My thought as I read through the incredibly detailed, prescriptive language of the DoI guidance was that they really must expect the staff cuts; the "deferred maintenance"; the large, unregulated crowds to result in an increase in serious accidents and even deaths. And they want to protect themselves. And, of course, they're not interested in protecting the American public by hiring staff, maintaining the parks, reinstating reservations to control crowds, etc.
Having created and read a bunch of these types of documents, my guess is that whole framework is AI generated after some prompting, and those last lines — “LEADERSHIP-SAFE BOTTOM LINE…” — weren’t actually meant to be pasted as part of the memo, but rather are whatever model they are using’s way of summarizing the instructions it received to generate a generic sounding set of instructions.
A more generous — if you’re open to it — read would be not outright malevolence, but rather someone trying to put together comm standards quickly using AI without much thought into the prompting besides “don’t make it political.” The output then becomes super generic, “safe,” and ultimately unhelpful for any purpose besides providing cover — and with no one caring enough to read it or make it more human (and ultimately useful), it just becomes another piece of the bureaucratic morass.
As the author of nine books in the "Death in the Parks" series, six of them about national parks, I find this "guidance" appalling. Informing the public of the hazards they may encounter in a national park is part of the sacred trust between park staff and the visitors they advise and protect. The less information the public receives, the more likely it is that people will make the same mistakes repeatedly, and the more people will die—as we are seeing right now in Grand Canyon (as Barbie Burke said in her comment) and in Glacier, where people keep surprising bears and getting mauled. The parks are already dangerously understaffed thanks to ridiculous and repeated cuts in personnel; if more people find themselves in peril, there may be no one available to save them. This is all so wrong-headed that it makes me dizzy.
So how do you think this lines up with the recent death in Yosemite? My guess is they couldn't cover that up because there were so many eye witnesses. The danger of heat deaths is they happen when there is no help, no witnesses.
That’s exactly it, Rosemary—if anyone besides park staff sees an accident, is part of an accident, or even hears about an accident, it will get back to the media. Not giving the park communications officer the ability to respond with facts means that all kinds of misinformation may be generated. This memo is shortsighted and foolish about how public information works.
In Phoenix where we have the extreme heat like in the Grand Canyon, people are dying this month on local trails. The city has had to close trails to keep people off of them since this keeps happening. There are rescues every week for people who ignore the signs and gates. It is well publicized to get the message out that extreme heat kills. It is insane that the DOI is not open and honest about this problem. The latest deaths of extreme heat in the Grand Canyon trails finally came out although too late. There is a book , "Over the Edge, Death in Grand Canyon" that details these sad stories. Clearly this administration still operates out of denial and scapegoating and the public is hurt.
My thought as I read through the incredibly detailed, prescriptive language of the DoI guidance was that they really must expect the staff cuts; the "deferred maintenance"; the large, unregulated crowds to result in an increase in serious accidents and even deaths. And they want to protect themselves. And, of course, they're not interested in protecting the American public by hiring staff, maintaining the parks, reinstating reservations to control crowds, etc.
Having created and read a bunch of these types of documents, my guess is that whole framework is AI generated after some prompting, and those last lines — “LEADERSHIP-SAFE BOTTOM LINE…” — weren’t actually meant to be pasted as part of the memo, but rather are whatever model they are using’s way of summarizing the instructions it received to generate a generic sounding set of instructions.
A more generous — if you’re open to it — read would be not outright malevolence, but rather someone trying to put together comm standards quickly using AI without much thought into the prompting besides “don’t make it political.” The output then becomes super generic, “safe,” and ultimately unhelpful for any purpose besides providing cover — and with no one caring enough to read it or make it more human (and ultimately useful), it just becomes another piece of the bureaucratic morass.
As the author of nine books in the "Death in the Parks" series, six of them about national parks, I find this "guidance" appalling. Informing the public of the hazards they may encounter in a national park is part of the sacred trust between park staff and the visitors they advise and protect. The less information the public receives, the more likely it is that people will make the same mistakes repeatedly, and the more people will die—as we are seeing right now in Grand Canyon (as Barbie Burke said in her comment) and in Glacier, where people keep surprising bears and getting mauled. The parks are already dangerously understaffed thanks to ridiculous and repeated cuts in personnel; if more people find themselves in peril, there may be no one available to save them. This is all so wrong-headed that it makes me dizzy.
So how do you think this lines up with the recent death in Yosemite? My guess is they couldn't cover that up because there were so many eye witnesses. The danger of heat deaths is they happen when there is no help, no witnesses.
That’s exactly it, Rosemary—if anyone besides park staff sees an accident, is part of an accident, or even hears about an accident, it will get back to the media. Not giving the park communications officer the ability to respond with facts means that all kinds of misinformation may be generated. This memo is shortsighted and foolish about how public information works.
In Phoenix where we have the extreme heat like in the Grand Canyon, people are dying this month on local trails. The city has had to close trails to keep people off of them since this keeps happening. There are rescues every week for people who ignore the signs and gates. It is well publicized to get the message out that extreme heat kills. It is insane that the DOI is not open and honest about this problem. The latest deaths of extreme heat in the Grand Canyon trails finally came out although too late. There is a book , "Over the Edge, Death in Grand Canyon" that details these sad stories. Clearly this administration still operates out of denial and scapegoating and the public is hurt.