Talking about River Deaths
Kathryn Streletzky
talking over river deaths.
The most striking example, of course, is the drowning at Chineese Arithmetic,
as the victim's widow asked the survivors not to discuss the accident.
I spent a lot of my life not discussing accidents.
There was the time Mark went up into his attic the day before trout season
began back in 1970, and inadvertently electrocuted himself. I never discussed
this accident of my schoolmate with anyone, not even the others who shared the
daily busride to Nitchmann Jr High that was now devoid of Mark's empty seat.
And then there was the acid trip tragedy of a fatal van ride in 1974, when my
two friends John and Donny were obliterated. John was killed instantly, and
Donny was maintained in a lifeless coma. I was especially close to John, but I
never saw or talked of him again - and neither did anyone else who hung out
with him at Monocacy Park.
And then there was George. Sweet George who I was friends with since grade
school. He was partying out a a quarry in 1975 and swum under a rock shelf and
drowned; he was a good swimmer too. I never discussed his death either, not
even when I dated his brother (who was with him when the accident occurred)
several years later.
So when I see the following admonition tacked onto the newspaper account,
("PLEASE avoid the urge to second guess, analyze, critique, or opinionate on
what happened in this tragic accident"); I get angry.
No river death was as widely discussed - both in person and in internet forums
- as the deaths of Doug Gordon and Scott Bristow in 1998. I found discussing
Scott's death especially to be immensely cathartic - both in and of itself, and
as I realized much, much later for those deaths of my teenage years which I
never discussed with anyone at all. Because I didn't know how, and because no
one else did either.
Death is frightening. So frightening in fact, that after the close call I had
last summer (pinned between an undercut and a log), I found the memory of it
fading within minutes after the occurrance. I had to struggle to remember the
terror so I could write it down, and while the terror is recorded in my first
person account (along with the first person observations of the four others who
were there), I can no longer recall the emotion - much as the love for a
newborn obliterates the memory of a mother's pain of childbirth.
I know how those close to a kayaking victim dread the prospect of
finger-pointing. I remember wondering how much of that was going to go on when
Scott died - and you know what, there was surprisingly little. But please
don't ask me not to discuss or analyze. It is tribute to a boater that we
should want to remember and never forget.
- Mothra
jesse kodadek
: Scott died - and you know what, there was surprisingly little. But please
: don't ask me not to discuss or analyze. It is tribute to a boater that we
: should want to remember and never forget.
I agree wholeheartedly. And yet, I find myself disgusted with the way
things are often handled. It is so easy to lay blame, but is it ever
really that simple? [See Boatertalk post 26253] Is it right to jump to
obvious conclusions based solely on this article? It sure would be easy to
do, but I have to wonder what purpose this would serve. Is really a
magnanimous effort to prevent further tragedy, or is it, at some level,
about convincing yourself of the myth that you can be safe if do
everything just exactly so?
My followup to the above referenced post may be too harsh; it may look
like I am trying to silence that wonderful technique whereby we can learn
through the mistakes of others. Such is not my intent.
I did not know Brennan well, but I saw him on the river often. I always
wondered how long before I would know the person everyone was talking
about on rbp and boatertalk. Now I do.
All I ask is that everyone thinks before they type. I do not wish to see a
repeat of the ugly speculations I heard tonight. A newspaper article is
half the fact - at best. Tread lightly. Learn well.
spring is here
paddle hard
smile often
be safe
--
jesse kodadek, missoula, mt
jkodadek at selway dot umt dot edu
Qui...@my-deja.com
>Within the past several months, there appears to be a certain reticence
>about talking over river deaths.
<snip>
>So when I see the following admonition tacked onto the newspaper account,
>("PLEASE avoid the urge to second guess, analyze, critique, or
>opinionate on what happened in this tragic accident"); I get angry.
<snip>
>I know how those close to a kayaking victim dread the prospect of
>finger-pointing. I remember wondering how much of that was going to go on
when
>Scott died - and you know what, there was surprisingly little. But please
>don't ask me not to discuss or analyze. It is tribute to a boater that we
>should want to remember and never forget.
IMNSHO there is very little wrong with discussing, remembering or analysing.
