Green Mountain National Forest - Silly

[tdoczi]

its interesting how many posts in reply to what i have said have confused me for the OP who violated the closure order. i have done no such thing and dont intend to. i do, however, think the closure order is nonsense and the OPs input, if it is to beleived, only strengthened my opinion.

if i lived somepalce that was ordered evacuated i would make my own decision as to whether i stayed or not. if it turned out to be a bad idea i would NOT call for help.

[tdoczi]

I look at this in the same light as mandatory evacuation orders. You can warn people all you want, but if they don't want to heed the warning, fine as long as they know that there will be no response to their calls if help is required. What's the big deal people...

if that was all that the GMNF people were saying there would be no big deal, but theyre threatening fines if they catch you hiking during the closure. thats different. all the authorities during the hurricane in NJ and NY made a point of saying you would in fact NOT be arrested or penalized if you ignored the evacuation order.

[tdoczi]

Government is obligated to protect those that are not capable of protecting themselves.

i disagree, but lets put that aside for now. how am i, or anyone else for that matter, not able to protect myself if i go hiking right now in VT?

[Driver8]

if that was all that the GMNF people were saying there would be no big deal, but theyre threatening fines if they catch you hiking during the closure. thats different. all the authorities during the hurricane in NJ and NY made a point of saying you would in fact NOT be arrested or penalized if you ignored the evacuation order.

Big difference. In one case, people are staying in THEIR homes. In the other, the government is controlling access to ITS property. Do you understand and respect the difference in property rights involved?

As to your general attitude, heaven forbid you should ever get attacked or injured and require rescue in the wilderness - wouldn't ever want you to have even a twinge of thanks or appreciation for help provided by another person.

[LDog]

... if i go in the woods and drown crossing a stream thats no one's problem but my own ...

Nah, yer rotting corpse would likely foul the water downstream, potentially spreading disease among hikers and other wildlife. At the least, as you begin to decompose, your body would begin to bloat from the buildup of hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, and methane, forcing your body fluids to escape from your various orifaces. The rancid stench will attract flies, and maggots will start to feast on your body ... You can understand how this could detract from others wilderness experience... At some point the authorities will be notified, and some poor batstages will be dispatched to bag up your foul remains, and pack them out. Then they'll have to figure out who you are, and try to find someone who cares enough about you to give you a burial. So, you see, your actions in this hypothetical scenario would impact others negatively.

[tdoczi]

Big difference. In one case, people are staying in THEIR homes. In the other, the government is controlling access to ITS property. Do you understand and respect the difference in property rights involved?

As to your general attitude, heaven forbid you should ever get attacked or injured and require rescue in the wilderness - wouldn't ever want you to have even a twinge of thanks or appreciation for help provided by another person.

who said anything about my being ungrateful for getting help, if i do need it and it is available? i'm talking about being allowed to voluntarily forego any potential help and assume risk and responsibility for myself. man, and you say i read into things.

do you understand who it is who truly owns everything the government "owns"?

[tdoczi]

Nah, yer rotting corpse would likely foul the water downstream, potentially spreading disease among hikers and other wildlife. At the least, as you begin to decompose, your body would begin to bloat from the buildup of hydrogen sulphide, carbon dioxide, and methane, forcing your body fluids to escape from your various orifaces. The rancid stench will attract flies, and maggots will start to feast on your body ... You can understand how this could detract from others wilderness experience... At some point the authorities will be notified, and some poor batstages will be dispatched to bag up your foul remains, and pack them out. Then they'll have to figure out who you are, and try to find someone who cares enough about you to give you a burial. So, you see, your actions in this hypothetical scenario would impact others negatively.

thats the best argument yet and probably the best one possible, but isnt all that mostly true everytime a bear or a moose dies in the woods? how is my dying any different?

[LDog]

thats the best argument yet and probably the best one possible, but isnt all that mostly true everytime a bear or a moose dies in the woods? how is my dying any different?

Moose and bear don't have next of kin who would likely sue the government if they "failed" to save you.

[restless]

do you understand who it is who truly owns everything the government "owns"?

Following your logic, there are multitudes of buildings that the government owns as well as things in them. I think, though, that if you extended that same logic to those buildings, you might find yourself somewhere that might put a cramp in your hiking lifestyle. If you disagree, try just walking into the White House, a government owned building. Tell me how that works out.

I do recognize that you are not the OP, and haven't violated the closure order. Given your comments in this post, I'm surprised.

[tdoczi]

Moose and bear don't have next of kin who would likely sue the government if they "failed" to save you.

seperate issue from your original point. i'm sure the threat of litigation is a large factor, that doesnt make it any less nonsensical. people sue for all sorts of stupid reasons, we should just cave to all of it and do everything we can to prevent the threat of lawsuit then?

[tdoczi]

Following your logic, there are multitudes of buildings that the government owns as well as things in them. I think, though, that if you extended that same logic to those buildings, you might find yourself somewhere that might put a cramp in your hiking lifestyle. If you disagree, try just walking into the White House, a government owned building. Tell me how that works out.

I do recognize that you are not the OP, and haven't violated the closure order. Given your comments in this post, I'm surprised.

currently if i walk into GMNF i would find myself potentially in a lot of trouble. i dont deny this, never have. what am i saying is it is nonsense.

i dont know about currently, but when i was a kid i waited in line and walked through a security checkpoint and into the whitehouse.

