HikeArizona.COM

The Phoenix Parks and Recreation Board will consider a change Thursday.
- 110 degree ban for people ( denied )
- 100 degree ban for dogs ( passed )
http://www.azcentral.com/story/news/loc ... /86438476/

If they really "cared" they'd open Camelback sunset to sunrise
or at least 2 hours before sunrise and after sunset ( I've heard the smorgasbord of excuses and this is doable )

Caution: The following opinion is incredibly harsh and insensitive. Stop here if you are easily offended.



---
This proposal is stupid. Sadly, there are people who make dumb decisions and pay the price. Don't penalize everybody else for the poor decisions made by a select few.

Post a big "Caution! People Die Here!" sign like they have at Grand Canyon. After that, let Darwin rule.

I don't do well in the heat and I steer clear of any hiking or running when it's over 100. But have friends that easily can handle 100+ temps, no reason to penalize them and keep them off the trails. Better off with signage and a "stupid hiker" law where if you do need to get rescued you have to incur all of the rescue costs. Plus opening up Squaw Peak and Camelback at night would help as well.

Well, good luck with passing some unenforceable legislation. 100 where? 110 where? At Sky Harbor, or the TH or some spot on the trail? Just fine stupid people, or accept that we all have to pay for the rescues, but still see a net gain in revenue though tourist visitation, and be done with it.

What percentage of injuries/deaths/mountain rescues occur when it is over 110°?

I'm guessing it's a very small piece of the pie.

Why is the ban for dogs only at 100? What if the dog has the little booties on its feet, shouldn't it be the same temp for both humans and dogs?

What concerns me is the possibility for overexuberant enforcement of the dog ban by an opportunistic politician/civil servant making an issue out of putting pets at risk when that may not be the case. 100 is really a questionable limit to set, IMO. How many issues have ever occurred at that temp?

I'm going to risk ostracism in that I support the ban. I'm for anything that takes some bro out of our culture. The desire to constantly push boundaries past what's prudent, the constant incessant risk taking, the constant increase of danger, etc. I have **ZERO** problem with exposed hikes, climbs, doing difficult things. But there's a segment of current(probably not new) outdoor culture that unless you're breaking rules, pushing far past boundaries, etc. you're lame. And I hate that.

You know the people doing triple gainers at Fossil Creek and other places, inviting others by the droves to come, and subsequently spread their beer cans, trash, empty water bottles everywhere, etc. The mentality that there's nowhere else to hike than Camelback, there's no other cool place other than Fossil Creek, the entire if you're not at Fossil Creek, you're lame mentality.

And I've been on record many many times before but leave your dogs at home off urban trails. What Cup and Blanco do with FOTG is awesome and I completely am OK with it because he takes them places where there aren't anyone else (or minimal). But we don't need to be dodging your pit bull on single track(hypothetical) at Shaw Butte.

Cue the I'm sure HE'S fun to hike with...

Everyone rejoiced when they banned dogs from Camelback, now they are talking about banning humans from Phoenix's outdoor treadmills for what will amount to a significant portion of the summer, on behalf of dogs everywhere

Don't worry urban warriors, I am pretty sure this one falls out of the parks and recs jurisdiction..
http://hikearizona.com/decoder.php?ZTN=19950

I don't live in the area, but I am generally fine with closing trails in very harsh conditions. Why? Because when some dumb*** goes out and has to be rescued, the lives of the rescuers may be at risk as well. I can recall plenty of instances of S&R folks being hurt or dying during rescues. I think someone here recently mentioned that some S&R people in the Grand Canyon had to be evacuated due to heat exhaustion.

If the new policy reduces the risks that rescuers have to take, I'm all for it. Now, if the new policy was "anyone hiking in over 100 degrees will not be rescued," I'd be fine with that, too. Anyway, let's not forget that rescues entail risks, and reducing those risks is a good thing.

So I start hiking when it's 105 degrees and when I reach the summit it's 111 degrees at the designated temperature recording location. What do I do now, magically transport myself home? Beam me up Scotty!

I think a ban is absolutely ridiculous. First of all, I doubt it could even be enforced. Besides, some people will just hike anyway, and others will just find different trails to hike. Then you have the potential side effect of hikers who normally hike urban trails venturing out a little bit further into a more remote area they might not be familiar with--cue the body count. And, to me, there's not a whole lot of difference between unprepared hikers venturing out into the heat, vs. unprepared hordes of hikers (tourists) venturing out in the cooler weather. I don't have time to go through and count Phoenix mountain rescues by month, but there are plenty in the winter too. What are they going to do next, ban hiking between 50-80 degrees because people keep spraining their ankles on Camelback???

It's not the government's job to protect us from ourselves. Sure, put some stronger warning signs at the trailheads. If we (even the idiots of the world) want to hike out in the heat, that is our risk to take. Also--the media loves to hype hiker deaths. Phoenix is not any hotter during the day than it was twenty years ago, and I don't remember the news coverage being like it is now. I used to hike on almost a daily basis during the summer as a teenager--White Tanks, Squaw Peak, just hiking out in the desert, etc--there were other people on the trails too, and everybody was fine.

