Re: Thrill seeker dies at Corona Arch

Southeastern Utah’s Corona Arch, a towering geological feature glorified last year on YouTube as the “World’s largest Rope Swing,” has claimed the life of a 22-year-old thrill seeker.

http://www.grindtv.com/outdoor/nature/post/thrill-seeker-dies-at-towering-corona-arch-made-famous-by-youtube-videos/

Video of what he was attempting:




Arrrg! Why is it so hard to post videos here?

Quote
hotrod4x5

Video of what he was attempting:




Arrrg! Why is it so hard to post videos here?

You need to use the standard http: URL format of the YouTube video.

For the YouTube video that your posted, it would be this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4B36Lr0Unp4


Hence:

One thing I'll comment on is that I wish these "thrill seekers" were more considerate about the damage they're doing to this great arch. They're undoubtedly shortening its lifespan.

These arches in Utah are made from soft sandstone. Despite their great size, they're actually quite fragil. These arches will collapse on their own in due time. No need to hasten it by installing a rope swing on them.

Just my two cents on the matter...

.

Quote
plawrence
One thing I'll comment on is that I wish these "thrill seekers" were more considerate about the damage they're doing to this great arch. They're undoubtedly shortening its lifespan.

These arches in Utah are made from soft sandstone. Despite their great size, they're actually quite fragil. These arches will collapse on their own in due time. No need to hasten it by installing a rope swing on them.

Just my two cents on the matter...

.

IIRC, similar thrills are available at theme parks such as Great America. I think they are premium rides for $10. Doesn't seem necessary to do it at that arch. Accidents can happen anywhere - it's a shame one had to happen out there. Unnecessary loss of life, a real pity.

I agree with you. Leave no trace.

Very little sympathy here. It was just a matter of time.

I hate when I come across such selfish, irresponsible people. Usually young, hip, latte macciato-generation, easily bored by everything. And I'm sorry to say this kind of behavior is very "american" (and believe me - I LOVE the US AND American people).

I love the Southwest and I treasure every minute I am allowed to enjoy in this amazing environment. So I couldn't agree more with the opinions expressed here: Leave no trace.

Quote
hotrod4x5
Arrrg! Why is it so hard to post videos here?

Because the software was created before the youtu.be shortened links were invented. I've done a little editing and those links should work now.

Why do people always bash what they do not understand? OK, you are not a thrill seeker or an adreline junkie, but looking to ban such activities is VERY, VERY slippery slope.

The damage to the arch is primarily rope groves left in the soft sandstone by ropes when they are not properly protected. This is unfortunate, but can be greatly minimized, if not eliminated, by proper rope protection and placement. The problem, as with many human activities, is with the inexperienced or untrained.

But for argument sake, let's agree that some damage does occur that violates the sacred "leave no trace" philosophy and thus the activity should be banned. Then, by similar reasoning, we should ban the sport of canyoneering in most places. And rock climbing too. And what about all those backcountry trails? Or those unsightly backcountry campsites and fire rings? Or all those man-made bridges that have been installed to make backcountry travel less dangerous? Why stop there? Let's do away with the cables on Half Dome and up to Angles Landing, the high Sierra camps, roads, atv trails, etc, etc, etc.

And how is thrill seeking inherently "selfish" or "irresponsible". What constitutes thrill seeking for that matter? To some, hiking in Yosemite would be thrill seeking, or climbing the cables to Half Dome. My mother things backpacking is dangerous. And she just about shits her pants when she sees what I do while canyoneering. How about rafting through the Grand Canyon. Or sky diving. Or riding a motorcycle. Rock climbing? Skiing? Where do you draw the line - and for that matter, why would you?

Should all activities be allowed in all places. Of course not.

Should people be require to demonstrate a certain level of skill or knowledge or fitness before being allowed to engage in certain activities? Hell, that's and even more slippery slope.

But to make blanket statement that thrill seekers are all selfish or irresponsible (or even young) is, well, idiotic. Hell, the term alone is meaningless as it is all purely relative.

Calling for a ban on an activity simply because you do not understand the motivation of its participants is also idiotic.

Just about every statement made above is a meaningless, poorly thoughtout, overly simplistic, knee jerk reaction.

You missed the point, sandstone arches are delicate and fragile by nature. Sandstone isn't granite.

Just climbing onto these magnificent arches can shorten their life. These arches are so fragile (and unstable) that they'll collapse on their own. Climbing on top of them, let along using them as rope swings, is reckless and will hasten their demise.

I don't have a problem with rope swings anchored on granite or other hard rocks. I have a problem with they're anchored on very soft rock like sandstone.

It's not about leaving absolutely no trace. It's about not destroying a magnificent arch (by having it crumble to the ground sooner than if it had been left alone).

.

Quote
plawrence
You missed the point, sandstone arches are delicate and fragile by nature. Sandstone isn't granite.

Just climbing onto these magnificent arches can shorten their life. These arches are so fragile (and unstable) that they'll collapse on their own. Climbing on top of them, let along using them as rope swings, is reckless and will hasten their demise.

I don't have a problem with rope swings anchored on granite or other hard rocks. I have a problem with they're anchored on very soft rock like sandstone.

It's not about leaving absolutely no trace. It's about not destroying a magnificent arch (by having it crumble to the ground sooner than if it had been left alone).

.

Couldn't the same argument be used to ban human traffic/use in any number of environments, including many sought out by backpackers, climbers and canyoneers? I actually agree with you regarding the potential impact on the arch and would agree that the swing is probably not a reasonable use of this natural feature. As an avid canyoneer, I am well aware of the fragile nature of sandstone. One only needs to do one of the trade routes in Zion and see all the rope groves left by inexperienced, careless, and/or poorly trained canyoneers to realize this. This is, in part, one of the main arguments between the bolting and natural anchor factions in canyoneering. It is also the reason for the closure of several canyons to canyoneers - but I am getting side tracked. My point was that banning certain activities while allowing others, particularly on public lands is a very complex issue.

Many of the statements above were not about the arch, but attacks on "thrill seekers" - a term as vague and meaningless as "environmentalist".

And to favor the banning of an activity simply because you do not understand or agree with the motivations of its participants is just plain stupid. You do not get to decide how other choose to live their lives.

I also believe the principle of "leave no trace" are rarely black and white and the term has become an overused, and poorly understood, buzz phrase - but that is a whole other discussion/argument.

Getting tired of the paranoid "slippery slope" argument whenever common sense needs to be applied to a situation. There's nothing slippery about stopping the destruction of a delicate sandstone arch. It's not clear from these videos if this particular arch is being damaged, but if indeed this arch or any such arch is being damaged, then climbing or rope swinging or whatever behavior is damaging it needs to be stopped. It's not clear how much damage is occuring, but that would be the determining factor for applying common sense to stop people who seem to lack it. And no, you don't have the right to destroy an arch or take it over with a loud party atmosphere. People should be able to enjoy this place in peace and quiet without hearing screaming and possibly watching someone die. And no, this is not the same thing as a hiking trail. Trails have quotas, people volunteer millions of hours to maintain them, and they get relocated if they're causing damage to a meadow or whatever.

Buy some land on a hill, build a huge truss arch, secure lots of insurance, and charge people for the ride. That's the American way.

>Couldn't the same argument be used to ban human traffic

I am against human trafficking.

Don't take sandstone for granite granted.
Sorry, I just had to say it.