Half Dome Day Use Permits

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List

This thread has been locked

Messages 221 - 240 of total 243 in this topic

<< First | < Previous | Show All | Next > | Last >>

monolith

climber

Berkeley, CA

Feb 10, 2010 - 05:50pm PT

Lots of good suggestions for a permit system.

Why wasn't there a comment period on the newly announced system?

I suspect the NPS needed to do something quick from a liability standpoint and did not want to get slowed down by a comment period.

tom woods

Gym climber

Bishop, CA

Feb 10, 2010 - 06:00pm PT

If they move toward an Environmental Assessment, I think that's where the public comment period would be required. As an experiment, this might be an administrative move.

Keep your eyes open for the public process on the EA this spring, if you want to put comments in that would be the official time I believe.

corniss chopper

Mountain climber

san jose, ca

Feb 10, 2010 - 06:25pm PT

When the rich foreigners complain to their Embassies in DC and they in turn
pass on the unhappy experiences to Hillary's State Dept, who in turn will
light of fire under someone at Interior, The NPS will look back and agree
that an edit job to the Wilderness rules to install a 2nd lane on the cables
would have been nothing compared to having Washington's attention focused
on them.

other

Trad climber

LA, CA

Feb 10, 2010 - 06:27pm PT

"A 2008 study showed that an average of about 800 people per day used the cables on Saturdays and holidays"
Yosemite blather:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/upload/halfdomemanagement.pdf
So why is the permit needed on Fridays and Sundays too?

cragnshag

Social climber

san joser

Feb 10, 2010 - 10:05pm PT

Hard to believe any climber would even consider any type of permit system in the Valley. Nothing good ever comes from permits systems.

Want to climb Shasta? Fill out this form and pay 15 bucks.

Want to do a wall in Zion? Stop climbing early today so you can make it to the ranger station to secure your "permission."

Want to do a long route in Red Rocks? Call some number, and maybe be able to get into the loop road gate early. Did your rope get stuck on a rappel?
Maybe just free solo to get it unstuck to save time so you don't get a ticket on your car for late exit.

Doing a long route in West Pinnacles? Maybe sprain your ankle running to your car in the twilight, just to get tooled by the ranger because the park "closed" 20 minutes prior?

Do folks like being told what to do and when to do it? Maybe it's just a symptom of the dumbing down of America- we all just want to be safe and be told what to do- because it's easier for someone else to do the thinking for us.

No more permits. Not for hiking, not for climbing, not for "our own safety."

Did you ever see a permit system go away after some time? In a very few cases yes, in most cases no.

We grow the size of goverment everytime we create a new permit system. And as we all know, government, like a cancer, will not shrink on it's own because it has it's own inertia.

NO, NO, NO. No more permits. Pretty please, no more permits.

We have plenty already, thank you.

Srbphoto

Trad climber

Kennewick wa

Feb 10, 2010 - 10:39pm PT

And some of them are from people who have LIVED in the Valley, lol. That makes me laugh really. Folks who worked very hard to create the very popularity of which the consequences they now rail against.

DMT I resent that! I guarantee when I lived in the Valley I wasn't "working very hard". In fact, no one working (and I do use the term loosely) at the Village Store was working very hard either! :)

While I firmly believe this is a stepping stone to more climbing permits, I really don't like that you cannot get a permit that day in the Valley. Make me get up at 5am and wait until the kiosk opens at 7 just like for campsites.

monolith

climber

Berkeley, CA

Feb 10, 2010 - 10:57pm PT

My suggestion to the permit process:

Permits not required before 9am.

Don't let go

Trad climber

Yorba Linda, CA

Feb 10, 2010 - 11:31pm PT

Is a permit still required if you ascend the rock a few feet outside of the cables without touching them? From the earlier discussion, it seems that the NPS has no problem with climbers using the cables for a descent route. Does this mean as long as you don't touch the cables going up you are permit free? What happens if someone who thinks they can free solo next to the cables gets sketched out and grabs on? At that point do they get a citation?

