View Full Version : Green Mountain National Forest - Silly
WillMoody
09-10-2011, 11:10
I just hiked the AT thru VT (and did not see the USFS anywhere).
The only closure should apply to kindergarten field trips.
The trail is fine except for a few minor washouts. Fords are calf deep and laughable by western standards.
.......
If post hurricane conditions are 'dangerous' why did she not close the GMNF pre-hurricane when there was actual danger? Maybe she didn't have time to schedule the meeting to schedule the other meetings to set the agenda and appoint committees.
WillMoody
09-10-2011, 11:41
Here's her contact info. Everyone should call and ask what criteria she used for the closure decision.
Does she know she's not in AZ anymore?
Phone: (802) 747-6700
Fax: (802) 747-6700
13826
Alligator
09-10-2011, 13:09
Here's her contact info. Everyone should call and ask what criteria she used for the closure decision.
Does she know she's not in AZ anymore?
Phone: (802) 747-6700
Fax: (802) 747-6700
13826You should contact them with your information directly, as there is an emergency closure (http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/greenmountain/htm/greenmountain/pdf/order_gmnf.pdf) order in effect still for many areas. Let them know your full information too. According to the web page (http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/greenmountain/htm/greenmountain/g_home.htm), the AT is still closed. ATTroll posted a list of impacted areas on the home page.
the part of this i've found curious is the ATC statement that the closure applies to the entirety of the AT thru vermont. the problem is parts of the vermont AT are not even in GMNF.
restless
09-10-2011, 14:07
The part of this I find curious is why someone would flagrantly violate a closure order. OK, so the AT isn't that damaged, which is good. Apparently, though the forest service roads leading in and out of the forest are pretty bad and had something happened requiring this persons rescue, it may have been either impossible, or placed the first responders in a risky position. Closure orders are issued for a reason. This is just another fine example of "hiker entitlement attitude".
why not just issue a "no rescues will be made, hike at your own risk" advisement instead of a closure order? just another example of those in authority thinking theyre supposed to babysit all of us.
The part of this I find curious is why someone would flagrantly violate a closure order. OK, so the AT isn't that damaged, which is good. Apparently, though the forest service roads leading in and out of the forest are pretty bad and had something happened requiring this persons rescue, it may have been either impossible, or placed the first responders in a risky position. Closure orders are issued for a reason. This is just another fine example of "hiker entitlement attitude".
I agree with restless on this one and just bailed on a NOBO LT end-to-end hike. I AT thru'd in 2009 so I'm comfortable being wet for weeks on end but didn't want to put up with the blowdowns and more importantly figuring out how or if I could get into town to re-supply. Ended up all my town stop locations said they were either completely isolated or couldn't have shuttled me anyway.
Goodness gracious, there were over 100 roads closed and 13 towns completely isolated in Vermont when I left. Figured town folk there had more to worry about than a hungry hiker.
WillMoody
09-10-2011, 14:54
The part of this I find curious is why someone would flagrantly violate a closure order. OK, so the AT isn't that damaged, which is good. Apparently, though the forest service roads leading in and out of the forest are pretty bad and had something happened requiring this persons rescue, it may have been either impossible, or placed the first responders in a risky position. Closure orders are issued for a reason. This is just another fine example of "hiker entitlement attitude".
So if a hospital has 2 doctors, one is on vacation and the other is delivering a baby in another town, no one should be allowed to drive because if they have an accident there will not be a doctor to care for them?
hikerboy57
09-10-2011, 15:01
its great to see how much someone can ignore the misery going on around them. Did anyone stop you or threaten to arrest you for hiking thru?
theyve got their hands full. there are towns still completely cutoff, roads and bridges washed away.but your hike is much more important.glad you made it through okay, regardless, and as suggested above, you should file your findings with the proper authorities.
I said Good Day!
Just a Hiker
09-10-2011, 15:12
I am only guessing, but GMNF officials are possibly just trying to protect "high use" areas from further long term damage as a result of Hurricane Irene. Further, and as others have stated, Vermont residents have their hands full right now just trying to fix roads and restore services, so having to rescue an injured hiker should be the last of their worries right now. So, come on down here to NE Tennessee and hike.....we need the money....LOL!!
why not just issue a "no rescues will be made, hike at your own risk" advisement instead of a closure order? just another example of those in authority thinking theyre supposed to babysit all of us.
Maybe because time and again they've seen how stupid some people can be. It's been proven seat belts save lives.
Maybe because time and again they've seen how stupid some people can be. It's been proven seat belts save lives.
no doubt, but no one should be responsible for my well being, especially if i've been warned. that there are both people who feel entitled to a rescue and who feel that they must rescue everyone ever in any sort of jeopardy is what i take issue with. everything said here about the people who live in VT having too much to do to worry about hikers is 100% true, but ignores the fact that someone can go hike across VT and never bother a single local the whole time.
Just a Hiker
09-10-2011, 15:55
no doubt, but no one should be responsible for my well being, especially if i've been warned. that there are both people who feel entitled to a rescue and who feel that they must rescue everyone ever in any sort of jeopardy is what i take issue with. everything said here about the people who live in VT having too much to do to worry about hikers is 100% true, but ignores the fact that someone can go hike across VT and never bother a single local the whole time.
I agree......I've hiked through Vermont and only had contact with 1 or 2 people; however, look at the closure from a "Trail Maintenance" point of view. The maintainers who volunteer their time with their local trail clubs work very hard to keep the trail in Vermont in good shape, and trail in Vermont is a very tough section to maintain. Also, staying off the trail for a little bit will prevent hikers from going off the treadway to get around the mud and damaging the trail even more.
no doubt, but no one should be responsible for my well being, especially if i've been warned.
Not everything revolves around you. I'm sure when they closed the forest they had no clue as to who you are. Once they closed a forest in NM because of fire danger. It didn't matter if you weren't a smoker or had no stove.
-SEEKER-
09-10-2011, 16:44
The part of this I find curious is why someone would flagrantly violate a closure order. OK, so the AT isn't that damaged, which is good. Apparently, though the forest service roads leading in and out of the forest are pretty bad and had something happened requiring this persons rescue, it may have been either impossible, or placed the first responders in a risky position. Closure orders are issued for a reason. This is just another fine example of "hiker entitlement attitude".
I agree 100%
Not everything revolves around you. I'm sure when they closed the forest they had no clue as to who you are. Once they closed a forest in NM because of fire danger. It didn't matter if you weren't a smoker or had no stove.
i am essentially saying, quite strongly, that nothing revolves around, or any hiker. said differently, if i go in the woods and drown crossing a stream thats no one's problem but my own and the forest service, the head of the gmnf, whoever works rescues, all the locals and whoever else might think its their place to care can feel free to simply go on with their cleanup and their lives and not do anything about it. its ok, the world will be fine without me. we for some reason have developed this idea that those in power are here to protect us from ourselves, and no one beleives in this nutty concept any more stringly than the ones who are in power.
said differently and even more simply, its ok to tell someone "dont go hiking, you wont be rescued," and if they do go and run into trouble to say to them if they call to help "no, sorry, we arent going to help you."
thats all i'm saying.
Pedaling Fool
09-10-2011, 17:08
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...
Alligator
09-10-2011, 17:33
i am essentially saying, quite strongly, that nothing revolves around, or any hiker. said differently, if i go in the woods and drown crossing a stream thats no one's problem but my own and the forest service, the head of the gmnf, whoever works rescues, all the locals and whoever else might think its their place to care can feel free to simply go on with their cleanup and their lives and not do anything about it. its ok, the world will be fine without me. we for some reason have developed this idea that those in power are here to protect us from ourselves, and no one beleives in this nutty concept any more stringly than the ones who are in power.
said differently and even more simply, its ok to tell someone "dont go hiking, you wont be rescued," and if they do go and run into trouble to say to them if they call to help "no, sorry, we arent going to help you."
thats all i'm saying.It is national forest, subject to laws enacted by representatives of the people of the United States. Society has determined that's how it works. You might not like that and can certainly work to change it but as it stands it was a legal closure. Government is obligated to protect those that are not capable of protecting themselves. As the land manger the federal government has an obligation to provide reasonable safety measures to the public. Emergency closures are a part of that. Maybe buy a forest and become sole owner. However, you might still get sued for someone doing something stupid on your property.
It's not just about you vs. everyone else either. Your family could sue too.
You arrogantly violated a court order. It is individuals such as yourselves who give hikers a bad name. Go back west and take your entitlements with you.
hikerboy57
09-10-2011, 18:09
NYC Mayor Bloomberg was just criticized recently for evacuating parts of the city prior to Irene, some saying he overreacted because of his handling of the winter snowstorms. I read today over 100 water escues were made that day by NYPD.In spite of mandatory evacuation in Long Beach, some of my neighbors chose to stay, while I and most of my freinds decided not to chance it.the people who chose to stay knew help would not be available should they need it. To go into an area closed for safety, you dont seem to realize you were lucky that the AT was clear enough for you to get through.
