What should the National Park Service do, if anything, with Angel's Landing in Zion National Park?
This question arises every time there's a fatality, and rightly so. The recent death of Barry Goldstein has rekindled the debate, with at least one reader believing the Park Service should, in essence, certify the ability of hikers determined to reach the landing.
Is that reasonable? Does the Park Service have the manpower to station someone at the base of the landing to bear that responsibility? Would it not merely heighten the Park Service's liability for those who are deemed experienced enough to make the hike to the top?
And if the Park Service agreed to such a proposition, which I doubt will ever happen, what of other parks and the risks they present? How do you guard against canoeists, kayakers and rafters drowning while on park outings? What about those who are swept away by avalanches, who are attacked by grizzlies, die from the heat at the bottom of the Grand Canyon, or fall from Half Dome in Yosemite?
What responsibility does the Park Service have to try to prevent these accidents? Just as important, if not more so, what responsibility do individuals bear?
We live in a dangerous world, one where we have to recognize not only the dangers that exist, but our own limits. And those who visit national parks need to appreciate that these are not city parks, not well-manicured and contained. National parks present a host of dangers, ranging from cliffs and rivers to wildlife and even other park visitors.
This is not intended to belittle or minimize the loss felt by Mr. Goldstein's family and friends, or the families and friends of other victims of national park accidents. It's not to question their actions, capabilities, or decision-making. The pain of their untimely deaths cannot be soothed, there is no salve that can erase it.
Rather, this post is simply to acknowledge that there are dangers that exist, both in national parks and beyond their borders, throughout the world we live in, and that we need to accept both the responsibility of our decisions and that accidents do happen.
Might those who fell from Angel's Landing over the years been saved had they had to meet specific qualifications to ascend to the summit or if the Park Service put railings atop the landing to keep hikers a safe distance from the edge? Perhaps. But incredibly qualified climbers have died in accidents in the parks, and folks have clambered over railings, trusting their own judgments, only to die in accidents.
Beyond that, do we really want to sanitize the parks?
I don't think I'm alone in believing that a good part of the allure of places such as Zion, Yellowstone, Yosemite, North Cascades, Mount Rainier and Grand Teton, just to name a half-dozen parks, is their ruggedness, their wildness, of entering them on our own terms and seeing how we match up.
It scared the hell out of me the first time I went up Angel's Landing, when I climbed to the top of the Grand Teton, and to the summit of Half Dome. That adrenalin rush not only heightened my cautiousness, but it also let me know how alive I was. When my time does arrive, I hope it comes in a national park and not while driving down the highway or crossing the street.
Comments
The 2008 summer map and guide for Zion National Park says on Angels's Landing: "Strenuous, 5 miles/4 hours round trip,
climbs 1,488 feet. Warning! Steep Cliffs. Not for anyone fearful of heights."
I think that sums it up quite well. After you've read this description, it is your responsibility to decide if this is a trip for you and your family. I've seen kids age 5 that were able to do things like that. And there are people in their 20s, who haven't seen mountains, not to mention sheer rock, before and should not even think about it. The NPS is not your nanny. Think for yourself.
Congratulation to all four of you. Your husband gave your kids a tremendous experience, they can cherish for a lifetime. And if you decided not to go beyond Scott's Landing, that was probably the right decision for you. But please don't expect the government to make that decision for you or any other visitor.
Disclosure: Been there, done that. I climbed Angel's Landing many years ago, age 22, when I was an experienced hiker and climber for a number of years.
My husband and son are in Zion NP as I write this post. Yesterday the group of boy scouts ranging from 13-17 yrs old hiked Angels Landing. I was terrified all day knowing that they would be ascending upon this hike. Somehow, somewhere my husband got cell service and called me to let me know that my son who is almost 14 and in great physical condition, as is my husband, decided upon arriving to scout landing that he would go no further. I applaud his ability to be aware of his own unsuredness about the hike and not continue on because everyone else was doing it! So he, one other scout and my husband headed back down the path. Bravo to those who are in touch with their inner voice that tells them to do or not to do!
