To the editor:
This is my view of the recent story on bystanders of the tragic Sept. 9, 2021, accident at Devils Churn and their request for a multi-agency after-action review of the response.
I am retired from over three decades of law enforcement in California and Oregon. I worked in four different locations from the central coast of California to the central coast of Oregon. After 36 years, I retired to the community of Waldport.
In the past, all public areas were open to everyone, regardless of the dangers. The idea was each person should evaluate their own capabilities and enter at their own risk.
There were many deaths, but most were city dwellers entering the wilderness without taking the time to learn how to be safe in their new environment. As time passed, the public viewpoint changed. Since there are more city dwellers than there are country folks, the new viewpoint removed the responsibility from each citizen to the owner, or controller, of the property.
Transferring responsibility from the actions of the citizen to the property controller has had devastating results.
I cannot walk the dangerous back trails of Yosemite Park with my children, like I did with my father many years ago, because they are now closed to the public. I cannot show my children where I used to play in the dinosaur caves of Pismo Beach because they are now closed to the public. They were all closed because when someone was injured, or killed, emotions ran high, and the public demanded to hold another person, or agency, responsible for the actions of the victim.
When anyone is reported to have been injured, or killed it is heartbreaking to anyone. Out of pure emotions many people seek to find a way to stop this from happening to anyone else. This has lead to millions of new policies, procedures, rules, and regulations. These new requirements lead to anything from mandatory training before entering an area, to complete closure of the area from the public.
In this situation, an out of the area group wants a review of the response of emergency personnel. That is a dangerous avenue to take because the only result would be more policies, procedures, rules, and regulations that would be meaningless in the next disaster because each and every situation is different, and requires a different approach. Because of that, the new policies do nothing more than restrict the emergency responder even further.
The ideal situation would be to have a rescue team on duty at all times with equipment and training to handle any rescue mission … but we can all agree no such team will ever happen. So far, the only thing the investigation into the Sept. 9 drowning at Devils Churn has accomplished is the removal of the life ring, which is the only tool they had available. Had the victim not have been face down in the water it might have saved him, and it could have saved someone in the future. Why was it removed? Because seasonal rangers are not trained for rescues.
I think the real answer is explained by the bystanders group’s next question — “Who has jurisdiction?” This question is translated in legal terms to, “Who is legally liable for death, or injury.” That is the kind of talk that will get the entire area closed to the public for good.
The bottom line is that as tragic as this horrible accident was, this area of the Oregon coast does not have the funds for the manpower, or equipment needed for a full blown, 24-hours-a-day recovery team. One reviewer has already suggested the area is “too dangerous” and should be closed off. The only question left is, what kind of world do you want to live in? One of freedom to choose to take a risk and have the opportunity to see some of the most amazing sites this state has to offer, or one based solely on “for the safety of all, any area deemed dangerous will be close to the public.
For those who choose safety a must, stay sheltered. For the few left who cherish the freedom to explore the wonders of the world you must understand the dangers of Mother Nature and enter the wilderness with extreme caution. If you pass your responsibility and accountability onto others, you and your children will be the ones to lose.
— J.D. Williams, Waldport
Thank you, Mr. Williams, that was a well-constructed defense of access to nature. The urge to ensure that no one ever gets hurt, or dies, is an emotional reaction that tends to be absolute and is, sadly, irrational. (No one will get through life unharmed, and everyone dies.)
Some people are very risk-averse, and will decline the wondrous rewards of the natural world. Those who will accept (and hopefully deal wisely with) a greater degree of risk should not be punished for the preferences of others.