"Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Grab your bear can or camp chair, kick your feet up and chew the fat about anything Sierra Nevada related that doesn't quite fit in any of the other forums. Within reason, (and the HST rules and guidelines) this is also an anything goes forum. Tell stories, discuss wilderness issues, music, or whatever else the High Sierra stirs up in your mind.
User avatar
LMBSGV
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1013
Joined: Sat Oct 27, 2007 8:42 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: San Geronimo, CA
Contact:

"Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by LMBSGV »

This oped seemed appropriate to post here.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/01/13/opin ... eft-region
I don’t need a goal destination. I need a destination that meets my goals.

http://laurencebrauer.com
User avatar
Tom_H
Topix Expert
Posts: 795
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2012 1:11 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Camas, WA

Re: "Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by Tom_H »

Enjoyable read. Liability is one of the things which drove our outfit to put so much emphasis on preparation and safety. Skyrocketing insurance premiums is what put us out of business. I am all for backpackers and climbers being as physically, intellectually, and gear prepared as possible. At the same time I am troubled both by totally unprepared people thinking winter packing and climbing are something to do on a lark, and also troubled by the government making it a nanny issue. Part of me thinks outfitters have no business taking amateurs on world class climbs. I see both sides of it and am not sure what the answer is.
User avatar
Lumbergh21
Topix Expert
Posts: 629
Joined: Mon Oct 31, 2016 10:11 pm
Experience: Level 3 Backpacker

Re: "Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by Lumbergh21 »

I guess we can't expect people to take responsibility for themselves. Not only am I not my brother's keeper, I am no longer the keeper of myself.
I noticed he mentioned people suing for animal attacks, etc. Have any of these people won these suits? I am aware of a local suit over 5 years ago now, where the NPS lost, but that was not something as simple as "the Park should have protected us from ourselves." This was a case where the park had been told that a trail needed maintenance for several years and eventually, a piece of the trail collapsed and crushed two children below, killing one. The Park Superintendent then proceeded to destroy the reports notifying her of this issue and claim she had no knowledge. Fortunately, a park employee blew the whistle, the computer hard drives were subpoena, and as you should probably know, erasing a document does not truly erase it. The NPS ended up settling before trial, and the judge in the case recommended criminal charges be filed against the Park Superintendent. Of course the US attorney didn't file charges, and the Superintendent was essentially promoted. Further irony was that her husband also worked for the Park service and was a member of the ethics committee.
Now that is an example of negligence (and criminality, IMO) that deserves to be punished; however, if I go climb Mt Shasta and die, that is my fault. nobody forced me to climb that Mt. Nobody else decided what route I would take or what day I would climb. Nobody else required me to take along the gear that I used. And, if I'm too stupid to plan properly in this day and age of easy information, I have nobody but myself to blame. If anything, we have less of an excuse now for not being properly prepared than we had at any time in the past, yet at least some people believe we have less of a responsibility to be prepared. Crazy.
User avatar
oldranger
Topix Addict
Posts: 2861
Joined: Fri Jan 19, 2007 9:18 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Bend, Oregon

Re: "Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by oldranger »

In 1980 I walked thru a fire that pretty much surrounded Laurel Lake in nw Yosemite. Now a days they would close the area. Around 85 there was a fire in Sugarloaf Valley. People were allowed to make there own decisions concerning travel thru the fire. The last fire in the area the trail were closed. Times change. I've felt that if fire is a natural part of the wilderness we ought to be able to make our own choices as to whether we want to experience that aspect of the wilderness.
Last edited by oldranger on Fri Jan 19, 2018 3:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Mike

Who can't do everything he used to and what he can do takes a hell of a lot longer!
Cross Country
Topix Fanatic
Posts: 1328
Joined: Thu Dec 24, 2009 11:16 am
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

Re: "Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by Cross Country »

I started going to Laurel in 1977 and went for 7 Memorial Day weekends in an row. In 1988 I took my two sons to Laurel Lake. The fire had not yet happened. Mike and I went back about 1991. The ravaging fire had taken place. Only the trees right around the lake were alive. As long as one stayed close to the lake (for us fishing) it didn't seem so bad. The fire created a really good inviornment for some kind of bugs (I can't remember, but maybe crickets). The fish were eating them and were bigger than for any of my previous trips. In 1992 or 1993 we went to Laurel on a trip to Edith. It was my last time there.
User avatar
Wandering Daisy
Topix Docent
Posts: 6640
Joined: Sun Jan 24, 2010 8:19 pm
Experience: N/A
Location: Fair Oaks CA (Sacramento area)
Contact:

Re: "Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by Wandering Daisy »

I think adults should be responsible for their own decisions regarding risk. However, I do think that a higher standard has to be set for organized youth groups. But that speaks of the liability of the leader or organization that runs the activity, not land managers. It would not bother me if leaders of youth groups were required to prove their competency in order to get a permit to lead youth.