If it's done with respect for the person who died, I don't mind, and view it
as useful (in several respects).
It's the finger pointing, second guessing, criticising and in some cases
flaming that worries me.
Scott did have a special place on RBP, which probably has a lot to do with
why there wasn't much critique or finger pointing going on at the time...
Several other deaths after that accident did go in a similar direction,
remaining decent, with respect for the deceased, their family and friends.
However, over the years I did see a couple of situations where that
definately
wasn't the case, for example the stuff going on here after Ed Green's death,
which (in my view) was a clear case of how not to behave after someone has
died... Burnt Njall also showed what can happen if you throw decency over
those we have lost out of the window.
Generally speaking, talking about something traumatic is good for all those
involved, and there are more good reasons to discuss accidents, so I agree
that we should keep that possibility open, as long as it's done in a
respectful way.
Wilko
--
Wilko van den Bergh Quibus(at)Europe<dot>Com
Eindhoven The Netherlands Europe
"Look Mum: No Sense!" (c)2001 by Wilko
----- Posted via NewsOne.Net: Free (anonymous) Usenet News via the Web -----
http://newsone.net/ -- Free reading and anonymous posting to 60,000+ groups
NewsOne.Net prohibits users from posting spam. If this or other posts
made through NewsOne.Net violate posting guidelines, email ab...@newsone.net
Gary Rappl
> Within the past several months, there appears to be a certain reticence about
> talking over river deaths.
I'm under the impression that there have been fewer deaths. I also think that
people may be reluctant to feed the troll, who will definitely take anything said
here out of context to hock his product, regardless of its lack of applicability to
the situation being discussed.
> The most striking example, of course, is the drowning at Chineese Arithmetic,
> as the victim's widow asked the survivors not to discuss the accident.
I'd prefer not to analyze and discuss based on hearsay. Unless the people who were
actually involved speak up, all we have in rumour and hearsay. Since the people
involved chose to follow their friend's widow's wishes, there are few facts to
discuss.
Gary
--
To reply to this message via email, remove the "NoSpamHere" in my address.
Jill
and remember the good things about him or her. I think the post hoc
speculations about what could have been done tend to go on to long and
almost always do not take into account the sincere efforts of the people who
were actually there trying to save a friend's life. These analyses tend to
be insulting to the people who were there and more than a bit disrespectful
of the feelings of the family and friends of the victim.
We've lost another highly skilled, young, vital, well-liked comrade. That
should give us all pause. Our hearts go out to his family and friends.
Bill Tuthill
>
> It's the finger pointing, second guessing, criticising and
> in some cases flaming that worries me.
All too true. When I first saw this newsgroup phenomenon,
I wondered why. About the only things you can say that give
solace to the survivors are "I'm sorry" or "my condolences"
or "I will truly miss this person."
Whitewater folks, on the other hand, can benefit from knowing
causes, so similar accidents can be prevented in the future.
When my friend Melissa Toben died at Carson Falls, I posted
here: "the left of center channel is not a good sneak route."
I think second guessing and criticising has these causes:
1. Denial - boaters do not want to believe it could happen
to them, so they blame the victim for making a mistake,
not remembering the last time they made a mistake, which
was probably the very last time they boated.
2. Selfishness - whether old or new school, K1/C1 boaters
often think of their pleasure before others, and never
develop a finely honed sense of consideration.
3. Pseudo-omniscience - the sense that, based only on a few
facts in an accident report, they can know what should
have been done to prevent the death. Ha.
4. Lack of experience - whitewater boaters who have had
close calls know that when one thing goes wrong, other
things usually go wrong right before or after. In such
cases death is prevented mainly by luck.
Whether newsgroup reform is possible, I dunno. It depends
entirely on the participants.
Dave Kaufman
> 4. Lack of experience - whitewater boaters who have had
> close calls know that when one thing goes wrong, other
> things usually go wrong right before or after. In such
> cases death is prevented mainly by luck.
i used to be a skydiving instructor and we always taught that it's
generally not one big thing that kills you, it's a combination of little
things going wrong. 3 or 4 little things can add up to one nasty
accident or fatality. if any of them were missing the accident wouldn't
have occurred. while it's sometimes true that weather (wind) plays a
factor in skydiving accidents it's almost always the individuals
involved that are the biggest factor. generally in jumping you go for
"the less weather the better".
in ww you always have the water. whatever the level it's always there
and always a factor. so you always have that actor outside the paddler
to throw in the unexpected.
