Closed areas? Always stay on trail?

Curious as to what others think regarding ignoring signs/fences that warn of dangerous areas or state the area is closed. For instance, on the Oregon coast at Cape Kiwanda there is a large area that has a fence and states the area is closed. However, everyone seems to ignore it, photographers in particular. The view from further out makes for much better compositions. It is dangerous? Certain areas for sure. All of it? I'd say no. If you have half a brain I think you would be fine in this particular area.

As a photographer, to what length do you go to get "the shot"? Do you ignore signage, skirt the law, or always comply?

Also, there are parks all over that ask you to stay on the trail. Do you wander off a little ways to get a shot or stand by the letter of the law? If you always obey the signage, what about the numerous (and well known) landscape photographer who don't?

I ask because I'm divided on my opinion based on a lot of things. Obvious danger, lack of a trail, and verbiage on the signs all factor in before I make a decision. For example, a well worn trail, a sign that says trail closed (not maintained) and no obvious danger, I may just go ahead. Just trying to open a discussion - i know just because someone else does it doesn't make it right, but just like the speed limit, we all bend and/or break this all the time based on weather conditions, traffic flow, etc.

James

I notice no mention of sensitive species or biomes in your post.

In my experience closed areas are often trying to heal themselves from excess foot traffic to return to their more natural state. Seems humans believe they hold some kind of internal knowledge that allows them to determine what is right and what is wrong in these situations. "I'm just one person, what could it hurt?" Pretty selfish.

I hate closed areas. In most instances, I just avoid areas that have a lot of area closures.

Cases in point would be Glacier National Park and Mount Rainier National Park ....... years ago I could go to either of these parks and photograph wildlife in a reasonable manner, moving about as needed to get tasteful compositions. . I would go off-trail and find wildlife in areas where there were no other people anywhere near me, off where I couldn't be seen and wouldn't be followed. . Nowadays, there are such strongly enforced "stay on the trail" regulations that just being in these places is a very unpleasant experience.

I go to nature to enjoy it in an unrestricted manner. . If I am being intensively regulated and controlled by others, then it completely ruins the whole thing for me because wilderness adventures are supposed to be all about freedom and wanderlust, not conformity and adherence.

So I just don't even bother going to Rainier or Glacier anymore. . Those places have been ruined by the damned rules. . What good is having a place even exist if I cannot enjoy it the way I like to enjoy it?

So instead, I now spend almost all of my photography time in places where nobody else is. In national forests, for example, or in state parks where you can go off trail and wander anywhere you want and get away from all other humans. . The experience is much more enjoyable, but there is a downside .... that is that in order to get the kinds of photos I want, I usually need to find very tame wildlife that is very used to people getting close to them. I can't find tame wildlife like that in the truly wild, remote areas, and therefore it is hard to get real quality photos of the critters.

It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" kind of situation. . I need to be able to roam freely in areas where the animals are used to seeing a lot of people at very close range, yet it is exactly these places that have regulations that don't allow you to roam freely. . Very, very frustrating because I can't get what I want the way I used to.

.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18868177
I notice no mention of sensitive species or biomes in your post.

In my experience closed areas are often trying to heal themselves from excess foot traffic to return to their more natural state. Seems humans believe they hold some kind of internal knowledge that allows them to determine what is right and what is wrong in these situations. "I'm just one person, what could it hurt?" Pretty selfish.

I totally get what you are saying - and I agree that I'm not special. The places I am mentioning, to my knowledge, are not sensitive species areas or anything. It's more that the trail is a bit sketchy, or the area can be hazardous. At least that's what I infer from the signs (and lack of explicit text that states otherwise).

Another example was on Maui at the trail to Waimoku Falls several years ago. Halfway up there was a sign that the trail was closed due to a washout. There was a steady stream of people coming down the trail from the closed area - they all stated it was fine, no issues and not dangerous. We passed the closed area and sure enough, it was fine. There was one area about 2-3 feet where the trail was washed a bit. If you were elderly or had a handicap, you may have had issues, otherwise it was perfectly fine. I get that they want to keep people safe, but it comes a point where we are all responsible for ourselves. It's just as easy to twist an ankle or trip and fall down a ravine on an open trail as it is on others that are listed as closed.

