You are here

Should A National Park Ranger Countermand a Parent?

Share

The climb up to Paradise Lost at Oregon Caves National Monument can be intimidating. NPS photo of the Paradise Lost flowstone formation.

I was touring Oregon Caves National Monument recently when I witnessed an interesting scene between a ranger and a guest – one which makes me wonder about the parameters of ranger authority.

Near the end of the tour is an optional side trip from the Ghost Room, up a swaying set of 92 steps, to the small but famous Paradise Lost formation of flowstones, which rise tier on tier toward the cave dome. A teen-age girl, apparently worried by the stairs, said she did not want to make the climb.

“You have to,” her mother said.

“No she does not,” the ranger said.

“I’m her mother, and I say she does,” the woman said.

“No she does not,” the ranger said, standing between the girl and her mother.

The ranger and the mother eyed each other for a moment, and then the mother headed up the steps without her daughter, who stayed below in the company of the ranger.

The incident raises interesting questions. Should a ranger countermand the authority of a parent? I think most of us would say “yes” if the parent were asking her child to do something illegal or patently dangerous. But the stair was not an out-and-out danger, just a fear that the parent may have wanted her child to face and master.

On the other hand, I think many of us can also sympathize with the ranger. The trip to Paradise Lost is clearly called optional, and the stairs can be intimidating. Certainly the ranger did not want to have to rescue the child, frozen by fear halfway up the steps.

I’d like to read what the readers think – if not about this incident specifically, then about the position of rangers in general when it comes to parents and children. Maybe some others of you have witnessed similar incidents where the commands of one authority have come into conflict with the other.

Comments

I have been to the caves and did not go up there.
The Ranger was in is right, to let the gal know that she did not have to go there.
As a mother I feel that a Child will know what is comfortable and what is not.


THE RANGER WAS CORRECT. HE WAS NOT STANDING ON PARENTS AUTHORITY. WHEN YOU ARE IN THAT KIND OF SITUATION, YOU HAVE TO PROTECT THE PUBLIC, BEFORE ANY EMERGENCY ARISE.


Rick B is right. We do not know the whole story, and even if we did, every situation is unique and should be judged accordingly. Additionally, none of us know the protocols and regulations of the NPS well enough to make definitive statements about ranger's actions. My advice: Skip the topic, and go watch Ken Burns film on PBS.


As one who has wished that I could do something when I'm in a public situation and there is tense parent child situation, just to relieve the stress for both parent and child, I have to think we should err on the side of the child. Think of the recent comments on the tragedy of the child at Acadia...so many expected the rangers to be responsible. I am also thinking of the situation in California were the campus police acted on their intuition and checked on the man with 2 young girls leading to their and their mothers resque from a pedophile.
No one agrees with basic parenting issues and we certainly don't have all the facts in this incident, nor do we have an unbiased report but if this was a typical "I don't want to " teenager so what ? If this was a fearful young woman being bullied by a parent then I believe this ranger had a responsibility to his charge. Parental rights do not extend to abuse in any form.


I am not sure that you can assume the child was lazy if you cannot assume the child was frightened.....sort of a double standard. I believe you are correct when you say we are assuming too much about the situation based on the information but unfortunately, you do the same thing by assuming simply because she is a teenager, she is lazy.

I believe we have too little information to be forming any opinions one way or another. We weren't there.....we don't know the relationship of the parent and child.......we don't know any of the physical nuiances that could give us a lot of information......simply, not enough information to make any kind of judgement.


At one time my husband and I had five teenagers at the same time and we routinely had to "drag" them on family vacations. Now that they are all grown they all look back on those family vacations fondly and since my husband and I remember quite a few "fights" we are amazed that they seem to have conveniently forgotten them. There were many times when we informed the kids that they would do certain things whether they liked it or not. If I had been asking my kids to do anything that would have endangered them then I would certainly have welcomed it if a Ranger felt the need to step in and point out any potential dangers, BUT, if a Ranger thought that he had the right to step in between me and my teenager because they decided that they didn't want to do something then the Ranger would have needed some serious medical help by the time that I was through with him. As a mom I was very aware of any "fears" that my kids had and I also knew when they were just pushing my buttons. Since the Ranger had no clue as to what was going on between the mother and the teenager it would have been much more appropriate for him to have spoken to the mother privately rather than doing it in front of the teenager. It is hard enough for a parent to assert their authority to a teenager in the best of circumstances, but with the way that the Ranger interfered he made this mother's position intolerable and I can guarantee it that he made the situation between this mother and daughter very tense for quite some time.


There is far too little information presented to make even the most general assumptions about the appropriateness of the ranger's behavior. The whole argument is an exercise in fantasy, pending more facts. It should be classified as "observation of an awkward moment" and left at that.


When it comes to sweet talking to momma or papa about public safety in the national parks, regarding the rules, regulations or guidelines...give me a break! When you have hundreds of tourist running all over place and peppering you with all kinds of questions and in the mean while, your watching over the public safety with vigilance....you definitely have your hands full. It's crowd control vigilance for public safety while conducting your tour of duty as ranger. Your not a babysitter or a verbal mouth piece to handle all domestic disputes, but your hired as a ranger to teach, educate and enhance the wilderness experience. That's your job to be a professional ranger and not a family counselor. Agreed manners, tact and diplomacy is a good virtue but to a point.


Add comment

CAPTCHA

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.

Image CAPTCHA
Enter the characters shown in the image.

The Essential RVing Guide

The Essential RVing Guide to the National Parks

The National Parks RVing Guide, aka the Essential RVing Guide To The National Parks, is the definitive guide for RVers seeking information on campgrounds in the National Park System where they can park their rigs. It's available for free for both iPhones and Android models.

This app is packed with RVing specific details on more than 250 campgrounds in more than 70 parks.

You'll also find stories about RVing in the parks, some tips if you've just recently turned into an RVer, and some planning suggestions. A bonus that wasn't in the previous eBook or PDF versions of this guide are feeds of Traveler content: you'll find our latest stories as well as our most recent podcasts just a click away.

So whether you have an iPhone or an Android, download this app and start exploring the campgrounds in the National Park System where you can park your rig.