Taughannock Falls State Park

[L_G_D]

Interesting, I can't say I haven't done exactly the same thing at Kaaterskill, and many other falls. I can understand the park having to fence off that area, but there are plenty of other falls on public land (aforementioned Kaaterskill) where there are no fences, even trails leading to the top, so one wonders what makes Taughannock any different? Just the sheer volume of people that go there? Again, on a hot summer day at Kaaterskill, you will see crowds of people at the top, even wading in the water above the falls, so again, why is this one any different? The very fact that there are fences and "DO NOT ENTER" signs just makes it more attractive for people to want to go there. If they just gave in and built a stairway to the top, you'd have less problems, I would think. I guess if you have a fence and signs, you can then arrest the people who do go there and get some fine money for the town, so there's that.

[hobkyl]

I concur with LGD on this. While it's obviously not wise to stand at the crest of a falls 215 ft in height, I'm sure most of us waterfall enthusiasts have stood at the edge of a falls, or climbed them, or did some sketchy foot work to get to a hidden away spot. Often in much more wild settings that would require far more of a rescue effort than if something were to occur at Taughannock. I'm not saying I condone the acts of these folks, and surely posting it on youtube isn't too bright but I think a good portion of hikers (myself included) are adventurous spirited people and have all in one shape or another stood in a spot whether for a view or photograph that at any given moment their lives could have been gone in the blink of an eye.

If I were going to go through the effort to get into the upper portion of the creek, it would be to photograph the upper falls from the base. The idea of standing in that location doesn't excite me, it would make me quite nervous.

[Brenda]

If they just gave in and built a stairway to the top, you'd have less problems, I would think. I guess if you have a fence and signs, you can then arrest the people who do go there and get some fine money for the town, so there's that.

Really? I just don't even know how to respond. Do you know how many times idiots have used emergency resources and risked other lives because they've put themselves into dangerous situations in the county parks only to need rescuing? Let's just allow people to swim at the base of the falls as well. After all, chunks the size of cars only slough off once every few years and people only get crushed once in a blue moon...

[Matt]

One spring I was at Taughannock at the observation area (upper area of the gorge). A french couple was chatting at the overlook. It wasn't until I approached the cement barrier near then that I saw their two children, both less then 10 years old for sure, playing in the brush under the observation area, easily a foot or so near the cliff edge. This is an elevation above the gorge higher than the falls itself.
I think think I have ever been so appalled by the behavior of parents in my life. I was speechless. Even pointing out the children's position was without meaning. The parents knew, they just didn't give a shit.
Anyways, barrier or no, people are stupid. So, should we just let Darwin decide? Brenda has a point. Nothing pisses me off more than some dolt bringing their stupid dog on a trail where dogs are not allowed, only to have that clueless animal fall down into letchworth gorge, and 1 helicopter, 2 county rescue teams, and tens of thousands of taxpayer dollars later the dog is rescued. Human lives are definitely worth rescuing, but we all pay for those dunces that fall in. So.. would i rather pay $10k every decade to put up a fence? or would I rather pay $10k every few years when a moron gets trapped or killed?
(Someone please delete this post after I get trapped or killed in a gorge).

[L_G_D]

My point was, how is this waterfall any different than all the others that do not have fences and signs, and actually have trails leading to the top? Sure, people fall off and yes, it costs money to rescue them. Maybe they should start charging them for the rescue effort, I don't know. I just don't get the outrage at the actions of these guys at this waterfall when there are countless others you can do exactly the same thing at and no one seems to mind just because there isn't a fence and signs at those locations.

The bottom line is, people are going to do stupid things and need emergency help. Doesn't matter if it's at the base of a waterfall they weren't "supposed" to be near or out on the highway going too fast or fooling around with fireworks at home. Getting mad because of it seems a bit pointless to me. People are just stupid, fact of life. And if they get killed doing said stupid things? The gene pool is better off, IMO.

[hobkyl]

Not too long ago there were no rescues, and then not long after that there were only primitive type rescues, and now we charge ourselves tens of thousands of dollars for over staffed high tech rescues.

Should rescue be required-the person should be fully responsible for the bill, period. Thus, why hiker insurance should be offered-and at a reasonable rate. You get a lot of coverage for not too bad of a price. $25,000 in coverage should be enough for typical rescue. I would buy it and I am sure that most other adventurous souls would as well.

[Matt]

I don't think there is a trail into the upper gorge. You have to climb down. I can see it being easy to get stuck because on one end there is upper falls, and on the other is lower. The rest is sheer cliff. They were able to get down through this area that is a fracture. In spring, that crack is soaked and crumbling. They have to keep rebuilding the fence around it. I can't see anyone getting above taughannock easily.

Also this park is known for rock falls, some which have killed people who were where they weren't supposed to be. I removed wording from my page when I was contacted by a lawyer who was suing the state on behalf of his client who was hit with a falling rock. I can see the state wanting to mitigate lawsuits, and cut their own insurance costs by just keeping people from the most dangerous points of the popular parks. I see upper gorge being one of those risky areas. The state owns it and operates it as an accessible family park, not as a wilderness. It's dangerous. Why even chance letting people f*** around up there?

Hiker insurance is a great idea. And a lot of that is covered by health and traveler's insurance. We have a law requiring drivers to be insured. It doesn't work. I doubt it would be any more effective on hikers, and after all, if you are responsible enough to get hiker's insurance, you probably aren't the type to pull this kind of shit. And if you DID get hiker's insurance I bet it would void the instant you crossed a barrier you shouldn't have.

It's tough for municipalities to uphold since charters usually declare the cost of fire/rescue as part of the public wealth of services offered.I know that a lot of parks have that policy about paying for your own rescue, but people rarely pay. National parks get minuscule amounts for any climber rescues because most climbers they rescue aren't even US citizens. It's tough to bill people who don't live there. Those people from France or Quebec's children could have fallen, gotten a 10/20k rescue and then back to their country. No bill from Tompkins county is going to make them pay for shit.

Both cities of Niagara Falls pay not only for each rescue, attempted rescue, and body recovery, they pay for readiness. They certainly don't bill that attempted suicide. Taxpayers do, and they always will. Because if you are irresponsible enough to get yourself into a situation like that, then chances are you probably aren't the best at other aspects of your life, like buying insurance or paying large bills.
I say.. IQ test everyone.

[Brenda]

There's also the aspect of putting the emergency personnel at risk.