Another idea, although I am sure it will gain some controversy, have climbers add two parallel fixed lines. I know this would require adding bolts and I know there are many ethical issues with that. But putting aside the ethical reasoning, do you think the NPS would immediately remove the ropes and chop the bolts or would we be able to make a separate "climber's highway" that required rope ascension techniques i.e. jumars or prusiks?

gunsmoke

Trad climber

Clackamas, Oregon

Feb 10, 2010 - 11:34pm PT

As was already noted, the permit includes the sub-dome which must be climbed in order to reach the cables.

Mighty Hiker

climber

Vancouver, B.C.

Feb 10, 2010 - 11:42pm PT

But putting aside the ethical reasoning, do you think a) the NPS would immediately remove the ropes and chop the bolts or b) would we be able to make a separate "climber's highway" that required rope ascension techniques i.e. jumars or prusiks?

A. Yes.
B. No.

An independent climbers' rappel route from Half Dome may have some merit, though there would be challenges. Ensuring it was well away from the cables, keeping the unprepared and unwary off it, visual issues (fixed rappel stations & hardware, maybe slings), and safety (rockfall, access from above). Plus the heritage thing.

Maybe there is room for a relatively moderate climbers' route to the left or even right of the cables, although I suspect the NPS might have issues with such, too. It would certainly be a puzzle.

David Wilson

climber

Feb 11, 2010 - 12:18am PT

yeah, really peter? what has the NPS and large scale organization in general done to endear it so to you?

cragnshag, well said!!

so, if we determine these controls are required at all, i will fall in with Tarek:

" You get to the shoulder and there is an unobtrusive pole there with x number of "permits" to go up the cables on it. When they are gone, the exposed base tells you to wait to ascend until one comes back in. Each permit has written warnings, asks that you kindly stay no more than t on the summit, and that you return the permit after descending. They also say "property of the NPS" on them. On M-Th, the pole is covered"

all sorts of wrinkles and problems of course, but better than the free $1.5 permits in advance

corniss chopper

Mountain climber

san jose, ca

Feb 11, 2010 - 02:23am PT

David -maybe some metered gate system so only 300 people at any time are up
there? Imagine the roar from the crowd of waiting hikers: "Hurry Hurry Hurry!
Run you manky buggers!!!"

Hilarious.

Clayman

Trad climber

CA, now Flagstaff

Feb 11, 2010 - 08:20pm PT

I don't post often on here. Charging admission to be in the woods contradicts everything about being in the woods. Freedom. Solitude. Simplicity. Self-reliance. It is a national park, not an amusement park. There is almost no distinction now. How much is a ride at Disney land? Now it costs money to go for a hike? Bullsh#t. The valley would be a different place if it were run more like Zion national park. Get the DNC out of Yosemite. They have been bastardizing one of the most holy places for too long. I cannot believe it has come to this now. Where will it stop? Pretty soon climbing and sleeping on El Cap is going to be regulated. More regulation, more rangers, more money. It is like a police state already. What happened to people being responsible for themselves, testing their limits and erring on the side of caution, and blaming no one but themselves for biting off more than they can chew? This is how we learn and gain experience. This is the wilderness. Maybe not by NPS technical definition, but by any standard of reality. You are on your own out there. No matter how many stupid bear key chains or shot glasses you can buy on the valley floor. Peace officers drive around all the time in the city ready to serve and protect. Peace officers do the same on the valley floor. Now they are going to be on ATV's patrolling the wilderness to "keep people safe" and make sure they have the receipt for their "half dome ride" ticket. All this seems like an attempt to "digitalize" the outdoors, make it more like a computer game, or something tangible to people that have never set foot outside. But there is a huge difference, and paying an admission fee absolutely will not guarantee the safety or a successful summit of anyone. It's all bullsh#t.

If this really does go down, and it looks like it is, where will it end? The popularity of hiking to the top of half dome has increased, as evidenced by the $1.50 to hike to its summit, and now it is being regulated. Yosemite is a big wall Mecca and there are way more climbers on the walls and crags than at any point in the Valley's history. How long will it take until we have to pay $5 to go to do the free blast? $10 to go to El Cap spire? $20 to summit? The Nose will cost $50. The demand will be so high to climb it, surely it will get paid.

