by phATty » Mon 13 Jan, 2025 6:30 am
Condolences, Bill.
I think I agree with the general consensus on this forum. Indeed, nature is not there to make allowances for us. If we make the decision to ascend Federation Peak because it's within our skill set we must accept that the risks are entirely out of our control. I have been having similar conversations with friends about accessibility, i.e., a completely unrelated but parallel example, the new Cradle Mountain viewing shelter. If we have an objective of conservation we can't just make things more accessible or less risky by implementing infrastructure. If I'm diving and a great white comes up to me and swallows me whole, we don't just go and cull all the great whites, correct me if I'm wrong, but I'd think they'd be a major part of the ocean ecosystem. Another example is one of my friend's distain for snakes after snakes killed two of their dogs, there's no way, in my mind, that the snake(s) should be held responsible for their actions and trialed before a judge for murder!
When humans think they can be exempt from the hands of the laws of nature, there's just something wrong there in my mind. Of course, this makes the affair no less sad but if the people who go up and do these things aren't comfortable, no matter how experienced they are, with the risk of death by chance, they shouldn't go. In my mind there are issues with experience tackling this walk, definitely, but there are also issues with people thinking that something or someone is just going to go ahead and bolt/protect everything... so much for national parks, with all the huts, braiding and damage there's only so much of it left before it's all ruined.
I'd rather they just close it off, rip up all the platforms, track works, gate the roads and let it just return to it's natural state if that's what it takes.