Half Dome Day Use Permits

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 1 - 243 of total 243 in this topic
JesseM

Social climber
Yosemite
Topic Author's Original Post - Jan 29, 2010 - 12:56pm PT
For further information on permits go to:
http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/hdpermits.htm

If you are a "technical" climber, you do not need a permit to descend the cables. Please read the press release and the information on the website carefully. If you have any questions let me know.

-Jesse McGahey
Yosemite Climbing Ranger

Yosemite News Release
January 29, 2010
For Immediate Release

Media Contacts:
Scott Gediman 209-372-0248
Kari Cobb 209-372-0529

Yosemite National Park Announces Interim Program for
Half Dome Day Use Permits to Address Visitor Safety
Program to begin May 2010


Hiking to the top of Half Dome is one of the most popular hikes in Yosemite National Park. The iconic granite monolith, at 8,842 feet above sea level, attracts people from all over the world who attempt to climb to the summit. Most visitors ascend Half Dome via the cables, which are in place from mid-May through mid-October.

Approximately 84,000 people climbed to the top of Half Dome in 2008. Although there are several trailheads leading to the cables on Half Dome, the majority of visitors start their hike at the Happy Isles Trailhead in Yosemite Valley.

The increase in popularity of the hike has resulted in large numbers of visitors using the cables, particularly on weekends and holidays. During last summer, Saturdays and holidays averaged 840 visitors per day. On peak days, visitor numbers were estimated at 1100 to 1200. This increase has resulted in significant safety concerns. Specifically, there was both a visitor fatality and a visitor who sustained serious injuries on the cables during two consecutive crowded weekends last summer. This increase in use has also impacted the resources and has negatively affected the visitor experience. For example, visitors have had to wait up to an hour to ascend the cables on a busy day.

In an effort to address these issues, the park will institute an interim program that will require a Day Use Permit to hike the cables on Half Dome on Fridays, Saturdays, Sundays, and holidays starting in May, 2010. Four hundred permits will be issued per day, 300 of these will be Day Use Permits and 100 will be included in wilderness permits. These permits are required for the use of the trail from the base of the Subdome to the summit of Half Dome and include the Half Dome cable route.

The Half Dome Day Use Permits will be available starting March 1, 2010 through www.recreation.gov or by calling 1-877-444-6777. Each person climbing the Half Dome cables will be required to have their own permit. Up to four permits may be obtained under one reservation. The permits are free, however, there is a non-refundable $1.50 service charge for each permit obtained.

During this interim program, visitor use and impacts to the park will be monitored. Yosemite National Park Rangers will be studying visitor use and safety, assessing the visitor experience, and compiling data that will be analyzed by park managers. At this point, the interim program will be in effect for the 2010 visitor season, as well as the 2011 visitor season. An Environmental Assessment process for a long-term plan for the Half Dome Cables will begin public scoping in spring 2010.

-NPS-


Editor’s Note: Photographs of the Half Dome cables are available by emailing kari_cobb@nps.gov
matty

Trad climber
los arbor
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:01pm PT
"In 2010, permits are available up to about four months in advance to one week in advance only through the National Recreation Reservation Service. Permits are not available in the park or on a first-come, first-served basis."

No permits in the park for one of the most popular trails??? Must get permits a week in advance???....WTF are they thinking
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Redlands
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
For example, visitors have had to wait up to an hour to ascend the cables on a busy day.


A whole hour? Say it ain't so!

The permits are free, however, there is a non-refundable $1.50 service charge for each permit obtained.

That's some serious Orwellian bullshit right there. Free, except that it's not. Up is down, black is white.
klk

Trad climber
cali
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:04pm PT
An Environmental Assessment process for a long-term plan for the Half Dome Cables will begin public scoping in spring 2010.


That could be an important sentence.
tooth

Trad climber
The Best Place On Earth
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:06pm PT
Wow, $600 a day to study visitors on the cables. In addition to the park cost.

I'm sure paying $1.50 will not keep people from dying.

People are stupid. Doing stupid things kills people.

Taxes don't address those factors in any way.

I wonder if Jesse will be the poor sucker who will have to sit on the hill to collect tickets to get on the cables. Man, that's a job to aspire to.



What will be next? Where will they stop. Their acceptable level of danger will continue to shrink until they have crossing guards at every intersection in the valley. I guess park ranger jobs will be in higher demand, hiring from your local school yard volunteer pool!