[4eyedbuzzard]

Well, ya know, here's how it works: People in general tend to do stupid things. People tend to overestimate their abilities. People tend to underestimate weather and conditions. Even smart people like you and me. So we try to be proactive and keep people from getting into life threatening situations in the first place, which benefits both them and the rescuers. Because we rescue people's sorry @$$e$ whether they want it or not. Even if they send a certified letter prior, telling us not to ever rescue them, be they hiking when a trail is closed, climbing when the mountain is closed, skiing out of bounds, or doing whatever activity they choose, -if they mess up, we rescue them. Because we want to keep people alive, even the arrogant and irresponsible ones. If it makes you feel better, the real truth is that we only do all this so we can fine people for the rescue and keep collect taxes from their sorry @$$. We have a big nanny state bureaucracy to run and we need you to help pay for it. So please obey the trail closures, don't get pinned under a blowdown that rolls on you, or drown in a raging stream, and stay alive and do your part.

[tdoczi]

Well, ya know, here's how it works: People in general tend to do stupid things. People tend to overestimate their abilities. People tend to underestimate weather and conditions. Even smart people like you and me. So we try to be proactive and keep people from getting into life threatening situations in the first place, which benefits both them and the rescuers. Because we rescue people's sorry @$$e$ whether they want it or not. Even if they send a certified letter prior, telling us not to ever rescue them, be they hiking when a trail is closed, climbing when the mountain is closed, skiing out of bounds, or doing whatever activity they choose, -if they mess up, we rescue them. Because we want to keep people alive, even the arrogant and irresponsible ones. If it makes you feel better, the real truth is that we only do all this so we can fine people for the rescue and keep collect taxes from their sorry @$$. We have a big nanny state bureaucracy to run and we need you to help pay for it. So please obey the trail closures, don't get pinned under a blowdown that rolls on you, or drown in a raging stream, and stay alive and do your part.

all of that is certainly true, i'm just saying it should not be. do you think it should? if so, why? "because it is" is not a reason why something should be that way.

[LDog]

seperate issue from your original point. i'm sure the threat of litigation is a large factor, that doesnt make it any less nonsensical. people sue for all sorts of stupid reasons, we should just cave to all of it and do everything we can to prevent the threat of lawsuit then?

The government, like any organization run by intelligent folk, make decisions based on risk assessment all the time. The reality is that if you're told not to enter a forest cause you won't be rescued, and you die, your parents/wives/kids are likely to sue the government for negligence. You can bemoan that, but it is the reality. And that's likely a big part of the reason they err on the side of caution when deciding to close a national forest when the surrounding area is a disaster area.

[Alligator]

i disagree, but lets put that aside for now. how am i, or anyone else for that matter, not able to protect myself if i go hiking right now in VT?

I would guess at this point in time, the greatest risk is probably falling trees. Saturated soils with previous what tropical force winds blowing through may have created unsafe conditions. Personally, I would trust the forest supervisor's assessment. She has other foresters' and trail crew managers' experience to draw from. The OP on the other hand, could be a Hollywood agent from Los Angeles. He may have never been on a trail or logging crew and might not have any idea about assessing dangerous trees.

Also the roads aren't all fixed, so what is probably the majority of hikers, day, weekend, and sectioners, could be at risk from poor road conditions.

[tdoczi]

The government, like any organization run by intelligent folk, make decisions based on risk assessment all the time. The reality is that if you're told not to enter a forest cause you won't be rescued, and you die, your parents/wives/kids are likely to sue the government for negligence. You can bemoan that, but it is the reality. And that's likely a big part of the reason they err on the side of caution when deciding to close a national forest when the surrounding area is a disaster area.

anyone fall into the grand canyon or off of halfdome lately?

[tdoczi]

I would guess at this point in time, the greatest risk is probably falling trees. Saturated soils with previous what tropical force winds blowing through may have created unsafe conditions. Personally, I would trust the forest supervisor's assessment. She has other foresters' and trail crew managers' experience to draw from. The OP on the other hand, could be a Hollywood agent from Los Angeles. He may have never been on a trail or logging crew and might not have any idea about assessing dangerous trees.

Also the roads aren't all fixed, so what is probably the majority of hikers, day, weekend, and sectioners, could be at risk from poor road conditions.

if there is truly a greatly increased risk of tree fall even this long after the storm then thats a fair enough point. i have trouble imagining though at what point anyone would be able to declare that all trees along the trail are now back to their normal safety level. thats quite the task.

roads can be clsoed and you could be told if you wish to hike you ahve to deal with the closure.

[4thandgoal]

As i have been saying for a long time, as have others, a person should have to pay for a rescue. Not prior to, but sent a bill. Taxes should not pay for a rescue ever. It was YOU that climbed whatever mountain. You werent forced. Maybe......rescue insurance........

[Alligator]

if there is truly a greatly increased risk of tree fall even this long after the storm then thats a fair enough point. i have trouble imagining though at what point anyone would be able to declare that all trees along the trail are now back to their normal safety level. thats quite the task.

roads can be clsoed and you could be told if you wish to hike you ahve to deal with the closure.

They won't declare that no one knows that. They could have someone flag the dangerous ones, cut them, or reroute. I don't know what exactly is being used as criteria for reopening. Maybe they will get crews into shelter areas as well to have a look.

You could say that all day about hike at your own risk, but they have a responsibility to properly assess the risk before letting people in. Death suits garner big bucks.

[tdoczi]

They won't declare that no one knows that. They could have someone flag the dangerous ones, cut them, or reroute. I don't know what exactly is being used as criteria for reopening. Maybe they will get crews into shelter areas as well to have a look.

checking every tree along every trail and flagging the dangerous ones? seriously? you may be right, it wouldnt be the silliest thing ive heard but c'mon, thats out there.