This kind of regulation has to stop.

The people in charge are buearacratic pen pushers, who read reports, watch videos, talk to people from Yosemite, and think they know what is best for park visitors, even though they have never left their office. They are not the ones there, having an experience in the park.

How did John Muir's Yosemite turn into what it is today?

Dave

Mountain climber

the ANTI-fresno

Feb 11, 2010 - 08:27pm PT

" understand that this permit system is supposed to be for safety. that is a wrong reason.

they should have permit systems for yosemite's dayhikes because well-used wilderness areas SHOULD have permit systems to LIMIT THE IMPACT. get over it!"

So how should poorly used wilderness be administered?

The NPS publicly stated that the reason for a permit and a quota is SAFETY. Thus, they should be held to that statement and that is the issue under discussion. Safety concerns can be addressed without limiting peoples' freedom or increasing cost burdens on either the public or on the NPS.

The NPS did not state publicly that limiting impact on Half Dome, Little Yosemite Valley or Happy Isles is a priorty related to this permit issue. Thus, it is not a point of discussion.

tarek

climber

berkeley

Feb 11, 2010 - 08:49pm PT

Amen, clayman.

tarek

climber

berkeley

Feb 12, 2010 - 04:37am PT

as pointed out above by several, it's desirable to have some narrow high traffic areas, even in wilderness, so that the average person can value it--while keeping traffic very low in other areas. Very hard to successfully argue that the impact of hikers on the trail to HD, even 84,000/yr, adversely impacts the park's ecology.

Buju

Trad climber

the range of light

Feb 12, 2010 - 11:21am PT

That is where you are wrong Tarek. I have worked on a wilderness restorarion crew for the past 3 years that spends 8 days in the Half Dome trail/LYV area. The damage to the area (from a wilderness managment standpoint) is ASTOUNDING. Most people going up there are not good responsible hikers like us supertopians.

As soon as you step off the trail, the impacts are pretty obvious, even to a non-ecologist. Our crew pulls out so much garbage that we cannot possibly pack it out ourselvs and it needs to be put on a mule train.Every tree has piles of fecees and toilet paper exposed at the base. Habituated wildlife with its hair falling out camoes up to you begging for food. JOhn Muir would NOT be pleased by this.

It is not society's right to damage an area so much.

As sad as this system makes me feel (I actually LIVE here), it is necessary for the ecological health of the area. I venture to say that John Muir would be happy to see the park attempting to reduce the impact the park is suffering right now due to the unsustainable level of traffic.

-Roger Putnam

tarek

climber

berkeley

Feb 12, 2010 - 11:38am PT

Roger,

You miss the mark entirely.
Assuming that you everything you say about the trail is true, it still does not have more than a tiny, tiny affect on the ecology of the whole park, which was the point fo my repeating what klk and others have said.

I'm just as much against trashing the trail as anyone. I'm sure there are laws on the books... These permits do not directly address this anyway because they will not impact traffic on most of the trail to HD.

By all means, fine people for littering. No one is for the freedom to trash here.

klk

Trad climber

cali

Feb 12, 2010 - 11:45am PT

It is not society's right to damage an area so much. As sad as this system makes me feel (I actually LIVE here), it is necessary for the ecological health of the area. I venture to say that John Muir would be happy to see the park attempting to reduce the impact the park is suffering right now due to the unsustainable level of traffic.

The same argument could be made for the Valley as a whole-- the ecological health of the Valley would be greatly improved if the hotels, camping, roads, buildings, and NPS staff were removed entirely. If our priority is ecological health, then the issue is not HD trail, let alone the cables, but numbers of folks entering the Valley at all.

As I've said before, given the Valley's status as a sacrifice zone, I prefer having those visitor impacts in the Valley and along HD trail, rather than spread out into surrounding areas of the Sierra.