I guess waiting an hour or a year to secure a permit while in your home is so much better than waiting an hour on the rock. Just take the cables down and quit holding people's hands.


"For the Half Dome Day use permits we are only covering the costs of the permit service. Nothing else."

So it's a make-work project. Charge a fee to cover charging the fee. Can I sub-contract that one out? I can guarantee my program will expand in the future.
bmacd

Trad climber
Beautiful British Columbia
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:08pm PT
Let me guess, the 1.50 must be paid with a credit card over the phone or online, so no one without a credit card can be permitted to hike Half Dome ?
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:09pm PT
Whoever wrote that release should really think about changing the wording on the "free" part. Just say there is a 1.50 service charge and skip the free part as you will take a lot of flack for that. It ain't free. It costs a buck fifty for service charges.
pc

climber
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:11pm PT
Seems like a reasonable approach to me. Funny "spin" on the free $1.50 though.

Thanks for the headsup Jesse.

pc
Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:16pm PT
I think it's a great idea.

Then they can do a "beyond the limit" type show. Follow a group of people around as they try and secure a permit, hike up and scale the cables. After waiting UP TO AN HOUR to access the cables we can watch the drama of getting down. We all know that is the most dangerous part.

"after waiting four months and spending $1.50 Bill, Tina and John wait for their chance to ascend...insert dramatic music...THE CABLES!!!!!!

They could call it "Half Dome, Below the Limit"
Jerry Dodrill

climber
Sebastopol, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:20pm PT
Thanks for not including technical climbing in this program!

I can see that this permit would be necessary considering the traffic load. But it should be truly free. It definitely seems like some permits should be made available first come-first serve the day before, in the wilderness permit office in both the valley and Tuolumne. Lots of folks do the through hike from TM to Valley, and would have to skip the highlight -HD- if they can't get the permit months in advance. I hope this will get worked out in the trial period.

Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:22pm PT
My guess - "free" technical climbing permits are right around the corner.
ron gomez

Trad climber
fallbrook,ca
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:24pm PT
Take the cables down......problem solved!
Peace
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:25pm PT
I have no problem with some of the permits being available six months in advance (say for those coming out of country) and some being available say a week in advance for semi-locals who can't/didn't plan six months in advance.

But it seems really bad that there are no permits at all on a first-come basis.

I can't imagine that this won't at some point effect climbers, especially if they come up the happy trail as opposed to the death slabs.

It would be nice if the permite was phrased saying it is a permit to ascend the cables (or maybe it does). So it was clear it didn't impact anyone who got to the top by some other means.
August West

Trad climber
Where the wind blows strange
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:29pm PT
Yea, taking the cables down might be the smartest move. But there would be a huge public backlash. Furthermore, can you imagine the zoo as large guided (officially or otherwise) parties try to "climb" get dragged up the 5.4 slab that will suddenly sprout bolts everywhere. Say it won't be so...
Peter Haan

Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:30pm PT

Here is what they are talking about while our own Riley is viewing the situation.

It is also interesting that 40 years ago the hike was mostly regarded as "too much" for ordinary people.

I wonder, imagine the controversy if they opened a second cable lane....or one over by Snake Hike.
JesseM

Social climber
Yosemite
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2010 - 01:32pm PT
I knew you guys would enjoy this one.

Let me reiterate, that climbers don't need permits for the South Face, NWF, or Snake Dyke. This will reduce crowds on your descent.

I'll pass on the complaints about the "free" terminology. Understandable.

Many National Parks make you pay a fee for Wilderness Permits to recover the costs of managing Wilderness Areas in general. For the Half Dome Day use permits we are only covering the costs of the permit service. Nothing else.

The NPS will be conducting an environmental analysis for a long term solution. Prepare your comments, and suggest how you would manage the cables for the safety of all Half Dome hikers.

Jesse

A permit is not required for Mon-Thurs, and this still provides opportunities to come without an advance permit.

enjoimx

Big Wall climber
SLO Cal
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:35pm PT
Lame Lame Lame, but in some ways good. But I am personally inconvenienced, so....Lame.
JesseM

Social climber
Yosemite
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2010 - 01:38pm PT
August West,

You still will not need a permit if you come up the Happy Isles Trail and then climb a technical route. Y

All,

Can you imagine the 1,000 person line for day use permits on busy summer weekends? We don't have the staff or space to accomodate a first come first serve option at this point. However, I'm not saying that couldn't be a future option.

