraced the theory.
He moved toward a lawsuit, the father said, after the agency redacted a dozen key documents he hoped would answer questions about what happened. Lawyers told him the only way to see the contents was to file a claim. The legal battle began in June 2001.
"My No. 1 reason is to find the truth," Jim Terbush said. "What caused the death of my son?"
Yosemite Valley exists because of glaciers and geology and the endless process of rock sloughing off the sides of vertical granite walls. Park administrators consistently wrangle over posting warning placards, which can do more to mar the scenery than prevent casualties.
It is not a simple debate.
So when Watts laid out his theory about the Glacier Point slides, Yosemite officials took swift offense. A park spokesman said in November 1999 that other geologists believed Watts was "out in left field on this."
Federal officials have attacked Watts' credentials, contending that the Virginia-based geologist simply doesn't understand fluid dynamics and the vagaries of Western granite.
Gerry Wieczorek of the U.S. Geological Survey, a onetime collaborator of Watts now on the opposite side of the Terbush case, is more polite.
He simply doesn't believe Watts' theory can be proved or disproved without far more sophisticated experimentation (a fact Watts finds ironic, given that he's failed to receive permission for further tests).
Wieczorek has documented more than 500 slides in the park since 1850, and the common demonstrable factors are the effect of the freeze-thaw cycle, heavy rainfall and earthquakes. Although water can trigger slides, he said, natural drainage into the soil from abundant snowfall dwarfs any overflowing bathroom water.
Safety record
In its first century as a national park, Yosemite has seen 15 people killed by rock falls. Given the more than 3 million visitors each year to the valley, the park has a good safety record, said Kristi Kapetan, the assistant U.S. attorney defending the park in the Terbush suit.
If the Terbush family prevails, it could prompt park officials to prohibit rock climbing and other dangerous sports, she said.
"I feel bad for the parents," Kapetan said. "But this would be like blaming Mother Nature. Like suing for an earthquake. We didn't do anything to cause a spontaneous rock fall."
Jim Terbush has heard such comments by climbers who oppose his lawsuit and has seen them on climbers' Web sites. He winces a bit but offers a counterpoint.
He considers Yosemite a temple. He's not out to kill climbing in the valley. He doesn't want money. He simply wants to make climbing safer.
The family has tried to do that in many ways, including sponsoring a climbing seminar in Gunnison for prospective mountain guides that teaches the principles of leadership and service in a dangerous sport.
Given previous rock slides below Glacier Point, Jim Terbush questions, why not post a flier on Camp 4 so newcomers know? Geologists can rate the stability of cliffs above roads. Why not climbing routes in Yosemite?
He and his wife may not win in court, Jim Terbush realizes. In fact, the legal odds seem stacked against them. But it will close a chapter in their lives.
"There was still this outstanding question," Jim Terbush said. "I felt if I didn't chase it to the ground, for the rest of my life I'd be wondering."
Because their son will forever be up there on the mountain. And they'll never let go.
Times staff writer Scott Doggett contributed to this report.
|
|
|
|
|
plund
Aug 25, 2005, 4:16 PM
Post #2 of 10
(5940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Mar 6, 2003
Posts: 302
|
In reply to: ... but I think it's fair enough to say that the lack of maintenance to the pipelines seems to be the sole cause of this accident....
On what confirmed physical evidence do you base this conclusion? One East Coast geologist saying it's so? It was a tragic ACCIDENT....again, sympathies to the family & friends, and kudos to the victim for having the sack to lock off & not let go....
|
|
|
|
|
krisp
Aug 25, 2005, 5:26 PM
Post #3 of 10
(5940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Jul 7, 2005
Posts: 233
|
He/she isn't dredging up old stories. Look on top of the post. The article is from yesterday's LATimes. Its about the lawsuit that just started. I, for one, had never heard about the accident. So if anyone has any opinions on the lawsuit, I'm interested in what other climbers think.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
dingus
Aug 25, 2005, 5:39 PM
Post #5 of 10
(5940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 16, 2002
Posts: 17398
|
In reply to: In reply to: ... but I think it's fair enough to say that the lack of maintenance to the pipelines seems to be the sole cause of this accident.... On what confirmed physical evidence do you base this conclusion? One East Coast geologist saying it's so?
In terms of presentation, the data seems compelling. Of course the suit will bring out the rebuttals.
My guess is regardless of the outcome, the days of flush toilets at Glacier Point are over unless they build a pump station or self contained septic system.
