Removing the bus is the smartest decision on this debate. More and more people are visiting the bus everyday and that's causing more deaths than were ever necessary. Adventurists will still make the journey to the location where the bus was, but it will urge less people to risk their lives to see an empty camp ground. Locals are growing tired of these incidents and so are the mothers and fathers of hikers who are lost to the Tek River in search of something that isn't even for them at heart. It is far too dangerous to keep the bus out there.
Removing the bus would help but wont stop people from going to that location. People will still go there and take pictures and act like its a landmark that people should visit. Moving the bus would take away a lot of history from that location. Plus, with all the people going there, the city is gaining a lot of money and popularity.
I think the bus should be removed. The bus has cost people their lives when they've tried to reach it. Like Ingram said "Is it really worth risking your life to visit a rotted, rusting bus?" I think this quote describes my point of view exactly. The bus although an icon for people who love the "Into the Wild" book and movie is a detriment to many people. Public health is more important then a few's pilgrimage to a cruddy bus. The best way to promote health and prevent premature death is to get rid of the bus. Just like Ingram said "How many more deaths will it take?" Will it take 20 more? This angst madness needs to stop, people are dying. Put a crate of dynamite in the bus and let gravity decide where its new home will be.
My take on the "Remove the Bus" debate is that it won't do much except that there will be an empty space where it used to be. The author, Chris, was biased because the day he started the trail, a woman had passed away trying to get to the bus. Without that happening, he might've had a completely different article to write about his journey. In the text, he used a negative tone toward Chris about the bus, like "He was grossly unprepared, and engaged in reckless behavior." If people were to remove the bus from the spot it's in, it wouldn't stop people from hiking to it. They would simply claim, "But that's where the bus used to be!" It is significant to some people and they would do whatever they could to get to it. Chris left an impact on them and they want to remember him by going to where he took his left breaths.
It seems as if the Fairbanks City Transit Bus 142 is causing much more harm to the visitors of Stampede Road than good. Rather than being used for its intended purposes, many people are coming to this trail just to accomplish what Chris did. This hike is very dangerous and causing death and injuries."There is nothing in or about that bus that is worth your life" risking your life to go see a bus is a reckless decision that is not worth it. If the bus was removed, Chris's followers wouldn't even have the choice of making a decision that will effect their life, just to see a rotted bus.
I believe the bus should be removed from the Stampede Trail. The bus should be removed because It is nasty, and it is very dangerous. The bus is nasty because it was dirty and beaten up. It had bones, blood, and Alex's belongings spread throughout it. It is also very dangerous to get to the bus because of the Teklanika river. The river makes it dangerous because it pushes a bunch of water at 8mph while being 52" high. Those conditions have killed many people, including " the gal that was knocked off her feet, tied to a rope, and was unable to free herself." so she got stuck on the bottom of the river with the boulders that the water was pushing down stream. Those are the two reasons, nasty and dangerous, as to why I believe the bus should be removed from the Stampede Trail.
Many believe the bus Chris McCandless stayed in should be removed from the Alaskan Wild. They believe this because many people die every year trying to make it to the iconic site. The article "Remove the Bus" by Chris Ingram states that just 2 days before Chris Ingram appears in Alaska to visit the site, "a young woman had drowned trying to cross the Teklanika River," on her way to the bus. This is just one example of how many are being drawn towards the site and are ill-prepared for what challenges the journey truly brings. If this bus continues to be in the wild more and more people are going to become fond of Chris McCandless and his journey. More and more people will be drawn towards the sight and die in attempts to get there. According to "Remove the Bus" by Chris Ingram "The local guides have stated that an average of 50 pilgrims make the hike along the Stampede Trail weekly." This trail is way to dangerous to be having so many people who do not know the land to be hiking and crossing the river.
A lot of people from around the world have read the book, "Into the Wild", and/or seen the movie. This inspired many people from all over to want to go and visit the famous "Supertramp Bus", which is featured in both the novel and the film. Because the bus started to become so popular, more and more people wanted to visit it and see the bus for themselves. This has proven to be fatal, on many accounts. Locals and local authorities believe that the bus should be removed. The popularity sparked from the film has led people to take the journey to visit it, time and time again. Most of the time though, local authorities have had to go out on rescue missions because of how dangerous the journey is. When Chris Ingram decided to try to take on the journey of finding the bus, he realized just how dangerous it really was. He decided to turn around, but just before he did he "immediately cut it (the rope) with my knife", just to try to stop people from risking their lives to cross the Teklanika River and see the bus. Removing the bus from it's current location, and maybe re-locating it, would be superficial to a lot of various people and could potentially save lives. "THERE IS NOTHING IN OR ABOUT THAT BUS THAT IS WORTH YOUR LIFE", says Chris Ingram, and he is right. The journey is to fatal and risky just to see a bus, so the locals should have the bus removed.
