"Sneaker wave" claims another life in California

EUREKA, Calif. A so-called "sneaker wave" claimed the life of a woman in Northern California Sunday, the third such tragedy in the region this winter, authorities said.

The unidentified 32-year-old woman was waking on a beach near Shelter Cove in Humboldt County with her boyfriend and dog when a wave swept her out to sea, the Coast Guard said.

Her body was brought to shore after a roughly 45-minute search by boat and helicopter.

An officer with the Shelter Cove Volunteer Fire Department told the Eureka Times-Standard the woman's boyfriend avoided being swept away by climbing on top of a rock.

"The ocean today was extremely hazardous," Duty Officer Cheryl Antony said Sunday. "The waves were about 10 to 15 feet. It was very, very hazardous for them to be out there."

So-called sneaker waves, the kind that suddenly roar ashore, have washed four people into the region's waters this winter.

A man and his wife were walking on the beach near Point Reyes on New Year's Day when a wave overtook their dog. The couple went into the water to rescue the dog and the man was swept away. His wife and dog made it safely to shore.

In November, a couple drowned and their 16-year-old son disappeared while trying to save their dog at a beach near Arcata. The dog, who survived, was chasing a thrown stick when it got pulled into the ocean by 8- to 10-foot waves.

"Winter is an especially dangerous time (on beaches in Northern California), and sneaker waves can catch beach goers by surprise, washing them into the sea," the Coast Guard said in a statement. "People walking along the beach should not turn their back to the ocean."

[BobbyKrackle]

Veracity- your typical liberal ignorance, illogic and irresponsibility are showing. Sorry, your entire premise is based on ignorance. To wit, the ignorance- you don't seem to understand that the Ak-47s, AR-15s on the market in the US are not 'military grade'. Sure, they look mean and nasty but really they're quite harmless (and fun!!) in the hands of a kind person. Perhaps Jwosped is most comfortable with a .223 caliber AR-15 (that's a hunting rifle-not a military assault rifle, the one Feinstein wants to ban)and feels it's the best way to protect himself from, you know, officious liberals such as yourself.

The Illogical- Your inference of needing laws to protect you from others belies the fact that no gun law has ever reduced the incidence of violent crime. Ever. In fact, they have increased it if you take into consideration the governments that ban the private ownership of guns right before violent tyranny (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China are just three examples)...Well over 99.99% of guns are never used in an criminal act. Ever. And just as many are used to ward off those with criminal intent- ie., self -defense. So, to advocate gun control, of any measure, is to advocate more criminal activity.

Irresponsibility- this shows in two places. First, you can protect yourself and your family if you take matters into your own hands- or do you trust those hands? Why take away anyone else's ability to defend themselves, their family and possibly you from criminal actions or, worse, a government run amok? Secondly, the lack of thought, caring and intelligence to get informed on an issue before criticizing others is entirely kneejerk and not beholden of someone that can be trusted with a vote.

So you don't have to look it up: 1." Officious, adjective; objectionably aggressive in offering one's unrequested and unwanted services, help, or advice; meddlesome: an officious person".

2. Kneejerk, adjective;
Informal. reacting according to a certain habitual manner; unthinking: a knee-jerk liberal.

PS- I copied and pasted the two definitions. The 'kneejerk liberal' was actually a part of the entry. Perhaps those writing the dictionary couldn't think of a better way to explain it's meaning other than using it with liberal attached.

[BobbyKrackle]

Veracity- your typical liberal ignorance, illogic and irresponsibility are showing. Sorry, your entire premise is based on ignorance. To wit, the ignorance- you don't seem to understand that the Ak-47s, AR-15s on the market in the US are not 'military grade'. Sure, they look mean and nasty but really they're quite harmless (and fun!!) in the hands of a kind person. Perhaps Jwosped is most comfortable with a .223 caliber AR-15 (that's a hunting rifle-not a military assault rifle, the one Feinstein wants to ban)and feels it's the best way to protect himself from, you know, officious liberals such as yourself.

The Illogical- Your inference of needing laws to protect you from others belies the fact that no gun law has ever reduced the incidence of violent crime. Ever. In fact, they have increased it if you take into consideration the governments that ban the private ownership of guns right before violent tyranny (Nazi Germany, the Soviet Union, Communist China are just two examples)...Well over 99.99% of guns are never used in an criminal act. Ever. And just as many are used to ward off those with criminal intent- ie., self -defense. So, to advocate gun control, of any measure, is to advocate more criminal activity.

Irresponsibility- this shows in two places. First, you can protect yourself and your family if you take matters into your own hands- or do you trust those hands? Why take away anyone else's ability to defend themselves, their family and possibly you from criminal actions or, worse, a government run amok? Secondly, the lack of thought, caring and intelligence to get informed on an issue before criticizing others is entirely kneejerk and not beholden of someone that can be trusted with a vote.

So you don't have to look it up: 1." Officious, adjective; objectionably aggressive in offering one's unrequested and unwanted services, help, or advice; meddlesome: an officious person".

2. Kneejerk, adjective;
Informal. reacting according to a certain habitual manner; unthinking: a knee-jerk liberal.

PS- I copied and pasted the two definitions. The 'kneejerk liberal' was actually a part of the entry. Perhaps those writing the dictionary couldn't think of a better way to explain it's meaning other than using it with liberal attached.

[hillzagain]

Big days can be a real draw for people - like a moth to flame.

One of the first things I had drilled into me by the older guys when I was learning to surf was never, ever, ever turn your back on the ocean.

If she was walking on a rocky shoreline, like other reports are saying, my guess is she was looking at the rocks 2 ft in front of her so she didn't break an ankle, instead of incoming sets.

Unfortunately, the ocean isn't real big on forgiveness and my condolences go out to her family.

[peetrerb]

I think there should be a Sneaker Wave ban control plan put into effect.

[obicera1]

Oh I get it. It's about gun control. Incidentally, that is not what this article is about. But then gun nuts lack the ability to think clearly.

[tiredofliberals]

Agreed Blue Collar Those 2 comments are idiotic

[iCi2i_befree]

Common theme: sneakers & dogs. Wear sneakers so you can run like he!! and don't bring a dog.

Another solution instead of outlawing beack walks as our gun advocate cynic has suggested is to put up signs. Isn't this a common response to protecting ourselves from ourselves? "Warning - Dangerous Waves - wear sneakers & no dogs"

[kcreligion]

In a haf dozen languages and pictues for those who can'read.

[JWsOpEd]

Federal government should probably make a law outlawing walking on the beach. I'm sure beach-control advocates everywhere are going to capitalize on this one.

[lsnypvcs]

Amen to you my friend

[bluecollarca]

What does that even mean? A truly asinine comment about a tragic turn of events.