Anyway man, take a look at this slide presentation, its very interesting:
http://www.radford.edu/~cwatts/yosemite/
DMT
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
blonde_loves_bolts
Aug 25, 2005, 8:50 PM
Post #7 of 10
(5940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 7, 2005
Posts: 2287
|
In reply to: He/she isn't dredging up old stories. Look on top of the post. The article is from yesterday's LATimes. Its about the lawsuit that just started. I, for one, had never heard about the accident. So if anyone has any opinions on the lawsuit, I'm interested in what other climbers think.
The article is new, but the accident and its related thread are not, and the OP seems to have a habit of posting accident stories followed by admonishments of how unsafe climbing is. That gets old really quickly.
I agree that this accident was tragic, and it's a really moving story of the decedent protecting his climbing partners. I, unlike the OP, don't find this to necessarily be a frivolous lawsuit. That having been said, we are far from knowing exactly what happened because this investigation and subsequent litigation will be a long, arduous process. I posted that it seems the drainage issue was the sole cause of this accident; it very well may be, but I also realize that the point of an investigation is to raise all issues and pinpoint contributing factors, and that I as an armchair observer will naturally be the last to know in all of what happens.
Still, I can't emphasize enough the difference between a rock dislodging out of nature's will (for lack of a better description) and killing someone, versus an accident whose roots lie in human negligence or human intervention. As far as the latter goes, it's a tricky distinction. If a rock were to become dislodged by a climber, in the course of climbing a route, and it later fell and killed a member of a subsequent party, then I'd consider that to be a true and tragic accident. But if, let's say, a company let its sizable runoff waste filter into a situation that becomes a geologic hazard, and someone dies as a direct result of their negligence, then the company is liable. I realize this situation is different; we're talking about a National park and the government as the defendants. Different laws and immunities apply, as I previously stated. But I still think it's an interesting case with interesting arguments on both sides.
For some reason, whenever I delve into the potential legal outcomes of a tragic accident, someone will usually view my comments as a sign of insensitivity towards the family who suffered a tragic loss. I can't say enough that I am truly sorry for their loss, and find this story in particular to be an amazing example of a human being dying to save another, of what is right with mankind. I see families who have lost loved ones to tragic accidents or insurmountable permanent injuries on a daily basis, and those experiences are front and center in my mind when I read any stories like this one. I truly hope 1) that this family can recover from this accident, whether it be spiritually, monetarily or both, and 2) whatever was found to have caused the accident, if not the drainage issue as is presently thought, that it can be fixed so that this type of accident can be prevented in the future at Yosemite.
|
|
|
|
|
keinangst
Aug 25, 2005, 9:12 PM
Post #8 of 10
(5940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Apr 1, 2003
Posts: 1408
|
In reply to: Still, I can't emphasize enough the difference between a rock dislodging out of nature's will (for lack of a better description) and killing someone, versus an accident whose roots lie in human negligence or human intervention.
I agree with that, but it's an aesthetic line to draw.
To a climber, there is some kind of poetry or sense of helplessness that comes with the notion of dying "purely" in nature, outside of the reach of human intervention. But a death is still a death, and I doubt there's anything pure or poetic to the members of the victim's family.
|
|
|
|
|
majid_sabet
Aug 25, 2005, 10:16 PM
Post #9 of 10
(5940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Dec 13, 2002
Posts: 8390
|
I am trying to figure out what blonde likes for her birthday, a BOLT or a Hard Rock !!!
|
|
|
|
|
rockmonkey8167
Aug 29, 2005, 3:26 AM
Post #10 of 10
(5940 views)
Shortcut
Registered: Aug 29, 2005
Posts: 14
|
First of all, I'm very sorry for the family and I feel for them. Here is a little bit of truth behind rock slides on Glacier point. I was there when the rock slide happened. I was across the road, I heard the screams and cries of the other climber. The scariest part for me is realizing the fact that i was supposed to climb that route that afternoon but was persuaded by my brother to do something else. So it could have been me too there in the slide and I am fortunate it was not. But the fact of the matter is that rock slides happen on glacier point. I do not know the extent of the overflow of water causing the slides. nor do I believe it and Ill tell you why. I saw at least FOUR rock slides on Glacier Point this summer and heard many more at night. Now if someone is to still blame falling rocks on the apron due to previous incidents six years ago then they need to quit climbing and find a safer spot. People who ski go on the mountain knowing that avalanches happen: climbers climb rocks knowing that rock slides happen, its the chance we take. Quit blaming other people on natural disasters. That's my opinion
Oh yeah, Glacier Point almost got me again this year by falling rocks!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
