NY Times: Wilderness Isn't Safe

Northwest Editor Michael Lanza refutes a recent NYT opinion column decrying safety hazards of federal wilderness areas

The author's 9-year-old son Nate confronts danger on the Grand Canyon's East Tonto Trail.

This story hot off the presses at the New York Times: The wilderness isn’t safe.

I occasionally stumble upon an article about the outdoors in the mainstream media that reflects such a shockingly uninformed perspective that I wonder if the author has ever set foot on unpaved earth. The latest laugher is this Aug. 26 opinion piece in, of all places, that pillar of responsible journalism, the Times. In it, author Ted Stroll argues that American wilderness just isn’t safe.

Perhaps so as not to create the impression that he’s merely stating the forehead-slapping obvious—he’s right, wilderness isn’t safe!—Mr. Stroll opens his piece with a brief case history. He relates a story—from 1970—about a cross-country skier getting lost on a trail in Minnesota’s Boundary Waters wilderness and dying of “exposure” (an antiquated term for what is today commonly called hypothermia). The U.S. Forest Service subsequently put markers on the trail to help skiers find their way, but some years later did not replace them when needed. The article attributes this decision to a USFS claim that the Wilderness Act of 1964 prohibits signage, which is not true, but I’ll save that point for later.

Accusing the USFS of becoming “increasingly strict in its enforcement of the Wilderness Act,” Mr. Stroll argues in his Times piece that this “zealous enforcement has also heightened safety risks and limited access to America’s wilderness areas.” He notes that Congress has designated as wilderness “40 percent of the land in our national parks and one-third of the land in our national forests—more than 170,000 square miles, an area nearly as large as California, Massachusetts and New Jersey combined.”

Presumably, that’s way too much unsafe territory for a civilized nation to tolerate. Hmmm. Seems to me that someone at the Times should have tied a string to Mr. Stroll so they could pull him back to Earth.

To finish this entry, please visit TheBigOutside.com

PRINT THIS PAGE EMAIL THIS PAGE RSS FEED

Digg Delicious Yahoo Facebook Reddit StumbleUpon Google Newsvine Facebook Twitter

READERS COMMENTS

I couldnt read the rest of the article due to an error when clicking on the link to read the rest. Bummer dude.
Posted: Apr 06, 2011 Ian

National Parks being unsafe? Then don't go; I'd love having the place to myself. A bodhisattva would agree that there should be more Buddhist philosophy towards the matter, it is-what-it-is: Nature - what you see is what you get.

Its like NASCAR. That isn't the safest thing in the world either, and most people know this; Its not for everyone. same goes for going out into the wilderness; its not for everyone. There are plenty of other things the NYT should be investigating and questioning.

love, peace, and dreadlock grease
Posted: Nov 04, 2010 Dylan

It seems to me that those frightened by the unsafe wilderness weren't there in the first place and are not likely to go there in the future. Don't you just love an uncrowed trail! Let me make it very clear. It is very, very scary and dangerous out there and wild beasts are certainlly going to eat you in your sleep.
Posted: Oct 02, 2010 monte

The wilderness is dangerous? Cool! That's exactly the way I like it.
Posted: Sep 22, 2010 Reece

Too late! The signs are already there.
Posted: Sep 21, 2010 Bruce Grubbs

...had a professor at berkeley, Daniel Luten, that would gently reminds us all that the Wilderness experience is all about wildness & as such, there would be no need for stinking signs, markers, etc.

Ducks were tolerable as long as removed on the way out...leave no trace is a philosophy easily executed...live it, breathe it, be it, period.

peace & cookies,
'nuff said

Posted: Sep 16, 2010 the buckaroo

to clark m. i totally agree, if we lose a few its ok, theres more where that came from. and if i die on a trail(as long as i dont fall of a cliff) i will die in the place i am most happy.
Posted: Sep 08, 2010 nikki o

Wilderness is also preserved for the animals and flora to have space, not just for human recreation. Once bikes and strollers are let in, why not a road and a couple McDees and BKs? Seems the debate should include these items and not just the writer of the NYTimes piece calling himself out to be a wuss.
Posted: Sep 07, 2010 DHarry

I have hiked many trails marked and unmarked. Some of the trails that were described as unmarked were so wide you could drive a truck on it, ok the trail is unmarked but who in their right mind would get lost on such a trail. I have hiked with groups that if they don�t see a trail marker every 50 yards think they are �off trail.� To paraphrase Daniel Boone, I�ve never been lost in the woods, I didn�t know where I was for 3 day once but I was never lost. I read that in the continental United States no matter where you are, you are never more than 26 miles from a road. Personally I rather hike and camp in the wilderness areas of the national forest where there are no trails, markers, or mountain bikes. If we lose a few to the wilderness oh well there are too many people on the planet anyway. If I happen to be one of those that walks into the wilderness never to return then I can honestly say I left this world happy. Get a map, compass, and a good GPS and walk in the woods, it is a very humbling experience.
Posted: Sep 07, 2010 Clark M.