PS your probably right. with your attitude, I doubt many would care if you lived or died.
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.
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.
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?
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.
... 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.
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"?
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?
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
09-10-2011, 19:21
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.
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?
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
09-10-2011, 19:38
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.
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.
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
09-10-2011, 20:02
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.
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?
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
09-10-2011, 20:36
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
09-10-2011, 20:43
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.
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.
i am essentially saying, quite strongly, that nothing revolves around, or any hiker. said differently, if i go in the woods and drown crossing a stream thats no one's problem but my own and the forest service, the head of the gmnf, whoever works rescues, all the locals and whoever else might think its their place to care can feel free to simply go on with their cleanup and their lives and not do anything about it. its ok, the world will be fine without me.
So everyone will have to step over or on your dead body?
So everyone will have to step over or on your dead body?
as ive said, my dead body is no different than the body of a dead moose or dead bear and i'm sure there are plenty of those even when there isnt a hurricane.
Alligator
09-10-2011, 22:06
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.I'm not saying they are going to check every tree. No one checks every brick in a building either. I expect that they will make a trails assessment since the ATC knows about it. People with experience could sample the forest, get a reasonable idea as to the damage, and if in the area they could flag problematic trees. It's just a roll of flagging. If the tree is close and a chainsaw handy, someone might cut the tree. I don't expect they will be able to get every inch covered. There are probably several ways one could get decent coverage. Check steep slopes, check older forests, check shelter areas and other prominent camping areas, check the most frequented trails, etc. But yeah, a good overall assessment will probably take some time, because they do need to get limited crews to check things. It was a pretty rare rainfall/flooding event. You could call the superivisor's office and demand to know the holdup and why the AT is not getting the first priority. Or go in person.
4eyedbuzzard
09-10-2011, 22:32
This notion of absolute freedom is a fascinating one. :-? There is no absolute right to hike - nor to do anything else.
Closing the forest may be a silly decision. The forest manager may very well be silly as well. But I'm reminded of a quote from a movie: "He may be stupid - but he is in charge."
"He may be stupid - but he is in charge."
and he always will be if everyone just accepts his stupidity as law.
Alligator
09-10-2011, 22:59
Green Mountain Club expressed "strong support (http://vtdigger.org/2011/09/03/green-mountain-national-forest-closure-means-southern-long-trail-and-appalachian-trail-closures/)".
Green Mountain Club expressed "strong support (http://vtdigger.org/2011/09/03/green-mountain-national-forest-closure-means-southern-long-trail-and-appalachian-trail-closures/)".
"In general, the Long Trail itself appears to have survived tropical storm Irene with relatively minimal damage."
“There is so much work to do in Vermont communities up and down the Green Mountains and now is not the time for hiking in those areas,”
in other words this is not about safety or trail conditions, its about theoretical rescues that they dont want to be doing.
why is this even an issue? If the GMNF is closed it's closed. period. end of story. the state of Vermont has been a mess the past few weeks. Hikers need to follow the rules just like everyone else.
Alligator
09-10-2011, 23:48
Here's the full version, not the cherry-picked quotes.
WATERBURY, Vt., September 2 – The Green Mountain Club today expressed strong support for the Green Mountain National Forest temporary closure. This closure applies to the Appalachian Trail through Vermont and the Long Trail system from the Massachusetts border to Mt. Ellen in Warren.
Read the closure order. (http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/greenmountain/htm/greenmountain/pdf/order_gmnf.pdf)
The Green Mountain Club manages the Long Trail as well as most of the Appalachian Trail in Vermont in partnership with the U.S. Forest Service, the Vermont Agency of Natural Resources, the Appalachian Trail Conservancy and private land owners.
“There is so much work to do in Vermont communities up and down the Green Mountains and now is not the time for hiking in those areas,” said Will Wiquist, executive director of the Green Mountain Club. “Hiking on the National Forest in these areas could be dangerous and could also get in the way of important recovery efforts.”
With the Labor Day weekend taking place, the club also noted that the towns of Duxbury and Huntington have closed the roads leading to the primary trails on Camels Hump. Camels Hump Road in Duxbury is entirely closed and is extremely dangerous and impassible. Access to the mountain from the Huntington side is closed due to a land slide. Hikers are advised to avoid hiking Camels Hump until further notice.
“Closed means closed,” he said. “Both overnight and day hikers should not enter the national forest at all. There are hikes available on northern Vermont summits like Mt. Hunger, Mt. Mansfield, and Laraway Mtn.”
In general, the Long Trail itself appears to have survived tropical storm Irene with relatively minimal damage. The club has been maintaining a detailed list of trail conditions and road reports related to hiking trails. While far from comprehensive, this is an excellent resource for hikers. Even so, Wiquist advises, “hike and drive with caution even in places seemingly unaffected by Irene, as the entire trail network has not yet been fully assessed. And of course heed all federal, state and local road closures.”
The Appalachian Trail, which stretches from Georgia to Maine, overlaps the Long Trail from Massachusetts to Killington, Vt. then diverges from the Long Trail and heads east toward New Hampshire. The “AT” lost at least two bridges in Vermont. The AT is closed in Vermont – from Massachusetts to Norwich, Vt.
Green Mountain Club’s seasonal caretakers and Long Trail Patrol have spent most of this week working to help Waterbury village residents recover from the flood. The club plans to send its Appalachian Trail Conservancy- and Green Mountain National Forest-sponsored Volunteer Long Trail Patrol to a local community in southern Vermont with help from the Vermont Department of Forests, Parks and Recreation. For the holiday weekend, caretakers have returned to the northern Long Trail.
why is this even an issue? If the GMNF is closed it's closed. period. end of story. the state of Vermont has been a mess the past few weeks. Hikers need to follow the rules just like everyone else.
so your contribution to a discussion is to tell everyone not to discuss it? thanks. as far not following rules, very little of this has been anything near advocating violating the closure order.
why is this even an issue? If the GMNF is closed it's closed. period. end of story. the state of Vermont has been a mess the past few weeks. Hikers need to follow the rules just like everyone else.
Don't feed the trolls, guys. This guy gets off on being difficult and oppositional to draw attention to himself. Arguing with him only encouraging him - reasoned factual responses avail nothing, as that's not what motivates him. Spoken from experience.
fiddlehead
09-11-2011, 05:23
I guess I'm one of the few.
But, I'll admit, I agree with trdocdz (what a name though?) here.
I enjoy my trailbuilding here in Asia where no one ever tells me I can't go where I want, when I want.
It's one of the best parts of going into the woods (jungle) here.
I realize if I get hurt bad out there, it's my own fault and next to impossible to get rescued.
I think of that when I get in some amazing situations at times but it's still worth it if I compare to this discussion and the rules and regs (often made with insurance companies in mind) back there in the states.
I like the HYOH philosophy myself.
Don't feed the trolls, guys. This guy gets off on being difficult and oppositional to draw attention to himself. Arguing with him only encouraging him - reasoned factual responses avail nothing, as that's not what motivates him. Spoken from experience.
typical venomous response
Pedaling Fool
09-11-2011, 08:44
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.
I also see it as silly that they would threaten fines, but maybe there's something to the issue of being sued (I don't know); if there is I could see them being somewhat forceful in wanting to keep people out. However, that does bring up an interesting question. Has the govt (state or feds) been sued before by the family of someone killed by a falling tree or whatever? But these questions need lawyers to answer, so I'll give the govt the benefit of the doubt.
At any rate that's why I'm not totally against this, simply because of the lawsuit issue/questions. You do have to ask yourself one question, why is it that you don't fear possibly losing your life, but you do worry about being possibly fined?
No matter how independent we are sometimes we all need help, just a fact of life.
Pedaling Fool
09-11-2011, 08:45
Don't feed the trolls, guys. This guy gets off on being difficult and oppositional to draw attention to himself. Arguing with him only encouraging him - reasoned factual responses avail nothing, as that's not what motivates him. Spoken from experience. He's not being a troll. It does raise some interesting questions.
Pedaling Fool
09-11-2011, 08:50
This notion of absolute freedom is a fascinating one. :-? There is no absolute right to hike - nor to do anything else.
Closing the forest may be a silly decision. The forest manager may very well be silly as well. But I'm reminded of a quote from a movie: "He may be stupid - but he is in charge."
There's a word for absolute freedom: Anarchy;)
At any rate that's why I'm not totally against this, simply because of the lawsuit issue/questions. You do have to ask yourself one question, why is it that you don't fear possibly losing your life, but you do worry about being possibly fined?