Dave
--
Yes You Can!
http://www.earning4u.com
Paddleman
<ca_cr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Denial - boaters do not want to believe it could happen
> to them, so they blame the victim for making a mistake,
> not remembering the last time they made a mistake, which
> was probably the very last time they boated.
>
A few comments -
It's easy to find the mistake that someone made that killed them.
We'd all like to believe we wouldn't make that mistake. But, in the
end, most of us will die from a mistake. It could be as overt as not
seeing a red light in our car, or as subtle as choosing the wrong
doctor to help us in our old age.
We can learn, and perhaps more importantly, refocus ourselves by
understanding the "mistakes" made by our dead friends. We could use
it to convince ourselves that we are safe since we wouldn't make that
mistake. Or we can use it to remind us that simple mistakes can be
the end of us and we should try harder to avoid them.
--------
Life is very much like a big river.
There are rocks in our way sometimes.
We don't have absolute control over our destiny - we can't paddle
upstream for far. We only have influence - we can paddle from one
side to the other.
We make choices every second of our lives. As we move downstream,
those choices add up. Our place in the river of life is determined by
many small choices we made way upstream. Each one could be looked at
as a mistake. It's the aggregate of them all and the whims of fate
that determine our fortune at any moment.
As long as we're in the river, we will move downstream. Like the
water, time moves forward and takes us with it. We can grab a rock or
branch and hold on, but not for long. Because we know we must go on
downstream. We can't stop it. Why would we want to?
------------
for the best whitewater paddling videos:
http://www.whitewatervideo.com
DBerry OB
>Generally speaking, talking about something traumatic is good for all those
>involved, and there are more good reasons to discuss accidents, so I agree
>that we should keep that possibility open, as long as it's done in a
>respectful way.
But to discuss it as in a personal manner when we're not involved is gossip
and it's not respectful when the family asks for the discussion not to take
place. I think it was Wick Walker in Courting the Diamond Sow who leveled some
strong criticism at RBP for the way we dicussed Doug's death. I don't remember
the exact quote, just that it stung. I would hate for my opinions to hurt
someone already in pain and that seems to be what happened.
I hope that I can learn how to discuss something without it entering into the
relm of gossip. I'm not there yet but I'm working on it.
Debra
Kathryn Streletzky
>We'd all like to believe we wouldn't make that mistake.
That's why I think it's OK to talk about stuff. And no disrespect intended.
Case in point - poor Ben Stone who died on the Upper Stoneycreek at the 99
Rendezvous. He was told by locals who had boated with him the day before NOT
to go to the Upper Stoney as the levels would be high and his roll was weak.
Is it so wrong to know that he was in over his head, and everyone else in his
group was maxed out to their limits? I've never said anything in a newsgroup
that I wouldn't say in person - and Tom Polombchuk and I had a long, long
discussion about events of that day well into the wee hours of the morning at
Cheat Fest.
>But, in the
>end, most of us will die from a mistake. It could be as overt as not
>seeing a red light in our car, or as subtle as choosing the wrong
>doctor to help us in our old age.
I disagree. Actuaries tell us that accidents are a small statistical portion of
deaths. All of us will die. It's as natural as being born. Even the best
medical care can't prevent it. And it's kind of why I'd rather discuss it,
than shoo it under a carpet with an "I'm sorry."
I'd like to quote from an email I just received because the writer expressed it
much better than I did. I won't reveal the sender for the sake of privacy, but
I hope the individual won't mind me sharing some of his thoughts:
<<I totally agree. I am a woodworker, and have to deal with the constant
possibility of some terrible accident. I read and talk about every accident
I hear of, not because I am morbid, but to stay informed about the hazards
and to stay alert to the dangers. It is so easy to get complacent. The
price is so very high.