Left Handed Brisket wrote in post #18868177
I notice no mention of sensitive species or biomes in your post.

In my experience closed areas are often trying to heal themselves from excess foot traffic to return to their more natural state. Seems humans believe they hold some kind of internal knowledge that allows them to determine what is right and what is wrong in these situations. "I'm just one person, what could it hurt?" Pretty selfish.

I tend to follow those signs for the reason you state- also, nesting birds or some other reason. I assume (perhaps incorrectly, in some cases) that whoever closed the area knows more about the situation than I, who is only there for a few hours or maybe a day.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18868181
I hate closed areas. In most instances, I just avoid areas that have a lot of area closures.

Cases in point would be Glacier National Park and Mount Rainier National Park ....... years ago I could go to either of these parks and photograph wildlife in a reasonable manner, moving about as needed to get tasteful compositions. . I would go off-trail and find wildlife in areas where there were no other people anywhere near me, off where I couldn't be seen and wouldn't be followed. . Nowadays, there are such strongly enforced "stay on the trail" regulations that just being in these places is a very unpleasant experience.

I go to nature to enjoy it in an unrestricted manner. . If I am being intensively regulated and controlled by others, then it completely ruins the whole thing for me because wilderness adventures are supposed to be all about freedom and wanderlust, not conformity and adherence.

So I just don't even bother going to Rainier or Glacier anymore. . Those places have been ruined by the damned rules. . What good is having a place even exist if I cannot enjoy it the way I like to enjoy it?

So instead, I now spend almost all of my photography time in places where nobody else is. In national forests, for example, or in state parks where you can go off trail and wander anywhere you want and get away from all other humans. . The experience is much more enjoyable, but there is a downside .... that is that in order to get the kinds of photos I want, I usually need to find very tame wildlife that is very used to people getting close to them. I can't find tame wildlife like that in the truly wild, remote areas, and therefore it is hard to get real quality photos of the critters.

It's a "damned if you do and damned if you don't" kind of situation. . I need to be able to roam freely in areas where the animals are used to seeing a lot of people at very close range, yet it is exactly these places that have regulations that don't allow you to roam freely. . Very, very frustrating because I can't get what I want the way I used to.

.

I hear what you are saying, but many of these parks are "loved to death". Too many people, and so many don't follow the rules, nor common sense. Every year, a bison or elk throws someone into a tree at Yellowstone when the stand next to the animal for a picture. Some of my Asian friends seem to think our national parks are giant walking zoos. Those "damned rules" are needed so the majority of people visiting don't make it even worse for the park or animals. I won't be surprised to see fences or guard rails on the rim of the Grand Canyon because yahoos won't stop taking selfies and fall off the edge. As a society in general, we don't let Darwin have his say.

I have gone to the parks at the "shoulder" seasons. Fewer people and the animals seem to reclaim their space. State parks can be fruitful too, as you have said. Some of the parks in the Colorado Front Range have animals acclimated to humans and you can wander, while others are just too crowded and the animals are elsewhere.

For me there is a big difference between a warning vs. an area that is closed. If an area is closed I respect that but if it is a warning, I take it under advisement. I have went beyond warnings many times after considering the risks.

What irks me is that it used to be if an area was "closed" it was likely due to things like rehabilitation of the area or protecting nesting birds, things like that. Now, we have closures to protect humanity from itself. There is a reason that the average age of death at Cape Kiwanda is 19 years old; the folly of youth. That area used to be a warning but that wasn't enough to stop idiots from jumping into the Punch Bowl and then putting rescuers lives at risk when they would inevitability be called to either rescue them or retrieve their bodies.

When I was last at Cape Kiwanda the area wasn't closed but there was a warning sign. I chose to take the warning under advisement.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #18868181
I hate closed areas. In most instances, I just avoid areas that have a lot of area closures.

Cases in point would be Glacier National Park

The last time I was in Glacier NP I wanted to shoot "Triple Falls", made famous by Galen Rowell. I spent a great deal of time before the trip tracking down where I thought that location was and how and when the best time to shoot it would be.It was probably the one shot I was most looking forward to getting as it would have meant a before sunrise hike in total solitude which is how I like to shoot. However, when I got there the area was closed for rehabilitation. Bummer. I shot something else at sunrise, but on my hike back I saw a group of 5 people hiking back from where I knew Triple Falls was. I knew who they were and what photography group they were with (the group leader was not with them) but it really pissed me off. The sign forbidding access to that area could not have been more clear and it specifically said that even walking on the damp vegetation would damage the area to the point that it would take years to recover. But they just didn't give a Sh*$. They wanted the shot. It's people like that, that ruin it for the rest of us.

