Unreliable info from rangers

by **QITNL** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 12:20 pm

I'm gonna be unpopular and stick in a couple of good words for the rangers. I've had mostly good experiences with most of them.

The guys in Bridgeport are really good, they helped me find a nice path around Matterhorn. Mono Lake does fast work. There's a lady named Seneca in Bishop who knows what she's doing. In Lone Pine, stock up on wag bags, they give them away for free.

I dig the folks in the foothills, like Pollock Pines, efficient and friendly. At the fast-food joints like Tuolumne or Big Oak Flat, the customers are the problem.

Last time on my way in, the lady was warning me, oh, there's lots of snow in Tuolumne Meadows. I was like, yeah, that's why I'm here, I saw a picture on the interwebs, it looked neat. She was all - really? i took that picture! And we fist pumped.

So I forgave her for questioning the size of my bear container. She thought it was too small. Whatever, dude.

by **dshoshone** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:31 pm

This may be an unpopular response with some of the experts on this site. But about the only thing I agree on is sometimes the VC's don't know about roads being open or closed.
Other than that, look out the window driving along the Sierra and you should be able to tell what the conditions are. If you have any experience at all it's not that hard to figure out.
Rely on yourself.

The following user would like to thank dshoshone for this post
lcarreau, Princess Buttercup

by **desertdesigns** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 4:58 pm

I think they err on the cautious side so no one can say "so and so ranger said it's all good and I almost drowned in Evloution Creek!" or "they said good to go and I almost fell off the cornice at new army pass !!!" or something like that.

by **lcarreau** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 6:04 pm

Geez Louise - What ever happened to personal RESPONSIBILITY and ACCOUNTABILITY for one's OWN actions ???

Is that GONE in today's Society? WHY should we rely on some DESK JOCKEY who's ONLY thinking of his own retirement and personal gain ???

Sure, human beings make mistakes ... (me included), but in today's mechanized world, let's pay more attention to self-reliance and LEARN from our own mistakes ..

For example, I learned NOT to do this anymore ..

by **Gafoto** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 10:54 pm

splattski wrote:Someone made the differentiation between Rangers and other park employees, and this is important. Rangers are the ones who actually work the ground, and in my experience they usually seem to know stuff.

Also, just so you know the number of people who actually had the job title of "Ranger" in the Inyo National Forest last year was 3 I believe (besides the District Rangers who are admin people). I got called a Ranger frequently and sometimes even officer just because of the uniform. Feel free to talk to any Forest Service employee to see if they have information you need but don't assume that anyone you see in a uniform goes out and does campfire talks at night. People tend to have a very narrow idea of what the NPS and USFS employees do. There are quite a few NPS employees that are uniformed but aren't officially "Rangers".

QITNL wrote:In Lone Pine, stock up on wag bags, they give them away for free.

The Whitney Rangers would love for people to take those, use them, but most especially bring them back down the mountain. The number of bags they have to haul out is appalling. I know I'm preaching to the choir though.

desertdesigns wrote:I think they err on the cautious side so no one can say "so and so ranger said it's all good and I almost drowned in Evloution Creek!" or "they said good to go and I almost fell off the cornice at new army pass !!!" or something like that.

This is very true. Obviously most people posting on this board know a lot of travel in the backcountry. The majority of people popping into the visitors center in the Inyo will be directed to the Little Lakes trail and complain about how strenuous it is. I cannot overstate how underprepared most people area.

The following user would like to thank Gafoto for this post
jareds

by **Vitaliy M.** » Wed Dec 07, 2011 11:41 pm

Gafoto wrote:
desertdesigns wrote:I think they err on the cautious side so no one can say "so and so ranger said it's all good and I almost drowned in Evloution Creek!" or "they said good to go and I almost fell off the cornice at new army pass !!!" or something like that.

This is very true. Obviously most people posting on this board know a lot of travel in the backcountry. The majority of people popping into the visitors center in the Inyo will be directed to the Little Lakes trail and complain about how strenuous it is. I cannot overstate how underprepared most people area.

These two points are valid BUT, there is a difference between err on the cautious side and stating flat out false information such as "the creek is too high for horses to cross at this moment, don't go there." When it is not a bad crossing in reality. The point here is that there were several negative experiences brought up by several different members. It will not lead me to label all the Forrest service people in inyo as incompetent, but they lost a lot of credibility with me compared to their colleagues from other parts of US. Maybe there should be more training or something? It does not matter if a visitor is incompetent, or a pro alpinist, all should be treated with correct information, or none at all if you are not sure. Since you know that all these tourons are too weak for Little Lakes trail, why not just tell them 'Sierra is closed to all visitors, it is too dangerous at the moment?' They are to weak to be here! Who cares! The roads are closed, the rivers are too high! GTFO tourons!

Other than that, look out the window driving along the Sierra and you should be able to tell what the conditions are. If you have any experience at all it's not that hard to figure out.