No matter how independent we are sometimes we all need help, just a fact of life.
because i would most likely make my own personal assessment that the actual risk of loosing my life is not very high. i actually dont do many dangerous things, many many things most people do regularly and arent really dangerous are more than i'm willing to do. walking in the the GMNF this week or next i dont see the danger in.
as for needing help, yes, absolutely. and sometimes you need help and there is none or you have to do things on your own. self sufficiency should be encouraged, we seem to go out of our way to prevent it.
as for the lawsuit thing, i alluded to the grand canyon and half dome and every seemed to ignore it. people die by going into nature of their own volition all the time, i dont recall ever hearing of a serious lawsuit over it, certainly not a successful one.
bottom line to me- this all political. people love theater and a disaster and while i in no means am trying to say there isnt anything wrong in VT this is overly dramatic and deliberately so.
WillMoody
09-11-2011, 10:26
You arrogantly violated a court order. It is individuals such as yourselves who give hikers a bad name. Go back west and take your entitlements with you.
What court order?
4eyedbuzzard
09-11-2011, 10:30
I don't think the current situation is overly dramatic - certainly no more dramatic than your critique anyway.;)
I think the reporting of the storm itself was pretty over-dramatized by media - but that is a different issue.
The current reaction and policies are very cautious, I'll give you that. But the situation is pretty extreme, resources are thin, and a decision was made by those responsible for managing local, state, and federal lands. That you don't agree with that decision is evident, and okay. I agree somewhat with your ideal of self-sufficiency, and I'm not a huge fan of the nanny state. But if you are allowed in, then everyone must be allowed. The forest / trail is either open, or it's not. There is no way to have people sign waivers, no-rescue disclaimers, assess people's backcountry skills, etc. And part of these public servant's duties include protecting not only the land, but the general public using that land. That includes both rescuing people when they get into trouble, and preventing the need for rescue when reasonably possible (including people that don't care). Given that there are basically no rescue personnel available along with access being disrupted and significantly increased risk from blowdowns, streams, and damage to pathway, a decision was made to shut it down for a while.
My take on it all: A little patience can go a long way.
Sarcasm the elf
09-11-2011, 10:39
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?
.
I think this is the part that a lot of people are missing. When we are hiking we are almost always guests on other people's land. If the government/property owner closes their land temporarily because they reasonably believe there is a safety issue then it should be respected. While I fully agree that their decision to close the property should have to stand up to scrutiny, from the full article that Alligator posted it sounds as though there was enough reason to justify this action.
I be I currently live on a private road in a flood prone area next to the Housatonic River. Due to Hurricane Irene and heavy rain we had the last few days, my street has twice been put under a voluntary evacuation and both times the houses at the low end of our street have been under several feet of water. Every time we get a flood, dozens of tourists and reporters ignore the private property signs and drive down our road and walk through our yards to gawk at us while we try and clean up. It got to the point after the hurricane that we had to block the entrance to our flooded road to stop unwelcome visitors from from driving down it and potentially getting stuck.
Let the folks who live, work and own the property around the A.T. cleanup and get on with their lives instead of complaining that we all have to change our vacation plans.
(Sorry for the rant)
as for the lawsuit thing, i alluded to the grand canyon and half dome and every seemed to ignore it. people die by going into nature of their own volition all the time, i dont recall ever hearing of a serious lawsuit over it, certainly not a successful one.
Yosemite Deaths Reach 14 For Year After Woman Falls from Half DomeWed, Aug 3, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/yosemite-deaths-reach-14-woman-falls-half-dome-202000885.html (http://news.yahoo.com/yosemite-deaths-reach-14-woman-falls-half-dome-202000885.html)
"Despite the knowledge that the three hikers ignored the safety warnings, posted signs, and scaled safety railings even after the urging of other nearby tourists to return to the observation areas, the families of the three hikers who died at Vernal Falls have hired (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=As5i4FBlnc6u2nYTLxoyDMA1y8F_;_ylu=X3oDMTFqaTN jbzlmBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIEJvZHkEcG9zAzMEc2VjA01lZGlhQ XJ0aWNsZUJvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJ2N20xMGtwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDZDgyYWFiMTgtNTQxYy0zZjAzLThmNTktNWE5M2RjYT JjMjBjBHBzdGNhdAN1c3x5Y24EcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD ;_ylv=0/SIG=14ach04s8/EXP=1316961693/**http%3A//latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/yosemite-waterfall-deaths-families-hire-consultant-to-assess-safety.html) consultants to assess whether or not the safety measures undertaken at the park were adequate."
WillMoody
09-11-2011, 10:47
I agree......I've hiked through Vermont and only had contact with 1 or 2 people; however, look at the closure from a "Trail Maintenance" point of view. The maintainers who volunteer their time with their local trail clubs work very hard to keep the trail in Vermont in good shape, and trail in Vermont is a very tough section to maintain. Also, staying off the trail for a little bit will prevent hikers from going off the treadway to get around the mud and damaging the trail even more.
I met a local trail maintainer on the trail who was checking his section. He felt there was no problems with hiking. Unlike the USFS, he based his assessment on ACTUAL field inspections as opposed to the USFS 'desk assessment'.
WillMoody
09-11-2011, 10:51
This notion of absolute freedom is a fascinating one. :-? There is no absolute right to hike - nor to do anything else.
Closing the forest may be a silly decision. The forest manager may very well be silly as well. But I'm reminded of a quote from a movie: "He may be stupid - but he is in charge."
I think people are missing the point. The USFS didn't actually inspect the trail. The USFS became hysterical over the road washouts and assumed the trail was severely damaged as well. Not the case. A blow down every 2-3 miles, a very few places hard to follow the trail.
The GMC is caught up in USFS misinformation & a knee jerk reaction.
WillMoody
09-11-2011, 10:57
"In general, the Long Trail itself appears to have survived tropical storm Irene with relatively minimal damage."
“There is so much work to do in Vermont communities up and down the Green Mountains and now is not the time for hiking in those areas,”
in other words this is not about safety or trail conditions, its about theoretical rescues that they dont want to be doing.
I stopped and helped communities with the cleanup. Had I not hiked I would have not been there to help.
The closure hurt communities by cutting off hiker volunteers not to mention economic aid.
WillMoody
09-11-2011, 11:05
For the holiday weekend, caretakers have returned to the northern Long Trail.[/QUOTE]
Why send in caretakers if there are to be no hikers?
I think this is the part that a lot of people are missing. When we are hiking we are almost always guests on other people's land. If the government/property owner closes their land temporarily because they reasonably believe there is a safety issue then it should be respected. While I fully agree that their decision to close the property should have to stand up to scrutiny, from the full article that Alligator posted it sounds as though there was enough reason to justify this action.
I be I currently live on a private road in a flood prone area next to the Housatonic River. Due to Hurricane Irene and heavy rain we had the last few days, my street has twice been put under a voluntary evacuation and both times the houses at the low end of our street have been under several feet of water. Every time we get a flood, dozens of tourists and reporters ignore the private property signs and drive down our road and walk through our yards to gawk at us while we try and clean up. It got to the point after the hurricane that we had to block the entrance to our flooded road to stop unwelcome visitors from from driving down it and potentially getting stuck.
Let the folks who live, work and own the property around the A.T. cleanup and get on with their lives instead of complaining that we all have to change our vacation plans.
(Sorry for the rant)
every word you say is true and i have no problem with any of it.
but GMNF is not private property. i am no one's guest when i hike there.
supai, az has been clsoed to tourists repeatedly the past few years because of flooding. when i go there, i am the guest of the tribe and its their peragotive to allow me in or not, they dont even need a reason. the same is not true of GMNF in any way shape or form.
Just a Hiker
09-11-2011, 11:37
I met a local trail maintainer on the trail who was checking his section. He felt there was no problems with hiking. Unlike the USFS, he based his assessment on ACTUAL field inspections as opposed to the USFS 'desk assessment'.
I am glad that the trail is in better shape than initially reported, and I am sure that things will get back to normal soon. However, also keep in mind that Vermont relies heavily on tourism for it's economic base, and a huge part of that economic base is skiing and Winter Sports, which brings in waaaaaay more revenue than hiking. The peaks you recently hiked over will soon be crowded with skiers who are paying $60 for a lift ticket, $150 for a local hotel room and lots of other money for food, beverage and other amenities. So, Vermont only has a short period of time to put things back together before "Leaf Season" and Ski season; therefore roads, bridges and other services are the priority right now. I hate to put things in dollars and cents, but that's just the economic reality of the situation.
