KUER0%

‘Rescues are why we train’: National crews brush up at Zion before busy season 2%

By David Condos0%

3/18/2026, 1:00:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Availability Heuristic, Hindsight Bias, and Anecdotal, with Indoctrination as the most egregious example at 8% saturation with 62 hits. Analysis detected 146 faulty-reasoning hits from 776 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 12.6% and a BS Rank of 2% (21,455 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 98.00% of the article peer group.

On a red rock cliff overlooking Zion Canyon, two teams of search and rescue instructors pulled on brightly colored ropes in synchronized waves of motion. 
After a few minutes, they lifted Sara Robinson safely onto the clifftop in a large metal basket. 
“It was great,” the Yosemite National Park ranger said with a laugh. 
“Smooth ride all the way up.” 
This was not a real emergency, but it’s meant to help prepare for one. 
The exercise simulated how teams would save someone stranded over a ledge. 
And it gave 16 search and rescue coordinators from national parks across the West a rare chance to work together. 
“We all have different backgrounds  from different parks and different life experiences  and everybody teaches slightly differently,” Robinson said. 
“So that's the goal of this week, is to learn from each other.” 
By working side-by-side on exercises, instructors will share best practices. 
Then they’ll pass on what they’ve learned to their home parks. 
The annual training is being held at Zion for the first time, with funding from the park’s philanthropic partner, Zion Forever Project. 
While they’re in southwest Utah, the instructors will also teach local crews, including park staff and community members who get called into action, as well as teams from Washington and Kane counties. 
Consistently running through drills like this is vital, said Brian Hays, who coordinates search and rescue for Canyonlands and Arches. 
That’s partially because everyone could use a refresher, but also because equipment and techniques frequently change. 
Increased tourism over the past decade has also highlighted the importance of training like this, as the number of emergency calls grows with the crowds. 
And most rescues aren’t to save BASE jumpers or rock climbers, Hays said, but people who get lost, injured or overheated on a trail. 
“There's a misconception that people think, ‘Well, the people getting rescued are doing really extreme sports.’ 
But that's not the case,” he said. 
“It's generally just the day hikers getting in trouble.” 
Heat is a major concern, Hays said, because visitors may start a hike in a cool morning and not realize how warm it’ll get by afternoon. 
Three hikers died at Canyonlands during a summer heat wave in 2024. 
Emergency call volume at Zion typically increases with spikes in temperature, said park search and rescue coordinator Steffan Gregory. 
With Zion and much of Utah forecast to see record-breaking high temperatures during the Spring Break rush, visitors should be prepared. 
“Have more water on hand. 
Be ready to start earlier or later,” Gregory said. 
“It'll be interesting to see how that plays out this year.” 
The transition to warmer weather also coincides with larger crowds. 
Zion’s average monthly visitation more than doubles from February to March. 
This year, the park went from around one emergency call per month in winter to multiple calls a day in March, Gregory said. 
Earlier this month, his team responded after a car rolled off the road at a switchback. 
“Those rescues are why we train,” he said. 
“We had been training that day, have been training these weeks before, for moments just like that, where you're able to perform and you don't have to think.” 
In 2025, Zion had 158 search and rescue incidents and 387 emergency medical calls. 
Crews are often stretched thin. 
Zion’s yearly visitation nearly doubled from 2010 to 2022, but the park’s total number of employees went down. 
Having to respond to a large number of high-stress calls can take a mental toll, Robinson said. 
One way she helps her team is by always giving individuals the opportunity to say no to a rescue if they’re not in a good headspace. 
Park crews also do regular mental health check-ins, she said, sometimes with an outside specialist. 
A lot of it comes down to knowing your team and paying attention. 
“You're going to see when they're struggling, just in general,” Robinson said. 
“Then you can start asking those questions and checking in with them, whether it's a home stress or a work stress, but giving people the space to be safe out there.” 
Visitors can also help lighten the load on rescue crews by knowing their limits, she said. 
Just because you have an SOS device or think you can call 911 from your phone, that doesn’t mean crews can get to you quickly. 
“As the summer progresses, it's going to be really busy in the parks. 
We're gonna have increased visitation, increased call volume across the board for everything,” she said. 
“So, we might not be able to get to you immediately.” 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%David Condos: 3.1%KUER: 2.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 1.8%KUER: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 3.6%David Condos: 3.0%KUER: 3.4%Availability Heuristic3.6%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.7%KUER: 1.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 3.6%David Condos: 0.6%KUER: 0.5%Hindsight Bias3.6%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 2.5%KUER: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 7.5%KUER: 7.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 2.2%KUER: 1.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 1.0%KUER: 1.2%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.4%KUER: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 5.8%KUER: 4.4%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 5.7%KUER: 2.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 6.8%KUER: 6.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 1.4%KUER: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.8%KUER: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.4%KUER: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 1.2%KUER: 1.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.4%KUER: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 1.0%KUER: 2.3%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 1.8%KUER: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.2%KUER: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.2%KUER: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.4%KUER: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.3%KUER: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 5.6%KUER: 4.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 1.5%KUER: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 2.3%KUER: 1.1%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 2.6%KUER: 4.1%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.5%KUER: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 5.3%KUER: 5.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.6%KUER: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 2.9%KUER: 2.4%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.4%KUER: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.5%KUER: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.3%KUER: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%David Condos: 2.1%KUER: 3.1%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 1.0%KUER: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.0%KUER: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.1%KUER: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.1%KUER: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.0%KUER: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.2%KUER: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.4%KUER: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.4%KUER: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 1.8%KUER: 2.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 8.0%David Condos: 2.5%KUER: 1.6%Indoctrination8.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 2.1%KUER: 0.8%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.4%KUER: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%David Condos: 0.5%KUER: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

776 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers57%attributed speech335writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 21 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 32 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Hays • 20 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Hays • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Hays • 24 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Hays • 16 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Hays • 7 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Hays • 9 words • 0.0% coverageBrian Hays • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSteffan Gregory • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 100.0% coverageSteffan Gregory • 5 words • 100.0% coverageSteffan Gregory • 9 words • 100.0% coverageSteffan Gregory • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageSteffan Gregory • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageSteffan Gregory • 8 words • 0.0% coverageSteffan Gregory • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 12 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 31 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 16 words • 100.0% coverageSara Robinson • 25 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 13 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 15 words • 0.0% coverageSara Robinson • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Steffan Gregory

41%flagged-word coverage
103 attributed words23% of attributed speech15% writer coverage
0%7.5%15.0%Indoctrination+7.3 ptsWriter: 6.3%Steffan Gregory: 13.6%13.6%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.