Uh oh (Metlakatla: living in, price, lawsuits)

[demtion35]

Chris was brave enough to live the life he chose. He had the courage to express himself, go where he wanted, he lived his life. And he was smart enough to realize when it was time for him to leave the bus. The river is what stopped him. He had no choice then.

Hunters and hikers used that bus for years. Chris got there no problems. There had to have been a road of sorts to that spot at some point.

Adventure seekers climb mountains, some die. Some enter in the wild and return, others do not. If folks want to hike out to where that bus was, let them. What is the big deal?

How many hikers each year get lost in that park? https://www.nps.gov/dena/learn/news/...ar-6-23-11.htm
Maybe they should put up a plaque in the spot where the bus was.

As for restoring the bus? Look at plenty of places all over the country that have restored old railroad trains. All volunteer labor, over the course of years. Lots of donated time and costs. I think it is grand that they restore the bus. But do not paint it, leave it how it was. Build a roof over it, and let folks pass by it and stay safe. If you see the bus restored to brand new, no one really wants to see that bus brand new. Leave it how it was. That is what people want to see.

[RayinAK]

The National Guard should put a plaque at the location the two hikers were found. After all, they had courage to express themselves. The two hikers above had already told their friends their travel route, so at least somebody had some ideas about it. What Alaska should do is to Charge Washington State for rescuing the two young ladies.

That said, when one decides to abandon friends and family to live "with nature" as McCandless did, one should at least be prepared. Part of the preparation is to know the exact locations of shelters, river passes and access points, how to preserve fruits and meats, how to trap or hunt small and large animals , which plants are eatable, and on and on. Watch the shows about surviving in the wilderness of Canada and Alaska where the person surviving the longest is the winner. All the participants are highly prepared, but some can't take living in isolation a week or two later. They have a way out in case of emergency, since they are in contact with the crew (medics, and so on) each can call via sat. radios.

[Parnassia]

Originally Posted by demtion35

Adventure seekers climb mountains, some die. Some enter in the wild and return, others do not. If folks want to hike out to where that bus was, let them. What is the big deal?

How many hikers each year get lost in that park? https://www.nps.gov/dena/learn/news/...ar-6-23-11.htm
Maybe they should put up a plaque in the spot where the bus was.

Landowners/managers do potentially incur some liability for not mitigating a well known life threatening attractive nuisance. They can inform, discourage, re-route, or block access so the more rational public won't try to get there. A few idiotic daredevils try anyway, and someone dies. Can you say lawsuit? The case may (and should IMHO) get thrown out of court eventually, but the land manager still has to spend taxpayer $ to defend themselves. Taxpayer $ that should end up somewhere other than a lawyer's pocket.

Of course, the bus site is a little different than some coveted destination like a remote wilderness mountain, deep cavern, some unique natural wonder. Can't move the natural wonder somewhere safer. Sure, people do get into trouble in the wild and the majority understand they go there at their own risk. All the landowner can do is make sure they know the risks, prepare them with information that lessens some of the risks, or discourage those who have no business even trying. In spite of all that, people will try and pay the price anyway.

It can be a very difficult balance to strike. There's a broad spectrum of public expectation. Allowing people to experience the thrill, adventure, hazards, even fear they yearn for but trying at the same time to keep them somewhat safe. Even putting up a sign directing hikers to a safer trail, conducting ranger patrols of some areas versus others, deciding whether to build a river ford or not, can create a management uproar. Purists will resent the manipulation. If a safer trail to a risky destination was built and someone dies, believe me, a lawyer representing their grieving family can make the case that the agency knew the destination was dangerous...and condoned it. That they even encouraged people to attempt to reach it by building the darned safer trail! There are people who will try to pin blame anywhere they can. Having worked for land management agencies of such places I can tell you sometimes families do attempt to get satisfaction when a relative dies there. Nobody wants anyone to die...even if they think the person was being stupid.

As for the bus, something could be done to mitigate the attractive nuisance...so it was. Putting up a plaque at the site wouldn't really accomplish anything. It would still remain an attraction...just in a different shape. There would still be people who need the "I was there" memorial selfie. They'd just be standing in front of a boulder or panel of metal, not the rusted out hulk of a bus.

Big deal? It IS a very big deal to the relatives of folks who died trying to get there. They probably aren't brushing off those deaths as blithely as you are. Wouldn't surprise me if some private fundraising or grant matching has been established by some of them so other families won't face the same tragedy. Most savvy people realize that a few will keep trying because they feel it's important to honor McCandless's personal journey in its entirety, not even to deviate to that safer river ford. There are lots of folks who would still like to visit some sort of shrine to show respect for the book's author, but know they aren't prepared to deal with a glacial river. Who knows; that safer destination will probably provide some valuable teachable moments...what NOT to do with your life.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Parnassia

Landowners/managers do potentially incur some liability for not mitigating a well known life threatening attractive nuisance. They can inform, discourage, re-route, or block access so the more rational public won't try to get there. A few idiotic daredevils try anyway, and someone dies. Can you say lawsuit? The case may (and should IMHO) get thrown out of court eventually, but the land manager still has to spend taxpayer $ to defend themselves. Taxpayer $ that should end up somewhere other than a lawyer's pocket.