Yosemite Deaths Reach 14 For Year After Woman Falls from Half DomeWed, Aug 3, 2011
http://news.yahoo.com/yosemite-deaths-reach-14-woman-falls-half-dome-202000885.html (http://news.yahoo.com/yosemite-deaths-reach-14-woman-falls-half-dome-202000885.html)
"Despite the knowledge that the three hikers ignored the safety warnings, posted signs, and scaled safety railings even after the urging of other nearby tourists to return to the observation areas, the families of the three hikers who died at Vernal Falls have hired (http://us.lrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=As5i4FBlnc6u2nYTLxoyDMA1y8F_;_ylu=X3oDMTFqaTN jbzlmBG1pdANBcnRpY2xlIEJvZHkEcG9zAzMEc2VjA01lZGlhQ XJ0aWNsZUJvZHlBc3NlbWJseQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTJ2N20xMGtwBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDZDgyYWFiMTgtNTQxYy0zZjAzLThmNTktNWE5M2RjYT JjMjBjBHBzdGNhdAN1c3x5Y24EcHQDc3RvcnlwYWdlBHRlc3QD ;_ylv=0/SIG=14ach04s8/EXP=1316961693/**http%3A//latimesblogs.latimes.com/lanow/2011/07/yosemite-waterfall-deaths-families-hire-consultant-to-assess-safety.html) consultants to assess whether or not the safety measures undertaken at the park were adequate."
and have they sued? are we closing trails in yosemite because of this until such time as they can be "made safe"? is ascending half dome in the dead of winter while its covered in ice illegal? NO
Hiker8261
09-11-2011, 11:42
The problem isn't if your false bravado about how you are going to die alone without needing help. What happens if you pick up you cell phone to tell your family or friends goodbye? Do you think they are going to NOT call someone? Maybe some other hiker, also violating a legal order to stay out of that area, comes upon you and your broken leg? Do you think they might not mention it to someone?
Of course you could have gone and helped a local community start their recovery from what has turned out to be some of the worst flooding in 75 years? But then you wouldn't have done YOUR hike.
Hopefully you also didn't violate the rules about littering, cutting down trees, defacating in water supplies, etc. But hey, you know those rules are all for the other guys.
chris
I be I currently live on a private road in a flood prone area next to the Housatonic River. Due to Hurricane Irene and heavy rain we had the last few days, my street has twice been put under a voluntary evacuation and both times the houses at the low end of our street have been under several feet of water. Every time we get a flood, dozens of tourists and reporters ignore the private property signs and drive down our road and walk through our yards to gawk at us while we try and clean up. It got to the point after the hurricane that we had to block the entrance to our flooded road to stop unwelcome visitors from from driving down it and potentially getting stuck.
Let the folks who live, work and own the property around the A.T. cleanup and get on with their lives instead of complaining that we all have to change our vacation plans.
I know approximately where you live - your neighborhood and others long the lower Housy are among those I think about during a flood. I y'all have come through ok. I've been lucky - my unit, in the basement of my building, has not flooded or even sniffed at it this year, fingers crossed. Hoping, now that we've gotten a year's worth of precip in just over 9 mos, that things calm down for a while.
Looky-loos are probably the best reason why they have shut down GMNF, and only one of many. Some people are too quick to defy and disrespect reasonable enough decisions made by others in places of authority. Nothing wrong with questioning authority in principle, but a rule of reason must apply, lest one simply be difficult for its own sake.
Alligator
09-11-2011, 11:52
What court order?You violated a lawful closure order (http://www.fs.fed.us/r9/forests/greenmountain/htm/greenmountain/pdf/order_gmnf.pdf). I'm going to suggest you don't keep playing around with the semantics of that.
I stopped and helped communities with the cleanup. Had I not hiked I would have not been there to help.
The closure hurt communities by cutting off hiker volunteers not to mention economic aid.
Bonus points for you here. Glad you did this.
I think people are missing the point. The USFS didn't actually inspect the trail. The USFS became hysterical over the road washouts and assumed the trail was severely damaged as well. Not the case. A blow down every 2-3 miles, a very few places hard to follow the trail.
The GMC is caught up in USFS misinformation & a knee jerk reaction.
But here you're just rude and disrespectful. Did the following thought process occur to you?
"A massive storm just came through and washed out tons of roads, large and small, much less several houses and other structures. Who knows what effect it had on the trail, between potential blow-downs, washouts, bridges and shelters destroyed? We better do the safe, smart thing and shut the forest and trails until we get a better handle on things."
You paint this and rash and idiotic, and in your OP, which fortunately for you the moderator edited, you threw around a bunch of personal taunts at the woman who admins the GMNF, including a gratuitous reference to her female anatomy which I won't repeat here. Your intemperate complaint, such as it is, is being given a respectful hearing here, more respectful, imo, than you deserve, since you've not reciprocated.
Get over yourself and be glad you didn't get arrested or fined. If you think the trail is safe, consider that the people in charge here may see, if you will, a forest where you, short-sightedly, merely see trees, or more likely, just the bark on them. I'm glad to hear you say that you helped along the way - hope that the help was useful and not a hindrance.
Sarcasm the elf
09-11-2011, 12:19
every word you say is true and i have no problem with any of it.
but GMNF is not private property. i am no one's guest when i hike there.
supai, az has been clsoed to tourists repeatedly the past few years because of flooding. when i go there, i am the guest of the tribe and its their peragotive to allow me in or not, they dont even need a reason. the same is not true of GMNF in any way shape or form.
tdoczi I have to respectfully disagree, the property we cross does have an owner whether it is a private citizen or the government, and they have the right to manage it in the way that they determine most appropriate. They are managed for a reason and while I again completely agree that authorities should be held accountable for their decisions, choosing to ignore closure orders is not much different than the cyclists and ATV users who choose to disregard the rules on the A.T. forbidding wheeled vehicles (I'm sure that in the ATV users minds they have also every right to use the government land in a manner they deem appropriate).
Again, I don't want to justify the temporary closure, I just think that people should at least grudgingly respect it.
Bonus points for you here. Glad you did this.
"A massive storm just came through and washed out tons of roads, large and small, much less several houses and other structures. Who knows what effect it had on the trail, between potential blow-downs, washouts, bridges and shelters destroyed? We better do the safe, smart thing and shut the forest and trails until we get a better handle on things."
This just says that they had no clue about the trail conditions. To be really safe, they should close all federal lands to visitors permanently; then no one will get hurt there.
Has anyone yet sued the feds for the grizzly bear attacks in the West? It seems this would make a far better case than someone getting hurt on a trail after ignoring warnings (the feds actually re-populated the West with grizzlies; without this, there would have been no attacks).
I am not saying that the closure order should be disregarded, but some of the reasons given in support of it are Brave New World style?
Just a Hiker
09-11-2011, 12:33
tdoczi I have to respectfully disagree, the property we cross does have an owner whether it is a private citizen or the government, and they have the right to manage it in the way that they determine most appropriate. They are managed for a reason and while I again completely agree that authorities should be held accountable for their decisions, choosing to ignore closure orders is not much different than the cyclists and ATV users who choose to disregard the rules on the A.T. forbidding wheeled vehicles (I'm sure that in the ATV users minds they have also every right to use the government land in a manner they deem appropriate).
Again, I don't want to justify the temporary closure, I just think that people should at least grudgingly respect it.
Agreed.....and isn't that the bottom line here.....Respect!! Simple respect of the trail and the people of Vermont who need time to get their lives back in order after a natural disaster.
Sarcasm the elf
09-11-2011, 12:38
I know approximately where you live - your neighborhood and others long the lower Housy are among those I think about during a flood. I y'all have come through ok. I've been lucky - my unit, in the basement of my building, has not flooded or even sniffed at it this year, fingers crossed. Hoping, now that we've gotten a year's worth of precip in just over 9 mos, that things calm down for a while.
Looky-loos are probably the best reason why they have shut down GMNF, and only one of many. Some people are too quick to defy and disrespect reasonable enough decisions made by others in places of authority. Nothing wrong with questioning authority in principle, but a rule of reason must apply, lest one simply be difficult for its own sake.
Thanks for the kind words. I've been lucky so far, according to my neighbors the street I live on has flooded more times this year than it has in the last decade. My house is just a few feet higher up than the ones that have gotten flooded and the water has gone to the top of my flood wall three times this year, living here it's a risk we knowingly take.
Before I dealt with the floods I would probably have been more forgiving of the OP's decision to ignore the closure. The evacuation warnings for the hurricane seemed unnecessary at my house, but my neighbors a few hundred yards down were submerged. There was no way of telling beforehand how bad the damage was going to be and no way to determine the extent of the damage without inspecting it afterwards.
max patch
09-11-2011, 12:48
This thread reminds me of the "supported semantics" thread a few weeks ago for some reason...
Pedaling Fool
09-11-2011, 13:19
because i would most likely make my own personal assessment that the actual risk of loosing my life is not very high. i actually dont do many dangerous things, many many things most people do regularly and arent really dangerous are more than i'm willing to do. walking in the the GMNF this week or next i dont see the danger in.
as for needing help, yes, absolutely. and sometimes you need help and there is none or you have to do things on your own. self sufficiency should be encouraged, we seem to go out of our way to prevent it.
as for the lawsuit thing, i alluded to the grand canyon and half dome and every seemed to ignore it. people die by going into nature of their own volition all the time, i dont recall ever hearing of a serious lawsuit over it, certainly not a successful one.
bottom line to me- this all political. people love theater and a disaster and while i in no means am trying to say there isnt anything wrong in VT this is overly dramatic and deliberately so.