This is really all about the safety of people on Half Dome and the cables. We must keep the numbers down so hikers can move at a reasonable pace up and down the cables, especially with unexpected afternoon storms.

Jesse
squishy

Mountain climber
sacramento
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:41pm PT
They have been quietly erasing routes already, it hasn't been a slippery slope has it? Sierra point, the ledge trail and so on...
Chaz

Trad climber
greater Boss Angeles area
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:43pm PT
This scheme could cause a weekend visitor to make the hike in less-than-safe weather conditions in order to satisfy the date on their sold-out permit, rather than wait a day or two for conditions to improve.

Weather can be a tough thing to call weeks ahead of time from thousands of miles away when applying for this permit.
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Redlands
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:45pm PT
Leave what ain't broke alone and stop trying to find every possible excuse to expand your bureacracy by another FTE while placing yet another petty demand on a public that comes to the resource precisely to escape the petty ratrace paperwork crap that fills their everyday lives.

And I ask a fundamental question: How would this permit system have prevented ANY deaths or injuries on the cables? Seriously?

AFAIK, the vast majority of accidents up there are when the cables are down in the shoulder seasons. The last accident during crowded conditions that I recall was because the girl was totally worked and couldn't keep grasp on the cable. How would an Official Piece of Paper have improved her endurance, grip strength, or eating/drinking?

So again, what purpose does this serve...aside from milking the users so you can add another full time GS-3? Did I say one? I mean at least three, someone to issue them and a couple more for "compliance check patrol duty".

You say the current systems impacts the user experience negatively becuase they may have to wait at the base. What in the hell kind of "impacts to the user experience" do you think making people jump through bureaucratic hoops to get permits produces, a positive one?

So before, you might have to sit around at the base of the cables for up to an hour, enjoying the view and recharging for the final push to the top. Now you get to schedule a permit ahead, go pay for it and get it...now how much time will that take in total? About the same time you'd have spent waiting for your turn on the cables if there was no permit system. I'd rather be chilling on the side of Half Dome for an hour than standing in lines and filling out forms for the same amount of time.

Bad policy, which accomplishes exactly nothing except confusing and angering your userbase. But you get that extra GS-3 position. Priorities, I guess. All IMO, of course.

Jerry Dodrill

climber
Sebastopol, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:50pm PT
Jesse,
The points are all valid, even if inconvenient. I mean, who here wants to join the herd anyway?

Is there a limit to how many permits one can attain during a season?
Binks

Social climber
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:52pm PT
I've been up to there three times only from climbing though (RNWF and Snake Dike x2). I have no desire to climb up the cables. Wonder if this plan is realistic though.
Peter Haan

Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:54pm PT
Now that you have got me all woken up and started, Jesse, I am pondering (or "preparing" as you say) the concept of a mid-cable chalet. It would not only service as a safety landing so someone could not just bowl right down the sucker full-length taking out everyone below him, but with food service and restrooms along with the spectacular vantage point, we could kick the experience up a notch with this Chalet. I presume it would be a "Swiss" chalet too. Maybe some products only available there as well, such as Half Dome Chocolate, t-shirts that Ihateplastic could put out, or more sensitively, teas made from Half Dome Lichens.

I take this moment to also remind everyone that none other than Ansel Adams was in fact a vigorous proponent of a cable tram from the Valley floor to the top of Sentinel, arguing that the visual experience would be so important and the accessibility so special that it should just be given the go-ahead. Fun, isn't it. This was back in the early 1970's. I would look at this curiously owlish man sitting in line at the Four Seasons Restaurant and quietly wonder what the hell happened to him, knowing his stance on this.

Another concept might be a turnstile such as we have on subway lines, but ours would only be set to allow passage of 400 per day up. It would also obviously form a nice snow-fence for winter time as well.

Perhaps another approach might be to establish a water slide on the sucker as some of the crowding is very much due to the overly laborious descenders, picking away at the problem for hours in utter horror while bolder types are hung up behind them. A slide would not not be for the faint of heart and would naturally dissuade many from beginning at all and from clogging up the facility since it would be the only way down. Obviously we could charge too. I suspect it would mostly be youngster attempting it though.

Lastly, surrealists (and I have to think Nihilists and Fatalists too) will undoubtedly be proposing that the cables only work upwards; there would be no "downwards".
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Jan 29, 2010 - 01:59pm PT
I wonder how many permits are going to go unused. You get it in advance. You get sick, or you overwork yourself the day before and decide not to hike it. Kind of like the problems we have with empty campsites. Many people don't bother canceling because it is a bigger chore to cancel then the refund is worth.

