CA - Jonathan Gerrish, Ellen Chung, daughter, 1 & dog, suspicious death hiking area, Aug 2021 #2

[Parsnip]

My own speculation about why they went out for a hike on such a hot day is that they had a new piece of equipment that they wanted to try out, namely, a backpack carrier for the baby. Thinking the new carrier (speculating that it was new based on the IG post) would be cooler for the baby and her father than the papoose type they had used before, they went out in the morning for a test run. Idk if either of them were gear heads, but it’s hard to let new equipment collect dust for those sorts of folks.

 

[LifeIsAMystery]

Thursday, Aug. 19: Autopsies are completed on the family and the dog. The autopsy findings state “pending toxicology” results.

I wonder why they’re holding back information?

It's my understanding that heat stroke can be a finding of exclusion, so, they are waiting on tox results for full picture, MOO.

 

[Quiet Time]

Re: the fires
I went out Sunday morning to pick up some medicine at Walgreen's...and the sky was so hazy, it looked like a blanket of mist that you'd see on a winter's morning.

I also got an alert on my phone alerting us of the smoky conditions and to be careful outdoors...

I'm in Fresno.

 

[Satchie]

I was talking about this case at length with my dad tonight, just for a fresh perspective... He was aware of this & the recent Joshua Tree case, & wondered aloud why the US didn’t close parks during the extreme heat, as we close some parks or part of parks here in Canada in extreme winter (I’m in western Canada; sometimes I just say I’m in the PNW because it’s simpler shorthand). He wondered if there’s some state/national legislation against closing parks, or if it would just be wildly unpopular etc. I don’t know! Has it happened before, in your experience—all national forests in a state closed? Do you think it’s related to this case? Or to the weather/seasonal fires more generally? Why wait so late in the season?

Edit to add: I know the notices say it’s strictly fire related. Has that occurred before? Is it a thing only in recent years? (My questions have to do with global warming, & how there’s some suggestion in recent articles that it is throwing off people’s ability to assess risk correctly. Which, indirectly, *may* have something to do with this case.)

In Canada, some roads that give access to public lands are closed in winter, but I'm not aware of any where access is closed to hikers, cross-country skiers or snowshoers.
Serious outdoor recreation has always been a 'do it at your own risk' activity. So, to continue the Canadian winter examples, numerous people die each year in avalanches, including tourists who arrive from places like California and head off in snowshoes into a avalanche zone.

There's been a concerted effort to educate people, to put up signs, to assess and issue general hazard warnings for the region, and even the risky business of clearing avalanches deliberately, but I don't believe the government or outdoor adventurers ever want to get to the point where places are closed to recreation because of fear of someone getting hurt or killed. That's why some people are passionate about it, the opportunity to develop skills in survival, without being babysat by bureaucrats.

ETA: MOO

 

[Figuring]

Let me clarify a bit about the forests and closure orders. The TLDR is in bold below.

In general, in the USA, public land is kept accessible to the people as an important basic right and freedom. There are only a handful of closures that are common, and they are generally limited to specific areas and often apply only to vehicle access, for example when roads are soft and muddy and vehicles would cause damage. In that kind of a situation people would be allowed to be there on foot.

Or, when there is human activity that is dangerous to be around -- whether that is fire fighting or timber cutting, the specific area and the roads leading to it may be closed to anyone not involved in the activity. Again, limited to only the affected area.

I don't believe public land would close to keep people safe from normal risks of storms etc -- people are allowed to choose to be in risky situations -- but for something unknown such as this Sierra NF trail-specific or river-specific closure, it makes sense to close access until they know what's going on.

But the thing about the regionwide closure of all forests in the state -- I have been a NF employee or former employee for nearly 30 years now, almost all of it in California, and I have never heard of that extensive a closure before.

Here's the thing -- this closure is NOT about the normal risk of fire -- forests can and do ban smoking, campfires, woodcutting (chainsaws often throw sparks), etc every year during times of high risk but they don't ban people from simply BEING in the forests.

What's going on now is this: there are so many fires currently going across the west that if new fires were to start -- the USFS HAS NO MORE FIREFIGHTING PERSONNEL AVAILABLE TO SEND. It's not even mostly about money, it's about all trained fire folks already maxxed out.

Fires most often start from lightning but obviously that can't be stopped. They are trying to eliminate the risk of any human-caused fires because it's all they can do to reduce fire needs right now.

I will look for a link to share but until I find one this is MOO.

Edit: Link to the USFS letter addressing the closure: https://www.fs.usda.gov/Internet/FSE_DOCUMENTS/fseprd949147.pdf

This is so informative, thank you!

 

[JerseyGirl]

This thread is full and will be closed. Please continue here:

CA - Jonathan Gerrish, Ellen Chung, daughter, 1 & dog, suspicious death hiking area, Aug 2021 #3