For activities that are thought of as risky, such as alpine climbing, historically, few suits have been successful. A real risk of dying is assumed. As the activity becomes more mellow, the perception of safety comes into play. You are more likely to be successfully sued if the injury were on activities normally thought of as very safe.

It is interesting that the Park Service is quite "hands off" regarding rock climbing in Yosemite. If they were to get more "involved" they would be open to more suits. The few regulations that exist do more with protecting the natural resources. Yet, they regularly close trails used by the general public if rock fall danger is suspected.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: "Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by gdurkee »

I saw that article -- it was a bit overstated. NPS, anyway, has not changed policy much as far as trail design, "guard rails", signage or much else affecting safety. It's generally recognized you're on your own. WD has it right in that few lawsuits against a land management agency have been successful. Mike's right that there's more supervision of hikers in or near active fire areas but my impression that's due to a more organized approach to fire -- the safety officer now thinking, "ah, there's hikers out there" and moving to make sure they're all right. It's much less any sense of liability than a genuine concern for the safety of hikers in an unfamiliar and potentially dangerous situation.

Finally, there's guided trips whether commercial or Scouts or whatever. Last I looked (and it now been a few years) they are required to have insurance but I'm not aware of an agency setting any skill requirements for the leaders. That's kinda set by the insurers and whatever requirements are set by the group's organization. The land management agency has nothing to do with that. There may be an exception for commercial guides on Denali and maybe the Tetons -- I'm not sure. But it's pretty rare and only in very narrow specialties.

As I'm thinking here, a lawsuit against the NPS was settled in plaintiff's favor over a lightning fatality in Whitney about 30 years ago. As I understood it (I was scheduled to testify before it was settled) the claim was NPS had not sufficiently signed the summit ridge for the danger nor installed lightning rods on the hut. As it happened, the latter was at Crabtree to be installed but two attempts before the accident had been abandoned because of bad weather. Not sure why NPS settled, but they did. I can't think of any others over the decades. The Lassen case was also an exception. That particular section of trail had, as I understand it, been specifically noted as needing repair (a retaining wall). NPS did attempt to hide evidence. I wonder if that was part of the reason NPS settled -- that they showed a consciousness of guilt that otherwise might have been a normal good faith effort to get to a repair but, unfortunately, not in time.

Anyway, my general thought is despite the pearl clutching of the article, not much has changed as far as NPS policy towards visitor safety and requirements.
User avatar
limpingcrab
Topix Regular
Posts: 368
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2012 8:38 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer
Location: Minkler, CA
Contact:

Re: "Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by limpingcrab »

It's already happening. No floating or rafting in the Kings River within the park boundary is an annoying example.

The Watchtower trail in Sequoia is "closed due to hazardous conditions" in the winter and I believe you can get busted for using it.

Long sections of roads within the Rough Fire boundary are still closed because of "hazard trees." Granted that roads are man made and it's still legal to walk where the rough fire burned, but it's still a foreshadowing of future management strategies.

Only a matter of time until we have to carry PLBs in the summer, avy beacons in the winter, and obey more and more "closed due to hazardous conditions" signs to avoid a fine.
User avatar
gdurkee
Founding Member
Posts: 774
Joined: Tue Nov 08, 2005 8:20 pm
Experience: N/A

Re: "Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by gdurkee »

