View Single Post
Old 03-05-2014, 10:49 AM   #25
l'oiseau
**BANNED**
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Rochester, NY
Posts: 1,154
Quote:
Originally Posted by backwoodsman View Post
Instead of making snowshoes mandatory why don't they make postholing illegal. Then when the surface is hard enough you could bareboot.
So if we were to extend this to say the seatbelt law, should we make death or injury illegal as a result of not wearing a seatbelt? Or should we just make it a illegal not to wear a seatbelt? Seems obvious. I think the same sort of logic applies here.

It is much easier to instruct someone to wear snowshoes than to try to catch the postholer. I'm pretty sure the people who proposed this rule in the first place were intending to stop postholing and this was best way they could figure out how to.

Like anything, it isn't perfect. You may get people postholing that don't get caught and people barebooting and not causing any problems that get reprimanded. Same could be said for the seatbelt law. People die or are injured wearing a seatbelt and some people walk away unscathed not wearing one.


Quote:
Originally Posted by EveryTripAnExpedition View Post
I thought about this yesterday as I went about my business- are there any statistics anywhere for snowshoe/ski/ vs. bare-boot usage in the wintertime in the whole Park?
In the EHP- what is the adherance rate? And what would be a good adherance rate- like 80% compliance or so? (Even 60%?) I still think if you hit them with education, interesting signage, perhaps a "snowshoe awareness campaign", designated "snowshoe trails", and perhaps even "snowshoe days", it might sink in. Also, hit them when they are young- I introduced my nephew to snowshoes when he was 5 years old- its been 3 seasons now, and he now has his own pair, and thinks they are the coolest thing for the wintertime.
My main question is if a person was going to wear snowshoes when appropriate, why would they have any opposition to a regulation? It should have no effect on them.

The argument could be made that the only reason one would oppose it being a law is that they intend to disobey it. The same argument is made against people who support legalization of drugs. Why would they want that unless they wanted to do drugs themselves? That situation isn't as simple, and we aren't talking about people being thrown in jail for years, we are talking about a typical DEC approach which is education, warning, and then if necessary, punishment.

If one thinks it may lead to other regulations such as fire bans, bear cannisters, etc like in the EHP then I can't see that as a bad thing either. If the area is impacted then fire bans make sense. Or if people can't make fires responsibly. Bear cannister regulations are obvious - it is more about the bear than your 'freedoms'. I think the bear has every right to steal your food if you are on it's turf. But in order to keep the peace, we must protect the bear from itself.

As far as numbers I have no idea. But I will put this point up. It only takes one to ruin the trail. And once it is, it may freeze over and become a safety hazzard. Many snowshoers and skiers have been injured from other peoples postholes.
l'oiseau is offline   Reply With Quote