There's nothing political here unless someone wants to see politics. I see two reasons for the closure (albeit I'm affording a little benefit of doubt to the govt). 1. Lawsuit(s) and/or 2. To remove possiblity of creating more burdens on already busy rescue workers.
Like I said, I'd be curious to hear from a lawyer about issues of lawsuits in this area; lot of questions in my mind. However, to simply say that there hasn't been a lawsuit filed for other cases is not sufficient; I don't think anyone here knows the legal history of fed parks. Filing a lawsuit is not such an easy thing for someone without the money, takes money to sue someone, especially the govt. and if you lose you could be strapped with court costs... Although, I do remember hearing (but I don't know this to be fact), that someone did sue the feds over a water contamination issue and that's why there are so many warnings about needing to filter/treat all water sources in places like SNP.
As for your point of self sufficiency. You make it sound as if one is self sufficient that that persons life is in no danger. In other words what you're saying is that I know that I'm taking a risk, but since I'm self sufficient I'll be safe. Sounds to me you have never been in danger. And how can you assess something is a danger without going into the potentially dangerous situation to begin with? That's like testing a fuze to a projectile by banging on it with a large sledgehammer.
I really have no problem with anyone hiking through Vt during this time if they are truly self relient and will never make a call for help. My point is that who would really not call for assistance if they needed assistance. Think about it, if you were severely injured by a tree falling on you, would you really not call for help? If it is proven that you would NOT make the call and suffer the consequences, then I got a lot of respect for you. But I know there are many "tough talkers" who would make the call despite knowing the rescue workers are overburdened and their means to arrive at your destination may be severly hampered by washed out roads, thereby wasting more time rescuing them vice expending efforts in helping real victims ect... (yes this can happen anytime, but that's not the issue),
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.
Deciding to go hiking is not nearly the same and staying and trying to protect your home.
The problem isn't if your false bravado about how you are going to die alone without needing help. What happens if you pick up you cell phone to tell your family or friends goodbye? Do you think they are going to NOT call someone? Maybe some other hiker, also violating a legal order to stay out of that area, comes upon you and your broken leg? Do you think they might not mention it to someone?
Of course you could have gone and helped a local community start their recovery from what has turned out to be some of the worst flooding in 75 years? But then you wouldn't have done YOUR hike.
Hopefully you also didn't violate the rules about littering, cutting down trees, defacating in water supplies, etc. But hey, you know those rules are all for the other guys.
chris
i dont have a cell phone. what someone else does isnt my problem.
let me reiterate, i not have broken and have no intention of breaking any rules. questioning them is not the same as breaking them.
Has anyone yet sued the feds for the grizzly bear attacks in the West? It seems this would make a far better case than someone getting hurt on a trail after ignoring warnings (the feds actually re-populated the West with grizzlies; without this, there would have been no attacks).
A family is suing the NPS because some dude got gored to death by a Mountain Goat in the Olympics. The feds didn't repopulate griz, they put them on the endangered species list which allowed them repopulate themselves. I certainly hope you're not the type that says kill them all.
Certain trails and campsites are closed when there's bear activity, even in the east.
As for your point of self sufficiency. You make it sound as if one is self sufficient that that persons life is in no danger. In other words what you're saying is that I know that I'm taking a risk, but since I'm self sufficient I'll be safe. Sounds to me you have never been in danger. And how can you assess something is a danger without going into the potentially dangerous situation to begin with? That's like testing a fuze to a projectile by banging on it with a large sledgehammer.
self sufficiency does not mean i wont die, it means whether i live or die is no one's problem but my own. and as i've said, i'm more adverse to foolish risks than most.
as for political, here is what i mean- people in power like to wield it. someone in the power of chief of the national forest or whatever the position is called has a great deal of power, but it is a power of which most people never notice. given the opportunity to make a grand statement and show of their power that will be noticed it is often argued that a person with such power will use it just for the sake of using it. its probably a largeley unconscious act but i feel that is whats going on here.
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.
By the way, I highly doubt that the OP (who happened to sign up the day of his first post) actually resides on the left coast. Not saying that the OP and tdoczi and one and the same people. But I understand why some may think so.
tdoczi I have to respectfully disagree, the property we cross does have an owner whether it is a private citizen or the government, and they have the right to manage it in the way that they determine most appropriate. They are managed for a reason and while I again completely agree that authorities should be held accountable for their decisions, choosing to ignore closure orders is not much different than the cyclists and ATV users who choose to disregard the rules on the A.T. forbidding wheeled vehicles (I'm sure that in the ATV users minds they have also every right to use the government land in a manner they deem appropriate).
Again, I don't want to justify the temporary closure, I just think that people should at least grudgingly respect it.
and again, i am not violating, have not violated and do not intend to violate the closure order.
This just says that they had no clue about the trail conditions. To be really safe, they should close all federal lands to visitors permanently; then no one will get hurt there.
Has anyone yet sued the feds for the grizzly bear attacks in the West? It seems this would make a far better case than someone getting hurt on a trail after ignoring warnings (the feds actually re-populated the West with grizzlies; without this, there would have been no attacks).
I am not saying that the closure order should be disregarded, but some of the reasons given in support of it are Brave New World style?
any time ive been in grizzly country there are signs at the trailheads that say essentially that grizzly bears live in these woods and youre safety is not guaranteed if you freely choose to enter them. if this is enough to shield the goverment from lawsuits i fail to see why a sign at a trailhead in VT stating "due to infrastructure problems in the area rescue will not be possible, hike at your own risk" would not do so as well.
in fact there are signs stating something very close to that at the entrances of the wilderness areas within GMNF
He's not being a troll. It does raise some interesting questions.
IF he created a new account to make the original post would that qualify for being a troll?
hikerboy57
09-11-2011, 13:55
IF he created a new account to make the original post would that qualify for being a troll?not if the information he provided is useful.violating the closure order is a separate debate, but he may have been the first to survey the AT in VT after Irene, so if the info is accurate, its certainly useful
not if the information he provided is useful.violating the closure order is a separate debate, but he may have been the first to survey the AT in VT after Irene, so if the info is accurate, its certainly useful
IF tdoczi created a false account then he is a troll in my opinion. That is just as honest and credible as saying the information came from a "friend".
Hikerboy57, that sounds a bit like the Dan Rather defense.
hikerboy57
09-11-2011, 14:10
IF tdoczi created a false account then he is a troll in my opinion. That is just as honest and credible as saying the information came from a "friend".willmoody is the op/troll. tdoczi has been with wb for a while. And Ill maintain, if his information is corroborated, then maybe its useful and his "trollness" can be excused.with all the misery that VT rsidents are still dealing with, his attitude might be a bit selfrighteous, but I try and keep an open mind towrds his intent. if its just another govt rant, well theres much larger govt issues today than a temporary trail closure.
just sayin.
hikerboy57
09-11-2011, 14:21
that being said, How do we know if what he reports is accurate? there are a lot of thrus that may not be able to complete their hike until they can get thru VT, and if it is substantuially more dangerous than kindergarten kids can handle, then maybe hes putting other hikers in harms way. risk is relative to experience. so if someone can corroborate his assertion, then therell be some happy thrus, knowing theyll be able to get to katahdin before baxter closes, unless the flop back from K.
willmoody is the op/troll. tdoczi has been with wb for a while. And Ill maintain, if his information is corroborated, then maybe its useful and his "trollness" can be excused.with all the misery that VT rsidents are still dealing with, his attitude might be a bit selfrighteous, but I try and keep an open mind towrds his intent. if its just another govt rant, well theres much larger govt issues today than a temporary trail closure.
just sayin.
Do you know for sure that the OP and tdoczi are not the same person? I don't and unless you have inside info you don't either. But IF they are the same then both of the user names are trolls in my opinion. I completely understand why some may find it unusual that the OP claims to be from the left coast and created his/her account on the day of the post. You seem to believe that the end justifies the means.
that being said, How do we know if what he reports is accurate?
I totally agree.
hikerboy57
09-11-2011, 14:29
Do you know for sure that the OP and tdoczi are not the same person? I don't and unless you have inside info you don't either. But IF they are the same then both of the user names are trolls in my opinion. I completely understand why some may find it unusual that the OP claims to be from the left coast and created his/her account on the day of the post. You seem to believe that the end justifies the means.He assumed the risk, he did not put someone elses life in jeopardy. no, I feel he should not have violated the order, but if hes providing useful info to those thrus out there right now, well this would be the site, I would think to report it, as well as filing his report with the proper agencies. I dont care if he posts once or a thousand times if what he says can be usefulthere are plenty here who post drivel on a regular basis, and Im afraid I may have done it myself from time to time.