As a result of Alex's death in the bus, many people who love his story attempted to take the path he did and travel to the bus. Some succeed and some perish. For this reason, the locals who live in that area are pushing for the removal of the bus as an attempt to stop or hinder new travelers seeking to relive Alex's journey. Chris Ingram, author of "Remove The Bus", is an advocate for the removal. He states, "the Alaskan bush is unforgiving of the ill-prepared and inexperienced." This is true, but most people visiting the bus are not planning to live off the land like Alex had planned to. They only want to visit or camp out for a day which is nothing different than going to a nearby campground. The only problem is the Teklanika (Tek) river. If the locals were to install a bridge or trolley of some sort, it would make crossing the Tek a lot easier and would eliminate most, if not all, deaths. Therefore, I don't think the bus should be removed for it serves as Alex's final resting place as well as a monument to the people who live like Alex.
The removal of the bus has been debated for quite sometime now. Personally, I think that the bus should just be left where it is. Even if it were to be removed, fans of the book would still make an attempt to go to where it was. Also, who would pay for the removal? The residents would probably want it removed because they think it would stop people from coming. But do they really want to pay for that? It is a possibility that fewer would visit but there will always be super fans that will go above and beyond. The author of the article refused to cross it because he was worried that he would go under the currents. Many other people didn't take the hint that it was very dangerous.If people are ready to risk their lives for a bus where someone died, maybe we as a society should let them go. Not everyone is as adventurous, who are to we to say that they can't do what they want. In conclusion, it is my belief that even if the bus was removed, it would still remain a tourist "attraction" for experienced and inexperienced hikers.
The bus should be removed, but not destroyed. It should be preserved, ideally in a museum. It holds significance, as Chris McCandless himself was drawn to it and it served as his home for several weeks. Allowing people to easily and safely see the bus could be beneficial because it could give them more insight into Chris' story. However, there is a problem with it staying in its original location. According to Chris Ingram, "a young woman drowned trying to cross the Teklanika River" trying to get to the bus. This was merely one of many deaths and injuries that have resulted from people attempting to make the journey to the bus. It is for this reason that I think the bus should be removed from the Alaskan wilderness, but still preserved.
Chris Ingram seems like a fairly intelligent person the way he writes this passage, but he also seems very "high up" and "above" everyone else. He says things like people are needing to hike to the bus "on a whim, a fantasy, and I feel, a false pretense." This already sounds like a tear down of others but there is much more. In paragraph 6 he states, "there was absolutely no way I was going to make the same mistake. I value my life too much", "too selfish and reckless." Not only is this writer seeming to make himself out to be better than others but he is also tearing down Chris like it was his given assignment. "Overzealous, overconfident, unprepared and engaged in reckless behavior", all used to bring Chris lower as a person. I feel this article was very one sided and not put together thinking from an emotional stand point.
The bus should be removed from its current location. Due to the popularity of the book and movie about Chris's journey, removing the bus may be helpful in preventing these unnecessary deaths, but there will still be people that want to be in the same vicinity as Chris was in his last few months. As Ingram said to himself, he wanted to have his "pwn survival experience in Wild Alaska and to pay his respects to a person [he] adored and admired." Moving the bus to a safer tourist destination would prevent deaths caused by wanting to understand his setup and ideas as Ingram had initially planned to do. However, these people may still be inclined to visit the Stampede Trail and trek the same path as Chris once had. The bus should be removed from the area, but a bridge should be constructed for those wishing to experience the same survival experience as Chris had done.
I believe that the argument to remove the bus is very logical. Many people hike to the bus and put themselves in danger just because it's where Chris McCandless went almost 30 years ago. Chris Ingram states "I do not support such behavior. How many more deaths will it take? Is it really worth risking your life to visit a rotted, rusting bus?" Ingram talks about how he was going to go to the bus but stopped whenever he had to cross the river, because it was too dangerous and he said it was not worth risking his life for. The bus placed in the Alaskan wilderness has caused many fatal hikes from people that just want to see bus 142. If the bus was removed people would not have any reason to hike that way and therefore would not be putting themselves in danger.
I personally believe that the bus should be removed. It has become a major tourist destination, although the trek there is often times life threatening. The text says, "people are finding the need to hike to the bus themselves, coming from around the globe, on a whim,and feel, a false pretense." As more people take off on their journey to bus 142, others become interested and feel overconfident about the trek before they truly know about it. Chris Ingram wanted to make the trip to pay respects to a person he adored and admired, yet on his way there he realized the dangers to going any further. He says, "There is nothing in or about that bus that is worth your life." More people are losing their lives because of their ignorance when trying to make it to Alaska. If the bus was taken out, people would not make the same mistakes as Chris did.
