HikeArizona.COM

We're Number 1!

https://www.usatoday.com/picture-galler ... 186622002/

@Pivo
Can you imagine our world ranking if the Phoenix mountains were a National Park.

Alston_Neal wrote: ↑Jan 15 2022 10:33 am @Pivo
Can you imagine our world ranking if the Phoenix mountains were a National Park.

It will be interesting to see what happens if Delaware Water Gap National Recreation Area becomes a National Park, which is apparently under consideration. It draws from a big, densely populated area, including NYC and to a lesser degree Philadelphia, not to mention most of NJ, eastern PA, and upstate NY. It has some good fishing along with a several spectacular waterfalls, tons of hiking, and canoeing/rafting/tubing on the Delaware. A good measure of its popularity is that most years, more NJ residents drown in the Delaware than at the shore.

Winter is the best time to hike there because the crowds are thinner. There are also some fun lesser-known trails that get less traffic because they're just a walk in the woods.

Would be an interesting statistic if the figures of rescues were compared per sq mile of the park. GC is the largest park in the list of 10 for rescues.

It's also just an insanely popular park that also has popular trails that are incredibly difficult for the average tourist. 4k+ elevation change ain't no joke for most people. I suspect that a lot of people just see trails that are popular like bright angel and figure if it's open, it's probably something anyone could do. Combine that with unexpected heat/weather differences between the top and bottom and that's a recipe for people getting in a bad way.

The fact that arches national park made the list is astounding. I think the worst spot on any hiking trail in the park is no more than 3 miles from a road! And there isn't much in the way of big elevation changes. Maybe people getting lost...somehow?

nonot wrote:The fact that arches national park made the list is astounding.

What years did this cover? Now that it's buses only, there ought to be even fewer problems. I agree that it's astounding, though. Even before the buses, Arches seemed like a trip to the mall. Maybe the relatively flat terrain encourages people unused to the desert to get in over their heads.

@big_load
Is Arches busses? Been there multiple times in the last couple of years and that wasn't a thing. Are you thinking Zion maybe?

For Arches, I can see it even though it doesn't make a ton of sense on the surface. One hike I had that was enlightening was about two years ago, a couple of days before Christmas. There was a storm that dropped about an inch in Moab and then a bit more on some of the trails. The hike to Delicate Arch is pretty easy normally but there are two spots that get sketch in weather: a slickrock slab and then the last tiny bit of narrow ridge climb before you get to the arch. My wife and I were doing it with our daughter in a pack carrier (she was 3ish at the time) and people coming down were warning us off as we went up the slickrock portion. It was pretty icy and definitely slippery. My wife had the kid in the carrier and had on proper shoes for an icy trek... I did not and was struggling to find traction and slipping constantly in some trail runners.

At any rate, we made it to the end and there was basically a human chain line to get to up that last climb which was completely iced over and crampons should have been needed. We made it with assistance but on that 3.5ish mile round trip trail, we passed by a dozenish people hurt at least that had slipped on the trail and then one couple that had taken a pretty nasty fall 30-50 feet down a steep embankment that looked serious. The trail was very busy that day, busier than I've ever seen it probably, and was 95% Asian tourists who likely had never seen something like that/were on once-in-a-lifetime trips and just *needed* to see the money shot.

So yeh, nothing crazy technical there but I can see where and how the number happen.

xsproutx wrote:Is Arches busses? Been there multiple times in the last couple of years and that wasn't a thing.

Maybe they didn't go to final implementation, but they were threatening to go to buses in 2019 or 2020. The last time I was there, they were turning people away due to lack of parking on several consecutive days, so I assumed they went through with it.

@big_load
No, no shuttles/bus there and while it's busy, even during holidays I haven't been turned away in my many visits, at least. Very different story with Zion and Bryce, though.
With that said, this upcoming year starting in March, there does look to be a new system where you have to reserve an entry time. Pros and Cons but I'm glad I spent so much time in Utah before the population/visitation got this high.

xsproutx wrote:Very different story with Zion and Bryce, though.

My only Zion visit was crazy, and that was in cold weather (last week of November). I skipped right over Bryce this year when I saw all the RVs lined up waiting to turn. Fortunately there are plenty of good places in UT with fewer people.

I wonder if a lot of Arches, was heat related. I'm sure quite a few were, in GCNP as well. We rescued a Hiker a few years back in Zion who was still a LONG way from his vehicle at 10:00 at night. He'd only taken one bottle of water with him and had run out 3 hours before. In the shape he was in when we found him, he'd never made his vehicle on foot.

@Pivo There's a lot of suspect information here. First, the news site you linked to is not the source of the information. It was originally posted by a click-bait site that allows republication elsewhere as long as they link to the click-bait site so it gains publicity.

As I'm always interested in the source of data, I tried to dig further into it. Among a number of other stats (including Arizona being number #2 in SAR events statewide, behind CA and ahead of UT), there was no explanation or definition as to what a SAR call is defined as, or if all the parks define them the same.

In fact, this specific click-bait post claims to have received the data from the National Parks Authority, an entity that my cursory research shows, does not even exist in this country. Take that for what it's worth.

chumley wrote:Take that for what it's worth.

As I always take you.

Updated: To hopefully a Chums approved source

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonsch ... e1665cbc12

Additional info. Note: I had to download and open it /open in an image viewer/ magnify to view.

Pivo wrote: ↑Feb 13 2022 3:11 pm Updated: To hopefully a Chums approved source

https://www.forbes.com/sites/brandonsch ... e1665cbc12

Additional info. Note: I had to download and open it /open in an image viewer/ magnify to view.960x0.jpg

.

The one I find most impressive is the mere two incidents at Voyageurs NP in Minnesota. Hypothermia is risk there at almost any time of year, as is drowning. Slipping and falling are big risks, especially during the half year of ice. Of course visitation is a tiny fraction of the popular parks, but I also think it attracts a smaller percentage of people who don't know how to safely exist in the natural world.

Pivo wrote:Updated: To hopefully a Chums approved source

It is LITERALLY THE SAME EXACT SOURCE ... just cited in a different publication!

@chumley

Yet the top 10 list is quite different?

@nonot
That certainly helps reinforce my skepticism!