Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
WBraun
climber
|
|
monolith
That's what I would do too, two lanes, one up and one down, very simple.
I believe the Park Service has their hands tied with their wilderness regulations where they can't add this simple feature, so instead they came up with this permit thing.
They would have to rewrite or amend their wilderness regulations to add another lane?
Sorry I really don't know about any of these regulations and rules in the wilderness system about what you can add or subtract.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
That's what I would do too, two lanes, one up and one down, very simple.
I believe the Park Service has their hands tied with their wilderness regulations where they can't add this simple feature, so instead they came up with this permit thing. They would have to rewrite or amend their wilderness regulations to add another lane?
Probably not. Plenty of the management at this micro level involves discretionary judgments--and folks are still drilling holds in HD, as we've all recently observed.
I think the greater danger is that someone who really wants the thing removed would litigate to prevent improvements. They might not win, but the simple possibility has to be considered. And too bad, because Monolith (and others) have offered the obvious solution.
As happens all too often with our Parks, we're going to end up with the worst of both worlds: A cables route that is ugly, dangerous, slick, crowded, and regulated.
|
|
climbrunride
Sport climber
Purgatory
|
|
I read Jesse's OP and skipped the rest, so forgive me if I missed a whole bunch of important stuff, but
I think it's a great idea! Whitney has had a permit system for the trail for years and HD gets a LOT more travel than Whitney. Between the impact and the zoo-like craziness up there, I support the permit system.
And like the OP says, it won't affect us when we're climbing, only when we're hiking the cables both up & down.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
Miwa,
Your assumption that this is all about safety is shaky. It's primarily about pure control and ultimately a path to new revenue streams. Largo and others have said this well.
Your contempt for people out for perhaps the adventure of their lives is palpable. You don't seem to value this, and accept the NPS's magic number without question. Given the extremely low fatality rate, it's possible that the number has not yet been safely maximized as things stand, let alone with fixing the cables.
Closing the cables in contingency fashion is something that would take a major effort. There's no slippery slope here for that reason. A permit system, however, would be operative on every day specified in the plan. It is simply not possible to close the Nose, RNWF, etc., as you suggest. To the contrary, having a permit system in operation wholesale exposes everyone who does not abide by it to a potential ticket. It's armchair tyranny.
see monolith on 2 lanes doubling the number of people--a silly bit of arithmetic.
|
|
Dave
Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
|
|
"Sorry I really don't know about any of these regulations and rules in the wilderness system about what you can add or subtract."
43 CFR covers the Dept. of the Interior, including management of wilderness areas, national parks, etc.
enjoy reading.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Its a false claim the Rangers are making about permanent structures
being forbidden in the wilderness. The HD cable route is taken down every Fall, so by definition it is not a permanent structure.
They have a Code # for placing bridges
patrol Cabins, signs, and railings in the wilderness.
Would someone please scour the files up there, copy the code # down,
and enter it on the form to install another lane on Half Dome.
There are already dozens of 'semi-non-permanent' bridges, Patrol Cabins, railings, and Signs in the Yosemite Wilderness.
It could be implied that 2 lanes were initially to be installed
back in 1919 but lack of funds kept them from completing the job
Suggest a 2nd lane is just finishing the installation
that was already approved.
**
|
|
David Wilson
climber
CA
|
|
Dingus, I agree that more climbers/more people = more regulation is a certainty. That's why I think we need to all criticize whatever regulation is proposed with the hope that in the future these regulations might be well considered in advance. What really amazes me on this issue is how poorly the NPS considered its options.
I probably could " let go " of this issue as you have, but I think it's in all our interests to sharp shoot the NPS always, every time, everywhere.... We are all doing other things ( mostly anyway ) but it was an actual paid policy maker that wrote " The permits are free, however, there is a non-refundable $1.50 service charge for each permit obtained " - doesn't that alone just piss you off......
|
|
David Wilson
climber
CA
|
|
JesseM, you sure disappeared on us. Don't you want to circle back and weigh in ( or summarize ) on this thread you started? We all appreciate your original posting.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:06am PT
|
Every action has its cost. But people in different circumstances have different ideas as to these costs. Climbers believe another lane, like that on US405 solves the problem. It didn't solve the problem on US405. Whatever you build, it too will eventually become overfilled. Then what does the NPS do after it has established the precedent that increasing lanes answers the problem? If you have 1000 people on HD in a thunder storm and 100 die trying to get down the two lanes the government put there for their convenience and their safety, then what does the NPS say? OOPS! is a bad answer. With 84,000 visitors a year how can the cables be removed? Got to think more than one step ahead people.