"There is nothing in or about that bus that is worth your life." The bus was left in place to be a kind of tourist attraction knowing its dangerous but now that it is claiming life to get there. i believe it should be taking out. A total of three people have been killed trying to get to the bus to try and re-live Chris McCandless's story. If they knew that the bus claimed his life, in a right mind, why would you say lets go too. The dangerous of this hike Chris took was a death wish. Crossing the Tek, to climbing and hiking to finding the bus, and then if your unprepared ,surviving. So having to try this after him would be a death wish too.
I personally believe that the presence of the bus will continue drawing in curious people who have heard of the adventures that Chris McCandless embarked on while he was in the bush. In Chris Ingram's writing, he says that "Bus 142 has become a tourist destination, a mecca of McCandless followers. The local guides have stated that an average of 50 pilgrims make the hike along the trail weekly." That is nearly 2,600 people making the hike yearly, and with three already dead after attempting to make the trip to the bus, I believe that there will continue to be needless deaths because of the trip. With that in mind I can not in good conscious support the keeping of bus 142 in the Alaskan bush.
I would have to disagree on the stance to remove the bus. I feel like removing the bus wouldn't stop people from trying to find the location that Chris went to. I do believe that the trip to the bus is a dangerous one, but people do other dangerous thing all the time. There is a risk in activities such as mountain climbing or sky diving, so does that mean we stop them all together? In the article Ingram asks, "Is it really worth risking your life to visit a rotted, rusting bus?" I can honestly say the answer for me is no, but that's not the case for everyone. What i'm trying to say is just because you think something is to dangerous doesn't mean people are going to stop doing it. Some people just need that rush of adrenaline.
The idea of removing the bus may sound beneficial to many people including the natives in the Alaskan area. It's understandable from their perspective of wanting less people to die and having less to clean up. However, removing this bus is similar to removing a piece of history. The bus can be seen as a shelter to travelers, and a safe space in case they went to far or got stranded. Chris Ingram states in his article "remove the bus", "A young woman had drowned trying to cross the Teklanika River" to get to the bus. Rather than removing the bus, a landmark of safety and harsh lesson, they should make it easier and safer to get to. They could do this by adding a bridge over the river, making posts along the way with emergency supplies, and so more scouting from the sky. The bus should not be removed, but maybe "baby-proofed".
During Chris Ingram's journey to follow McCandless' trail, he goes out "wanting to pay my[his] respects to a person I[he] adored and admired." Ingram documents his adventure in the article, "Remove The Bus", which exposes his thought process and how his tone changes greatly from start to finish. After reading this persuasive article, I believe the bus should be removed as well. Ingram states, " It felt it would have been too selfish and too reckless a decision, THERE IS NOTHING IN OR ABOUT THAT BUS THAT IS WORTH YOUR LIFE." This statement just expresses all of his flooding emotions towards the difficult expedition, while his experience of a young woman drowning manages to cut all ties he had to McCandless. I feel the bus should be removed based on the amount of people dying or being injured, and just the overall dangerous aspect of the journey. The author even goes as far as saying that "My[his] viewpoints of Chris have radically changed." This quick modification of feelings should make the audience aware of the overall danger of the site, and persuade them to to get rid of the bus as well.
Chris Ingram's, 'Remove The Bus,' is a short article about his adventure to the Fairbanks City bus 142. This bus was the one Chris McCandless used as hospitality during his short stay in the wilderness. The bus is often traveled to, despite its difficult journey. This difficult journey is often times fatal, and the text states that a girl drowned only two days before Ingram's trip. Ingram never made it to the bus, but instead stopped at the Teklanika River, where the girl had perished days before. Ingram valued his life above anything that was ever found in the bus, and wrote 'Remove The Bus' to persuade others of the same. Branching off this, he states, "I support and advise that the Bus be removed from the trail to prevent further deaths." I agree with Ingram's statement to remove the bus. The text gives us that an average of fifty people travel the trail every week. Fifty people per week creates a huge opportunity for unwanted, and unplanned deaths. By removing the bus, tourists or unprepared people interested in Chris' journey would not want to visit the area. This would prevent these people from attempting to cross the river, which could lead to a fatal journey to it.
The bus Chris McCandless stayed at on his pseudo-spiritual journey has become a mecca of sorts for those who have grown tired of modern life. This bus is located across a river with no bridge and for most of the year no easily accessible area to cross through. Due to this, a handful of people have drowned on their way across the river to Chris' bus.
I personally don't believe that the sight of his death should become a tourist trap for the area but I don't think the bus should be destroyed or moved either. I believe that the trip should be made accessible by adding a bridge to the area to prevent deaths and that there should be an effort to stop people from crossing the river at all until then. Many people don't understand the dangers of crossing such a frigid and fast moving river and believe they can simply walk or swim across but don't consider the under toe or currents impact on their swimming abilities.
There is really no sense in removing the bus there really is no way to do it without some sort of uproar. People will still visit the area the bus was located and would likely turn it into a larger tourist spot now that the rotten materials of the bus are out of the way.