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
I did Angel's Landing two days ago, I will have to say that there were a couple of spots that were treacherous, and for the most part, I didn't need the chains, but then I knew what I was getting into before I traveled there. I have to agree that you are responsible for your own actions, and the NPS is not your baby sitter. This is not the place to goof off, as I saw several people do. We have to keep treasured places like these here for generations to come, and to do that we have to be responsible! If there has only been 5 deaths in 100 years, why is this even an issue? On Mount Rainier there have been more than that in a years time and still people by the thousands climb this volcano every year. We cannot place the blame on the NPS for the bad actions of those who find out later that they have vertigo, goof off at the ledge for whatever reason, or are not in proper condition or have enough experience. There are sheer cliffs on both sides of this fin, and this is a strenuous hike, and that is all you need to know. The decision then is up to the individual doing the hike. That is your responsibility, the NPS is not forcing you to do this!
Well Said, Christina!
I think this is really a call on personal judgement more than anything else. When you get to Scout's Lookout, you can see the trail required to make it to Angel's Landing. You can see the chains and the cliffs and the narrow pathway. Even if the sign at the bottom doesn't give a real clue as to how dangerous this trail can be, your eyes and common sense should be a good detector.
The thing people like about NPs is that they don't babysit you every step of the way. They require self-determination and intelligence to navigate.
Angel's Landing [as I said before] is a personal judgement call. You see the risks before you take it and you have the FREE WILL to decide whether or not to take it at all.
I hiked Angel's Landing because I trusted myself to be smart and careful. My father, on the other hand, took one look and decided his responsibility to his family was more important than the risk.
Only you know your limits.
My boyfriend and I were at Zion on May 24. He had wanted to do the Angel's Landing hike since we first started planning and I did not. I planned all along not to go further than Scout's Landing and waited there while he went to the top. While I am not particularly afraid of heights (being on the cliff edge didn't bother me) I am not very sure-footed and could really envision myself slipping. Also, it was Memorial Day weekend and there was a tremendous number of people all over those chains. However, when we got most of the way back down the trail and looked back, I had the most awful sense of failure that I hadn't completed the hike. It seems I did all the drudgery of climbing so high for nothing. It has been really hard for me to let go of this and I feel the only way to fix it is to go back and do it. But I can't say I really want to. It's quite a dilemma.
Not a comment on whether or not NPS should do anything, I know.
I completed this hike May 2008 with my husband. I sat down to contemplate the last leg and decided when there was an opening (very busy - midday) I would go for it. At 47 I felt I hadn't challenged myself enough through life, though thoughts of being away from my grown up children and taking risks did come into play. Head down, concentrating on my feet, I/we got there, and there were simply no words for what I felt over the next hour whilst I sat atop Angel's Landing, looking down the valley floor. It was heavenly, made a million times stronger by the fact that I had conquered a fear - a fear of the unknown. Risk taking is individual, dependent on many things, of which no National Park Service can be, or should be responsible. You take a risk the minute you sit in your car without hesitation, that risk is far greater than falling from a trail, difficult/strenuous or not. Sure footing, common sense, a reasonable amount of physical ability and courage will get you to the top of Angel's Landing, and when you arrive you will burst with pride and a sense of deep satisfaction and ponder how we came to be so priviliged to witness such beautiful sights. I am from the UK, I adore Zion with an impossible to describe passion - it gets under your skin, deep in your head and leaves you never really leaving the place behind.
im 14 and my parents decided to chicken out at the last stop. i had never understood what don't look down meant until now. i also realized that life is to precious to waste and if you have even a slim thought of doubt, don't risk it. when i reached up to the point i turned back, it made me realize how much i have to live for.
I've done A.L. many times, and I want to add to some of the above comments. The texture of the hike changes drastically depending on conditions. I've been there in February when glaze ice made the trail technical and dangerous and I didn't dare go past Scout's landing. I've been there alone on blustery days when it felt intimidating and the knife edge was frightening. I've been there on sunny beautiful days when there was a picnic-like stream of hikers of all shape (including the proverbial tofu-shaped person in flip-flops) and it seemed like a walk in the park. Folks who have done it once or twice should consider the weather and "mood" of the day they were there, as it does color their memories quite a bit.
I agree that there is risk here, but there is risk anyplace that a trail approaches an exposed cliff. A.L. merely has the distinction that there is a continuous run of exposure on both sides. The few deaths over the many years it has been open attest to the fact that it really isn't that dangerous -- certainly far less dangerous than the drive to Zion. The chain is probably a good thing to have -- but it is definitely overused by the "white-knuckled" hikers. For smaller hikers (kids), it is considerably more support than for adults, and the presence of the chain made me much happier when I took my son up in his early teens. Adults who feel that they absolutely cannot do the hike without the chain probably shouldn't be on it at all.
I hold with the group that thinks that nothing "should be done" about A.L. The park service already has pretty serious warnings, and the view from Scout's landing is sufficient to turn many others away before they get into trouble.
I hiked Angels Landing back in the late 80's when I was in my 20's. I was and still am pretty fit and a reacreational hiker. I had no idea exactly how dangerous this hike was. I made it to the top. I was not proud or filled with wonder at the view. I sort of felt how you do after you almost get into a car accident, once the adrenaline stops. I think many hikers do not know what this hike is all about. I watched in astonishment as a man hiking before us had a baby in a backpack on his back during this hike. Talk about irresponsible. Anyway, I hope my son chooses not to hike this trail and I will not do it again. The payoff is simply not good enough to risk your life. My view from my deck is more majestic than that.