Likewise, when I went through divorce after 21 years of marriage, I found
myself talking about stuff I never faced before. It was a painful, draining
experience, but it cleared a world of denial and numbness, and left me so
much more alive, and open to love when it came my way. I am now in a very
love-filled relationship which never would have happened otherwise. Of
death or divorce or disfigurement, how else to be be real, how else to be
alive if you do not honestly confront them? And what more meaningful topic
to share with your close friends if you do have to face them?
Plus, being on the water has a way of bringing you into more hightened
awareness. With all those negative ions flying all around, I believe we are
all charged up just by being there ... one of the reasons we are drawn to a
sport with such unforgiving consequences to mishap. Let's be real. Let's
be honest. And let's be alive.>>
- Mothra
Kathryn Streletzky
>and it's not respectful when the family asks for the discussion not to take
>place. I think it was Wick Walker in Courting the Diamond Sow who leveled
>some
>strong criticism at RBP for the way we dicussed Doug's death.
Actually, it was Todd Balf's book, "The Last River" that went off on rbp. Todd
came to the story after it had all happened. He didn't experience it as it
happened.
Wick made a stinging remark - and ironically, I think it was directed at me.
He was not so much concerned about the discussions per se about whether Doug
should have gone there, risk, etc. He was concerned that someone reported that
the group was still in danger and he was concerned that the Chineese would
launch a search. I think the comment he objected to so much came from me - and
I wish we could go back to the deja archives and see, but I do remember warning
readers that the expedition was not yet over and that the group still had a
dangerous and daunting multi-day hike out to civilization.
I won't speculate as to why Wick might have been so concerned over the Chineese
perhaps coming in to mount a "rescue" and I'll just say that Sarah Park
forwarded me an email every morning after her phone calls with Tom and I
forwarded all information to this group including the definitive trip report
(written by Tom) and post-mortem (written by Jamie). RBP was where the news
was reported first - before the papers and the press - and it was reported
exactly as I got the info. Yeah, there was lots of other talk too - because
lots of us were so wrapped up in the expedition - but Balf seems to have
ignored or not understood those basic facts.
> I don't
>remember
>the exact quote, just that it stung. I would hate for my opinions to hurt
>someone already in pain and that seems to be what happened.
> I hope that I can learn how to discuss something without it entering into
>the
>relm of gossip. I'm not there yet but I'm working on it.
Yeah, me too. For what it's worth, Connie Gordon wrote me a very nice note
after Doug died as she was about to move out West to get a fresh start with her
2 kids.
- Mothra
Greggsilk2
someone is done in by the other guy's lapse in judgement. rbp is also full of
accounts when people looked out for others and headed off possible tragedies
by warning off badly prepared newbies. Likewise, accounts of near misses are
also important.
But never, ever do anything to accomadate the likes of Njall. That's death of
the spirit. And notice how our favorite trolls all scream about their
"concern" for others.
Gregg
Dan
ever plan to go on. Every jump is a Class 6 in consequences if things go
bad.
The talking about accidents is more formalized, with Official Fatality
Reports and an article in the magazine every year complete with what we
morbidly called the "Pie Chart of Death."
Skydiving also has a much more structured system for training and
controlling who does what (all self regulated).
--
I don't believe there's any problem in this country, no matter how tough
it is, that Americans, when they roll up their sleeves, can't completely
ignore.
-George Carlin
"Dave Kaufman" <dav...@epix.net> wrote in message
news:3AB7B955...@epix.net...
Matthew and Sally Buynoski
kstre...@aol.com (Kathryn Streletzky) wrote:
> Within the past several months, there appears to be a certain reticence about
> talking over river deaths.
>
> The most striking example, of course, is the drowning at Chineese Arithmetic,
> as the victim's widow asked the survivors not to discuss the accident.
There is certainly something to be said for privacy and not throwing
critiques of now-deceased individuals all over the internet. However, names
need not be
mentioned in the report. A very few people directly connected with the incident
will know the exact "who" but it is not really necessary for all the rest of us
to know if was "Wild Bill Kayaker" instead of "Mad Dog Rafter" who died, or
messed up the rescue, or whatever. Discussion of "what went wrong" is a
powerful tool to discover faults in what we do, devise or revise methods to
prevent similar problems in future incidents, so that the discussion can
have a lifesaving effect.
