Recent comments

Anon:
Your comments are reality in the face. Death that stalks in beautiful places like Yosemite is to find your soul in the creation of dawn.

The eyewitness accounts of the man who fell to his death from the Half Dome cables (via the link) were truly chilling. A very tragic sight for his children to see. But as to what the NPS will (note I'm not saying should) do? That depends. If this man's family files a wrongful death lawsuit against the NPS and wins a substantial amount of money, the cables will be taken down permanently. Unlike the cliffs and waterfalls, the NPS puts up those cables each spring and since they aren't a natural feature of the park and since the NPS is responsible for them, the NPS is liable if the presence of the cables themselves created a dangerous situation. I'm not saying whether that's just or right or what should happen. I'm just saying that that is what will happen. The NPS strapped for cash as it is, won't want to have a line in the budget for million dollar verdicts for falls from the cables. The cables will go.

I'm having second thoughts about this hike, I have wanted to do for the past couple of years now. I belong to an online Zion group and read posts from people daily about Zion in general.

It was sad to read about this fatality. Then so much sadder to read a post a few days later by Mr Goldstein's sister as she happened upon this group in her struggle to understand how this happened to her brother as family watched in horror.

When you look at the climb itself, you know where you are getting into. My opinion, be your better judge and know your own limitations in combination with the local conditions. No matter how well you might keep people from doing things. When you say something is not allowed and there are no guards, usually that is what people are going to do, just because it is not allowed. And posting guards at every possible hazzardous place is no option in any park. I agree with Kath, post obvious and plain signs. A prewarned person might be double carefull.

Thanks, Kurt, for your generous coverage of the Apostle Islands National Lakeshore in Sunday and Monday’s posts. I’m pleased to say that Sunday the grand reopening of the Raspberry Island Light, which you pictured, went exceptionally well despite Lake Superior’s best efforts to make things difficult!

In your post about the National Parks of Lake Superior Foundation you raise, appropriately, the question of when does the intended “margin of excellence” actually become a replacement for necessary, but missing, operational funds? Both the board of the NPLSF and the 4 superintendents struggle with this because no matter how we define it, the things we can do with the grants the new organization provides simply wouldn’t happen without those funds. Should I, as the park superintendent spend the money on the most important unfunded needs, or should I only use if for “extras”? I think the fact that we talk about this and wrestle with this openly is actually a good sign, and I believe each of the parks has thus far found an appropriate balance point.

One thing that makes a real positive difference is that the board of the NPLSF has come to the park superintendents and said, in effect, “How can we help?” “What are the park’s priorities you’d like our assistance with?" We’ve just signed a formal agreement where all parties have agreed to abide by the ethical and fundraising rules established by law and NPS policy. I have no worry with this group that they’ll try to influence park priorities or park policies.

It’s true, as Larry Epke points out, that the NPLSF web site isn’t much more than a shell at this point. That’s reality with a start-up volunteer organization. I’m sure they’d welcome a talented volunteer to make it hum. (Contact me if need be!) I hope that nobody is discouraged from contributing due to the web site. If anyone can get Lake Superior Magazine, each issue for the last year has had an excellent full-page write-up on the group’s activities, thanks to the support of the publishers. Unfortunately, none of that is on line either.

Lastly, in answer to the question about national parks and national monuments: a national park must be established by an act of Congress. National monuments can be established by a stroke of the president’s pen. Usually, national parks are larger but not always. Both kinds of NPS areas are subject to the same laws and regulations.

Bob Krumenaker
Superintendent
Apostle Islands National Lakeshore

The park service can't station someone at the trail head to do 10 second physical fitness tests. It would leave the service really wide open to liability not only for falls but also for ADA violations. NPS Rangers aren't have no medical training to determine who is and who isn't fit enough to make the grade or to determine who is subject to dizziness or balance problems, etc. etc.

The only thing the NPS can or should do would be to put up extremely graphic simply worded warning signs or close the area entirely to hiking.

"3. Give the public an "inside view" of all the diverse professions working in the parks to preserve the "best" examples of natural and cultural history. Such information could help attract applicants for jobs in the parks."

What jobs?

Iam wondering what the differnce is between a "national park" and "national monumnet"?

Do you really need a "well regulated militia" in the National Parks? Is your right to self-defense denied because you cannot carry a firearm? Is that really your only means of defense?

I'll second the endorsement of Apostle Islands as an outstanding place to visit, but perhaps I'm biased: I spent 12 years at the park, retiring as Park Historian a couple of years ago.

One point I would add: though the lighthouse collection places the park among the "crown jewels" of NPS historic sites, there's a lot more to the archipelago's human heritage than the light stations alone: every single one of these wild and beautiful islands was someone's home or workplace at one time. The legacy of Native Americans, pioneer farmers and fishermen, fur traders and others can still be seen if you know where to look.

Just by chance, I posted an assortment of historical vignettes on my own web page a couple of days ago. If you're interested, just click on my signature below.

In a word..."Screw the Olympics"

They have become irrelevant and hypocritical...who cares about the olympics???

tom

The park should not allow anyone to go up Angel's Landing without the proper equipment (hiking boots, certain amount of water, etc.) There should be minimum standards set and met before going up. A park ranger should approve the ascent at a checkpoint after meeting such requirements. They should at least post a sign stating the equipment needed to make the climb and a picture of the shoes, etc. with a "X" marked through it.

I read where a parent took a 1 year up on his back. That should be outlawed and a person fined for endangering a minor. Really, no children under 16 should be allowed up. If they can't legally drive a car by themselves prior to that age, they most certainly have no business climbing something this dangerous. Why should we have laws and restrictions for Angel's Landing? To save people from their own arrogance and stupidity.

It's a shame people feel they need a thrill or adrenaline rush to "live life".

If you are planning to climb this landing in the future; make sure you have life insurance, your family may need it.