On the missing Mount Hood climbers, parking cars on a frozen lake, and giving up a pet

December 20, 2006 by annadulcekelly.

Okay, I might be wrong but from what I heard, these guys knew there was a chance (at least) of bad weather before they started the climb.  This is going to sound really cold but I think if people have had ample warning of a possible snowstorm or something and STILL go on up a mountain for the heck of climbing it, there should be no expectation of anyone spending time, money and energy looking for them.  If there was not a clue anywhere that there was such a risk, then sure, go exhaust every resource to look for them.  But anyone dumb enough to go climbing when there is a risk of being trapped on the mountainside and dying should just assume they’re going to die there.  Anyone who wants to do that should have to sign a waiver stating that if they don’t come back when they’re supposed to, that people should just assume they’re dead and not waste precious (taxpayers’) money and risk the lives of the rescuers trying to find them.  Why should anyone have to put themselves at risk because a few other guys got stupid? 

Now on to another show of stupidity…parking cars on a frozen lake.  While this might not seem stupid to ther people, it’s just really hard not to think it’s stupid when the cars fall through the cracks into the water when it gets too warm.  There is a town now that I think has an interesting proposal.  Here’s the news article from the Star Tribune:

 A year after six vehicles fell through the ice at once, the city of Prior Lake is considering an unusual new ordinance aimed at keeping drivers off the lake when it’s not safe.

The rule would prohibit parking within 150 of shore on Prior Lake. The rationale? “If they’re not comfortable driving out on the ice past 150 feet, then they really shouldn’t be going out on the ice,” said Larry Poppler, assistant city engineer.

A city advisory committee began grappling with the issue not long after the Dec. 26, 2005 incident.

On that day, six vehicles — five of them trucks, all of them parked near shore at the same access point — went into the drink.

The proposal, which the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources as well as the City Council must approve, is one the state agency has never seen before, said Kim Elverum, DNR boat and water safety coordinator. A few Minnesota communities regulate winter traffic on lakes, he said, but that’s often where aeration systems are used to keep the water oxygenated for fish; those systems result in open water that cities warn is unsafe.

In fact, Prior Lake’s approach to the problem is somewhat accidental. The group working on the new ordinance modeled it after a Lake Minnetonka rule against motorized activity within 150 feet of shore, but members didn’t realize initially that the Lake Minnetonka rule doesn’t actually prohibit parking in the shore zone, Poppler said.

Any law enforcement officer could enforce the ordinance if it passes, and officers could use laser radars to gauge the distance a vehicle is parked from shore, said Bret Krick, a deputy with the Scott County Sheriff’s Department.

The ordinance would come with the city’s standard misdemeanor penalty of a maximum fine of $1,000 or up to 90 days in jail, but Krick said scofflaws would likely get a ticket of about $120.

Neither Lake Marion in Lakeville nor Crystal Lake in Burnsville have similar rules, though Lakeville Parks and Recreation Director Steve Michaud said cars periodically break through the ice in Lake Marion.

Clusters of problems

The Prior Lake Advisory Committee also considered proposing a rule against cluster parking, which likely played a role in last winter’s incident. “One guy drives out and he parks close to shore, and then the next guy comes out and he says, ‘Oh, he must be safe. I’ll park next to him,’ ” but the combined weight of the vehicles makes parking less safe, said committee member Harry Alcorn. But the group decided against the provision. “Enforcement would be hard, because the first person shouldn’t get a ticket,” Alcorn said.

Neighbors of the Shady Beach Trail access point have played a key role in the discussion. A handful went to the council last winter asking for help with the shore parking issue, partly because it has led to a problem with late-night noise, trash and parking on private property.

Neighbor Roger Kamin said that he’s seen over a hundred vehicles parked near shore at the access point in previous years, and that lake users sometimes park on neighbors’ property because they’re afraid to park on the ice, ripping up the beaches. When trucks fall through the ice, he added, they have to be retrieved, which often means towing them across lawns.

Neither the city nor the DNR tells people when it’s safe to go out on the ice. “We have a saying here” at the DNR, Elverum said: “Ice is never safe.”

The agency posts ice safety guidelines on its website that recommend waiting to drive on a lake until 8-12 inches of new, clear ice has formed.

“Some people look at a calendar, and that’s wrong,” Elverum said. “You have to look at the thermometer, and you have to look at what happens on the lake.”

 **End of article

And I AGREE!  If they’re not comfortable going out that far on the lake to park their cars, then they should not park on the lake.  It’s ridiculous anyway.  I don’t care if ice is hard…in my mind it’s still water, just temporarily solid.  It’s not a safe place to be, and it definitely is not a safe place to park an heavy vehicle.  And a lot of these people have trucks.  That’s just asking for trouble.  And think also about what this does to the water.  You know all the oils and other fluids from the car can’t be good for aquatic life.  I think there should be a stiff penalty for this, because it’s not just the fact that the vehicles have to be pulled out of the water.  It’s also the fact that they don’t know what adverse effects this might have on the fish and plants that have to deal with a car or two being dropped on their heads for no good reason.

Okay now, more stupid stuff.  It looks like Mr. Dumbass might actually be moving sometime next year.  I have my fingers crossed.  Now, we always have had this problem with the cat’s litter box not being taken care of.  It just so happens that it’s in the laundry room and people do not do their laundry on a regular basis.  So the cat drags things into the litter box and also everything on the laundry room floor smells like cat piss.  I have heard it’s hell to get out of clothes, I personally don’t know because I don’t do my laundry here and I don’t toss my laundry on the laundry room floor.  Because of the lack of schedule and consistency on the part of other people as far as doing their own laundry, I have resorted to doing my laundry every couple weeks over at my in-laws’ house.  I don’t pile up my dirty laundry so it gets overwhelming and I don’t do laundry for people just because they won’t make time for it.

So anyway, the cat is obviously not being taken care of as much as it should be.  The cat owner is hardly ever in the laundry room to feed him or clean his box.  Miss Perfect is apparently too busy.  I will grant that she has a very full schedule but…chores like these need to be made time for…and there has to be a regularity to it so it doesn’t seem like work.  That’s what I’ve done as far as taking the dog out and feeding her…it’s routine, it’s part of the schedule, it is not a hassle anymore.

Mr. Dumbass has offered to take the cat with him when he goes.  DH likes the idea.  Dumbass will have a pet to take care of that doesn’t require him to do much, the laundry room will be free eventually of the cat piss smell, Miss Perfect won’t have to figure out how to fit the pet into her schedule.  It seems like a great idea all around.  But well…of course for no good reason, Miss Perfect won’t give up the cat.  Her reasoning is if her dad did laundry regularly, the cat piss smell on clothes won’t be a problem.  Of course this does not address the fact that she just doesn’t take care of the cat, period.  Smart as she is, sometimes I think her brain shuts down and she has moments of extreme stupidity.  Or it might be selfishness.  If she thought for a minute of the cat’s welfare, she would see instantly that he’d be much better off with Dumbass.  She probably would prefer he took the dog instead.  But the dog is well taken care of.  She is part of my schedule and she gets more than enough attention.  No one can say the same about the cat.  Personally I think we should give it up one way or another.  I’ll be damned if I’m taking care of that cat.  And I just don’t think anyone here actually has the right to have a pet because they can’t keep up with pets and they just tend to be negligent.  Cruel but true.

Posted in Main | No Comments »