Don Rumrill
of what happened and what might have been done or done differently (if
anything could have been done) is extremely important for those folks who go
knowingly into danger. A critique of what was done should never be
construed as a critisism of those involved. Never. What most people do in
a situation is pre-conditioned on what they know to do. There is little
time or leisure to come up with a thought through logical response that was
not known or thought of before. But, if there is a germ of an idea or
better, a choice of hypothetical responses to a situation, there then exists
are greater likelyhood of success. This isn't just a school debate, but is
used successfully by the military and emergency response teams. The more
scenarios you have thought through the better the chances you'll make it. I
cannot think of a better forum for this than this newsgroup, barring the
usual idiots that we should ignore. Don't let some sentamentality step
between you an some knowledge that might help you or a friend out of a tight
spot. Phew, now that I've got that out my system I'll say that I've decided
to run away and become a pirate. Not a lost boy, a pirate. Har-dee-har-har
maties!
Boat Moon
Jill wrote in message ...
Peter Croft
cultures refusal to accept it as a normal part of life. If we deny it and
dont talk about it, it "wont happen to us".
I dont see anything disrespectful about discussing these (or any other)
deaths as long as we are dealing with FACTS and not hearsay.
The truth may not be pleasant sometimes, but it helps people learn and grow.
Pete
Paddleman
wrote:
>>But, in the
>>end, most of us will die from a mistake. It could be as overt as not
>>seeing a red light in our car, or as subtle as choosing the wrong
>>doctor to help us in our old age.
>
>I disagree. Actuaries tell us that accidents are a small statistical portion of
>deaths. All of us will die. It's as natural as being born. Even the best
>medical care can't prevent it. And it's kind of why I'd rather discuss it,
>than shoo it under a carpet with an "I'm sorry."
I don't have a problem with your point, but just to be clear... I
didn't say "accident", I said "mistake". I still stand by that.
We'll all die, and just before we do, we may all realize the "mistake"
we made that is most directly attributable to our demise. It could be
a mistake that led to an accident, or it could be a poor choice in
life, like diet, smoking, working in a coal mine, not seeing a doctor
soon enough, or picking the wrong one.
Our destiny is determined by the small choices we make well upstream
of the consequences.
Paul Skoczylas
> We'll all die, and just before we do, we may all realize the "mistake"
> we made that is most directly attributable to our demise. It could be
> a mistake that led to an accident, or it could be a poor choice in
> life, like diet, smoking, working in a coal mine, not seeing a doctor
> soon enough, or picking the wrong one.
But everyone dies, even if they made no mistakes at all. (But I suppose
that's impossible to prove...)
The one constant in the universe is that nobody ever gets out of life
alive.
-Paul
Larry Cable
<lynn....@gte.net> writes:
>I have to disagree a little with Jill, i think that a realistic discussion
>of what happened and what might have been done or done differently (if
>anything could have been done) is extremely important for those folks who go
>knowingly into danger. A critique of what was done should never be
>construed as a critisism of those involved. Never. What most people do in
>a situation is pre-conditioned on what they know to do. There is little
>time or leisure to come up with a thought through logical response that was
>not known or thought of before. But, if there is a germ of an idea or
>better, a choice of hypothetical responses to a situation, there then exists
>are greater likelyhood of success. This isn't just a school debate, but is
>used successfully by the military and emergency response teams. The more
>scenarios you have thought through the better the chances you'll make it. I
>cannot think of a better forum for this than this newsgroup, barring the
>usual idiots that we should ignore. Don't let some sentamentality step
>between you an some knowledge that might help you or a friend out of a tight
>spot. Phew, now that I've got that out my system I'll say that I've decided
>to run away and become a pirate. Not a lost boy, a pirate. Har-dee-har-har
>maties!
I have to agree with Don. Long association with the Military has left me with a
lot
of respect for the method that they deal with training accidents and deaths.
Hindsight is often 20/20, after a massive screw up, a little research can often
identify the underlying causes. Not to place blame, but to try and prevent the
same
accident again. Any one involved in risk activities ought to be willing to look
at
their own behavior and behavior of others to assess what went wrong leading up
to an incident.
Larry
SYOTR
Larry C.