Chaz makes a good point about weather. If we don't do it today, we might not ever get to do it, so says the tourist on vacation from overseas.

Then again, if I was on vacation from overseas, I would just pretend I didn't speaky the english and go on whatever day looked good to me.

Put up a third cable and have an up lane and a down lane. Problem solved for many years to come.
Brock

Trad climber
RENO, NV
Jan 29, 2010 - 02:01pm PT
Just put a big fancy kiosk with big neon lights, food stand, and big generator making all sorts of noise right at the base of the cables and charge $100 per person.

Idiots.
Elcapinyoazz

Social climber
Redlands
Jan 29, 2010 - 02:02pm PT
Put up a third cable and have an up lane and a down lane. Problem solved for many years to come.

Moosie for the Win.
Peter Haan

Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 02:07pm PT
NO you are all missing the best idea. I suddenly realize: a rope tow or poma lift up the sucker, right on the granite
Studly

Trad climber
WA
Jan 29, 2010 - 02:08pm PT
I think they are just trying to minimize the number of people that get taken out when someone lets go and takes the elevator....
if anything this should improve our experience as climbers and make getting down the cables allot smoother, faster, and safer. It does make sense if we all stop being so reactionary, and realize we are not being regulated.
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
You wanted to!
Jan 29, 2010 - 02:34pm PT
Jesse,

These people are going into a wilderness environment, a few should be expected to perish.



..........I concur with Fatty's above statement.
Now we just need this statement put on the sign at the trailhead.
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
You wanted to!
Jan 29, 2010 - 02:45pm PT
Pate, it's free in the wee hours. For now.......
Floyd Hayes

Trad climber
Hidden Valley Lake, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 02:53pm PT
I support the NPS plan. If there were no park entrance fees and camping within the park was free and unregulated, the park would be much more overrun with people--and much less enjoyable. I don't object to smaller crowds on Half Dome, even if costs me a mere $1.50. Adequately protecting the environment for the benefit of others, including future generations, requires some individual sacrifice, which I am willing to make.
Minerals

Social climber
The Deli
Jan 29, 2010 - 02:57pm PT
More stupid Band-Aids… Duh……….

“Adequately protecting the environment for the benefit of others, including future generations, requires some individual sacrifice…”

Yeah, tell that to all of the breeders! Simply put, there are waaaaaay too many people on this planet.

We need more earthquakes. Seriously.

bmacd

Trad climber
Beautiful British Columbia
Jan 29, 2010 - 03:09pm PT
Moose has the solution, build a second set of cables, one for going up, and one for going down traffic.

Permitting usage just introduces more logistics problems for park users while completely avoiding any sort of solution.

So its lousy weather and your permit is for that day only. You just induced the permit holder to venture out when he or she might not otherwise decide to do so if no permit system existed. You'll probably end up doing more rescues now.
elcap-pics

climber
Crestline CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 03:10pm PT
Moose has it.... more cables... have two sets on the east side and two on the west near Snake Dike. Sweet!
There needs to be a way figured out to get some permits on site.. since there are only going to be 400 a day on the chosen days then there should be ..... say 50 to 100 first come first served tickets. That way you don't have to plan weeks or months in advance if you are willing to take a chance. I see ticket scalping at happy isles in the future.... hey buddy... only $10 for a permit that will save your yosemite trip from bombing!! Dirtbags unite!!!! Free $$$
BTW fees do reduce the number of park users... the poorer folks don't get to come to the parks... good idea, keep the poor and rifraf out of the parks so only middle class and higher can visit. Class discrimination at its best!
Moof

Big Wall climber
A cube at my soul sucking job in Oregon
Jan 29, 2010 - 03:11pm PT
I'll add this to the list of reasons I avoid the ditch whenever possible. Personally I think just putting in a kiosk at the base with both cables etiquette, as well a few pictures from the coroners office showing the darwinian consequences would do a far better job.

I gave up going to Whitney due to the retarded permitting process, and now my last little glimmer of desire to ascend the cables is dead as well.
JOEY.F

Social climber
sebastopol
Jan 29, 2010 - 03:26pm PT
Will there be a senior discount?
84 thousand/year? That's a lot of trail beating.
Seems like this is worth a try, but charging 12 bits rings wrong.
Jingy

Social climber
Nowhere
Jan 29, 2010 - 03:30pm PT
not goona effect me.... Not gonna make that hike any time soon, and would not mind if I had to tell park officials what I was intending to do for the day, if I decided to make the trek...