If someone reports a new water source in a normally dry area, what does it matter if he hasnt posted before? the info is useful.
But for now, until the information is verified, Ill agree, most likely troll.But why bother to post at all? just so he could get his anti govt tirade in?
But for now, until the information is verified, Ill agree, most likely troll.
We agree again.
Snowleopard
09-11-2011, 14:41
The trails in Vermont are probably in better condition than roads and other infrastructure. Streams may still be very high because Vermont has gotten lots of rain since H. Irene from thunder storms and Hurricane Lee. There have been a number of storms across New England that have dropped 3" to 6" in localized areas since Hurrican Irene. Given the amount of rain there probably are places on trail that are dangerous and no one will know where these areas are until it's checked. I'm sure the trail maintainers have a good idea where problems other than blowdowns might be.
The AT and LT cross many roads which are still closed. One reason to close roads in this situation is that construction vehicles can move faster and do more if they know that no cars or pedestrians (hikers) are on or near the road. A second reason is that some of these roads are truly dangerous in ways that you can't see from the road, for example there are places where the roadway is undermined by a stream with the paving just hanging. These reasons apply as much to hikers at road crossings as to cars.
I'd say wait a little while to hike up there. The national forest and at least some trails will open soon.
All of this also applies to hiking in the Catskills and parts of the Adirondacks.
I am not saying that the closure order should be disregarded, but some of the reasons given in support of it are Brave New World style?
Namely? Got any specifics?
Pedaling Fool
09-11-2011, 15:50
IF he created a new account to make the original post would that qualify for being a troll?
Where the hell did that come from:confused: If there's no evidence why accuse someone of something like that, just because he agree's with the OP, doesn't make him the OP. What are you'll trying to do, start a witch hunt:rolleyes:
BTW, I don't know if the OP is a troll, he very well maybe given the indications, or he may not be; I don't really care. Troll or not it's a valid discussion.
Where the hell did that come from:confused: If there's no evidence why accuse someone of something like that, just because he agree's with the OP, doesn't make him the OP. What are you'll trying to do, start a witch hunt:rolleyes:
BTW, I don't know if the OP is a troll, he very well maybe given the indications, or he may not be; I don't really care. Troll or not it's a valid discussion.
I don't deny it is a valid discussion. I just don't trust those that are less than truthful when making their points. It reminds me of some very high in our government.
"If there's no evidence why accuse someone of something like that, just because he agree's with the OP, doesn't make him the OP. What are you'll trying to do, start a witch hunt:rolleyes:"
I didn't accuse anyone of anything. We both used IF. Just saying.
Just saying that those that believe that the end justifies the means have some shady company.
http://www.aeriagloris.com/UnrestrictedWarfare/TheEndJustifiesTheMeans.htm
Pedaling Fool
09-11-2011, 16:07
It's that time again. Stepping away from the computer:cool:
swamprat
09-11-2011, 16:59
why not just issue a "no rescues will be made, hike at your own risk" advisement instead of a closure order? just another example of those in authority thinking theyre supposed to babysit all of us.
Sorry, but it is usually the "us" in that statement who are the first to scream for help !!! There is no such order, even those who are willing to put themselves at such risk get rescued when needed !! Normally more often that those who listen!! I would agree that the situation should be examined thoroughly, however, the ones in authority are usually the ones that get slammed when things go south.
i am NOT the OP, thanks for your concern though.
Sarcasm the elf
09-11-2011, 17:24
and again, i am not violating, have not violated and do not intend to violate the closure order. We understand that you are not the OP, the discussion is being phrased in the context of the opening post. I can assure you that nothing I have said was meant to be taken personally.
Sorry, but it is usually the "us" in that statement who are the first to scream for help !!! There is no such order, even those who are willing to put themselves at such risk get rescued when needed !! Normally more often that those who listen!! I would agree that the situation should be examined thoroughly, however, the ones in authority are usually the ones that get slammed when things go south.
why is it unreasonable to refuse to rescue those have been notified that they wont be rescued and ignore the warning?
We understand that you are not the OP, the discussion is being phrased in the context of the opening post. I can assure you that nothing I have said was meant to be taken personally.
i wasnt necessarily directing that at you but i had started to suspect yesterday that a person or two thought i was the OP using a different name and at least 2 posts today flat out say that i might be. i've seen this sort of conspiracy theory nonsense here before. i can imagine how many PMs have been exchanged speculating in all sorts of wild ways about what is going on, especially given the coincidence of the similar thread a few weeks back where i also agreed with the OP who happened to also be a new member. it is nothing but a coincidence. i am not going around starting threads with new names so i can agree with myself.
swamprat
09-11-2011, 18:32
why is it unreasonable to refuse to rescue those have been notified that they wont be rescued and ignore the warning?
It would not be unreasonable for "you" to want to refuse to be rescued for ignoring the warning. However, to the rescuers, it would be unreasonable not to go to your aid. (which is good for you and I) You can't blame the authorities for airing on the side of caution. Liability and lawsuits have directed most decision making in todays society. But don't blame the authorities, it is usually because ignorance by a certain few has usually dictated that they do air on that side of caution. And it is usually those few that would be the first to scream foul even when they are the ones that ignored the warnings.
It would not be unreasonable for "you" to want to refuse to be rescued for ignoring the warning. However, to the rescuers, it would be unreasonable not to go to your aid. (which is good for you and I) You can't blame the authorities for airing on the side of caution. Liability and lawsuits have directed most decision making in todays society. But don't blame the authorities, it is usually because ignorance by a certain few has usually dictated that they do air on that side of caution. And it is usually those few that would be the first to scream foul even when they are the ones that ignored the warnings.
so if i was warned, ignored the warning, called for rescue and they refused to come, do you feel i'd be justified in suing?
most would say no, yet accept that people do this and claim we should change our ways to avoid it, which insures that things will never change and we will become progressively more and mroe afraid and cautious.
restless
09-11-2011, 19:30
Couple of issues I thought maybe I could address:
1) I would find it hard to believe that the GMNF would close the forest because of dangerous trees. Hazard trees exist up and down the AT, and to an even larger extent on lesser trails. Unless there is a potential threat to facilities or vehicles or if there are a substantial number of hazard trees in one area (the Limberlost Trail here in Shenandoah NP comes to mind), hazard trees are pretty much left to the will of nature. It is one of those risks that hikers take every time they walk into the woods.
2) The issue of the Forest Service being sued as it relates to failing to rescue an injured hiker seems to be a common topic at this point in this thread. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a successful litigation along these lines. There have been legal studies done by both Federal and non-profit agencies and there exists a doubt as to whether a lawsuit filed in these circumstance would even be brought to court. There is risk involved in hiking that the hiker assumes. If litIgation was filed for every incident, the government would go broke-after all how many people in a given year fall, slip, and break a bone or sustain some sort of injury due to a loose rock, a root sticking up above the tread, or some other situation where a trail maintainer could have been the cause?
3) The Forest Service as well as the Park Service have a responsibility to rescue an injured hiker. We may not like it, and it may be due to the idiotic choices made by the hiker, but we will either bring the hiker out alive or carry out a dead body. It is quite traumatic when a rescuer has to recover a body; not only to the rescuer but to all involved including the local authorities and those whose burden it is to notify the family. To state that you assume all liability is simply a non-sensical statement. Imagine simply sustaining a minor, non life threatening injury, such as a broken ankle. Without any rescue you could be out there for several days, slowly dying, without food and water. You might have to fend off attacks from animals which would take advantage of your condition. There would be some point, before death, that you would hope for rescue, death is not pretty. The last thing that at the point of death is that the bowels empty themselves. Not quite a honorable way to die or to be found.
There are, as I have stated before, good reasons that the GMNF closed the forest in its entirety. No, the trail may not be damaged, which is evident from the OP's findings. There are other reasons though, and the Forest Service does it to protect all involved including the users and the staff. The USFS is not obligated to bow to our demands that we be allowed to hike through a certain location. I hope the OP does report his findings. The FS would appreciate the info, and hopefully issue him the trespassing citation he so richly deserves.
the notion that i would slowly die in the woods over a broken ankle is, frankly, nonsensical. i hope i never find out but i feel my ability to crawl 10 or 15 miles to a road is up to the task.
Pedaling Fool
09-11-2011, 19:46
Couple of issues I thought maybe I could address:
1) I would find it hard to believe that the GMNF would close the forest because of dangerous trees. Hazard trees exist up and down the AT, and to an even larger extent on lesser trails. Unless there is a potential threat to facilities or vehicles or if there are a substantial number of hazard trees in one area (the Limberlost Trail here in Shenandoah NP comes to mind), hazard trees are pretty much left to the will of nature. It is one of those risks that hikers take every time they walk into the woods.
