Out of an abundance of caution


Hikers who refuse to provide a planned advance itinerary during times of decreased park use or increased adverse weather conditions and insist on traveling without a companion, are officially banned from national park entry.  The expense of searching for missing/injured hikers is too great to justify the extremely low odds of finding them alive 24-48 hours beyond a reasonable return time.

If the government can shut down an particular model of transportation based on the inexplicable loss of 189 + 157 individuals in a 12-month span, it sure as hell should do the same when, on average, 160 individuals routinely go missing in U.S. national parks year after year after year.

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Johanna writes

The Estes Park Economic Development Corporation (EPEDC) is patting itself on the back because "the award for 'Small Community of  the Year' was presented" to them by the Economic Development Council of Colorado (EDCC) "on behalf of a town that sets its sights on building a more resilient, inclusive, and vibrant community and economy after recovering from the devastating Colorado floods in 2013." How has the following economic development been beneficial to Estes Park? The Estes Park Event Center, completed in spring 2014, has not brought all the big events expected from outside of our community.  It is not profitable. The Estes Park Medical Center (i.e., Park Hospital District) did not have the money to build the EPMC/Anschutz Wellness Training Center within the two years specific in the "Contract for Sale of Lot 4" to John Cullen, owner of the Stanley Hotel (i.e., Grand Heritage Hotel Group, LLC).  Since the money was not raised, according ...
Read more

I'm always fascinated by the question of why Marie Cenac entered local politics

Image
Trustee Cenac is very anti-government involvement in constituents' problems, which is interesting, since she takes up one of the precious six seats on the town board, which is ostensibly a local government entity, organized to protect and serve the local taxpayers. If you go back through any noise ordinance discussion over the past six years, you will find, without fail, when she buzzes in to talk (and she never feels uncompelled to share this laissez faire opinion), that she constantly and consistently lectures the audience on where they choose to live determining whether they have any right to complain. This is known as victim blaming - If you are raped, it is because of the way you dress, if your business is vandalized by a customer bent on destruction, it is because your windows aren't strong enough to withstand getting hit with a large rock, and, God forbid, if you can't tolerate 14 straight hours of 100+ decibel noise, it is because your ears are pansies and you pic...
Read more

Countdown to the apology

Image
I'm guessing we'll hear some real remorse coming out of the mouths of our town trustees and town adminstrator(s) and town staff in about 10 nevers. Who runs this town? The answer at the top of the organizational chart is "a few old white guys, some of whom are probably verging on dementia, plus the big talking mounthful in charge of the Transportation Advisory Board". But, hee-hee, ha-ha, it's all funny when you waste millions of taxpayers dollars and look good doing it, right, Kirby? Trustees, town administrator, town staff, town newspaper of record, town citizens: Next Tuesday, a group of concerned citizens is going to congregate outside the town hall at 7:00 p.m., and wail and moan and blow whistles and light firecrackers and carry on loudly, knowing that the town has no enforceable noise ordinance and doesn't see continuous uninterrupted noise of 90 decibels or higher as something that could be monitored, enforced, or controlled. We are quite awar...
Read more