The Naitonal Park Service frequently does "visual inspections" for certain Ranger programs. So it can be done.
Human life is precious. If cost-effective steps can be taken to reduce the loss of human life, then they should be taken. Period. The National Park Service is already involved by virtue of building, maintaining, and advertising the trail to Angel's Landing. Thus, the National Park Service has the responsibility to minimize the loss of human life in any cost-effective way possible.
Sabattis, you've said that
To "cost-effective" I would add, at a minimum, "ecologically responsible" and perhaps "esthetically acceptable."
It isn't the responsibility of the Park Service to ensure your safety. Sanitizing the trails is a poor alternative. The loss of human life, while tragic, isn't the fault of the parks, it is solely the responsibility of those who undertake the trek to various points of interest in the NPS, who then discover too late their vertigo or other associated conditions they might not have even known existed. The parks are to blame for people's fears, lack of skills, over-estimating their ability, under-estimating the terrain, and not taking proper precautions and making proper preparations? You can install all the safety chains you want, carve steps into the sandstone, place enough warning signs to scare off a mountain goat and it will have no effect on the human animal and their inborn bravado. How do you plan on taking "cost effective" or for that matter "ecologically responsible" and perhaps "esthetically acceptable" steps to ensure that some idiot isn't going to attempt a running ascent or worse, descent, in flip-flops or sandals? What measures will guard against the fools who start a July climb at 11:00a with no water, figuring, as I have heard commented on the West Rim Trail that "it'll only be a couple of hours, we'll be alright".
The trail itself is highly manageable without any modifications, unless of course you're intention is to make EVERY trail in the system wheelchair accessible. Go to your local congressman and see how quickly that appeal falls on deaf ears, since they would have to provide the funding. On the other hand, get the hell out of Iraq, spend $100B annually on the parks service and all God's chillins are happy. The point is that currently, to scale this peak, like Half Dome, takes no specialized gear or experience. This isn't like entering the Subway. Unless you plan on stringing safety nets along EVERY cliff in the NPS you cannot possibly hope to be ABSOLUTELY certain that there is never a cost to be paid in terms of human life. Whatever happened to personal accountability? Why are we always seeking to place blame for our failures everywhere but where they belong? Life ain't no video game. You start with one life and there aren't any opportunities to refill your health or pick up any bonus lives. And yet a certain segment of our populace calls us the most advanced species, when we whine and cry about the lack of safety in nature? Instead of sanitizing, try thinking first. It'll save a lot more lives than ANY safety gear you can imagine. It's simply the most cost-effective safety device we have. Sorry, it requires effort on your part, which puts it above the reach on most I guess. Pity.
That's an interesting question, Bob. Let me rephrase your question: if the National Park Service estimates that a given safety improvement reduces, on average, one fatality per year, but causes a reduction in the aesthetics of a place - should it be opposed or supported? I guess maybe it depends on how much of a change to the aesthetics, to which my response would be that "cost-effective" should include ecological and aesthetic costs as well.....
There used to be a trail up to the summit of lady mountain in zion. In fact it was one of the first in Zion, it was similar to the angels landing trail with installed chains/railings to help people through the scary/difficult sections. However the numerous deaths that occurred from falling, prompted them to remove all the chains and official signage from the trail. You however can still "hike" lady mountain, you just need to be competent at exposed scrambling, and know how to use a rope for the few short technical climbing sections. The NPS will never "close" any trail, however they might remove all the hardware they installed on it. Angels landing can be ascended without the chains/railings by people who have adequate hiking experience. You wouldn't see out of shape parents with children trying to hike the route without the chains. If the hike is worth it, then one can gain the experience necessary to safely obtain the summit.
This was my second time hiking to Angels Landing with my 9yoa son. I did it when wife was pregnant and waiting down at the parking lot. I ran it when I was 30yoa. I wanted my son to enjoy the experience. He loved it and wanted to do it again. We found it to be more scary by the web-postings than in reality. You need to take your time and concentrate. I feel that if you are in moderate shape you can do this hike.