More sad news...

[Cath]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/12/09/business/douglas-tompkins-72-north-face-founder-dies-in-kayaking-accident.html

[EEL]

Sad and ironic. It seems that often people who survivea lifetime of adventure/risk end up dying while doing something prosaic.

For an understanding of why he ended up in Chile, the film 180 Degrees South is worth a viewing.

Ed Lawson

[Cath]

more info on the death of Doug Tompkins:

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2015/12/151213-doug-tompkins-chile-north-face-rick-ridgeway-patagonia-yvon-chouinard-death-general-carrera-lake/

[Katherine]

Beautiful article, tragic incident.

[djlewis]

From the article -- addressing the crucial questions about how Tompkins was dressed (in 38 degreee water)...

“(Boyles) was holding him by his clothes, and I could see his skin. It was clear he had no neoprene diving suit,” said Reuter.

River and sea kayakers often wear neoprene or dry suits, which help preserve body temperature in the event they capsize in cold water. Canoe and Kayak Magazine reported that in a photo taken at the beginning of the trip, Tompkins is pictured wearing a Patagonia dry top. Since Boyles was reportedly holding Tompkins by his clothes, it’s possible that the garment was pulled up around his neck, exposing his skin to the cold water. It is unclear what type of clothing the other men were wearing or what Tompkins was wearing on his legs. What is known is that Tompkins was a very experienced kayaker, as were all the members of the group.

[EEL]

Oh man. Could have lost Rick and Yvon in the same incident. Hard to imagine after what all three had been through over the years.

I guess that mantra of "Its not the consequences of the fall, but the probability of the fall that determines when to use a rope" finally caught up to them.

Last night I watched the film "Meru". Wonderful film about climbing on big mountains, the demands it makes, and what it takes.

Ed Lawson

[Inverseyourself]

Part of me wants to say "If he was such an experienced kayaker, why was he not dressed for immersion, especially knowing the predictability of the unpredictability of the winds and wind effects around/on this lake and the temperatures of this glacial lake (couldn't find a temperature of Lake General Carrera online during a limited search but I assume low temperatures)"? How could they, exactly if they were experienced paddlers in this region, have followed the (changed by me) mantra "It's not the consequence of the capsize, but the probability of the capsize that determines what we'll wear" and come to this conclusion? On the other hand, shit does happen. It would be helpful to know what they were actually wearing but we may never find out beyond the quite detailed NG article.

I am under no illusion that incidents like this can happen "to the best" but am grateful for the generally highly developed culture of safety within NSPN and how it has influenced me. Famous last words....

Edited December 20, 2015 by Inverseyourself

[PeterB]

Yes, I was mystified at the circumstances of the incident; I don't think we know anyone among us reading these pages who would venture into 35 degree waters without a drysuit, do you? Given that the group was well appointed to the degree of having a private helicopter at their disposal for rescue and that they were lifelong outdoors adventurers , it clearly wasn't for lack of money or resources or experience that they were paddling as they were , so either there's some missing information , or misinformation, in the article or they had succumbed to the classic hubris that sometimes attends experienced practitioners.
In a Melvile book "Redburn: His First Voyage" it is described how it was never new or young crew members who fell from the rigging (they were scared, and watched every hand and foot placement) but it was experienced ones who fell: their hand and foot placements became ingrained and automatic and one day, that hand or foothold wasn't where it always had been before; i've heard the same of cavers, rock climbers, scuba divers. An editor of Outdoor magazine once broke both ankles casually hopping down from a three foot tall boulder . Walking in the woods, I guess I experience mini - bouts of hubris, and slip or fall occasionally where if i had been less cavalier i wouldn't have. Most of these are mini- mishaps of low consequence (a mild tumble in the dirt) , but the point is that hubris always resides within.

[leong]

The following quote from one of the articles implies that Tompkins wasn’t wearing a drysuit, right?

River and sea kayakers often wear wet or dry suits, which help preserve body temperature in the event they capsize in cold water. Canoe and Kayak Magazine reported that in a photo taken at the beginning of the trip, Tompkins is pictured wearing a Patagonia dry top. Since Boyles was reportedly holding Tompkins by his clothes, it’s possible that the garment was pulled up around his neck, exposing his skin to the cold water.

[Editor’s note: sea kayaks are longer, wider and more stable than river kayaks and generally have rudders operated with internal foot pedals.]

I thought that sea kayaks were usually narrower than river kayaks, right?

A five-day paddling trip in cold water sans a dry suit is more hubris than I could imagine.

[ejwilliams]

This is written by the other person who was in the double kayak with him, Rick Ridgeway, with details that made it both easier and harder for me to understand how it happened: http://www.thecleanestline.com/2015/12/to-those-who-loved-doug.html

A tragic loss, very sad.

