HikeArizona.COM

What do you think? Justified?

http://m.tucson.com/news/local/lemmon-r ... touch=true

I think that closing that one is probably justified. It hope that it will be a case by case evaluation - and a season by season evaluation. Some towers are heavily visited and visitors could be a distraction. Others are not often visited and an occasional visitor could keep the Lookouts sharp and motivated.

I also know that we were on Kendrick (one of the tougher Lookouts to get to) and asked the Lookout what he looked for. He said "a thin plume of smoke". Tom said "Like that one". He turned his binoculars where Tom was pointing and said "Excuse me - I have work to do". I have never interfered with their work - partly because my uncle was a lookout and with the Forest Service in the Pinals. But I'm sure some people have probably abused their friendliness.

I have a Friend who is a Lookout...He Resides there Full-Time in the Tower and was in the Middle of Eating Dinner 1 Evening when a couple of Parents with some Teenagers showed up and wanted to go up...He said No, and they got all Nasty with him about it...I agree that some should be Closed to the Public when they have a lot of Visitors. I think the Rest of them should be left up to the Lookout's Discretion...If they don't want Company, that's their Right...It's not only their Workplace, but it's also their Home....

It makes sense that it should be lookout, conditions, and operator dependent, but not a blanket closure. Curiously, this is the second tower which I have closed. Obviously, I didn't actually close it, but much like with the Elden Lookout in Flagstaff, I moved to the town, had a few trips to the tower or lookout, and then shortly after the tower closed to the public.

Al_HikesAZ wrote:I think that closing that one is probably justified. It hope that it will be a case by case evaluation - and a season by season evaluation. Some towers are heavily visited and visitors could be a distraction. Others are not often visited and an occasional visitor could keep the Lookouts sharp and motivated.

My first thought mirrored your last sentence.

Unless they are truly a hermit and absolutely want no human contact, I'd think they might enjoy some contact now and then, and may even perk up a bit by being able to show their knowledge answering questions about their work.

At the same time, I believe at tower where their is little public traffic, it would be appropriate for a sign at the bottom of each tower covering the obvious, like stating the importance of the job and the undesirability of distractions, along with something like:
Note: It is at the discretion of the Fire Ranger to allow visitation.
Please understand if the Ranger deems when conditions are not conducive to public access.

At McFadden Peak, the last tower we visited, we had no expectations of being invited up so were not disappointed when the wife of the Ranger stepped out and said she was sorry they couldn't take visitors, as her husband (the Ranger) was not feeling well. And based on what she said next, that he had just found out the cancer which had been in remission had returned, we completely understood.

Even without an explanation we would have been fine with a simple Sorry, not today.

Of course there will always be knot-heads who expect the world to bow to their wishes who don't want to take no for an answer... which is why a sign like I mentioned above will at least provide official backup for the ranger.

It should be up to the lookout on duty. There are obviously some cases where interruption can be too frequent.

Let them do their jobs.

big_load wrote:It should be up to the lookout on duty. There are obviously some cases where interruption can be too frequent.

And they should have some way to do it without having to be a jerk. A sign at the bottom like Cannondale Kid recommends seems like a good solution.

Jim_H wrote:this is the second tower which I have closed.

Might help if you keep your pants on. ;)

Wow, glad I put up the poll. I'm a little shocked to find out I'm in the minority. Expected more 50/50 results.

Might get hell for this but I won't stop posting
The case by case evaluation angle seems pro-hiker. Either that or Jim has really gained a marginable lead in his Burn the Planet Foundation.