07-20-2015, 09:23 PM
(07-20-2015, 04:59 PM)JustPassinThru_imp Wrote:(07-20-2015, 11:33 AM)Flynrider_imp Wrote:(07-20-2015, 10:03 AM)The ferret_imp Wrote: Man, was there signs saying you couldn't climb down there? A $250 fine seems rather STEEP ( see what I did there LOL)
It's Crater Lake Nat'l Park. You're supposed to assume that after travelling across the country to see it, that you wouldn't actually be allowed to hike to the shore. Sheesh!
It's Crater Lake Nat'l Park. You're supposed to assume that after travelling across the country to see it, that you wouldn't actually be allowed to hike to the shore. Sheesh!
Two months ago I was there myself...with my crushed camera. The trail down was closed. Half the loop road was closed...snow and ice on the roadway. The concession trip to the island was not up and running.
It's a national park; yes; but those charged with protecting it, seem to want to protect it from those who're actually interested in it. As if this were, not a park of the people of the nation; but of the ROYALS of the kingdom.
Too bad about Chip's boy. Sounds like he's taking it in good spirits...
JPT,
I think there's an immutable law of the universe that says that national park rangers everywhere believe that that the most important thing they can do is keep 'the People' out of 'the People's' national parks. I can't decide whether they are just incredible selfish and want the joint for themselves or whether it's just some profound misunderstanding of their goal.
It seems pretty clear to me that, if they have enough surplus capacity to follow Charley Beck while he hitch-hikes and send one of their number abseiling down a cliff, the don't have enough to do.
Still and all, if it's only by keeping out the folks who pay for the rangers and their playground that the said playground is protected for the long-term benefits of the folks who pay for the rangers and their playground, it's got to be a good deal. Hasn't it?