2) The issue of the Forest Service being sued as it relates to failing to rescue an injured hiker seems to be a common topic at this point in this thread. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a successful litigation along these lines. There have been legal studies done by both Federal and non-profit agencies and there exists a doubt as to whether a lawsuit filed in these circumstance would even be brought to court. There is risk involved in hiking that the hiker assumes. If litIgation was filed for every incident, the government would go broke-after all how many people in a given year fall, slip, and break a bone or sustain some sort of injury due to a loose rock, a root sticking up above the tread, or some other situation where a trail maintainer could have been the cause?
3) The Forest Service as well as the Park Service have a responsibility to rescue an injured hiker. We may not like it, and it may be due to the idiotic choices made by the hiker, but we will either bring the hiker out alive or carry out a dead body. It is quite traumatic when a rescuer has to recover a body; not only to the rescuer but to all involved including the local authorities and those whose burden it is to notify the family. To state that you assume all liability is simply a non-sensical statement. Imagine simply sustaining a minor, non life threatening injury, such as a broken ankle. Without any rescue you could be out there for several days, slowly dying, without food and water. You might have to fend off attacks from animals which would take advantage of your condition. There would be some point, before death, that you would hope for rescue, death is not pretty. The last thing that at the point of death is that the bowels empty themselves. Not quite a honorable way to die or to be found.
There are, as I have stated before, good reasons that the GMNF closed the forest in its entirety. No, the trail may not be damaged, which is evident from the OP's findings. There are other reasons though, and the Forest Service does it to protect all involved including the users and the staff. The USFS is not obligated to bow to our demands that we be allowed to hike through a certain location. I hope the OP does report his findings. The FS would appreciate the info, and hopefully issue him the trespassing citation he so richly deserves.
You make some good points restless, but then again legal issues is one of those topics I'm very stupid in, so maybe it just sounds good:D;).
Just curious, I know you work a lot in SNP. Have you ever heard of the feds getting sued from someone claiming to get sick from water in the outback?
3) The Forest Service as well as the Park Service have a responsibility to rescue an injured hiker. .
if this responsibility is not established by being legally bound (in other words able to be sued for failing the responsibility) then from where does this responsibility come?
if they truly are responsible, then they can be sued for failing. if they can not be (which you have essentially stated and with which i agree wholeheartedly) then they are in fact not responsible. you cant have it both ways.
swamprat
09-11-2011, 20:08
so if i was warned, ignored the warning, called for rescue and they refused to come, do you feel i'd be justified in suing?
NO !! I don't think you would be justified in suing. Furthermore, that brings me to my previous statement, they would come anyway. But you are naive to think that people will not sue over the stupidest of things. My point was this, you would be rescued no matter if you hiked at your own risk or not. There are many incidents where fools place themselves at risk everyday and end up needing to be rescued. That is why a few fools can mess up many things for everybody and that is why authorities air on the side of caution.
most would say no, yet accept that people do this and claim we should change our ways to avoid it, which insures that things will never change and we will become progressively more and mroe afraid and cautious.
Wow, that was deep!!
restless
09-11-2011, 20:55
You make some good points restless, but then again legal issues is one of those topics I'm very stupid in, so maybe it just sounds good:D;).
Just curious, I know you work a lot in SNP. Have you ever heard of the feds getting sued from someone claiming to get sick from water in the outback?
Nope. It's common knowledge that all backcountry sources of water should be either chemically treated, filtered or boiled. If a hiker chooses not to treat their water, it is one of those risks that they assume.
restless
09-11-2011, 21:04
if this responsibility is not established by being legally bound (in other words able to be sued for failing the responsibility) then from where does this responsibility come?
if they truly are responsible, then they can be sued for failing. if they can not be (which you have essentially stated and with which i agree wholeheartedly) then they are in fact not responsible. you cant have it both ways.
Part of our mission is as follows:
The profession has often been characterized as "help protect people from people, people from the natural resource and the natural resource from the people".
In rescuing people from adverse situations, we are protecting the natural resource which is our foremost duty. We may not be legally bound or we may not want to rescue the injured person, even if they don't want rescuing, but most rangers have a personality trait that people don't realize.
It's called compassion.
Part of our mission is as follows:
The profession has often been characterized as "help protect people from people, people from the natural resource and the natural resource from the people".
In rescuing people from adverse situations, we are protecting the natural resource which is our foremost duty. We may not be legally bound or we may not want to rescue the injured person, even if they don't want rescuing, but most rangers have a personality trait that people don't realize.
It's called compassion.
thats all well and good and highly commendable, dont get me wrong. but its not the same thing as responsibility. and is that really the reason why i cant hike in GMNF currently? because if someone got hurt the rescuers just couldnt bear the thought of not helping them? seems to be thats what youre saying boils down to.
there is such a thing as misplaced compassion, btw. all these needless rescues and people taking dumb risks, for instance. what if there was no SAR anywhere of any kind? would the number of people who do stupid things requiring rescue be as high? no, it would not. theres a down side to always being willing to selflessly bail people out. i am not advocating elimating all SAR, but why it cant be done intelligently with restraint and tough love when necessry and not just have a rescue anyone, anywhere, anytime mentality is something i'll never understand.
Nope. It's common knowledge that all backcountry sources of water should be either chemically treated, filtered or boiled. If a hiker chooses not to treat their water, it is one of those risks that they assume.
i dont know if it ever came anywhere near the level of a lawsuit, but i know in glacier NP at granite park chalet the issue of the quality of the water and whether they can tell people it is safe to drink or not is a large and ongoing issue. basically the people who work there do not treat the water (its filtered coming out of the ground at the pump) but are told by their bosses to tell the guests that it needs to be treated before drinking. so, for whatever reaosn in this case, it would seem they feel some liability is possible.
Alligator
09-12-2011, 00:28
Couple of issues I thought maybe I could address:
1) I would find it hard to believe that the GMNF would close the forest because of dangerous trees. Hazard trees exist up and down the AT, and to an even larger extent on lesser trails. Unless there is a potential threat to facilities or vehicles or if there are a substantial number of hazard trees in one area (the Limberlost Trail here in Shenandoah NP comes to mind), hazard trees are pretty much left to the will of nature. It is one of those risks that hikers take every time they walk into the woods.This came up more as a response to current hiker risks. Public safety and protection of property were cited as the closure factors. This is mentioned below by you, and I agree there is an overall public safety consideration not for just AT hikers nor even GMNF hikers for that matter.
I've seen different practices regarding hazard trees. The ATC publication Appalachian Trail Design, Construction and Maintenance mentions factors to consider for removing a hazard tree on page 140. Also page 101 states hazard trees will need to be removed around campsites. On the AT, I expect that hazard trees, as with other maintenance issues will have variable responses by club as well as by land designation (park, forest, wilderness, etc.).
2) The issue of the Forest Service being sued as it relates to failing to rescue an injured hiker seems to be a common topic at this point in this thread. To the best of my knowledge, there has never been a successful litigation along these lines. There have been legal studies done by both Federal and non-profit agencies and there exists a doubt as to whether a lawsuit filed in these circumstance would even be brought to court. There is risk involved in hiking that the hiker assumes. If litIgation was filed for every incident, the government would go broke-after all how many people in a given year fall, slip, and break a bone or sustain some sort of injury due to a loose rock, a root sticking up above the tread, or some other situation where a trail maintainer could have been the cause?
If the FS identified a hazard tree and then failed to remove it for some negiligent reason, perhaps failing to flag it as well, they might get sued successfully. Something grossly negligent. They got sued for failing to notifiy campers about a dangerous grizzly bear (http://www.heraldextra.com/news/local/crime-and-courts/article_47a6ff34-75e5-11e0-afff-001cc4c03286.html), $1.9 million. There may be an appeal, but the family has prevailed to date. Sued for flash flooding (http://www.todaysthv.com/news/article/170458/2/Lawsuit-filed-against-US-Forest-Service-over-deadly-Albert-Pike-flood) as well.
For the landowner, there is a duty to rescue and a duty to warn invitees (as opposed to licensees and trespassers). Probably all kinds of legal rulings and such that affect this. I would guess here that if a call came in and was ignored, a land manager could get sued. Again grossly negligent. Don't know if it has happened either but I agree with three. Emergency responders are going to head out because people get caught in emergencies, through bad luck at times. Normal people will want to be rescued. Stupid people doing stupid things are a bycatch:D.
3) The Forest Service as well as the Park Service have a responsibility to rescue an injured hiker. We may not like it, and it may be due to the idiotic choices made by the hiker, but we will either bring the hiker out alive or carry out a dead body. It is quite traumatic when a rescuer has to recover a body; not only to the rescuer but to all involved including the local authorities and those whose burden it is to notify the family. To state that you assume all liability is simply a non-sensical statement. Imagine simply sustaining a minor, non life threatening injury, such as a broken ankle. Without any rescue you could be out there for several days, slowly dying, without food and water. You might have to fend off attacks from animals which would take advantage of your condition. There would be some point, before death, that you would hope for rescue, death is not pretty. The last thing that at the point of death is that the bowels empty themselves. Not quite a honorable way to die or to be found.
