I enjoyed reading this but I have a mixed opinion on it at the end. The rules and reasoning seem weak. Rule #1 (be prepared) seems fine. Rule #2 (be respectf

I enjoyed reading this but I have a mixed opinion on it at the end. The rules and reasoning seem weak. Rule #1 (be prepared) seems fine. Rule #2 (be respectful) Seems to blur the distinction between respecting the danger and respecting your impact on the environment. You should of course do the latter, but not because you will be less likely to get hurt. Rule #3 (trust the statistics) I don't know what they're trying to get at, if there were fewer than 8 deaths per 10 million visits that would imply that it's a safe activity. They completely incorrectly say that the majority of deaths are men aged 55-64, when in fact that's just the largest group (we assume, the original report treats gender and age separately, but only 19% of deaths are in that age group). Even the source page mislabels the graph for this one. Overall I just would have rewritten or cut out the end. It was what I thought was an interesting discussion on human actions but then it turned into something prescriptive with weak reasoning. The statistics the article draws from: https://www.psbr.law/nevada/deaths-in-us-national-parks/ https://www.psbr.law/nevada/deaths-in-us-national-parks/