"More importantly, I think the implication that the SAR was not looking in the right places is grossly unfair and unfounded. Just because we think a particular area was the highest probability does not mean that any other possible area should not also be covered. There is not the least evidence for Ken's presumption that "it took 5 days to actually look at the area"."

So now you are saying that they actually knew where the body was, and were looking at it for 5 days? I mean, they actually looked at it and found the body, or they did not look at it, or did so in a cursory way, and missed the body?

I suppose, given unlimited resources (50 helicopters and 1,000 searchers, the FIRST day), there is no reason to prioritize a search. But I don't think you generally have that.

So you HAVE to prioritize.

It seems that I was criticizing SAR for not looking in the right places, but you have to keep in mind that the whole thing started off with the best information being that he was within a 2-1/2 mile segment....and that was where he was, indeed, found.

So, obviously, they did not thoroughly search the 2-1/2 miles, at least the part where he was found. How could that be? Would you, the reader, send some of your people down the Mountaineers Route? Crabtree? Other side of Wotan's Throne? Hitchcock area? Lone Pine? The recreation trail below Whitney Portal? Or would you send them to do a foot-by-foot examination of the 2-1/2 miles?

The answer, of course, is that they were maximizing the possibilities of SURVIVAL. You first send your people to where a LIVING hiker could be, perhaps severely injured, so that you could SAVE HIS LIFE. If he is dead, he will still be dead in 5 days. I speak with some authority on that. wink

I don't know if the family will read this thread, and I tried to keep my comments rather general. Perhaps it would have been better to wait a month, or year, or five. What I chose was so that any lessons to be learned could be learned for THIS season.

I am much more bothered by this death, than I might be by a 20 y/o hiker who tripped on their high heels. He was 61, I am 60. He has a lot of climbs of Whitney, so do I. He has a long experience hiking and backpacking, so do I. I have descended the front side of Whitney with two long-time companions, and we strung out widely because of longstanding differences in hiking speeds, and we have been comfortable doing that. I wouldn't do that with newbies, though. In other words, it could have been me.

One attempt I made was with a friend and I who were doing an early spring climb, intending to meet another friend at TC. Well, it snowed like hell, and we never met up with that third person. We looked out for him on the descent, and to do that we split up in the storm so as to cover "shortcuts", but never saw him. The two of us regrouped at the Portal. His truck was at the Portal, and I left a note on the windshield. I never worried that Bob Rockwell would not be able to find his way down.

I would never think twice about doing a solo summer ascent of Whitney. The concept that it is an unacceptable risk to experienced hikers seems bizarre to me.