NY Times article on troublesome national park etiquette

I'm not sure if this is the right place to post this or not, but since it doesn't directly deal with nature photography, I thought it best to keep this out of the general discussion forum. It certainly does have the potential to indirectly impact nature photography, however, so I thought it appropriate to post this somewhere.

I read this article in the print version of the national edition of today's New York Times:

Technology Leads More Park Visitors Into Trouble

Thanks for pointing the article out, Kerry. From reading the article, it seems like technology is giving tourists a false sense of security so they are cutting steps in their real-world knowledge before heading out to these places. Also perhaps the desire to be a "celebrity" is attracting people who wouldn't otherwise be out there.

The article was very enlightening. It just goes to prove that some people should not be allowed to either vote or pro-create! Ha!
Troup

Yup. Education required. Best lesson is the high cost of a good education. In the maritime world folks get citations and pay the costs of rescue efforts for false maydays. Signage needed in more public places, with the warning that false maydays will be billed to the perp.

As for depending on technology to compensate for lack of real life experience? Lots of well-heeled beginners do the same when replacing their P&S cameras with high end models so they can get rich selling pictures.

I agree with all said so far. The signage needs to be prominent and frequent! The fines need to be large and posted. Perhaps the signing of some sort of legal acknowledgment when you enter the parks? Maybe, when the panic button is pushed, a recording or video prompt a la Windows; "Are you sure you want fresh water for $4,000? Press 'Enter' to continue."
As for the Darwin candidates Troup; If they don't procreate, whom will we laugh at or shake our heads in disbelief at?

As far as the overall gist of the article - that technology is causing more trouble, Slate.com has this rebuttal article.

It's got an interesting graph of overall incidents. I'd say that the times article should have focused on the park service getting more technology related calls or incidents - or stupider incidents - and not more overall.

I'm sure with their budget cuts every little bit extra hurts. I'd say the first priority is to get suitable funding to the NPS.

I'm sure with their budget cuts every little bit extra hurts.

But the overall trend over the last several years has been less overall search and rescue incidents. (Although that leveled off the last two or three years.) So the Slate article is just pointing out that technology isn't causing MORE problems, just DIFFERENT problems.

Doesn't help with the overall funding issue though, since this is probably a small part of it.

I don't know about trends around the country, but trends in the areas I frequent are the other direction, with more searches and more expensive SAR than ever. We're seeing folks doing absolutely stupid things on the assumption that they can just use their cell phones if they have problems. Surprise! The technology may be good, but it has finite limits that folks don't respect.

Operations manuals don't include sections to teach common sense. I love my technology, but use it to augment my lifetime of outdoor lessons and experience, rather than as a substitute. Google maps and GPS in the city create a sense of confidence that doesn't translate into wilderness judgment.

We're splitting hairs, and I think we both support more people getting outdoors and appreciating it. But sending the inexperienced into the wilderness with too much dependence on technology can be like strapping a GPS onto your kid's tricycle and sending them across town unaccompanied. Or as a bush pilot friend puts it: "Like mounting a jet engine on a biplane." People are venturing further into circumstances beyond their experience level, and not only do the SAR calls go up, but so do the costs of the SARs required to extract them. We're probably on the leading edge of the trend here in Alaska, but it's certainly a trend.

The Slate article--which made some very cogent points, not incidentally--does make some potentially baseless assumptions of its own. For instance, the presumption is that a search-and-rescue mission is a search-and-rescue mission; in effect, that one SAR call is equivalent to another. This isn't necessarily so. The resources expended can vary greatly depending on the specifics of the mission. Perhaps there are fewer rescues but much a higher number of extremely difficult, expensive undertakings. (Obviously I don't know, but I don't get the impression that the Slate writer does either.) It would be interesting to see how much the NPS is spending per annum (adjusted for inflation) on SAR and see whether that has increased, decreased or remained steady over the past X years.

There's also the human cost. The rescuers very often put their lives on the line, and some are killed or seriously hurt trying to help others.

I've lost friends in three crashes of Coast Guard helicopters over the last 30 years. The losses and the impact on their families make me really CRANKY about stupidity and inexperience in the wilds. The rescuers I know are really worried about the extent that naive dependence on technology contributes to additional SAR calls. I'll leave this topic before saying more.

Hank, I agree with you about putting the rescurers at risk. I paddled a whitewater kayak for many years when I was younger and it was amazing how many people we pulled from class 3 to class 5 whitewater who had barely paddled a canoe or kayak at all before and never in water that big. Our local search and rescue group pulls several people a year out of local rivers here. People often assume they can do anything without experience and practice.