That's an improvement over my earlier edition where they wrote about being "snug and smug" in the pools with nary a warning about any dangers. If I get a chance, I'll look up their latest editions and match them against a checklist of other recommended spots (e.g. Queen's Bath on Kauai and the Blue Pool on Maui) that have got tourists into trouble in the past when following their advice. I'll try to report back on what I find.

in the latest issue, they kinda make Queen's Bath easy to reach. is it true? when we go there, i want this to be safe, i dont want to risk anything, and i definitely dont want to be hated by the locals. i just want to respect the area, just like i'd want my area respected.

hawaiifanatic: I'd like to see that, thanks!

Reading news articles of people being swept off the rocks by Queen's Bath has been enough to keep me away. Can it really be worth risking your life? Not for me!

Queen’s Bath is easy to get to. I’ve been in it myself (before I knew better). The guidebook edition I have describes it as “a delightful swimming spot.” The pool is kept filled by waves that wash over a lava rock shelf, but when you’re in the pool you can’t see the surf unless it breaks over the shelf. So there’s no way to keep an eye on the surf until it might be too late. Some swimmers in Queen’s Bath have been grabbed by a wave and swept out to sea; then when they tried to swim back in, they got crushed against the rocks by the pounding surf.

In April 2002 at Queen’s Bath, a Massachusetts man drowned when he was swept out to sea with two other relatives (who were successfully rescued). In March 2003, a California man died while trying to save his grandson there. Authorities considered permanently closing off access to the pool, but decided to post a warning sign instead. (But as the lifeguards on the beaches will tell you, most everyone ignores warning signs).

I think the books are great and have used them quite a bit.
But....what bothers me is the tone of the writing. It may just be me, but there is certain arrogance that comes through. As though they feel intitled to do and see whatever they want in Islands.
If the locals don't want tourists come through certain parts of the Islands then I think that should be respected. They already share so much of their home with us that I think some places should just be left alone.
Just my 2 cents.

I think you've put your finger on the main problem glimmer. The authors are transplants from the mainland who seemed to have traveled around the Islands with that attitude and then in their books recommended that visitors do the same.

I think the other problem is that in their personal experience they may have not run into dangers at, say, the Olivine Pools or Queen's Bath, but that doesn't mean there are not genuine hazards in these spots. The antidote would have been to consult Hawaii's safety experts (lifeguards, rangers, police, etc) to learn from their experience and then pass that on to readers.

If the locals don't want tourists come through certain parts of the Islands then I think that should be respected

Well, I'm local to San Francisco. So does this mean I can keep tourists off the Golden Gate Bridge?

dmlove,
No, the Golden Gate Bridge is a tourist attraction, like Waikiki Beach.
If droves of tourist started showing up at your favorite little coffee shop, turning your 5 minute wait into 20 minutes you may get peeved.
If tour buses started parking on your street at all hours of the day that may get to you. It would bug me. I lived in the City for 3 years and street parking places were like gold!
I don't think you can compare a city to Hawaii anyway.

That's not the point, and maybe I used a bad example. No, I wouldn't want tour buses parked on my street, and no, I'd prefer not to have droves of tourists inhabiting my little local coffee shop, but we have something called a constitution. It isn't up to "the locals" to decide what parts of the island should be open to tourists and what parts shouldn't (I'm not talking about private property, which of course, must be respected). I'm talking about public areas - sorry, but if they're public for Hawaiians, then they're public for everyone. Let's use another non-urban example. Let's say San Franciscans decide that only San Franciscans should be allowed to visit Angel Island, is that okay?

“Locals should not decide what parts of the island should be open to tourists and what parts shouldn’t.”

dml, thats not what’s going on. The trail on my property leads to a destination not privately owned. You’re welcomed to it, as anyone else, so long you don't trespass on my property without permission. As for most destinations which may not be private, the route might be. The trail on our property was open for public use until the internet gained popularity. Its also how I eventually ended up here along with other sites.

We were taken to small claims and lost, because some idiot got hurt on the property, he admitted finding out about the trail via travel website (not this one). The court ruled in his favor and advised us to put a parameter fence. Too costly. So, I along with other property owners decided the internet could be used to "cybersit" our properties. By monitoring travel sites, blogs and forums, we've helped circumvent would-be trespassers because we know the court won't. We also realize we can’t stop everyone. btw, the groups that do have permission are non-hawaiians, too. Not sure where the comment came from, “if they're public for Hawaiians, then they're public for everyone.” These groups help to maintain the trail. They don’t defecate, urinate or leave their trash, which was a big problem before all this.

Really, all you have to do is ask.

kauai aka, I am not disagreeing with you in the slightest. I think you have the right to protect and make rules regarding your private property, and more than anything, you shouldn't be liable to the idiots who trespass and then get hurt. I was only "commenting" on the idea that locals get to decide which sites should be open to tourists and which should not.

I don't think this is a big enough issue to drag the Constitution into it...but I don't think you get what I'm saying.
No one is saying that locals decide what sights are open to tourists. There are areas that the locals don't want to see a parade of Mustang convertables driving through. These areas aren't usually places that the average tourist would want to go to anyway. There are still plenty of remote and out the way ares to visit without stepping on people's toes. This subject was brought up in regards to the tone conveyed in the Blue Books anyway.
Sure you can venture into every nook and cranny of every Island if you wish. Just don't expect to be welcomed with open arms. And don't get too upset if greeted with a healthy dose of stink eye.
Me, I'll respect long time local families' wishes and I won't clog up their beaches or intrude on their
neighborhoods. There is still more than enough beauty left me to take in.

BTW, Angel Island isn't a neighborhood, it's a State Park. The purpose of a State Park is to preserve a piece of land for the public to visit and enjoy. So by it's very existence it should visited and enjoyed by visitors and locals alike.

>>If I get a chance, I'll look up their latest editions and match them against a checklist of other recommended spots (e.g. Queen's Bath on Kauai and the Blue Pool on Maui) that have got tourists into trouble in the past when following their advice. I'll try to report back on what I find.<<

I was in Borders today and took a look at the latest edition of Maui Revealed (hey, someone has to suffer for the sake of other Fodorites).

They have added another warning to the Olivine Pools section, saying that some people who got too close to the ocean there have been swept off the rocks and that some have drowned. They also wrote that you can get smacked by the waves even when you're in the pools.

Lee Ann

Sounds like they're getting there on these guidebook entries; that's good. I never thought it was useful or reasonable to tell people "proceed at your own risk" if people don't know what the risks are. So the more specifics the better.