Wapama Falls claims another

[Wandering Daisy]

I looked up the deaths on Wapama Falls bridge; 2019, 2018, 2017, 2011, 2002. Details were sketchy but the all seemed to be "outdoor enthusiasts", men in their 50's-60's- professionals, probably on tight schedules. End of trip, tired, pressured to get home. These were not clueless tourists or people taking selfies. They saw the conditions and made a bad judgement call. The ones that were actually seen falling "slipped". Also if they crossed successfully going in, they may have misjudged the change in conditions coming out. At any rate, I doubt a sign would have made a difference. Perhaps if the trail were closed, they would not have gone in the first place. It still boils down to personal responsibility.

[SSSdave]

Park service doesn't need to improve their already adequate web advice, ranger station advice, or trail signage. People need to do their homework then take responsibility for their choices in dangerous situations. Anyone looking at the Wapama crossing in high water is going to readily understand there is zero chance of surviving if they get swept off. Much like standing on the rock wall at Glacier Point, one does not need a sign (Danger CLIFF!) to understand death is inches away.

[wildhiker]

We were just at Wapama Falls today (June 30). Coming from the dam, there is both a sign on the trail just before the falls and another one on a gate that you have to open at the first bridge if you want to continue. Both signs say that it is extremely hazardous to cross when the bridges are wet and that people have died trying to cross. Both signs also say "continue at your own risk". We saw young backpackers crossing, but we decided not to try. The first bridge, at least, was very wet with forceful sprays of water shooting across it. The first bridge had a cable to hang onto if you want to try crossing. Maybe the others need that? It's been about 10 years since I crossed fully (and that was when the bridges were dry) so I can't remember if the other bridges have cables.

It might be good to have signs right at the start of the trail at the dam. I don't recall seeing any there. But I prefer that the park service actually close the trail only when the water is really flowing over the bridge, not just when it is wet. We can't regulate all danger out of the backcountry. But then, do they have staff to station there to enforce a closure? Not until the parks are properly funded.

-Phil

[rightstar76]

.

[kpeter]

We were just at Wapama Falls today (June 30). Coming from the dam, there is both a sign on the trail just before the falls and another one on a gate that you have to open at the first bridge if you want to continue. Both signs say that it is extremely hazardous to cross when the bridges are wet and that people have died trying to cross. Both signs also say "continue at your own risk". We saw young backpackers crossing, but we decided not to try. The first bridge, at least, was very wet with forceful sprays of water shooting across it. The first bridge had a cable to hang onto if you want to try crossing. Maybe the others need that? It's been about 10 years since I crossed fully (and that was when the bridges were dry) so I can't remember if the other bridges have cables.

It might be good to have signs right at the start of the trail at the dam. I don't recall seeing any there. But I prefer that the park service actually close the trail only when the water is really flowing over the bridge, not just when it is wet. We can't regulate all danger out of the backcountry. But then, do they have staff to station there to enforce a closure? Not until the parks are properly funded.

-Phil

Very interesting. Could you put on a harness and clip yourself to the cable? I could see that being a little like seat belts--an extra safety measure.

[wildhiker]

Here's a photo of that first bridge at Wapama Falls on the west side when hiking from the dam, taken while standing behind the gate. It was taken at 9:39 am on Sunday, June 30. To answer kpeter's question, it looks like you could clip in on the cable on the upstream side for safety. You would need two carabiners so you could safely pass the points where the cable is connected to a support. This photo also shows one of the "forceful splashes" that I mentioned in my post. I should mention that the rock steps leading up to the gate at the bridge had 1 or 2 inches of water flowing over them and were also a bit slippery. To be effective for safety, a cable would have to stretch continuously from the steps approaching this bridge, then across and between all three bridges, and on the approach to the far bridge.

The four backpackers that we saw cross (from east to west) were all holding onto this cable. They all also looked pretty wet! One that I talked to said the other two bridges were not as wet. Sunday was warming up nicely after two cool days. I suspect the water got a lot higher late in the afternoon.
-Phil

WapamaFalls-FirstBridgeWestSide.jpg

[Ashery]

Lots of unnecessary hyperbole here.

A couple of points that I feel we all can agree on:

1) The bridge at Wapama Falls has had an abnormally, or even absurdly, large number of fatalities at it over the years relative to other bridges.

2) A bridge will lull people into the feeling that a crossing is safer than it looks.

@ SSSdave: A cliff is not a bridge crossing. I would not expect there to be a sign at a cliff for much the same reason I don't expect there to be a sign at, say, the first creek crossing going up Taboose: In the absence of any type of human construction, there's nothing to lull someone into a false sense of security.

And the point isn't to eliminate all risk when it comes to frontcountry hiking; we all know that's impossible, as there will always be people who listen to a lecture and then immediately go out and do exactly what they were told not to do. The point is to reach those people who can be reached and make a good faith effort to inform them.

[Jimr]

@Ashery, you make some thoughtful points. Hmmmm. If we have a Trailhead sign of the size we are used to seeing (see pic on this thread), I suppose I'd rather see a bulletin board added to the permanent sign rather more signs added on. Less intrusive since it is on a TH sign and versatile to prevailing conditions. Backcountry rangers often tack paper signage onto directional signs when they feel certain conditions warrant an info alert.

[sparky]

I disagree that a bridge lulls people or implies it is safe to cross just because it is there.

Anyone that has been at that bridge during high water should be intimidated and muttering "holy sh$t" to themselves. I do not imply this guy was dumb, but it is very clear when you approach that the water is extremely powerful and the bridge extremely dangerous.

[jmherrell]

Maybe a little off topic, a little psychology and some physics. One reason that moving water is so dangerous is that the force exerted against a fixed object can be much greater than we suppose. Intuition or common sense leads one to believe that if you double the velocity of water you also double the force. Actually the force that a moving fluid exerts is proportional to the square of the velocity. So 2X velocity => 4X force, 3X velocity => 9X force etc.
Jim