You are here

Should Anything Be Done With Angel's Landing?

Share
Summit of Angel's Landing, Daniel Smith Photographer
Angels Landing Trail in Zion National Park; Daniel Smith, photographer.

    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.

Featured Article

Comments

Of the 50 or so hikers who we encountered on the trail I can think of only a handful who belonged on that trail. We saw people in flip-flops, hiking w/o water, and even a gaggle of 12 year olds who were too stupid to be scared.......

I think there's a very simple solution. Close the trail as a "regular" hike and reclassify it as backcountry. You then have to go to the backcountry desk, get a permit (can be free of course), and made aware of what you're getting yourself in to. Just by having a 2 minute conversation with a Ranger I think a few morons would be saved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I couldn't agree more with this post. Angel's Landing is far too accessible to the general public because of the ease of the trail to Scout's Landing. It allows people to get to that point wearing nothing but flip flops, then find themselves on a much more precarious trail but because so many people are around, they dare not turn back lest they be labeled "chicken". There's a psychological bravado factor always present in large groups that pressures people to go along with the herd. Many people who wouldn't otherwise make the hike do, ill prepared or not.

To illustrate, I was talking to a couple of hikers the day I decided not to make the hike beyond Scout's landing because a bus tour of at least 50 french woman had just hiked by (yes, all women, strange as it sounds). I knew there must be at least 100 people up there by then and it was only 8am! When I explained to the couple why I changed my mind, without batting an eyelash the man said "So you were afraid!?" (obviously looking for re-assurance for his own "cowardice"). I just rolled my eyes and left.

Sure, keep things the same and you will continue to have several deaths every season. I also find their published statistics very suspect since there has been another death since this article appeared (I'm writing in response to a woman who died several weeks later than the man named. Maybe she tripped and fell off because there was standing room only up there?).


We hiked Angels Landing on August 10th 2009 the day after a woman fell - our condolences to the family, they must be devastated. (We didn't know about this until after we came down.) This is an absolutely beautiful and exciting hike, but you have to be aware that you are risking death in choosing to do it. We went on this hike as a family, my husband and I (both age 41), a son (age 15) and a daughter (age 13). We have all done other "non-technical climbs". What was scary was that a man in front of us tripped, while trying to take a photo and caught himself 6 inches from the edge. Later we found out about the woman who had died the day before. I would not recommend this unless you also have experience with non-technical climbs, are wearing good shoes, and I think my daughter (age 13) was a bit young for it. Certainly don't take small children with you.

I don't think Zion National Park accurately explains the risk in describing the hike. One ranger in the visitors center described it to me as "very safe". I think perhaps some more photos and/or a more explicit warning might be useful. However, the trail should not be closed. It is a beautiful trail.

Let me compare it to some other hikes in the "rock scramble", "non-technincal climb" category that we've done prior to this one. We live in the Northeast, so the prior hikes we have done in this category are: Breakneck Ridge (NY), Kaaterskill Falls - upper falls (NY), Precipice (Acadia, Maine), Beehive (Acadia, Maine), Caps Ridge Trail (Jefferson Mountain, NH). Only Precipice comes close and is not as dangerous.

Why is this hike more dangerous than the above hikes:
1. Unlike the above hikes, where drops range from 60 to 300 ft and sometimes there is a lower ledge, these drops are 800-1200 ft and therefore there is no chance of surviving a fall.
2. For this hike the "dangerous section" is .4 miles and then you have to return on the same path, so for .8 miles you are always within 1-3 steps from the edge. On most of the above hikes the part in which you are close to the the edge is only a short section.
3. Since there is no "loop", you are passing people going both ways on the same trail. In general people wait in a part without chains and then go forward when the other group passes, but not always. At one point I was decending with my 13 yr old daughter and some people came up a section and we had to pass around them - scary.
4. Cliffs are on both sides, not sure this is more dangerous - just tends to freak a person out more than having a cliff on one side.
5. There is sand present. In the hollow areas, there is a lot of sand. I recommend before going across one of the rock areas, that you "stomp your feet" and make sure to lose the sand so you don't slip.
6. Again, of the above climbs only Precipice (Acadia) is similar to this one. However, if I remember correctly, in Precipice you are usually walking on flat rock (1-2 ft wide) along a sheer face or climbing up iron rungs. On Angels Landing, the rock you are on has a slant down in the direction of the cliff (you need shoes with good traction) or you are scrambling up a section of rock and if you were to fall off of that section the sheer drop would be right behind you. You definitely don't have room for error.

