'Into the Wild' Bus Removed From Alaska Backcountry For Public Safety (nbcnews.com) 97
An anonymous reader quotes a report from NBC News: An abandoned bus in the Alaska backcountry, popularized by the book "Into the Wild" and movie of the same name, was removed Thursday, state officials said. The decision prioritizes public safety, Alaska Natural Resources Commissioner Corri Feige said. The bus has long attracted adventurers to an area without cellphone service and marked by unpredictable weather and at-times swollen rivers. Some have had to be rescued or have died. Christopher McCandless, the subject of the book and movie, died there in 1992. The rescue earlier this year of five Italian tourists and death last year of a woman from Belarus intensified calls from local officials for the bus, about 25 miles from the Parks Highway, to be removed.
The Alaska Army National Guard moved the bus as part of a training mission "at no cost to the public or additional cost to the state," Feige said. The Alaska National Guard, in a release, said the bus was removed using a heavy-lift helicopter. The crew ensured the safety of a suitcase with sentimental value to the McCandless family, the release states. It doesn't describe that item further. Feige, in a release, said the bus will be kept in a secure location while her department weighs various options for what to do with it.
The Alaska Army National Guard moved the bus as part of a training mission "at no cost to the public or additional cost to the state," Feige said. The Alaska National Guard, in a release, said the bus was removed using a heavy-lift helicopter. The crew ensured the safety of a suitcase with sentimental value to the McCandless family, the release states. It doesn't describe that item further. Feige, in a release, said the bus will be kept in a secure location while her department weighs various options for what to do with it.
Re:"Safety is the #1 Priority" (Score:4, Interesting)
Yeah, this bus totally killed all those people, not the fact that they went into the backcountry unprepared like McCandless did in the first place.
Stupid people will invent a reason to stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
"We need to protect them from themselves. They're being _stupid_. Trust us, we know better! This is for your own good!!"
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:3)
"We need to protect ourselves from the lawyers of the relatives of stupid people."
FTFY
Even if the state had paid to have it removed it would still have been a bargain compared to another set of lawsuits.
Re:"Safety is the #1 Priority" (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
I thought about the attractive nuisance argument... but this is already somewhere that's not readily accessible (cf. the fact that people keep dying from being stuck attempting to get to or from there). It'd be like construction workers taking down and chaining a ladder to keep kids off/from being able to extend it, which is a valid way to legally leave a ladder on a jobsite overnight; but this is more analogous to a kid deliberately bringing bolt-cutters and still messing with the ladder anyway.
I don't par
Re: (Score:2)
but this is more analogous to a kid deliberately bringing bolt-cutters and still messing with the ladder anyway.
No because other than strong warnings, the state hasn't done anything to impede people from visiting the bus before now. It's more analogous to the state posting a signing advising not to climb the ladder.
I don't particularly care about them removing it (it's junk), but just hiding it, as one person below pointed out, is little more than compounding the issue if people are already willing to go out there. I like another plan that was suggested below, to put it in the parking lot/make a museum exhibit of it.
The state hasn't said what they will do with it. An exhibit is possible. One of the problems is that the bus is in terrible condition these days due to vandalism, souvenir takers, and the elements. It is not the same condition as depicted in the book. There will need to be some restoration at least.
Re: (Score:3)
At least now the bus will end up in the Smithsonian, like that 9-foot section of Route 66.
Re: (Score:1)
Though it does not have to, it certainly may — and probably should have.
Which happened, what, 4 times in 20 years?
Advice is free.
What's next — let's flatten the mountains, so that the stupid mountaineers stop climbing them, and the silly skiers (and snowboarders!) stop endan
Re: (Score:2)
Though it does not have to, it certainly may — and probably should have.
So your argument is that Alaska should just let people die. How cavalier of you.
Which happened, what, 4 times in 20 years?
Did you do any research on this or did you post false numbers? Do you even know that the numbers are?
What's next — let's flatten the mountains, so that the stupid mountaineers stop climbing them, and the silly skiers (and snowboarders!) stop endangering themselves too? And, of course, fill up the gorges — to keep people from falling into them. Drain all billabongs, to keep the stupid from drowning, and close all the beaches — 'cause you might get a sunburn.
Where in the world did I say any of that? Please cite where I said that or are your arguments completely strawman arguments. In this exact case, the state of Alaska moved am abandoned bus. That's it. You are whining that they moved a bus.
Re: (Score:1)
Yes, no one is obligated to save people, who choose to hike to dangerous places, sail — or swim — in dangerous waters, or otherwise endanger themselves. No one except, perhaps, those, with whom they've made prior arrangements for just such rescues.
