24 replies to this topic

[alvanos]

Hi all, I'll be visiting RMNP for the first time in August. I've been reading up on the bear/lion saftey tips, and they all say to keep your children near you at all time since they are more likely prey if something were to happen. So my question is - how near is near? Are we talking about holding hands? Within reach? In line of site? I want to be as safe as possible, but I also want to let my kids have some room to breathe. What is appropriate here? My kids are 13, 5 and 2.

Tx!

[waterrat]

Line of sight is the rule of thumb. Your two year old you'll want to hold the hand of, possibly your five your old, depending on his/her maturity.

I hold hands with my 6 year old when we go places, but that's how he is and how he is comfortable most of the time.

[ProfHall]

I saw that waterrat was responding and waited to see his post...yep, he's got it pretty much nailed. If you are out along a trail, say to the crater, where folks have seen mountain lions in the distance, you may want to keep the group close together. Always keep the smallest closest...and that's not just a critter precaution. Otherwise, line of sight seems reasonable. What do you others with kids and experience say on this?

[Andy]

Sounds like it's time to break out the leashes!

[ProfHall]

Sounds like it's time to break out the leashes!

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Actually, I hate those things...

[becky]

I tend to be a little bit paranoid on this one, but I figure, better paranoid than to have something happen. We have told our kids (ages 8,6,and 2) that they cannot "lead" on a trail in Colorado. (They fight over the leadership thing in MN, but we tell them in CO, it's always a grownup in front of the group and one in the back.)

Our 2-year old still rides in a backpack, so it's not an issue with her on the trails. When we were at our backcountry campsites, we just made sure that an adult was with each child all the time. My parents hiked with us, so it helped having a ratio of 4 adults to 3 kids. I like to be within reaching distance, but that might just be me.

Your 13-year old might be fine with a little more breathing room, though. I guess that also depends on how tall he or she is.

We just tried to take the precautions, and then have fun.

[chipper]

When they get to be about ohhh say, 17 - you send em on ahead to scout the trail and make sure it's safe for you!

Okay, BAD joke, but couldn't resist.

[Marvman]

Actually, I hate those things...

Want me to tell your wife not to use them on you anymore?

Marvman
(hey, what are friends for? )

[Jo]

I actually like "leashes" although we don't call them that in England. They are "reins" or better yet, a "harness", either of which sound much better than "leash". Everyone uses them in England. I like them because you don't always have to have your eyes glued on your little one when he has reins on and he can't go running off into the road or get lost in the woods (or Walmart!). My little guy doesn't always want to hold my hand so reins allow me to "hold his hand" without doing so. You could always extend the length of the strap as well so when in the Park he/she has a good deal of freedom.

Jo

[Aaron]

Reins also keep the little ones safe from angry attack cows

--Aaron

[Rhonda]

I once heard two ladies on the radio talking about those "reins" and one of them said she used to think they were awful, until she had a child of her own, then she thought they were wonderful. I think that's a pretty valid statement. If they provide protection for the child and peace of mind for the parent, then who cares what other people think? I know I used to have a lot of opinions on child rearing, too, then I had one. LOL

As for the topic, I agree with what everyone else is saying.

Rhonda

[foxfire]

I also think the "line of sight" idea is for the most part correct, however, one should take into consideration the suroundings. A person can see quite a distance and I know you are talking within reason of distance and sight but suroundings/terrain do change things!. It is a possibilty, however slight, that you could very easily see a child, only to see them confronted/attacked/grabbed from behind trees/cover/rock outcroppings/ whatever!. I most certainly don't want to scare anyone other than to bring awareness to the suroundings/terrain issue. Chance of any encounter is slim but as was stated (better safe than sorry). Simply put, the better you can see ahead of you in all derections -- line of sight with "some slight distance" should be fine. The harder it is to see other parts of the area, as well as the children, -- just close the distance down accordingly!!!!! Fox p.s Do not let my thoughts ever keep you from enjoying a hike with the kiddos, just keep your wits about you and the suroundings in perspective! Have a great time and, SEE YA IN THE MOUNTAINS! My

[waterrat]

thanks for hijacking my son's picture...

truth of the matter is once he saw the harness we couldn't get him OUT of it. And they are a very good for independent children who need a bit of space.

[Lsmith]

I would agree with the line of site comment. When we hike together, we keep an adult towards the front of the group and one bringing up the rear. When we camp or stop somewhere though I let them explore a little as a group when it is during the day. At dawn/dusk or night I keep them closer to me and we always stress that they don't run on trails, lest they look like a "tasty critter running along the trail". My kids are ages 6-9 so they do OK with staying close if necessary. We try and educate them about the dangers, but I don't want them to be scared either.
Lori

[Andy]

thanks for hijacking my son's picture...

Once posted on the Internet it's fair game (especially when used on the same site in context).