Thanks for the info Jesse!

Good to know
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jan 29, 2010 - 03:47pm PT
Thanks for the info Jesse.

1. Average of 840 a day, now limited to 400?? That seems like a bigger cut than needed. Maybe 600 is more logical. 440 people a day shut out, that sucks.

2. No first come first serve sucks. Many people will come from around the country to do this hike not knowing about the permit system and will be shut out. You get wilderness permits at Yosemite village for camping, why can't they do permits for hiking too, for like 50 people? Put out a sign when it's sold out.

3. what about the people who get permits and don't show up. 350 people a day?

4. The cables could handle more people if they all didn't show up at the same time. Maybe you should need a permit between 10AM and 5PM, but you're ok if you get there earlier or later.
enjoimx

Big Wall climber
SLO Cal
Jan 29, 2010 - 03:48pm PT
They have been quietly erasing routes already, it hasn't been a slippery slope has it? Sierra point, the ledge trail and so on...

Those two are effectively hidden now, but luckily not policed.
hoipolloi

climber
A friends backyard with the neighbors wifi
Jan 29, 2010 - 03:56pm PT
if you get there sans permit, do they turn you around?
bmacd

Trad climber
Beautiful British Columbia
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:00pm PT
hoipolloi - if folks get turned around at trail head perhaps they just beat an alternate path thru to the base of the cables. Then word gets out there is a possible alternate route up the slabs under the face. Great place for more NPS safety problems

A toll both should be at the cables manned and staffed 24/7 ... lol
Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:06pm PT
Up to what point are you allowed to hike up the trail without a permit before being tooled? Vernal Falls, Little Yosemite Valley, the shoulder?

So if I climb a "technical" route, am I able to use the cables and trails down or do I have to rap off?

How much is it if I don't have a permit?
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:07pm PT
Probably cost more to post a guard, checking permits, then to add another
cable to make two lanes for up and down hikers.

Widening and repairing trails has been an ongoing process in the Yosemite wilderness for a long time. The people standing in the way of adding another lane to the cables are wrong thinkers and if they can't be fired should be demoted to cleaning porta potties.

Double D

climber
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:13pm PT
The idea of issuing permits has merit for crowd controll but I concur that it avoids the main problems: 1) Log jams & 2)Overall capacity of the existing cables.

Zion issues permits for canyons and wall camping. It's a pain in the butt, however it seems to work. Perhaps a time window would work (2hour windows) although it's a long approach and lots of folks will miscalculate their abilities but it would give some releif to the log jam effect.

Why not just put one more cable line to accomodate a side for traffic going up and the other side for down? Minimal impact on HD while maximizing capacity. Sort of like an escalater at the airport but without the movement. The center cable could be two cables with spacers to accomodate both directions.

OR...just hire a bunch of climbing guides on a full time basis and put up a 5.6 sport route a few feet away.
Greenland Fishery

Trad climber
Toxic Spill, Wisconsin
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:18pm PT
Take dem cables down. Real climbers don't need em, un so.
happiegrrrl

Trad climber
New York, NY
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:21pm PT

On the Saturday during Facelift 2010, about 2 in the afternoon.
bmacd

Trad climber
Beautiful British Columbia
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:25pm PT
Probably cost more to post a guard, checking permits, then to add another cable to make two lanes for up and down hikers.

Exactly, therefore it's a perfect government solution instead of addressing the real problem which is not having a 2-way cable system

Paper, rock, scissors
Day Use Permits to Address Visitor Safety Program
NPS knows paper beats rock

Time for a Study program costing triple the 3rd cable installation to further investigate the problem
JesseM

Social climber
Yosemite
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2010 - 04:36pm PT
I just got an email from Ken Yager to put my helmet on on the Supertopo forum. Great dialog!!

Pate to reply,

"You work there, and for the government. Tax dollars pay your salary, and pay for the needs of the NPS. But guess what? You manage those places FOR ME and all the other citizens of this country."

First of all, I (thankfully) am just a messenger announcing this 2 year interim measure. Although I would love to be a part of the next stage of planning for a long term solution, I was not a part of the planning for the interim measure. Given the time constraints, I think they have a workable plan that will ease the overcrowding (and safety risks) of the cables for a minimal cost.