Of course, the bus site is a little different than some coveted destination like a remote wilderness mountain, deep cavern, some unique natural wonder. Can't move the natural wonder somewhere safer. Sure, people do get into trouble in the wild and the majority understand they go there at their own risk. All the landowner can do is make sure they know the risks, prepare them with information that lessens some of the risks, or discourage those who have no business even trying. In spite of all that, people will try and pay the price anyway.

It can be a very difficult balance to strike. There's a broad spectrum of public expectation. Allowing people to experience the thrill, adventure, hazards, even fear they yearn for but trying at the same time to keep them somewhat safe. Even putting up a sign directing hikers to a safer trail, conducting ranger patrols of some areas versus others, deciding whether to build a river ford or not, can create a management uproar. Purists will resent the manipulation. If a safer trail to a risky destination was built and someone dies, believe me, a lawyer representing their grieving family can make the case that the agency knew the destination was dangerous...and condoned it. That they even encouraged people to attempt to reach it by building the darned safer trail! There are people who will try to pin blame anywhere they can. Having worked for land management agencies of such places I can tell you sometimes families do attempt to get satisfaction when a relative dies there. Nobody wants anyone to die...even if they think the person was being stupid.

As for the bus, something could be done to mitigate the attractive nuisance...so it was. Putting up a plaque at the site wouldn't really accomplish anything. It would still remain an attraction...just in a different shape. There would still be people who need the "I was there" memorial selfie. They'd just be standing in front of a boulder or panel of metal, not the rusted out hulk of a bus.

Big deal? It IS a very big deal to the relatives of folks who died trying to get there. They probably aren't brushing off those deaths as blithely as you are. Wouldn't surprise me if some private fundraising or grant matching has been established by some of them so other families won't face the same tragedy. Most savvy people realize that a few will keep trying because they feel it's important to honor McCandless's journey in its entirety, not even to deviate to that safer river ford. There are lots of folks who would still like to visit some sort of shrine to show respect for the book's author, but know they aren't prepared to deal with a glacial river. Why not provide them the opportunity?

Good points, and I don't disagree with you.

But hiking or living in the wilderness of Alaska requires preparation. One should be prepared to go in, and to come out of there. There are people who sympathize with Timothy Treadwell too, but what stops them from living with the bears is "fear".

[Parnassia]

Originally Posted by RayinAK

There are people who sympathize with Timothy Treadwell too, but what stops them from living with the bears is "fear".

Oh man, don't get me started on that fiasco!!!! Sadly, that particular loon wasn't the only one who paid the ultimate price...

[Music_Man]

So I guess we continue to pay to rescue the idiots that get in trouble trying to make it to the "site" and call for help. I'm tired of it!

[Parnassia]

Originally Posted by Music_Man

So I guess we continue to pay to rescue the idiots that get in trouble trying to make it to the "site" and call for help. I'm tired of it!

I'm sure the hope is most of the idiots will be deflected toward the exhibit so there will be even fewer pleas for rescue than there were before. Cross fingers. Of course, there will still be that 0.01% who refuse to listen to anyone. Frigid rivers, glaciers, pissed off wildlife, and bad weather will never rid us of all of them unfortunately.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Music_Man

So I guess we continue to pay to rescue the idiots that get in trouble trying to make it to the "site" and call for help. I'm tired of it!

Yes, because a lot of people who sympathize with others about whatever they may do in life are only using their emotions, not their common sense. In real life one should be responsible for one's own actions. If that were not the case, then we would not need life, home, and car insurance. Only those who cannot afford anything should be taken care of by the tax payers.

Rescue operations aren't free (the State and Fed. Government pay for them), but the hospital and other expenses are taken care of by the person (s) being rescued.

[RayinAK]

Originally Posted by Parnassia

I'm sure the hope is most of the idiots will be deflected toward the exhibit so there will be even fewer pleas for rescue than there were before. Cross fingers. Of course, there will still be that 0.01% who refuse to listen to anyone. Frigid rivers, glaciers, pissed off wildlife, and bad weather will never rid us of all of them unfortunately.

Very true.

[CalWorth]

Did anyone read the book? I did. I don't understand the worship of this guy. He didn't do his research, is why he died.

He also wanted to canoe to the mouth of the Colorado River where it empties into the Sea of Cortez. I know this area well, but anybody could learn that the area had long been reconfigured into irrigation canals, making this journey impossible.

Did any of the people who died not realize that fording the river would be a problem? It was in the book, I never saw the movie.

I think he also killed a moose but didn't know how to field dress it, I mean, who does that?