There are, as I have stated before, good reasons that the GMNF closed the forest in its entirety. No, the trail may not be damaged, which is evident from the OP's findings. There are other reasons though, and the Forest Service does it to protect all involved including the users and the staff. The USFS is not obligated to bow to our demands that we be allowed to hike through a certain location. I hope the OP does report his findings. The FS would appreciate the info, and hopefully issue him the trespassing citation he so richly deserves.
why is it unreasonable to refuse to rescue those have been notified that they wont be rescued and ignore the warning?
Because, in our culture we don't leave anyone to die. It's unthinkable. Morally wrong.
Because, in our culture we don't leave anyone to die. It's unthinkable. Morally wrong.
clearly, doesnt exactly answer my question as it amounts to "just because."
i understand the notion and agree with it to a point, but i still think there has to be a line somewhere. in fact, there ARE lines somehwere. do you know what would likely happen to you (and has happened to people) who are injured beyond reasonable hope of survival while summiting everest? they are left right where they are. removing them is deemed too risky and costly to be bothered with. in at least 1 case ive read of this judgement was made of someone who was still alive. contrast that with here where 30 people go running out to rescue someone with a sprained ankle just because they dont want to walk themselves down the mountain in pain.
Pedaling Fool
09-12-2011, 10:00
clearly, doesnt exactly answer my question as it amounts to "just because."
i understand the notion and agree with it to a point, but i still think there has to be a line somewhere. in fact, there ARE lines somehwere. do you know what would likely happen to you (and has happened to people) who are injured beyond reasonable hope of survival while summiting everest? they are left right where they are. removing them is deemed too risky and costly to be bothered with. in at least 1 case ive read of this judgement was made of someone who was still alive. contrast that with here where 30 people go running out to rescue someone with a sprained ankle just because they dont want to walk themselves down the mountain in pain.
Yes there are "lines", but those lines are always changing, primary factor being technology. One day it will be "unthinkable" to not respond to people in distress in any place in the himalayas. On one hand I agree with you, I think if someone wants to put their life at risk it's no ones business. But that's not the real issue here. Unfortunately in our world today there are some things that you can't do just because you want to. It has nothing to do with a nanny-state, but I understand the similarities, but those are just on the surface. The real issue is law suits (best I can tell). I believe the bureaucrat wasn't intoxicated by their power (again benefit of doubt) but simply made a legal decision. That's just the down side of living in a large society.
How can we reverse this trend, short answer I don't know, but by people just hiking during these type of bans are more likely to just cause problems for rescue personnel.
4eyedbuzzard
09-12-2011, 10:13
clearly, doesnt exactly answer my question as it amounts to "just because."
i understand the notion and agree with it to a point, but i still think there has to be a line somewhere. in fact, there ARE lines somehwere. do you know what would likely happen to you (and has happened to people) who are injured beyond reasonable hope of survival while summiting everest? they are left right where they are. removing them is deemed too risky and costly to be bothered with. in at least 1 case ive read of this judgement was made of someone who was still alive. contrast that with here where 30 people go running out to rescue someone with a sprained ankle just because they dont want to walk themselves down the mountain in pain.
It ISa matter of just because though. You were born into and will very likely die within the context of this society / social contract with all of its social mores and ingrained ethical practices. You have little to no choice in the matter. For most of us, there exists a romantic illusion of freedom and control in our own lives, especially in the U.S., but that illusion is largely the product of idealism and fiction. Granted, there are cases where rescue is deemed too risky - high altitude mountaineering, some sea rescues, certain NBC incidents - but they are very rare and not anything that will ever be a consideration regarding the AT or any eastern mountains. Sometimes a rescue here is delayed a day or so due to weather, mostly from winter storms. But as soon as the risk is acceptable (and that doesn't mean conditions are good or still not with high risk) S&R is out and choppers are flying.
And you have zero choice in the matter. Just one of many things in life society has already decided it for you. It's just because. Honestly, get used to it. There just isn't a choice here.
clearly, doesnt exactly answer my question as it amounts to "just because."
i understand the notion and agree with it to a point, but i still think there has to be a line somewhere. in fact, there ARE lines somehwere. do you know what would likely happen to you (and has happened to people) who are injured beyond reasonable hope of survival while summiting everest? they are left right where they are. removing them is deemed too risky and costly to be bothered with. in at least 1 case ive read of this judgement was made of someone who was still alive. contrast that with here where 30 people go running out to rescue someone with a sprained ankle just because they dont want to walk themselves down the mountain in pain.
Everest is not our culture.
Yes there are "lines", but those lines are always changing, primary factor being technology. One day it will be "unthinkable" to not respond to people in distress in any place in the himalayas. On one hand I agree with you, I think if someone wants to put their life at risk it's no ones business. But that's not the real issue here. Unfortunately in our world today there are some things that you can't do just because you want to. It has nothing to do with a nanny-state, but I understand the similarities, but those are just on the surface. The real issue is law suits (best I can tell). I believe the bureaucrat wasn't intoxicated by their power (again benefit of doubt) but simply made a legal decision. That's just the down side of living in a large society.
How can we reverse this trend, short answer I don't know, but by people just hiking during these type of bans are more likely to just cause problems for rescue personnel.
in any argument of this sort, where it starts to boil down to "well, yeah i agree thats the way it should be, but society just isnt like that" i can never help but point out that society can be any way we want it to be. as you point out things do change and progress and they can just as easily swing back the other way if we so choose. or what is more likely to happen is that one day we just wont be able to afford the level of SAR we have now so it will cease to exist. what i fear though is that if the "if we cant rescue you you cant go in" mentality survives, the two together will mean things like GMNF being permanently closed.
It ISa matter of just because though. You were born into and will very likely die within the context of this society / social contract with all of its social mores and ingrained ethical practices. You have little to no choice in the matter. For most of us, there exists a romantic illusion of freedom and control in our own lives, especially in the U.S., but that illusion is largely the product of idealism and fiction. Granted, there are cases where rescue is deemed too risky - high altitude mountaineering, some sea rescues, certain NBC incidents - but they are very rare and not anything that will ever be a consideration regarding the AT or any eastern mountains. Sometimes a rescue here is delayed a day or so due to weather, mostly from winter storms. But as soon as the risk is acceptable (and that doesn't mean conditions are good or still not with high risk) S&R is out and choppers are flying.
And you have zero choice in the matter. Just one of many things in life society has already decided it for you. It's just because. Honestly, get used to it. There just isn't a choice here.
society/ the social contract can evolve and change. it is how we got here and we can get away from it just as easily. can i just unilaterally remove myself from it? no. but i can certainly discuss with others whether or not our current "social contract" makes any sense.
Everest is not our culture.
but it is a culture and if we think of culture in a sense other than that which is established geopolitically it is very much OUR culture.
but it is a culture and if we think of culture in a sense other than that which is established geopolitically it is very much OUR culture.
Chinese culture, beliefs and values are very different from ours. It's not geopolitical, it's primarily based on religion. As are our collective beliefs and values. Some of which were carved into stone, others codified into law, but very much entrenched in our psyches.
I bet you are a blast at a dinner party.
I can see both sides of this coin, but I side with the Feds on this one.
Easier to deal with matters at hand without distraction.
Chinese culture, beliefs and values are very different from ours. It's not geopolitical, it's primarily based on religion. As are our collective beliefs and values. Some of which were carved into stone, others codified into law, but very much entrenched in our psyches.
actually i would say the culture on everest is not chinese. if anything, its perhaps nepalese, but id say its largely a motley assortment of people from all over who have sort of created their own beast.
or, we could just say it is a general culture of the outdoors. it certainly is not traditional chinese culture, like the culture that exists in the rest of china. not by a longshot.
Blissful
09-12-2011, 12:18
Because, in our culture we don't leave anyone to die. It's unthinkable. Morally wrong.
Wish it was but we actually have. Many times. But that isn't for this forum or thread.
WingedMonkey
09-12-2011, 13:09
Because, in our culture we don't leave anyone to die. It's unthinkable. Morally wrong.
Unless we give them the death penalty. But that isn't for this forum or thread.
Pedaling Fool
09-12-2011, 13:20
Or abortion....:rolleyes:
Sarcasm the elf
09-12-2011, 13:40
Or abortion....:rolleyes:I think I can actually hear the thread being shut down :-)
If a thread crashes on WB will the Forest Service restrict access to it?
Alligator
09-12-2011, 14:22
Looking dead, all participants are hereby evacuated.