The permit system is minimum compliance. By putting it in the NPS is trying to make clear they know there is a problem for which there is no easy answer and especially no ABSOLUTE answers. There can be no absolute answer to preventing injuries. So stop talking about absolute assurance. Please spare us this. But doing nothing and having many fatalities is not management, which is the NPS's job.
Now people are raising the question of permitting technical rock climbs. OK, so be organized about it. Our considering this to be a possibility suggests, consciously or subconsciously, that we think there might be a reason to do this. Waiting lines, damage to the resources, and poo being found all over? If we think these are problems, how might WE go about solving them????
If we get together and actually work together to think of ways to deal with them, who of us thinks the NPS will do anything other than support a successful effort by US, as long as it also meets NPS management requirements. They won't. They'd be crazy to do that.
To get a good answer on problems you have to hit them cooperatively and EARLY.
Complaining now that we will have to complain more later is just as bad an answer as is OOPS!
That is like going climbing with an extension ladder.
|
|
cragnshag
Social climber
san joser
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:45am PT
|
Permit systems suck, no matter where in the world they exist. I abhor asking for permission to use the wilderness. So what if it is crowded? The trail to the Lower Falls is crowded. The pizza deck is crowded. If you don't like crowds then go at a different time or go somewhere else.
There's plenty of uncrowded wilderness out there folks, and it will always remain uncrowded because most humans just don't want to make the effort to get out there. Some places like Whitney will always be crowded because it's the tallest place around. You can visit one of Whitney's proud neibors and not see a soul all day...
2 cables is the way to go, if you have to do anything at all.
Why limit access?
|
|
gunsmoke
Trad climber
Clackamas, Oregon
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:12am PT
|
All this talk about 2 cables being the way to go assumes that the point of the new regulations is safety. The problem is that we can only speculate on what the real reasons are. But even if safety is truly the motivation, once the environmentalists get a crack at the coming "scoping" process, I think we'll find that a big reducion in numbers will become the driving factor.To reduce the potential, all else remaining the same, I'd argue that the total # allowed on the summit would have to be down to a few dozen. That reduction isn't going to happen.
"Isn't going to happen"? We'll see.
|
|
Mighty Hiker
climber
Vancouver, B.C.
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:21am PT
|
One difficulty with the "add a second lane" argument is that the cables are arguably a historic site. (Like Camp 4.) A form of cables was first erected in the late 1860s and restored in the 1870s, and the cables in something much like their present form were erected in the 1920s (?), mainly by the Sierra Club. So someone may argue that the cables should not be interfered with, as part of the human history of the park. It may not be very convincing, but it seems sure to arise.
|
|
Porkchop_express
Trad climber
Currently in San Diego
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:33am PT
|
wouldnt it just be easier to get rid of the cables? crowds will go away and without all the hassle of regulation. people will be pissed for a while but eventually the people who are sincerely motivated to climb it will learn how to do so by fair means, and those who were just looky-loos will get over it in a short time...
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:40am PT
|
No, that definitely will not work removing the cables and thinking it will solve the problem.
Believe me, the accident rate will increase beyond your wildest dreams.
|
|
Matt
Trad climber
primordial soup
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 02:16am PT
|
would pbly be a goldmine for the mountain school, since the actual climbing right there would be so easy. the real issue would be getting off the rig...
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 04:59am PT
|
jstan, you give way too much credit to the NPS in assuming that they will adopt good solutions and will not act "crazy." There are many good ideas in this thread that don't seem to have been adequately considered by the NPS.