I am in agreement that laws should be passed that all SAR units be required to stand down after the temperatures reach 100 degrees. :STP: ;)

Why not simply have very large and visible signs at ALL trailheads, and entry points to the preserves or parks, which clearly read, in multiple languages: Hiking in extreme heat kills! The City of Phoenix considers extreme heat to be any temperature over 1XX degrees Fahrenheit (and corresponding in Celsius) as measured at Phoenix Sky Harbor. The City of Phoenix has a responsibility to the safety of their employees, and WILL NOT dispatch rescuers to ANY VICTIM of ANY INJURY or ILLNESS for people who CHOOSE to hike or participate in outdoor activity, more than 1000 feet from any trailhead, during periods of EXTREME HEAT! HIKING is AT YOUR OWN RISK DURING THESE TIMES, which will begin when the temperature reaches 1XX and until 1 hour after falling below this temperature. DO NOT EXPECT RESCUE!! YOU CAN DIE!!

Follow it up with a death toll for the current, and last 3 years. Let that sink in with the idiots who go out, and forget about it. I might like Bernie, but I hate nanny states, and people who think they know what everyone else should be doing.

I have to agree with the ban, mainly for the sake of the rescue personnel. They are exposed to the risk and we are exposed to the cost of maintaining them. We shouldn't have to protect people who push their limits or just don't know better, but unfortunately, we do. No rescue?-not going to happen. Can you imagine the hue and cry after the first incident while firefighters sat in the AC'd truck at the trailhead? Wouldn't that make great TV! I feel the same way about the Canyon, why risk it, it's just recreation. If anyone is bound and determined to take the risk for whatever motivates them to do so, there are places near enough but beyond the responsibility of the city.

I think a stop-gap measure would be to put Parks personnel at the TH giving serious warnings like NPS did at the canyon for awhile. Anyone ignoring it would be financially responsible for a rescue.

Oh, if only they all just did it my way!

LansfordHastings wrote:What do I do now?

Put on your Kahtoola Microspikes!

viewtopic.php?t=9609

In the 60's/70's my friends and I practically lived on Camelback, even spending nights in the caves. But we had to be dropped off if we were staying the night so as not to leave a car and if we did come down late at night we could be guaranteed a stop by the cops. Why? Break ins were and still are epidemic, hence the sunset to sunrise closure. It sure was fun though and goodness knows anyone with smarts wouldn't be up there in the daytime.

So...

Should we ban hiking at the Humphreys Peak trailhead if the chance of thunderstorms is greater than 70%? Post someone at the saddle to stop any and all from breaching timberline on those days?
Should we ban all entry into technical canyons when the chance of thunderstorms is greater than 70%? Forest road access is pretty well known on these - should we post someone there and turn would-be canyoneers away?
Should we ban entry into national forest/wilderness areas in Northern Arizona when the high temperatures won't break 20 in Flagstaff?

I do agree that strong signage and warnings are a good idea, and I've noticed a lot more of those out this summer. Not necessarily opposed to the financial obligation concept in theory...but there's always that risk that people will hold off that call for help if they know they'll be on the hook. Another question: what if I start my hike at 5 am when the air temp is in the mid 80s and it's breezy, but the forecasted high is 111? Should the trails only be closed when the air temperature measured (where?) actually breaches that level?

As with any of the above scenarios I listed above, a lot of common sense and preparedness go a long way to ensuring safe travel in those elements. Sometimes, the safest bet is indeed to stay home, and many of us have made that very call for these very reasons.

The powers that be are always looking for ways to regulate our behavior. Why? Because they CAN. They can and they will try regulate our every move if we let them.

The best reason I've seen so far for these trail restriction proposals is safety of the rescue crews. But, "scene safety" is supposed to be number one on your list when you are a first responder. If the scene's not safe you don't do the rescue.

Ooooh....very loud hail starting to hit my motorhome roof. Hope no damage.

I hope all of you people who think that closing trails in hot weather is big-government tyranny volunteer with your local search and rescue. If you think that trails should be open even when there is a high risk of problems, then I would encourage you to step up and help out with the injuries and illnesses that will inevitably come. It's not really fair to make some poor Fire Department rescuer risk their own health so that you can hike whenever you want, is it?

I realize that this post will probably piss some people off, but the idea of forcing rescuers to risk their own necks so you can hike when you want is pretty appalling to me. People are going to do dumb stuff regardless of signage. And letting people die without rescue on a trail (likely in full view of news helicopters) is never going to be a politically acceptable solution. So, rescues are going to happen, period. Given that, minimizing the number of rescues is a worthy goal.

If Humphreys had as many rescues as you do in Phoenix, there would be a good argument for closing that, too. No one ever said that all hiking had to be risk-free. But there is an unacceptable level of rescues, and the line seems to have been crossed.

(Meanwhile, perhaps I'm the only person in Arizona who sees the irony in people--who are able to hike for no charge on amazing public lands all over the state--complaining about big government. We are really lucky to have so much public land in Arizona. Minor restrictions on access to certain lands do not portend the coming of the black helicopters and the reeducation camps.)

flagscott wrote:It's not really fair to make some poor Fire Department rescuer risk their own health

I don't know who gets to decide what is and isn't fair, but firefighters and other first responders are not drafted to be first responders. I believe that most of them actually choose their profession. And the few I've had the honor of knowing actually enjoy the risks and danger of it. Not everybody belongs behind a desk. I believe most SAR are volunteer positions. Most importantly, a properly managed response does not put rescuers in danger.

flagscott wrote:irony in people--who are able to hike for no charge on amazing public lands

Not sure you understand the definition of public lands. And for those of us who are employed, there is a charge. For me it is deducted every two weeks.