What happened to this California family?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is hiking some trendy fad with liberal yuppies? This couple was clearly very into it — to the point of risking their health/life for it. And just now NYT shared a story on their main social media accounts reviewing hiking boots.

What’s the allure? I’m not anti nature but hiking is pretty boring.

Then don't go?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The husband sounds loaded. It sounds like he had a portfolio of California real estate.

He was a tech employee who probably made $500K a year and moved to a LCOL area (for CA) and bought a bunch of tiny properties. That's not loaded. It's smart.

You can get a cheap lot for $210,000 up there. For good reason.

https://www.redfin.com/CO/Drake/2349-US-34-80515/home/34816190

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If cell phones don’t work, why doesn’t a national park have emergency phones at least every half mile?

We just pissed away $2 trillion in Afghanistan but our national parks sound dangerous and underfunded.

*facepalm*

This is almost as good as why don't they sell breastmilk at Safeway?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If cell phones don’t work, why doesn’t a national park have emergency phones at least every half mile?

We just pissed away $2 trillion in Afghanistan but our national parks sound dangerous and underfunded.

Because national parks are empty almost year round and the point of parks is to preserve nature and wildlife - not to put in underground wiring across 52 million uninhabited acres in the U.S.

Think.

Satellite phones don’t need wires. Just a tiny solar panel for electricity. Maybe a flare gun too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If cell phones don’t work, why doesn’t a national park have emergency phones at least every half mile?

We just pissed away $2 trillion in Afghanistan but our national parks sound dangerous and underfunded.

Because national parks are empty almost year round and the point of parks is to preserve nature and wildlife - not to put in underground wiring across 52 million uninhabited acres in the U.S.

Think.

Satellite phones don’t need wires. Just a tiny solar panel for electricity. Maybe a flare gun too.

Because CA needs more fires.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If cell phones don’t work, why doesn’t a national park have emergency phones at least every half mile?

We just pissed away $2 trillion in Afghanistan but our national parks sound dangerous and underfunded.

There are over 81,000 square miles of national parks in the US. That's a lot of emergency phones.

I really hope this person suggesting phones every half mile is joking. I can't believe anyone would think like this about our national land.

No - they were completely serious about destroying pristine lands and the environment because they don't want to be inconvenienced while doing something that was inherently risky in the first place.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If cell phones don’t work, why doesn’t a national park have emergency phones at least every half mile?

We just pissed away $2 trillion in Afghanistan but our national parks sound dangerous and underfunded.

There are over 81,000 square miles of national parks in the US. That's a lot of emergency phones.

Think of the job creation for telephone sanitizers.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is hiking some trendy fad with liberal yuppies? This couple was clearly very into it — to the point of risking their health/life for it. And just now NYT shared a story on their main social media accounts reviewing hiking boots.

What’s the allure? I’m not anti nature but hiking is pretty boring.

Then don't go?

It just seems like a lot of performative posturing. Buying all this gear and boots ... to walk on a trail. Because you’re too cool and “ACTIVE” / “ADVENTUROUS” to just walk in your neighborhood for exercise?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Is hiking some trendy fad with liberal yuppies? This couple was clearly very into it — to the point of risking their health/life for it. And just now NYT shared a story on their main social media accounts reviewing hiking boots.

What’s the allure? I’m not anti nature but hiking is pretty boring.

You need to step outside the Beltway. There's a big world out there populated by people with varied interests.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is hiking some trendy fad with liberal yuppies? This couple was clearly very into it — to the point of risking their health/life for it. And just now NYT shared a story on their main social media accounts reviewing hiking boots.

What’s the allure? I’m not anti nature but hiking is pretty boring.

Then don't go?

It just seems like a lot of performative posturing. Buying all this gear and boots ... to walk on a trail. Because you’re too cool and “ACTIVE” / “ADVENTUROUS” to just walk in your neighborhood for exercise?

Some people enjoy being in nature, PP. You don't have to step foot off of asphalt if you don't want to.

[Anonymous]

Going for a recreational hike anywhere when it's 95+ outside is not a good idea. Look at all the people they have to rescue from bill goat trail near the Potomac every year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is hiking some trendy fad with liberal yuppies? This couple was clearly very into it — to the point of risking their health/life for it. And just now NYT shared a story on their main social media accounts reviewing hiking boots.

What’s the allure? I’m not anti nature but hiking is pretty boring.

Then don't go?

It just seems like a lot of performative posturing. Buying all this gear and boots ... to walk on a trail. Because you’re too cool and “ACTIVE” / “ADVENTUROUS” to just walk in your neighborhood for exercise?

No, hiking isn't performative. You're the only one there.

It's fine if it's not your thing. Most people have their thing and don't like anything else. But that doesn't mean those other people are wrong, they're just different people.

I posed a while back on this thread about hiking in a post-fire area. Seeing the destruction and regrowth was fascinating, very different from the usual. So I can see how this might have been an interesting hike, especially after the fire.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Removing that bit of the timeline makes me lean more towards fa. If they went down SL trail and only got 1.5 miles from car/trailhead it seems they didn't get to the river for the toxic algae or hike long enough for multiple cases of heat stroke.

Pretty sure police allegedly found their prints on the other side of the trail, implying they were at the end of the loop (traveling clockwise), not the beginning (counter-clockwise). So they had travelled 7 or so miles in the blazing sun.

One last thing about intending to do a 8+ miles vs. a shorter hike. They may have intended to just go 3 miles. They started down the easier side, but then turned back and went down the Savage Lundy trail. Maybe they decided the views (something?) may be better on Savage Lundy. They went back to the parking lot and then went down the steeper SL trail meaning to only go a short distance. However, even that short distance proved to be be very strenuous on the way back (uphill) and they also lost time from going the other way. LE found their truck at night and may have checked out the easier Hiites Cove Trail first (assuming that a family might do this) and found the footprints and immediately started down that road for the search (I do understand that footprints coming back should have been there, but who knows how thorough they were that late at night--just glad to follow footprints that matched the family profile). When they saw no bodies for some time, they called in another team to search the other end of the trail. They do not mention if there were footprints at both heads of the trail and have not mentioned the longer hike recently. Anyways, some people are assuming long hike based on footprints on one side and bodies being found on the other side.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Going for a recreational hike anywhere when it's 95+ outside is not a good idea. Look at all the people they have to rescue from bill goat trail near the Potomac every year.

This is absolutely not true in low humidity areas. I live in Northern California and hike all summer in 95+ temperatures. Be smart in choosing your hikes and carry plenty of water and you'll be fine.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Going for a recreational hike anywhere when it's 95+ outside is not a good idea. Look at all the people they have to rescue from bill goat trail near the Potomac every year.

This is absolutely not true in low humidity areas. I live in Northern California and hike all summer in 95+ temperatures. Be smart in choosing your hikes and carry plenty of water and you'll be fine.

People die every month in 'low humidity areas' while hiking in 90F - 100F weather. A woman hiking with an experienced date just died in Phoenix, Arizona.
https://www.azfamily.com/news/woman-who-died-hiking-camelback-mountain-was-with-phoenix-officer/article_c5da8612-f340-11eb-a3a8-57a0ab85303a.html