Clearly, you did not — which didn't stop you from accusing me
Re: (Score:2)
Yes, no one is obligated to save people, who choose to hike to dangerous places, sail — or swim — in dangerous waters, or otherwise endanger themselves. No one except, perhaps, those, with whom they've made prior arrangements for just such rescues.
Mi: Humanitarian
Clearly, you did not — which didn't stop you from accusing me of posting falsehoods... The state carried out 15 bus-related search and rescue operations between 2009 and 2017, authorities say. [bbc.com]
And how do you know I didn't know? Hint: I was pointing out specifically that you clearly posted false numbers that you now admit as it wasn't "4 times in 20 years" was it? How would I have known that if I didn't know call out your numbers as bogus.
That's twice a year on average that anything of the kind happens there at all. Actual deaths are, obviously, even more rare
1) Those are only the official rescue operations; that does not include every single time someone got lost but didn't require an official search party for them. 2) And how much money did the state spend for each rescue? You don't know, do you?
. Last year a foreign tourist drowned, which could've happened at a beach too — she didn't die of exposure or hunger
Bu
Re: (Score:1)
And now you're making it personal... Mi is a Libertarian — advocate of personal responsibility for one's own actions.
I never stated, that it was "4 times in 20 years". Mine was a question.
So you admit to have no idea, how big a problem it really was...
That's irrelevant. Government must not be allowed to
Re: (Score:2)
And now you're making it personal... Mi is a Libertarian — advocate of personal responsibility for one's own actions.
The state made a choice here but you clearly want them to let people die. In other words, your bloodlust should overrule their concern for people. How is that personal responsibility? It's you trying to impose your will on a state.
I never stated, that it was "4 times in 20 years". Mine was a question.
So without any knowledge about what the numbers were, you came in with a full formed opinion of what Alaska should and should not do. You were arguing from a position of ignorance then? That's basically saying: "I don't know how many people this affects but we shouldn't do [action
Re: (Score:1)
This statement makes no sense at all.
The state government made a choice, which I question. Your arguments for that choice are Statist in nature, and would — without alteration or slipping any further down the proverbial "roof" — allow the government to outright prohibit a variety of risky behavior: smoking (anything), swimming, skiing, and even (dare I bring it up?) participating in protests.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: "Safety is the #1 Priority" (Score:1)
Welcome to the New World Order where you are just a peon who exists to make others very rich.
We can't have our peons dying on us, now can we? There is money to be milking! So we need to turn this world into a no fun hell hole in the name of "safety".
Yes, I don't believe for one damn second that these 'do-gooders' are doing this out of the kindness of their hearts. Mod as you will, but this is how I see things.
Re: (Score:2)
Also known as the Old World Order. Do you really think the kings and barons of old gave a hoot about the great mass of the people other than they produce wealth for the guy further up the food chain? At least at this point, we don't have to literally follow them to their grave to continue serving them.
Re: (Score:2)
So just say fuck it and let people die out there when they ask for help? Just leave the bodies? Which will be more of an attraction the bodies/bear food or the bus?
Cleaning up junk out of the forest is just fine.
Re:"Safety is the #1 Priority" (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It was a training mission. You have a budget for those anyway, so the state did not spend additional money.
What the hell are you talking about? Please cite your source that they were training missions. say otherwise: [bbc.com]
Last year a newlywed woman from Belarus drowned trying to cross the swollen river. The other drowning took place in 2010 .In April a stranded Brazilian had to be evacuated and in February five Italians were rescued, with one suffering severe frostbite. The state carried out 15 bus-related search and rescue operations between 2009 and 2017, authorities say.
And may have gotten some good training for real-world missions. win-win.
I don't consider two deaths as "win-win". Maybe in your world it is.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
He was referring to the mission that retrieved the bus not the actual rescue missions before.
I said: "The state spent money and will continue to spend money on rescue operations if the bus remains. "
To which he responded: "It was a training mission. You have a budget for those anyway, so the state did not spend additional money. And may have gotten some good training for real-world missions."
It does not appear that he was responded to removing the bus as no mention of money was associated with it. I specifically stated rescue operations cost money.
Re:"Safety is the #1 Priority" (Score:5, Insightful)
Not rights, not personal choice, not your ability to assess and take risks -- your safety is the number one priority. Your constitutional, and other, rights will come second.
You can still go there you huge idiot, there's just no bus there anymore.
There's no Constitutional Right to find a bus in the wilderness.
