climate change & outdoor venues

[Butch Crain]

http://m.motherjones.com/blue-marble/20 ... ate-change" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

[okieboater]

Sounds like another excuse for times when things go bad and people look for someone / something to blame.

[ARzach]

I think the more important, though lightly touched on, issue is the skill-level of the increasing visitor population. I see it in the white-water world, and especially in the day-hiking world. People with minimal education/experience getting themselves into situations they aren't equiped to handle. Regardless of weather/climate change, an individual has to be able to accurately identify and mitigate their potential exposure to risk, related to the specific day/weather/conditions...

My .02...

--Z

[DeBo]

I actually thought it was a pretty good article. Climate change is creating a lot of extreme weather which makes planning a little more challenging. Consider this year in Arkansas. After a short but very cold winter we had record flooding followed by record tornadoes followed by record heat and record drouth. So are these conditions affecting the number of outdoor casualities? I think it's at least possible that it is contributing to that.

However, I also agree with ARzach. The people affected the most are the inexperienced and we are seeing a lot more of them in the outdoors.

Bottom line: People always need to be prepared for variable and extreme conditions.

[Butch Crain]

For me it brings a number of tangential issues full circle:

- should individuals (or groups) be required to show some level of outdoor proficiency & self-sufficiency or waiver all liability on the part of the public entity that manages the property

- who should pay for the recreational use of public lands – the public at large or those individuals actually using the venues? And should those costs be underwritten by resource development that allows for direct input by the on site visitors?

- should we establish the non-destructive carrying capacity of individual public venues and limit the number of visitors to those sites through a lottery or permit system that incorporates payment of management costs and proof of proficiency/waivers

[okieboater]

Butch, man you opened the worm can with this one!!!

Every year I am amazed at the lack of common sense understanding by multiple people who wander off unprepared into a wilderness area, get in trouble and create expensive possibly dangerous search and rescue missions.

On the other hand, my guess is the Feds would create a monster bureaucratic support staff and requirements few could pass in order for a person to visit our nation's parks, monuments, forests etc. Maybe a statement like "If you visit Federal controlled areas you assume all related risks. Having said that, it makes me feel good to know that if I were to be injured big time in the Grand Canyon the Rangers are a sat phone call away to helicopter me to a hospital.

Here we go again. It Depends! Seems like a good answer to this one.

That is if you are going to climb Mount McKinley AKA "Denali" you and the group need to certify certain physical and equipment requirements are met. If you are visiting your local National Forest for a day hike or a family camping trip - the requirements are that you use "common sense" what ever that means.

[Butch Crain]

I believe recent weather patterns in the south central part of the U.S. (Texas, Oklahoma, Arkansas, Louisiana - droughts, 100 year floods, hurricane & tornado destruction) leave little doubt that we're suffering from climate change - man made or not.

The tragedy at Albert Pike touches on all the issues. Would those families have had a heightened awareness of their surroundings or whether they should have even been there if they had been asked to sign a waiver?

Would paying a user fee adequate to cover the costs of ongoing evaluation of the safety and carrying capacity of the site kept folks home that otherwise suffered in this event?

You also bring up the cost of potential rescue efforts - should those also be rolled into user fees or simply billed to the individuals needing those services?

Not easy questions.

[Richard]

The Buffalo National River extended the time in which water is kept on. An additional two weeks in the spring and two weeks in the fall. Some things are cyclical but others are not. Depending where you are, global warming will have different effects. Some places will be wetter, some dryer. Unfortunately, I think we are on the dryer end of the stick. But one year does not make a trend. There are some who will deny that global warming is taking place. The facts are there but when belief and facts collide belief will rule in the mind of the believer and there is nothing you can do to change that.

[hollohead]

Two times I have posted and then changed my mind, you all are so nice it's just hard to say what alot of folks are thinking.

[Butch Crain]

I know this is veering off topic, but climate and how it affects our public lands and their management, particularly in an era of slashing budgets, underlies our ability to access and sustainably use these outdoor venues.

An excellent article on forests, including a video that's pretty succinct:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/scien ... t.html?hpw" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;