What happened to this California family?
![[Post New]](/jforum/templates/default/images/icon_minipost_new.gif){kind=icon}
Anonymous
Not sure it has been mentioned here, but on websleuths a couple of posters have questioned whether they may have been confused about the destination given that there are two nearby trails with “Hites Cove” in the name. One is called Hites Cove trail and the other Hites Cove Road trail. The one they weren’t on is a flat, pleasant walk popular in the spring for wildflower viewing. It seems unlikely given that the husband had researched the hike ahead of time and both trails were near their house; in addition they would have quickly realized their error, and probably wouldn’t have decided to change their plans at that point. I wanted to throw this out for the sake of theory completeness though, since the other trail would have made more sense for a hike with a baby and dog. |
Anonymous
Most plausible. |
Anonymous
The initial reports point to the proximity of the bodies: “Coming across a scene where everyone involved, including the family dog that is deceased, that is not a typical thing that we have seen or other agencies have seen," Kristie Mitchell previously told the Fresno Bee. "That is why we're treating it as a hazmat situation. We just don't know." I think there probably had been a lot of discussion in the public safety community there about what warning level to provide re the toxic algae blooms. I gather that what they went with at the time was just a “Caution” saying not to touch them or let dogs drink water near them, when they could have gone with a warning telling people not to swim in that part of the river. Likely a swim or at least a close-up view of the river (which is apparently beautiful) was one of the only reasons LE could think of for the family to be out on that steep and desolate trail on such a brutally hot day. It seems likely to me that heatstroke is the culprit, but that’s based on information released after several days of investigation. When investigators first found the bodies, they likely didn’t know how long the family had been on the trail before dying or what path they took. I’m sure it was a shocking sight. Hopefully the toxicology reports come back soon. |
Anonymous
|
Anonymous
| The wrong trail theory makes some sense to me. I’m remembering a hike that we took with the kids and dog that was just in one of the MoCo area parks. There was a split in the trail that was t marked, we chose the wrong way and ended up going a half mile or mile in the wrong direction before it became obvious we were on the wrong side of the stream and on a dead end trail. So it added substantially to what was supposed to be an easy 3 mile loop hike for our kids. I often think trails should be better marked or named—it’s really often a guessing game to figure out from looking at a map which trail is which. |
Anonymous
Pp again. Here's a map showing what the first pp stated in bold. Notice the parked car bottom left at Hites Cove Rd. That is the easier trail pp describes, yet family was found on the harsh trail on right. It's very possible they meant to follow the leisurely trail. It seems illogical that investigators wouldn't consider they might have mistaken their ntended trail. 
|
Anonymous
| I still don’t get how being in the wrong trail would end up with the dog dying too |
Anonymous
|
They were perhaps rushing because getting the baby ready took longer than they thought and then they took the wrong trail.
I also think they went in the water because all were failing. Dog baby them. That didn’t help. |
Anonymous
They probably wanted to walk the loop following the arrows in green. But that obviously steep climbat the end would be hard. When you see switchbacks like that, you are climbing a steep grade in a short distance. Personally, I would have opted to go the other direction around the loop. A long slow climb is easier. To cut off the experts, no you can't just take a shortcut back to the car and ignore terrain. |
Anonymous
|
Even if they intended to make the full loop, it's very possible that they didn't have any idea how bad the final leg would be. Most of the pictures and reviews of that section of trail are from before the big fire a few years ago. They show a trail well covered in pine trees. If they thought their final leg was going to look like this:
https://sierranewsonline.com/hiking-on-the-savage-lundy-trail/ The complete lack of shade, and heat reflecting from bare dirt all around, might have caught them completely off guard. |
Anonymous
| ^^ from above what I mean is one bad judgement (being late) and taking the wrong trail led to another then another then another. |
Anonymous
That also makes it clear that the trail is not well marked. |
Anonymous
Especially if the tree that bore any trail blazing had burned down. On the other hand, the guy was a techie, and seemingly obsessed with the AllTrails app. Seems highly unlikely that he would have set off on a hike without checking his progress on a geo-located GPS map. |
Anonymous
| 9:34 again. Going on the assumption that nothing nefarious is discovered, they were good parents and loved their aging dog, they took the wrong trail. No parent would subject a baby and dog to those conditions. Plus, they didn't cancel the nanny for that afternoon. They had to have checked the heat index. I think their plan was the leisurely hike and back before dangerous heat. But as experienced hikers, why didn't they immediately realize they were on the wrong trail and turn back? Where they were discovered is treacherous terrain. Ugh so sad. |
Anonymous
? Even on a temperate day, there is a huge difference between a walk on flat terrain with trees and shade vs a hike in zero shade that involves miles of walking up an incline so steep (1500-2000 ft elevation gain) that multiple switchbacks are involved. And it was 105+ degrees over the hours they were hiking. I’m surprised the dog was able to last an hour on the Savage/Lundy trail (where they were found) in that heat without burning its paws. |