Re: (Score:3)
There's no Constitutional Right to find a bus in the wilderness.
To be fair given the number of people who quote their constitutional rights without ever having read them ... are you *really* sure?
Re: (Score:2)
Name one specific right or constitutional provision violated here.
Re: (Score:2)
The state is tired of being sued by the relatives of stupid people, so they've removed something that attracts stupid people. I don't see the issue, unless you're offended by their wording (at which point it's you who have issues.)
Re: (Score:1)
I've never heard of that site before, but I'm tempted to trek there — just to find the tracks of that bus... Wish me luck.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:1)
The state carried out 15 bus-related search and rescue operations between 2009 and 2017, authorities say. [bbc.com] On average, about twice a year they have to pull someone out of there. That's not "many" — a ski resort may have a helicopter evacuation every day, without anybody seeking to close them down...
Thank you, but now the internationally-famous piece of
Re: (Score:2)
Just because you don't like something the state did doesn't mean your Constitutional rights have been trampled.
An abandoned vehicle was causing a nuisance (people needing a rescue), so the state removed it. This doesn't in any way prevent anyone who wants to from going there.
Re: (Score:1)
The bus was the only reason for people to go there.
You gotta fight for your right to be stupid.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Alas, the documents you refer to do NOT include the Constitution.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
How could anyone forget the rusty-bus clause of the eleventeenth amendment? Truly, the removal of this bus is a sad day for America. Is there any right that can't be taken by the snowflakes?
Re: (Score:2)
I think it wasn't the dead idiot's bus. He found it and chose to inhabit it, as his desire to live in the wilderness apparently didn't extend as far as being able to build his own shelter (or indeed, live).
in Soviet Russia, bus removes you (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Except Alaskan taxpayers had to foot the bill when some idiot was trapped there in bad weather and/or without proper provisions. Yes, people have the right to be stupid, but they can't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill repeatedly and do nothing about it.
Re: (Score:1)
Except Alaskan taxpayers had to foot the bill when some idiot was trapped there in bad weather and/or without proper provisions. Yes, people have the right to be stupid, but they can't expect the taxpayer to foot the bill repeatedly and do nothing about it.
If someone wants to go out into the middle of the Alaskan bush without appropriate supplies or skills, why is it anybody else's duty to bail them out when they do something stupid? If I decide to strand myself in Alaska, a deserted island, the arctic, or wherever else, I have zero expectations that I can pick up a satellite phone and call for help when I piss off the indigenous wildlife or fall in a ditch. The real tragedy here is that the Alaskan government had to spend money to rescue these idiots and, wo
Stupid will always find a reason (Score:4, Insightful)
If they didn't head for this bus theyd head for an equally dangerous to reach mountain/lake/ravine/cave just to boast that theyd done it.
Re: (Score:2)
And if while reaching that other thing they call for rescue, teams will be deployed just the same as they were for this bus. Don't know what to tell you. Idiots are a pretty big cost to tax payers in a lot of regards. The National Guard picked up the cost of moving the thing as part of a training mission so the money was already earmarked for training, they just made the bus part of the mission.
As far as how do we reduce the number of times we rescue idiots doing idiotic things? Good luck on figuring th
Re: (Score:1)
If only we could reduce that number to zero, then we'd really start setting off on a better foot..
Re:Stupid will always find a reason (Score:4, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
The bus was abandoned there by people who should have been responsible for cleaning up after themselves. It's hard to imagine the Alaskan wilderness was improved by the decaying remains of the bus, and if it was also a lure for idiots, then removal was long overdue.
The counter argument is that due to the fame of the bus it became a tourist attraction and thus contributed to the Alaskan economy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Stupid will always find a reason (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, I bet a lot of the calls were from people who said "Well, we're int he area, why don't we check it out on our way" type visitors. So by moving it away, you eliminate this group of people who are usually the most ill-prepared to handle the environment. They just think they'll go out for a couple of hours, take a few photos and be done, without realizing the danger it truly possesses.
After all, don't you ever wonder why SAR gets called out and the person being found was always ill prepared for the hike/
Re: (Score:2)
Death by misadventure is a human right. That includes the workers who strive to save those people from themselves, be they paid or volunteers. Put up a warning sign, 'HIGH RISK ZONE. SHOULD YOU REQUIRE RESCUE SERVICES YOU WILL BE REQUIRED TO PAY FOR THEM' and leave it at that. Don't be stupid on the charges, they should not pay for the provision of the services to the locale, just their specific access of those services at that specific time, reasonable rates. Meh, such is life, don't be arseholes or leave
Re: (Score:2)
If they didn't head for this bus theyd head for an equally dangerous to reach mountain/lake/ravine/cave just to boast that theyd done it.