It's already happening. No floating or rafting in the Kings River within the park boundary is an annoying example.
Embarrassing to admit 'cause I can't quite remember, but I think rafting has been banned there since at least the 70s hasn't it? That said, I'm not sure of the reason. Rafts are allowed on the Merced in Yosemite. Difference might be safety -- solid flat water vs. some fast water quickly turning to bad rapids just past the NPS boundary. Mixed feelings. A river rescue requires putting together a qualified team of around 10 people and a helicopter. Ropes, complicated rigging, dangerous rafting or Tyrolean to reach body or live person. Really gnarly and takes all day or several days. This essentially strips most all duty rangers on shift and you've got to hope others are available from home -- even bring in a specialty team (from Yosemite). If that's the reason (and I don't know that it is) it's not unreasonable to consider safety and available resources of SAR people.
The Watchtower trail in Sequoia is "closed due to hazardous conditions" in the winter and I believe you can get busted for using it.
A good point though I think, as I suggested in earlier post that it's to tell people who might be in warm, snow-free conditions that it gets seriously dangerous once you reach the exposed section a couple of miles ahead. The same is true on the Mist Trail in winter and the JMT at the Clark spur cutoff before it gets to Nevada Fall. The former danger is falling ice from above and a sometimes icy trail (there's a hisotry of injuries from that). The latter is also a history of injures. In all these cases people get to the dangerous point and, because they've come so far, keep going. When I first worked in Yosemite in '72 - '77, the majority of winter and spring rescues and fatalities were on those sections. Takes about 7 - 10 rangers all day to recover and bring someone down on a litter. So probably a combination of authentic concern for inexperienced -- or even very experienced -- hikers and SAR resources. Those closures have also been in effect since the 70s.
Long sections of roads within the Rough Fire boundary are still closed because of "hazard trees." Granted that roads are man made and it's still legal to walk where the rough fire burned, but it's still a foreshadowing of future management strategies.
I don't think it really foreshadows anything. Again, I've not really noticed any significant increase in closures. It is a toss up over what level of warning you have to use for people to pay attention. I would watch people all the time go over the railings to get a closer look at Vernal & Nevada Falls. I'd say 98% of visitors there are unaware of how slippery granite is and how powerful the moving water is. There's probably been several dozen fatalities from doing that. How many more without the railing, sign & prohibition? Yosemite SAR has put out a great image showing a small kid at the edge of a river next to the exact same image but showing a chasm drop off. Emphasizing the point that we'd never let a kid near an edge like that but routinely allow kids (and ourselves) into that danger zone.
Only a matter of time until we have to carry PLBs in the summer, avy beacons in the winter, and obey more and more "closed due to hazardous conditions" signs to avoid a fine.
Again, I'm not seeing many -- or any -- new types of closures, fences or signs (Yosemite, Sequoia Kings & Channel Islands). The ones you've brought up (except fire areas) have been around decades and, overall, I agree with the closures though am not sure of the reasoning. I'd never say never but PLBs (which I don't recommend anyway) or other Sat notification devices would actually put a huge additional burden on agency response. People are already hitting help buttons when the need is sometimes questionable (to say nothing of Mom calling NPS 'cause she hasn't had the daily SPOT check in). I do, however, strongly advocate carrying one (SPOT or InReach) if hiking solo and especially after Sept. or so. And if you don't carry an avalanche beacon on a backcountry ski trip, you're just crazy.

While I'm all in favor of the freedom of the hills etc., I guess I'm just putting a vote in for what's involved in a SAR and the authentic concerns of land management agencies for visitor safety. How best to achieve it? That's a reasonable agency concern and affects a tiny, tiny percentage of areas and trails of what's available to otherwise get injured or killed in.
User avatar
maverick
Forums Moderator
Forums Moderator
Posts: 11821
Joined: Thu Apr 06, 2006 5:54 pm
Experience: Level 4 Explorer

Re: "Keep Our Mountains Free. And Dangerous" from NY Times

Post by maverick »

Only a matter of time until we have to carry PLBs in the summer, avy beacons in the winter, and obey more and more "closed due to hazardous conditions" signs to avoid a fine.
I cannot see this happening.
The SEKI & Yosemite would not even implement anything like are reconn form, but in private it has been said that it is a great idea. Grand Canyon NPS on the other hand, uses it for their backcountry rangers when out on patrol. Neither SEKI or Yosemite will touch it because of liability issues, which would be the same case for any type of electronic locator device.
Professional Sierra Landscape Photographer

I don't give out specific route information, my belief is that it takes away from the whole adventure spirit of a trip, if you need every inch planned out, you'll have to get that from someone else.

Have a safer backcountry experience by using the HST ReConn Form 2.0, named after Larry Conn, a HST member: http://reconn.org
Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 41 guests