[Suz]

Been thinking about this since it happened. I believe that the group of experienced outdoorsmen began kayaking at a time when drysuits were not the norm. They were hitting class 5 rivers, paddling wearing whatever they scrounged up from their other pursuits - perhaps, wool, synthetics and neoprene. They did loads of risky activities, probably regarded their 5 day trip on the lake as being pretty low on the scale of these activities.

Sure they all had access to gear, either they probably owned it or could have owned it. Surely could have purchased on a wholesale basis directly through any of the companies that make dry suits. The choice was made by all of them to not wear drysuits. We can only wonder why but my thought is that they perceived the "lake" as the equivalent of a walk compared to their climbing activities and just didn't. Perhaps the trip was organized on the spur of the moment, perhaps they owned drysuits but just didn't have them nearby.... loads of those ideas, but either way, they didn't use them.

Then I am wondering how much a drysuit would have changed the situation. That length of time in cold water is really just too much for any person. As anyone knows who has done a "cold water workshop', even 50 degree water is super cold when you are submerged in the water in a drysuit. The layers we wear which are just a bit too warm to paddle with are really insufficient for being submerged in the water for ANY length of time, especially if your head and hands are also getting wet. You know how it is when you are testing the waters in the cold water workshop by wading in and floating.... you strategically hold your hands high, you float with your head and ears out of the water, if your hands are in the water, you tuck them between your life jacket and your body. Now just imagine instead the water coming over your head, the wind blowing and trying to hold on to a toggle.

I think the greatest value of the drysuit is that once you are OUT of the water, you body is dry and can immediately begin to try and recover. It will hasten the warming process because you are dry.

A sad tragedy for sure. My thoughts go out to the group who were friends for such a long time. Must be very difficult.

[leong]

Then I am wondering how much a drysuit would have changed the situation.

Probably enough so that Tompkins would have lived to die of old age.

-Leon (who even keeps a paddlefloat in his boat)

Edited December 21, 2015 by leong

[David M]

Reading the various accounts of this tragedy reminded me of a book I was referred to within the past two years: Deep Survival: Who Lives, Who Dies, and Why (2004). As I have attempted to progress in our sport and gain accompanying knowledge the concept of decision-making quickly surfaced as a critical focus. Clearly, I'm in no position to comment on the decision-making that contributed to this loss, but it does raise questions to ponder. Deep Survival provides a framework for examining our own reactions and their consequences in at-risk activities. It's a readable mix of science and compelling story-telling. The Appendix entiteld The Rules of Adventure alone is worth the purchase price. I heartily recommend it!

Here's a one summary of the book followed by the Amazon link.

What impels people to risk their lives by climbing mountains or deep-sea diving? What confluence of forces leads to drastic accidents? Why do some people survive disasters while others perish? A renowned journalist intrigued with risk, Gonzales conducts an in-depth and engrossing inquiry into the dynamics of survival. Relating one hair-raising true story after another about wilderness adventures gone catastrophically wrong and other calamities, Gonzales draws on sources as diverse and compelling as the Stoic philosophers and neuroscience to elucidate the psychological, physiological, and spiritual strengths that enable certain individuals to avoid fatal panic and make that crucial "transition from victim to survivor." People who survive being lost or adrift at sea, for instance, pay close attention to their surroundings and respect the wild. Gonzales also notes that survivors think of others, either helping a fellow sufferer or rallying to outsmart death in order to spare loved ones anguish. The study of survival offers an illuminating portal into the human psyche, and Gonzales, knowledgeable and passionate, is a compelling and trustworthy guide. Donna Seaman
Copyright © American Library Association

http://www.amazon.com/Deep-Survival-Who-Lives-Dies/dp/0393326152/ref=sr_1_1?s=books&ie=UTF8&qid=1450713696&sr=1-1&keywords=deep+survival

[rick stoehrer]

he / they coulda bought or brought any damn thing they mighta thought of bringing.

i read the word "flip" or flipping" repeatedly and not the word "capsize" or "capsizing"....when's the last time you heard a capsize referred to as a flip around here or anywhere else with experienced folks? just vernacular? a regional semantic difference? what do ww guys call it?

they referred to current...there was current? they were about in the middle of the length of the lake, right? i understand the wind coming down off the mountains and blowing you offshore but what current? again...semantic differences or....a lack of depth of experience?

i dunno....i read a story about guys/friends that are very experienced and worldly in one endeavor (mtn climbing) that gauged those risks well enough to make it into their 70's...maybe they just didn't have the same depth of experience in small boats and as a result, didn't adequately gauge those risks. the ole "you don't know, what you don't know" bite you in the ass thing.

in the final analysis....who knows?

rest easy and peace to those that loved him.

other than that...what else you gonna say? he lived a full and adventurous life. we should all be so fortunate. given a choice of exits between wearing a diaper and tied up with tubes in a bed and something out of doors and around boats and nature...yeah, door # 2 please. not yet. not for a long ass while....but yeah, door #2.