Mary Malmros
Kathryn Streletzky <kstre...@aol.com> wrote:
>
>I know how those close to a kayaking victim dread the prospect of
>finger-pointing. I remember wondering how much of that was going to go on when
>Scott died - and you know what, there was surprisingly little. But please
>don't ask me not to discuss or analyze. It is tribute to a boater that we
>should want to remember and never forget.
Discussion, analysis, tributes, fingerpointing, catharsis, and tributes
are all different things. IMO it's risky to conflate them.
--
::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::::
Mary Malmros Very Small Being mal...@shore.net
"I would not exchange the sorrows of my heart
for the joys of the multitude"
Mary Malmros
DBerry OB <dber...@aol.com> wrote:
>>
>>Generally speaking, talking about something traumatic is good for all those
>>involved, and there are more good reasons to discuss accidents, so I agree
>>that we should keep that possibility open, as long as it's done in a
>>respectful way.
>
> But to discuss it as in a personal manner when we're not involved is gossip
>and it's not respectful when the family asks for the discussion not to take
>place. I think it was Wick Walker in Courting the Diamond Sow who leveled some
>strong criticism at RBP for the way we dicussed Doug's death. I don't remember
>the exact quote, just that it stung. I would hate for my opinions to hurt
>someone already in pain and that seems to be what happened.
It was Todd Balf in "The Last River", and I disagree that it was
a strong criticism leveled at RBP. The quotes as presented here
might have sounded like that, but if you read it in context, I
think you'd find otherwise. I think it was an accurate representation
of what happened on rbp and on other forums.
I disagree as well with the statement that "talking about something
traumatic is good for all those involved" -- or rather, I think that
the statement needs to be qualified. Some kinds of talking, yes:
for example, talking with a critical incident stress counselor;
with a river safety expert; with a fellow paddler who's also been
there; or with a fellow paddler who maybe has not been there, but
who has intelligence and imagination and enough sensitivity to
spend more time listening than talking (I'm thinking here about
a certain Mr. R. Ratt, here). But for everybody else, and I
do mean everybody, I'm sorry, y'all might mean well, but I
have grave doubts about how much that kind of talking helps the
person involved. It might help (or gratify?) the other party,
but the person who was involved -- the person who needs the
help the most -- is minimally helped, if at all.
> I hope that I can learn how to discuss something without it entering into the
>relm of gossip. I'm not there yet but I'm working on it.
As I've said before, I think the discussion takes place on several
different levels. Lotta people here claim that all paddlers are
involved, but face it, we're NOT all involved. Sitting home
reading about someone you didn't know dying on a river, you're
NOT involved in anything like the same way as those who were
there, or those who were close to the paddler who was lost.
As such, it's probably best to not try to participate in a
"discussion" with them -- face it, it'll help you more than it'll
"help" them.
Larry Cable
(Mary Malmros) writes:
>I disagree as well with the statement that "talking about something
>traumatic is good for all those involved" -- or rather, I think that
>the statement needs to be qualified. Some kinds of talking, yes:
>for example, talking with a critical incident stress counselor;
>with a river safety expert; with a fellow paddler who's also been
>there; or with a fellow paddler who maybe has not been there, but
>who has intelligence and imagination and enough sensitivity to
>spend more time listening than talking (I'm thinking here about
>a certain Mr. R. Ratt, here). But for everybody else, and I
>do mean everybody, I'm sorry, y'all might mean well, but I
>have grave doubts about how much that kind of talking helps the
>person involved. It might help (or gratify?) the other party,
>but the person who was involved -- the person who needs the
>help the most -- is minimally helped, if at all.
While I agree that this forum shouldn't pretend to be a support group for the
family
and other survivors, I still feel that it is important to discuss the when,
where and
how of the accident. There is one hell of a lot of expertise on this forum, I
beleive
that it is important that we discuss an accident rationally to see if there is
a
cause that can be avoided in the future. Too often, there is a mindset in much
of the paddling community that it can happen to me or my group because we
don't paddle that difficult of streams or we don't make those mistakes. Well,
we can and do make these same mistakes.
I'm willing to be self critical (see swimming in flooded drysuit!) if it will
prevent an
accident in the future.
SYOTR
Larry C.