Nope. People went to this bus because it was famous not because they were some thrill seekers. Hell it isn't even thrill seeking. In general it's not a dangerous trip there are just some situations that can catch you out if you are unprepared.
Should have left it (Score:1)
Do we believe in evolution or not?
Stop trying to thwart natural selection, I say.
Should add more buses in even more remote places, maybe near grizzly nests.
Re: (Score:2)
On the bright side... (Score:3)
They did recreate the flying magic school bus that lots of kids loved in the 90's.
That was a weird show.
Ryan Fenton
Re: (Score:2)
My daughter adored that show.
If you thought ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Reminds me of Amsterdam 3 years ago. Queens day fell on a Sunday so there were tourists from all over the world who came looking for the biggest party in the country thanks an already famous day now falling on a weekend. Expectations were huge. It was going to go off like you can only imagine when the biggest party day of the year for a country happens to coincide with a weekend. The crowds were incredible.
Except the Queen abdicated in 2013 and Kings Day was actually 4 days earlier on the Thursday. All the
Put it in the parking lot to the park (Score:5, Insightful)
The damn bus has been host to fools who don't respect nature ever since it entered the park to begin with. The first person on the thing literally starved to death. At least two more have drowned trying to cross a river to get to it.
There have been at least 15 rescues for hikers trying to get to that bus over the years. For some reason the bus attracts inexperienced people who don't realize how in over their head they are. As memory serves there's been at least one bear attack associated with the thing as well.
Far better to put the thing in the parking lot of the visitors center and then people can see it without needing expensive helicopter rescues. At a minimum put it close enough so that it's an easy day trip and people can at least see the visitors center and readily make it back without a rescue team.
Re: (Score:2)
There's a solid plan. Everyone benefits from that one. Inclines the lazy (and therefore likely unprepared) to not put themselves in risky situations. The people who are really prepared can make plans to go out anyway.
Re:Put it in the parking lot to the park (Score:4, Funny)
An even more solid plan: After putting that bus in its prime spot on the parking lot, open up the souvenir shop selling shot glasses and teaspoon and other schwag. Don't forget the t-shirts saying My friend went into the wild and lived long enough to get me this T-shirt
Re: (Score:1)
Don't forget the t-shirts saying My friend went into the wild and lived long enough to get me this T-shirt
Where....where can I get that T-Shirt?.....asking for a friend..............;)
Re: (Score:2)
The Department of Natural Resources said the 1940s-era bus had been used by a construction company to house employees during work on an access road in the area and was abandoned when the work was finished in 1961.
https://www.cbc.ca/news/world/... [www.cbc.ca]
Re: (Score:1)
If any of those guys are still around I bet they could never imagine it would be removed via helo 60 years later.
Darwin bait. n/t (Score:2)
nt
Pop Quiz Hotshot (Score:2)
Pop quiz, hotshot. There's a bomb on a bus. Once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed. If it drops below 50, it blows up What do you do? What do you do?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Pop Quiz Hotshot (Score:1)
An Area Without Cellphone Service?? (Score:2)
Is that even allowed? How are citizens tracked in such an area?
Re: (Score:2)
Again (Score:2)
Whoooooooosh!!
Where are the armed protesters? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's not a bad idea. Remove Capitol Hill, CHAZ and all. We should never have stopped after Denny Hill [wikimedia.org].
Re: (Score:2)
People fuck it up (Score:2)
Good riddance (Score:4, Insightful)
Christopher McCandless was a loser who was mad at his mommy and daddy because they expected him to take advantage of his enormous wealth and privilege and make something of his life. Instead, he chose to become a transient and eventually wandered a short way into the Alaskan wilderness and died of being unprepared, ignorant, and incompetent. The bus that he stayed in has become a mecca for idiots who are even less prepared than he was to go there. Its removal is a benefit to the people of the State of Alaska, who no longer have to rescue those who stray into the backcountry to find it.
The quickest way to die in nature is to disrespect it, and that's exactly what McCandless and everyone who followed him did. The ones who got rescued were lucky. The ones who didn't got what they earned: a lesson on how nature responds to fools.
Idiots (Score:2)
That place is a monument to stupid. No wonder it attracts more stupid.
People are just stupid (Score:1)
The removal should have happened years ago. Way more trouble than it was ever worth.
Safety first (Score:1)