If we don't close Angel's Landing when someone dies, why do we permanently close Nutty Putty Caves? These are exactly the same story, no? Hiking on the top of a 1000-foot cliff and caving are both activities with inherent danger. Most people survive. A few do not. Have we gotten to the point that we have to close down every single activity that someone dies doing, for our own protection? (If yes, please hand over your cars, people.)
I understand that they're having trouble recovering the body from Nutty Putty. I do. But having trouble now doesn't mean it will always be trouble. Give the body a little while to decompose. Send in flesh-eating beetles. Close up that one dangerous arm. But don't seal it and put a monument on top of it; it doesn't make sense.
----------------
Now playing: Muse - Exogenesis: Symphony Pt 1: Overture
via FoxyTunes
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
That this post comes on the heels of the one about overparenting speaks volumes, no?
As I understood it, part of the decision to close Nutty Putty had to do with danger posed to present and future rescuers. The rescue equipment failed at the bolt in the rock, which indicates instability in the rock. The last thing they want is another rescue in the vein of the Crandall Canyon Mine collapse, killing the rescuers. Pardon my frankness, but with Angel's Landing, you just scrape the casualties off the ground.
Bear in mind that this is coming from a claustrophobic who has refused repeated invitations to Nutty Putty, but has hiked Angel's Landing.
I'm claustrophobic too (there's no way on earth I'd be able to wedge myself anywhere so tightly I couldn't get out again), and have hiked Angel's Landing too.
I agree 1000% that no rescuer should lose their life, especially to rescue a deceased body. And that's where sealing off that particular arm comes in; if it's unstable and not safe for anyone, then seal that portion. But the entire caves? When this is (as I understand it) the first fatality?
/agree
Post a Comment