Pedernales Falls, Upper Falls Swimming Other Spots? (Mart, Johnson City: insurance, lawyers)

[shyguylh]

I visited Pedernales Falls in Johnson City 2 years ago in 2011. When I was there it was noted that you could swim in the lower area but not in the falls portion, the "staircase" falls one site calls it. Such was disheartening to me, as I found the lower areas to be very shallow & barely even waist-deep, the pool underneath the staircase falls was wonderfully deep and large, just darn near perfect. Yes, I jumped in anyway.

My question is, why would it be forbidden? One person stated it was due to flash-flooding risk, but wouldn't the entire area be dangerous in the event of such, & regardless, shouldn't that be one's decision to make? Laws that "protect" me from dangers of that sort annoy me, if I'm willing to assume the risk & liability isn't it my body to decide? I'm guessing this is our lawsuit culture at work, or them wanting to be spared the nuisance of a rescue? (By contrast, a similar canyon-style place in Tucson AZ, Redington Pass/Tanque Verde Falls, they definitely are at risk of flash-flooding during upstream storms, & in fact one such storm in 1981 killed 7 people, but you're free to go wherever & assume whatever risk you think you can handle.)

Regardless, I've seen photos & videos of people cliff-jumping in deep water in Pedernales Falls. My question is: where? The only place I saw where it appeared that one could do that was in fact in the upper-section, places NEAR the "staircase" falls in that same general area, but best as I could tell that entire area was off-limits swimming-wise.

I only ask because I've often-times thought about going to that area again in the future.

LRH

[Komeht]

Originally Posted by larrytxeast

I visited Pedernales Falls in Johnson City 2 years ago in 2011. When I was there it was noted that you could swim in the lower area but not in the falls portion, the "staircase" falls one site calls it. Such was disheartening to me, as I found the lower areas to be very shallow & barely even waist-deep, the pool underneath the staircase falls was wonderfully deep and large, just darn near perfect. Yes, I jumped in anyway.

My question is, why would it be forbidden? One person stated it was due to flash-flooding risk, but wouldn't the entire area be dangerous in the event of such, & regardless, shouldn't that be one's decision to make? Laws that "protect" me from dangers of that sort annoy me, if I'm willing to assume the risk & liability isn't it my body to decide? I'm guessing this is our lawsuit culture at work, or them wanting to be spared the nuisance of a rescue? (By contrast, a similar canyon-style place in Tucson AZ, Redington Pass/Tanque Verde Falls, they definitely are at risk of flash-flooding during upstream storms, & in fact one such storm in 1981 killed 7 people, but you're free to go wherever & assume whatever risk you think you can handle.)

Regardless, I've seen photos & videos of people cliff-jumping in deep water in Pedernales Falls. My question is: where? The only place I saw where it appeared that one could do that was in fact in the upper-section, places NEAR the "staircase" falls in that same general area, but best as I could tell that entire area was off-limits swimming-wise.

I only ask because I've often-times thought about going to that area again in the future.

LRH

The Pedernales is flowing at about 1 cfs last time I checked. You sure anyone is doing cliff diving or swimming in the falls at all right now?

[PedroMartinez]

Originally Posted by larrytxeast

shouldn't that be one's decision to make? Laws that "protect" me from dangers of that sort annoy me, if I'm willing to assume the risk & liability isn't it my body to decide?

Although I'm on your side of this, there is the issue of the financial cost and physical risk of having rescue personnel dispatched to save you.

[scm53]

Originally Posted by larrytxeast

... if I'm willing to assume the risk & liability isn't it my body to decide?

Yes, but only if you are self-insured for medical. If you aren't, then you have an obligation to disclose your high risk behavior to your insurance carrier so they may properly rate your premium. Until you do, you have an unknowing partner in the exposure that your risk entails. It isn't fair for them to charge you the same rate as someone who doesn't participate in activities that even you recognize entail some level of bodily harm.