Some of us live away from Sierra, drive in at night, straight to THs. Communication about conditions is done through telephone. I personally do not have any problems figuring out conditions ahead of time, but find it quite rude to supply people with false information.

The following user would like to thank Vitaliy M. for this post
mrchad9, myles

by **MoapaPk** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:14 am

Interesting counterpoint...

We drove out to SE Utah (Mt Ellen in the Henry Mts) this summer. A few days before we left, we called the rangers, and they said the 4x4 road on the western side was in good shape -- and it was, at the time of their report. This is a fairly remote area, and the few rangers have to set time aside to check the hundreds of miles of roads that approach the mountains.

When we started up the road, we hit several washouts, but thought "Huh, maybe this is what 'good shape' means out here." The next day, I got back from the Mt Ellen hike early, and chanced to meet a ranger picnicking with his family. When I mentioned that we came up the western road, he was immediately concerned, telling me that the road had washed out between the time of his first report, and his second, a week later.

So, hope for the best, but plan for the worst. That's life.

When I was an undergraduate, I witnessed a fellow asking the librarian for the average and historical conditions in September, in a part of the PNW. Remember, this was ~1975, and such information was not widely available. The librarian was happy to help the guy, who was encouraged with the "average" benignity of conditions for a time that he had planned for a backpack trip. A few months later, we learned that the fellow had perished from hypothermia during this very backpack trip.

The librarian was horror-struck. I couldn't see her feelings of guilt; she gave him the information he requested. It was up to him to plan for several standard deviations, no matter what the value of the average.

by **mrchad9** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:33 am

PROTIP: No one gives a shit about who is a ranger and who isn't. The issue is employees and volunteers of the NFS and NPS repeatedly providing incorrect and often unsolicited bad information (NOT bad recommendations) to every visitor they encounter.

I don't care what their rank or position is, if they are interfacing with the public there should be a minimum standard that they will be accurate with what they say. And if they don't know... just admit it.

As it is they are destroying the credibility of everyone in the organization.

The following user would like to thank mrchad9 for this post
lcarreau

by **desertdesigns** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:35 am

I misused the term ranger, when in reality, the folks at permit stations like lone pine or tuolumne meadows (places where I've had experiences with listlessness to a degree on the employees part) are really just park service summer help...a fry station attendant budget doesn't produce a building engineer-in-training...and they're probably subject to grapevine exaggerations, and their information should be taken with a grain of salt, hyoh, ymmv etc.....just this year early season crossings north of tuolumne were stated as being uncrossable, and yet early season thruhikers made it thru just fine. I don't think horses can cross logs up or downstream?

by **lcarreau** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 12:42 am

mrchad9 wrote:
As it is they are destroying the credibility of everyone in the organization.

I hear ya, Chad ...

by **MoapaPk** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 1:16 am

mrchad9 wrote:I don't care what their rank or position is, if they are interfacing with the public there should be a minimum standard that they will be accurate with what they say. And if they don't know... just admit it.
As it is they are destroying the credibility of everyone in the organization.

They should strive for the accuracy and relevance of the broadcast media and newspapers.

by **lcarreau** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 4:19 am

MoapaPk wrote:
mrchad9 wrote:

They should strive for the accuracy and relevance of the broadcast media and newspapers.

by **Princess Buttercup** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 5:27 pm

Vitaliy M. wrote: Since you know that all these tourons are too weak for Little Lakes trail, why not just tell them 'Sierra is closed to all visitors, it is too dangerous at the moment?' They are to weak to be here! Who cares! The roads are closed, the rivers are too high! GTFO tourons!

Jeebus, V, how did the Chief hack into your account? :lol:

Actually, guys, I'm in complete agreement with you that accurate information, or the latest information with the caveat that it is indeed ONLY the latest information, should be given out. With all the of the specializations/routes that exist, is it realistic to expect anyone to know all of that information? (And I know it's been addressed that it isn't feasible). I would indeed also expect the beta-giver to be up front and honest about that sort of information. I mean, we do that HERE, all the time. Someone posts asking about conditions; someone answers, usually with a link to photos. The information is integrated, people verbalize thanks, and we move on. There are even times when the parks/forest organizations check sites like these to gain their beta.

As a rule, I don't really check with the ranger stations around here for conditions reports. Instead, I go prepared and change my itinerary as needed. As someone above mentioned, its about taking personal responsibility.

The following user would like to thank Princess Buttercup for this post
hoser23, lcarreau, Vitaliy M.

by **Bob Burd** » Thu Dec 08, 2011 8:43 pm

MooseTracks wrote:As a rule, I don't really check with the ranger stations around here for conditions reports. Instead, I go prepared and change my itinerary as needed. As someone above mentioned, its about taking personal responsibility.

Perhaps it's possible that the FS and other government agencies assume that if you're asking them for such information, you must be new at this.

Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Re: Unreliable info from rangers

Who is online