And speaking of the Oregon Coast, the below was taken at Seal Rock. I really wanted to scout the area from the bluff at the far left of the frame, but there was a large and clear sign stating the area was closed as it was a sensitive bird nesting area. Well, you can see the guy (yes, it's a guy and I know who it is) that thought getting the shot was more important than the birds.

Photo from Bcaps's gallery.

Hope you turned the guy in ^^

I spend most of my time shooting anywhere outdoors that is not restricted and, should I ever find myself shooting in an area with restrictions then I would follow them to the letter and never return again.

Just this past week, the rangers in Yosemite National Park staged rescue operations drills to recover all those folks who -- every year -- believe that the danger signs are only so much BS and they are not subject to the rules of nature, but then they need to be rescued.

Yes, lots of folks disregard the signs/fences and nothing happens to them. But eventually some fool pays the price. These are often known as 'fatality statistics'.

The Cliffs of Moher in Ireland have folks climb out to take photos all the time. The Cliffs of Moher in Ireland also have rocks crack off and fall 700 feet from time to time. Do you feel lucky enough that it will not crack off when YOU stand on it?! It has nothing to do with 'care' (unless you take the care to rope yourself to something that will hold you even WHEN the rock cracks off), it has only to do with probability. And wind gusts.

https://www.cliffsofmo​her.ie/

https://www.newsweek.c​om …ile-taking-selfie-1280003
https://www.irishtimes​.com …-of-moher-trail-1.3750400

There is prudent action and foolish action in deciding when and when not to obey the signs. A study released by the United States National Library of Medicine and the National Institute of Health found that there were 259 deaths from taking selfies from October 2011 to November 2017.

I obey all signs and warnings. The most I will do is to put my tripod on the restricted side of a fence, but I myself will stay on the trail.

I was at Cape Kiwanda recently and walked up to the barrier. I'd never seen that before and was bummed out that I could not go out further to get better shots of the Haystack. Here is a shot showing the barrier off in the distance, down below...

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/24NX​9dT

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qzVN​W9

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/qTap​Ha

FarmerTed1971 wrote in post #18880604
There are SOOOOO many amatuer photographers now that trampling areas is becoming a huge issue. We need to respect nature.

I couldn't agree more.

Another thing to consider is that if you DO ignore the safety/warning/danger signs (like at Cape Kiwanda) and go past the fence, what happens if you get in trouble and first responders have to risk their lives to save you? It's one thing to put yourself at risk, but what if your good judgement wasn't that good and a rogue or sneaker wave carries you out to sea?

Another item - Angels Landing in Zion NP. To me, it's a terrifying hike along the spine of rock thousands of feet to the floor. One mis-step and you are dead - no chance to recover your footing. Yet, NP rangers allow tourists with no idea, experience, or training to make the hike, even with children. What makes THAT different than Cape Kiwanda?

Are there other hikes/trails that are super dangerous that are allowed?

James33 wrote in post #18880659
Another item - Angels Landing in Zion NP. To me, it's a terrifying hike along the spine of rock thousands of feet to the floor. One mis-step and you are dead - no chance to recover your footing. Yet, NP rangers allow tourists with no idea, experience, or training to make the hike, even with children. What makes THAT different than Cape Kiwanda?

Are there other hikes/trails that are super dangerous that are allowed?

Wilderness is not a Disney Park. Why should anybody be forbidden to go on a trail? On what grounds? Trails here have a rating and most of them a good description that help you to assess the danger. But e.g. during winter you have additionally the danger of avalanches which can make a simple trail deadly dangerous. You need (and it also is expected from you) to be able to assess the situation yourself. We have around 60'000 km of marked trails - and plenty of unmarked ones. No way to have some sort of access control. And they are dangerous as typically around 100 per year die during hiking - and these are not exclusively stupid tourists, but also experienced hikers. As a consequence I respect signs and closed off areas, because they are usually done for a very good reason.