[CptnRn]

There are numerous areas at Pedernales Falls where the water flows from pool to pool through cracks, hollows and holes in the rocks. When the falls are flowing those areas can be dangerous, the current sucking you down and holding you down, preventing you from escaping. Also due to flash floods upstream, the water flow can change from placid to raging in only a few moments, easily trapping people before they realize what is happening.

When people visit state parks they have come to expect a Disneyland kind of save experience, yet it is difficult to protect idiots from their own poor judgement, and the park is obligated to try and rescue them when they get into trouble. Rescue operations can be very expensive. And later the park ends up gets a bad name for being "dangerous" or "irresponsible" because they allowed you to participate in risky behavior. As a result the parks officials have to err on the side of safety otherwise they would be inundated by lawsuits for neglecting to save you or people like you from your own bad decisions. If not lawsuits from you then from your family and dependents, who's lawyers will still argue that you should not have been allowed to make the irresponsible decisions that you did, on public park land.

[shibbiedow]

When I was a kid, swimming was allowed and those "staircase" falls created a great (and popular) natural water slide, dumping you into the deep pool at the bottom. If you landed in just the wrong spot, you could be driven under by some extremely high pressure flow and held there until you could manage to escape.

I have seen some alarming footage of those same falls flash-flooding.

[shyguylh]

Originally Posted by PedroMartinez

Although I'm on your side of this, there is the issue of the financial cost and physical risk of having rescue personnel dispatched to save you.

See, that is what I figured, it seems to be where we're at as a society & I get sick of it. There's nothing wrong with being reasonably cautious & taking precautions, but when every single move you are allowed to make is supposed to run through the filter of "how would my insurance carrier feel about this?" or "would lawyers be able to sue if one were hurt?," that's just not the way things should be. It's one thing to be reasonably cautious, but it shouldn't be the very basis of your very life, which is how it's getting to be too much of the time frankly. Life is about adventure, not adherence to numbers and bending to the will of insurance carriers, even if such makes things expensive at times. Adhering to a family budget is plenty enough doing the "responsible" thing. Where would we be if the Wright Brothers had said "we better not take that chance, yes we might learn to fly but if we break our leg we can't afford the doctor bills, & our insurance won't pay it."

It especially blows my mind that a place like that could be sued based on that they ALLOWED people to do whatever. If they warn of the hazards & make it very clear to you, and you choose of your own free will & intelligence to do so anyway, that should be the end of it. The place shouldn't be held liable because they ALLOWED you to do such vs fencing off a place. Heck, such is why I go to such places vs city pools, I got tired of city pools being so strict about what they let you do because all they care about is not getting sued or their insurance coverage dropped. You get out in nature, you can do as you please, and my children having learned how to swim at ages 4 & 6 is, I think, on account of that freedom. It certainly has been a lot funner for me.

I wouldn't care except that (a) again Redington Pass/Tanque Verde Falls in Tucson AZ is similar in layout & flash-flood risks & people have had to be rescued but it still remains an "at your own risk" sort of place, very hands-off. Also (b) at Pedernales the places where swimming is allowed, at least the ones I saw, were very shallow & lame. Someone else suggested swimming is allowed at other spots at the "upper level" just not the "staircase" & that they were nice & deep, if that is the case then that's probably fine. Otherwise it's like forbidding someone from riding any roaster coasters at a park but then making out like it's okay because you could still ride the hobby horses.

Speaking of rides, didn't someone just die at a Six Flags in Texas riding the largest roller coaster? Are they going to close that ride down permanently because of that one death? This is no different to me than if they did that.

LRH

[PedroMartinez]

Like I said, I share your general sentiment. I don't like all of the lawsuits and over regulation of people.

My point is that when people get themselves in situations, it can put others at risk. It's not always just them.

As an example:

Officer killed during rescue of hiker NW of Vegas

LAS VEGAS (AP) — A Las Vegas police officer who was rescuing a hiker stranded in an off-limits area of a mountain northwest of the city died after falling from a helicopter hoist line Monday night.