[pct-l] Re: Donna S/Campy 051024: John Donovan Affair

[dsaufley at sprynet.com (dsaufley@sprynet.com)]

No, there is no proof.  He has not been found and he is still listed as missing. 

L-Rod

-----Original Message-----
From: Bill & Cathy <tahoe.cat@verizon.net>
Sent: Oct 25, 2005 10:42 AM
To: dsaufley@sprynet.com
Cc: pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
Subject: Re: [pct-l] Re: Donna S/Campy 051024: John Donovan Affair

Hi Donna    do you know if any one has proof that John Donovan's remains
were actually found? I haven't seen it on this list and I was planning to go
up and look around next month, hopefully before any snow.   Ground Pounder
Bill
----- Original Message -----
From: <dsaufley@sprynet.com>
To: "Campy" <campydog@verizon.net>
Cc: <pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net>; "Campy Camphausen"
<campydog@verizon.net>; "Liz Bergeron" <director@pcta.org>
Sent: Monday, October 24, 2005 12:17 PM
Subject: [pct-l] Re: Donna S/Campy 051024: John Donovan Affair


> Hey, there, Campy!
>
> I have never heard that John Donovan's remains were recovered (and there
have been some very watchful eyes and ears looking for that information).
There was some miscommunication a while back -- a woman's body was found in
a vineyard near Cabazon (she'd been missing for some time).  Somehow it got
telegraphed on the trail that John's body had been found, but it was (sadly)
not true.  Is there concrete information that John Donovan was found?  I
would be very interested in this as the person who reported him missing.
>
> Sorry for such a short response to your post . . . gotta get some work
done!
>
> L-Rod
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Campy <campydog@verizon.net>
> Sent: Oct 24, 2005 11:45 AM
> To: dsaufley@sprynet.com
> Cc: pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net, Campy Camphausen
<campydog@verizon.net>, Liz Bergeron <director@pcta.org>
> Subject: Donna S/Campy 051024: John Donovan Affair
>
> Hi Donna:
>
> It was distressing to read about the slow law enforcement response in
> the John Donovan situation (I was told a few days ago that his body has
> now been found). I'm not personally hampered by any great knowledge of
> this unfortunate situation, but situations like this one didn't used to
> be that way. I was a volunteer on the Riverside Mountain Rescue group
> in 1961 to 1969 and then I finished my twenty years of mountain rescue
> experience with the China Lake Mountain Rescue Group. In those times,
> there was a specific deputy within the sheriff's department who was
> pretty familiar with the terrain, trail locations, weather factors, and
> the usual lost-person response from past experience. This "search and
> rescue coordinator" would start up an operation using his best judgment
> following a lengthy questioning of the reporting party. His response
> could be anything between an initial on-scene scan of the area by a
> sheriff's unit or a full-fledged callout of experienced SAR personnel,
> and I believe this part is still true.
>
> Over time, SAR operation methods used in Riverside County may have have
> changed. Whatever is the situation there now, the apparent slowness in
> getting the search operation started is inexcusable. Ten days is a bit
> long. I can only guess that there may have been a disconnect in the 911
> call operator's response pattern which kept the SAR coordinator from
> being immediately notified. Under current guidelines, notification
> would be effectively forwarded even from calls placed within
> jurisdictions outside Riverside County based upon the obtained location
> information.
>
> Although sheriff's departments  are responsible, each jurisdiction may
> have divergent SAR philosophies and organization. Riverside County did
> then, as well as now, employe RMRU and its hugely mountain-trained
> volunteers, while Los Angeles and San Bernardino counties had teams of
> paid employees. As an aside, we believed that our recreational climber-
> and American Red Cross first aid instructor qualified volunteer members
> possessed superior motivation and training compared with those
> possessed by paid personnel. We were trained in man-tracking by U.S.
> Border Patrol personnel at Campo, California, and helitac by VX-5 at
> the U.S. Naval Air Warfare Center at China Lake. In any case, the
> available SAR teams should have been at least placed on standby.
>
> In our own Inyo County there exists a smoothly operating "mutual aid
> agreement" interface with the (usually southern California) counties of
> origin of victims of mountain accidents occurring here in the Sierra.
> Rescue cost reimbursement is obtained from the home county so that
> fiscal matters should not affect our cash-strapped county's quality of
> response. The PCT, of course, is a prominent trail which is included
> and would be well-covered accordingly. Our sheriff's department could
> call upon not only the local Inyo County SAR team but also my old
> units: CLMRG most likely, and perhaps even the "high-altitude
> qualified" RMRU to respond as additional or backup resources. In fact,
> any Mountain Rescue Association member group could be summoned as a
> situation warrants. To these assets I might add the Indian Wells Valley
> Search and Rescue team, located at China Lake, as being the only Mining
> Safety and Health Administration approved underground team west of
> Idaho in the case of an incident associated with the several unmarked
> mines and mining prospects near the PCT's route through the southern
> Inyo and Kern Counties.
>
> I hope that Riverside County has taken this unfortunate experience to
> heart. I can't imagine that RMRU would let this pass without suggesting
> a hard new assessment of reporting and response procedures. We as
> outdoors-involved persons need to make sure that we routinely
> understand that overdue hiker notification should be directed to a
> county sheriff's department. As mentioned, sheriff's departments derive
> their authority legally and this is so stated within the National
> Search and Rescue Plan. If a forest or park ranger happens to be the
> first person encountered by a witness, then that person would certainly
> facilitate the notification process and own-agency assets and resources
> may also be activated. By habit and for simple economics, authorities
> may hesitate to launch a full SAR operation upon first word when they
> have seen that a happy "walk-out" outcome had usually occurred within
> very similar situation parameters.
>
> People have believed that they could improve the situation by first
> notifying the in-county SAR team (and SAR teams would love to receive
> such a heads-up), but this could still slow the search start-up
> process. The PCTA with its high interest in successful search results
> is however not an effective initial recipient of an overdue person
> report. Additional calls made via 911 or directly to the sheriff's
> department by PCT-L mail list individuals similarly would not add speed
> or emphasis to action planned or already taken.
>
> Your point, Donna, is well taken that PCT-L members could be helpful if
> they are made aware and subsequently find themselves near the trail.
> particularly to provide additional on-the-ground information, or
> perhaps even extra eyes and ears in a search. If this should happen
> when a search operation base is already fielded, please first check in
> there to be acknowledged and receive direction as a casual searcher, if
> this is permitted, and not later possibly be mistaken as the subject of
> the search. Expect that off-trail search areas are likely to be totally
> closed to casual visitors, and the trails themselves possibly closed,
> for fear that visitors would clobber the subject's tracks or possibly
> become brand new search subjects themselves.
>
> For the Trail,
> Campy
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> pct-l mailing list
> pct-l@mailman.backcountry.net
> unsubscribe or change options:
> http://mailman.hack.net/mailman/listinfo/pct-l