What is nice about this hike:
1. Absolutely beautiful.
2. Exhilerating.
3. Bragging rights.

Not sure if we would do this hike again, or perhaps next time without the kids.


I hiked angels landing twice as a child and then again this last March, 2009 at 33. As I opted out of the last chained and riskier portion at the end of the peak this last time around I felt empowered because as a child I remember it being such a scary experience. Seeing it now, I am resentful that adults hadn't been more responsible for me as a child who didn't have the ability to really judge risk like that reasonably. As I watched a child that looked to be about 7 years old descend the chains crying this last March I was angered that parents were taking these kind of risks with their children's lives. The risk for this trail is documented and yet people are allowed to take risks with their children's lives here everyday. I wish there were a large warning sign posted at the top section at the base of the chains declaring the risk and suggesting that young children shouldn't attempt the climb. Children should be given appropriate warnings so that they can opt out as they wish. Children who decide to proceed after receiving the risk information should only do so with a responsible adult who has carefully assessed conditions and uses rope safeties and careful instruction. Ounce of prevention. Worth a life.


Just returned from a wonderful hike up AL. I've heard about all the warning sings, the accidents, crowds in the summer, howling wind. I brought lots of water, good shoes, light gear for the final ascent, and a buddy. I could see how people are getting unruly during the busy summer season, as I've heard stories of people shoving and pushing to get in front of people. Personally, one of the tougher part of the whole hike is to conserve energy to reach Scout's point. The chains are nice for balancing, but it could provide a false sense of security for some, or even dangerous if someone's swinging it when you actually do need to grab it! The most tricky part for me was actually the first 500 yards or so, as the rocks are slanted, and you need to find a good footing to continue. Once you've begun your actual ascend, the trail is quite clearly marked. Also, the ever changing wind is a concern for some. That's why i hiked with only what I need, so I can carry a lighter, less profile daypack. The most windy spot is on the 2nd part of the ascend, halfway to the final summit, and once you've reached the summit, it's nothing but calm wind, since there's much less pressure differential up top from the canyon draft.

I think if there's anything NPS can do anything about it, is to require all AL hikers watch a 10 minutes video to summarize all the warnings, and also some common sense rules for some of the inexperienced hikers. (Another place that came to mind was Ha'nauma bay natural reserve in Honolulu. You watch a beautifully done 10 min. video explaining what to do, what not to do when you snorkel)


I am a foreigner. I come from France. I am 56 years old. I play basket ball all along the year in Championship for old people. So I know the efforts.
I reached the summit in August 2009. There are enough warnings (with photos and comments) on Internet sites and within Zion park to evaluate the risk.
To my opinion, my advices are the following:
Start early in the morning to avoid high temperatures,
Try to hike in a group because sometimes the trail is not clear. So it is useful to get the first place then to switch when you get tired.
Keep some strength for the return. It's always more difficult to go down than to climb.

But once you succeeded, anybody said "We did it". That's a wonderful experience.


Just went up AL - phenomenal experience. That said, "K" is precisely right - any parent that takes a child up to AL needs to have their head examined. Whatever an ADULT does is fine. But to take a child to AL ????? I am sorry, you are a bad parent and/or an IDIOT !!! I am an experienced hiker and that is NO PLACE FOR CHILDREN. If you are deluded enough to believe that you are developing some type of inner confidence in your child ... there are many ways to do that without putting their lives at risk. Why not give your kid a fifth of liquor and the car keys - same decision.


Just went up AL - phenomenal experience. That said, "K" is precisely right - any parent that takes a child up to AL needs to have their head examined. Whatever an ADULT does is fine. But to take a child to AL ????? I am sorry, you are a bad parent and/or an IDIOT !!! I am an experienced climber and that is NO PLACE FOR CHILDREN.


After reading this entire column, I have to wonder how much more dangerous the drive to and from Zion is then this climb?

People risk the lives of their children without a single thought by loading them into a car to take them to National Parks all across the USA yet they complain about people taking children on this hike.

I have yet to take this hike but after looking at the photos, I feel that I have missed something.

I hope to take this hike this summer or the next and my wife will be with me all the way.

Yes, we know our limits but looking at ALL the photos, reading ALL these logs and other web pages, we see no problem unless it is with the weather on the day we attempt the hike. We have actually hiked in a lot of "unknown" locations that look a lot worse then this hike.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.