The NY Times article was coherent and intelligently written, and its primary theme could not by anyone with 6th grade reading comprehension skills be stated as "the wilderness isn't safe". The article from Backpacker, on the other hand, does absolutely nothing to "refute" the newspaper journalist's supposed thesis, instead relying on immature and condescending remarks about the lack of bathrooms to attempt satire.

The NYT journalist is right. Trail markers and mountain bikes do nothing to detract from the wilderness. For those who are think they're too good for trail markers, there are acres and acres to explore off trail, cross country style.

The agencies that oversee our wilderness zones are nothing more than money grubbing government beaurocrats. They enforce the wilderness act to suit their own interest: to take more money away from taxpaying Americans, who are the rightful owners of the public lands under their charge. They impose their authority just to impose it and to collect something whenever they can. Rangers have become like cops trying to make their ticket quota. Their first priority is to assess a fee or a fine, and if a rescue is involved they'll be sure to slap you with a bill. They make more regulations in the hope of collecting more when transgressions are inevitably made. What's a wilderness experience without a campfire? More and more places are prohibiting them, regardless of their climate. Lighten up, and let us enjoy our land. Help out where you are needed. Ease up on the overregulation. This is America, land of freedom, and the wilderness should be the sanctuary of that freedom, untrammeled by government interferance.
Posted: Sep 03, 2010 Bartholomew

i agree NYC is probably far more dangerous than any wilderness area. and there are times when i wish there was better signage on the trails, but if you cant figure out where you are on your map you should probably stick to the well maintained trail. i wish there was more true "wilderness" spaces out there, if not for us, for the animals who were here first.
Posted: Sep 02, 2010 nikki o

Good for the Forest Service decision makers! They have recognized the slippery slope of altering the wilderness so that it is "safer" for every special interest group, and the USFS has acted accordingly. There are plenty of marked nature trails in non-wilderness areas, and so let's have some land left that is unmarked by modern society. As to the signage issue in particular, we all have to choose the outdoor activity which is compatible with our personal skill levels and risk acceptance, and this is no different.
Posted: Sep 02, 2010 Tom in Idaho

What the New York Times does not mention is that Ted Stroll is a mountain-biking advocate from the Bay Area who does not want more designated wilderness because he will be unable to ride the single track through them.

By "painting" wilderness as unsafe, he wishes to slowly erode any distinguishing differences between wilderness and other federal lands, and therefore eventually all land would be multi-use (he's probably a snow-machiner too).

He is also seeking an easing of regulations which will eventually allow mountain bikes to tear up the trails in our wilderness much like they do in NRA, BLM, etc., hence the desire to see strollers, etc. allowed in the wilderness.

http://home.pacbell.net/mjvande/scb7
Posted: Sep 02, 2010 Chol McGlynn

OMG. If you don't have enough brainpower to know "danger" from "safe," or what your geographic position is on a map (much less a GPS)then you don't belong outside your plastic bubble.
Posted: Sep 02, 2010 Jeff

Trail marking yes.....Don't pee here signs no....
foot bridges yes.....removing them or failing to repair them is a means for the NFS, NPS or BLM to not spend any money. The NFS removed a bridge in the Pemigewasset Wilderness (NH)that provided the only way to safely cross a major river. Now no one goes back into the "wilderness". This used to be a good 15 mile ski trail. Now a 7.5 mile deadend. It has gotten so bad that parts of the AT are no longer really being maintained or marked. Is that what the act was supposed to do. I for one would not vote for any further extension of wilderness areas.
Posted: Sep 02, 2010 NKDrifter

I agree this Times article has little value but Lanza's response was a bit knee jerk and simple and he seemed more eager to take a broader shot at the paper than to target just this outside op-ed contributor (not a staff columnist). Perhaps he missed the other recent article in the Times decrying the foolish and abusive behavior commonly on display at our national parks:

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/08/22/science/earth/22parks.html?scp=1&sq=grand%20canyon&st=cse
Posted: Sep 02, 2010 Chuck

The Wilderness is more dangerous than... New York City (just to name one)?? I'd like to see a comparison of death statistics between NYC and all of the wilderness areas in the country. I'm willing to bet... square mile per square mile, more people die in NYC than in the wilderness...
Posted: Sep 02, 2010 Sierracanon