This is probably a dead topic, but there is a cost in rescue efforts. When people do dangerous things, it costs the government to go save them. I imagine the solution for many conservatives, as has been the response to hikers in states like NH, is to place the cost on the endangered individual (provided the person was being irresponsible). This serves to worsen the situation because people are less likely to call for help if they know they may have to foot the bill for a $5,000 helicopter mission.

I think keeping humans out of nature is an important force behind this paternalistic Wussification.

There is an often subconscious desire amongst people and city officials with a Green ideology (Red core with Green veneer) to harass as much as possible humans that come into contact with nature.

The official goal of the Green movement is presumably love of nature, but in practice it is more love of nature from afar, because whether consciously of subconsciously the Green movement is largely about keeping humans OUT OF nature. Thus, the more obstacles are placed on human interaction with nature the more humans will tend to stay out of nature. Not to mention that these activities often require large amounts of energy compared to staying put in your urban apartment. Many environmentalists are city apartment dwellers who care little about experiencing nature beyond the city park and seek to expunge their human guilt by keeping others out of nature with various direct and indirect mandates.
Many Greens believe that humans should just stay within the mandated confines of heavily planned high density urban areas as much as possible, be fed culture and take interest in enhancing the (Green) communitarian spirit. “It takes a Village, so stay within its confines and take interest in serving it”. Soft coercion towards those ends is a noble cause. I’m would not be surprised if in Green Seattle this was as significant force behind the new human-nature interaction mandates.