I'm doing this as a separate thread from the current discussion about the Whitney SAR, as I don't want these comments mixed with those that might be read by any relatives.

There were a number of things that really bothered me related to it, though.

One, it was clear that where he fell was the most likely place, by far, for him to have had an accident, and the most likely place to look, and it took 5 days to actually look at the area and find him. I mean, we are actually posting pictures of the area!

I imagine part of that is due to the focus on "rescue" as opposed to "recovery". If you are hoping to rescue someone, you won't be looking at the bottom of cliffs, because that is not survivable---until you have looked in all the places where survival is a possibility (unless you have unlimited resources, and you never do). I find it hard to fault that sort of mindset.

So, I suppose it is better to look down at Crabtree area before looking at the bottom of cliffs.

Two, known problem areas not clarified for safety. It is certainly known that there are certain areas that are a problem. It is certainly known that these areas are descended in the dark. It is certainly known that people do this when they are exhausted. It is certainly known that people are doing this when their judgement is clouded due to lack of oxygen.

What would a reasonable person expect to happen? I would expect there will be occasional accidents, including fatalities. Maybe I'm not reasonable?

It seems that in this setting, placement of what the USFS calls "reassurance markers" to clearly mark the trail location when it might be lost in dangerous terrain is reasonable. You don't have to use signs, you don't even have to line the trail. Just some marking with a few rocks in the most troublesome places would greatly reduce risk. This ridge above Mirror Lake, with the trail drawn in, shows a number of places that look to be trouble.

The USFS would counter that their job does not consist of removing hazards in wilderness, that no matter what they mark, or move, or remove, there is an endless list of things that could be "improved" or "mitigated", or "made safer". If they block one chute, and someone falls down another, they've only increased liability, because they were not "complete" in removing hazards. So their policy tends to be that there are no hazards in wilderness, there is only "natural", and left to itself, nature creates situations that can be dangerous to the unwary or unprepared.

I don't quite buy that in a situation like Whitney, which is an "attractive nuisance" like a swimming pool. 20,000/year is not a wilderness experience, so they've already thrown that concept out. They say that you don't have to manage wilderness, it does fine by itself.....you have to manage *people* who traverse that wilderness.