Here's a quote from the spokesperson:
"If one person were to fall off the top on a busy day, there could be a mass casualty incident. It is a very steep trail. The cables are very steep, it's exposed. The longer you are on it the more tired you get, the more stress there is and the more chance you have of inclement weather rolling in."
So, with their new permit system, by your reasoning, they shield themselves from accusations of poor risk management when several people die in a future accident, just because they took the numbers down to pre-1994 levels on weekends? Any trial lawyer worth a damn would look at the terrible condition of the cables and treads and tear the NPS apart.
At least fixing the existing hardware has to be part of minimizing the risk of an accident on HD.
|
|
Toreador
Trad climber
York, UK
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 07:09am PT
|
Monolith: "A simple keep to the right sign(and peer pressure) should keep the two cable death grippers in the right lane."
Do you think so? It doesn't work in our local cinema! Before a movie starts, everybody goes up both sides, anyone descending has to fight a way through. Likewise just after one finishes, though in reverse. The only time people seem to keep to the correct lane is when there are equal numbers going up and down.
I reckon the same would happen on HD. Earlier in the day, most are going up, so both lanes would be used for going up. Later in the day, the reverse. In between it might work.
I don't think it would make anything safer. It would probably reduce the length of the queues early and late in the peak part of the day, but not by as much as limiting numbers.
Personally I can't think of anything worse than being up there with those crowds so it doesn't affect me personally neither way. When I went uop HD via the cables many years ago, I avoided the crowds by goping mid-week in September, and getting to the summit about 5pm :)
Is the permit idea setting a precedent? From a UK point of view, no it isn't - the precedent was set years ago by charging people to enter National Parks and restricting things that way. When I visit the USA I know and accept that I'm going to be far more restricted in what I'm allowed to do compared to this country, and will have to pay for the privilege.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 11:22am PT
|
Climbers believe another lane, like that on US405 solves the problem. It didn't solve the problem on US405. Whatever you build, it too will eventually become overfilled.
John, I think this is less imminent a threat in Yos for the reason that Monolith pointed out, namely, that during seasonal weekends, the Park is currently filled to capacity. Unlike the population of LA and OC, total numbers of Valley visitors are already effectively capped by the total number of camping, lodging, and parking spaces. Most management plans (and the historical tendency) have inclined toward reducing total visitor numbers rather than increasing them. I'm doubtful that an improved cables route would dramatically increase the percentage of visitors who decide to go up.
The Via Ferrata is already there. I think we should make the frickin thing functional or take it down. And yes, once you have a permit policy in place for one climbing route-- and make no mistake, that Via Ferrata is a climbing route --it becomes much easier to implement permit policies for other climbing routes.
Face it, it's only a matter of time (and probably not much of it) before permits become mandatory on El Cap. Resisting permitting may be a rearguard action, but I'm ok with that.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:22pm PT
|
Kerwin:
It may be possible to find data to support your comment that the crowded valley caps traffic on HD. In the sixties and the seventies the Valley was considered to be crowded. The number of campsites has been reduced. So if crowding on the Valley floor limits HD visitation and the Valley is less crowded( fewer campsites) we should see reductions in HD traffic over the past few years. The data should be there.
Let me presume the data indicates increasing not decreasing traffic. Then what do we say? Easy. I never used to hear of people going up the cables. Now it is all you hear being talked about. People falling off even seems to draw more people. Apparently there is no such thing as "bad exposure." Crikey, there is even a group of nerds down here who would like nothing better than to run fifteen people up HD every year. To get around the crowd in the Valley they take motel rooms outside of the Valley. Done that for several years now. So if we put in a thruway to the HD summit you move closer to the day when more people make HD their experience of the Valley. They come expressly for HD.
Put in a thruway to the summit, reduce the wait a little, and the traffic will go up.
But as I say above. The NPS probably has the data.
PS:
When Cathy and I were on the JMT we met a wonderful little old lady from Tokyo at Vernal Falls. She came to Yosemite to climb HD.
HD has become a destination. Thirty years ago it was just another rocky bump.
Oddly enough the difficulty at the cables makes it even better when you go home and tell your friends in Atlanta, "Yeah. I did HD."
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!