The idea of this plan is to manage for the safety of visitors, and you could make the argument pretty easily that it is also a more enjoyable experience not to have an hour wait to ascend a corralled cable line. I'm sure the Wilderness implications will be looked at carefully during the Environmental Assessment (per NEPA). We get 4 million visitors here a year, and unfortunately there has to be some limitations to use in order to protect the Yosemite environment, and to insure the integrity of the Park for future generations. We have already been sued twice in the past ten years for not addressing user capacity issues in regards to the Merced Wild and Scenic River. These are your fellow Americans asking us through litigation to reduce the amount of use to the Parks.

It is true that tax dollars pay our salaries, but the appropriations are more and more limited. This is why Congress instituted the entrance fee programs, this is why you have to pay fees for camping. If you would like for congress to increase NPS appropriations, by all means contact your US Representatives and Senators.



Sure, drive into Yosemite for free, enjoy the views for free, touch the trees, the rocks and the water for free, but if you want to spend the night, build a fire, hike the trails, sleep in the wilderness- well get out the credit card because it's time to start spending. You got in free, but the experience is going to cost you some kickback on top of your taxes.

I probably should have spelled this out earlier, but Wilderness Permits in Yosemite are still free. You actually have it backwards on this one. You have to pay for entrance, but when you want to go on an overnight trip into the Wilderness the permit is free. The primary purpose of the permit is to reduce impacts associated with over use of certain trail-heads. In the case of climbers, we don't even need a wilderness permit for our overnight use.

The NPS, Yosemite Management, and our congressional representation have historically avoided any form of limiting use precisiely because of the level of public outcry that it generates. However, as Pate mentioned, we must manage the park resources for the public, and that means for public safety and to protect the environment of the park. It is no surprise to anyone involved that people will have a lot of issues with this change in policy on Half Dome. Once again, I encourage everyone to submit comments once the planning process begins later this year for a longterm policy for the Half Dome Cables route.

Thanks,

Jesse

Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:36pm PT
The introductory period may be a bit messy, although the NPS does have experience with such programs. Still, it only applies to Friday, Saturday, Sunday and public holidays. I wonder what effort the NPS will make to educate those buying permits? Seems an opportunity to say a few things about safe and appropriate behaviours, preparation, equipment, etc.

With the money involved, it certainly doesn't seem much of a cash cow for the NPS - although its global budget is apparently being frozen.
Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:38pm PT
Jesse - I don't think anyone is blaming you for this. We know you are the messenger.








OK, maybe a couple are :)
JesseM

Social climber
Yosemite
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2010 - 04:43pm PT
Nice shot Happiegrrl, that was actually a pretty light day for cable use.

Up to what point are you allowed to hike up the trail without a permit before being tooled? Vernal Falls, Little Yosemite Valley, the shoulder?

The shoulder is where the "tools" shall be. They will not be stopping people before the subdome. On your way down from sending the RNWFR in your record beating time, say hello to the Ranger, and ask him how the summer has been.

Jesse
Ksolem

Trad climber
Monrovia, California
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:49pm PT
Approximately 84,000 people climbed to the top of Half Dome in 2008.

Wow. That comes out to an average of roughly 500 people every day, 7 days a week, if the cables are up from late May to October. Pretty amazing.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Jan 29, 2010 - 04:50pm PT
I probably should have spelled this out earlier, but Wilderness Permits in Yosemite are still free.

Not if you want a popular trailhead and want a reservation. You can play games with the words, but for the basic purpose of getting a permit, you will need a reservation and hence they aren't free. The only way they are free is if you just show up and take whatever trailhead is open. I know this is just a word game, but it is one the government plays and I don't care for it. It cost money to get a permit and thus shouldn't be described as free.

http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/wildpermits.htm

Wilderness Permit Reservations

Wilderness permit reservations are available up to 24 weeks (168 days) in advance when the wilderness permit reservation office is open (early January through October). Reservations are not available two or fewer days in advance (see below for information about first-come, first-served permits). (View a table showing when you can make a reservation for a specific day.)

The cost for each confirmed reservation is $5 plus $5 per person. This fee is non-refundable and non-transferable.
JesseM

Social climber
Yosemite
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2010 - 04:54pm PT
Mighty hiker,

I wonder what effort the NPS will make to educate those buying permits? Seems an opportunity to say a few things about safe and appropriate behaviours, preparation, equipment, etc.

That is exactly one of the outlined reasons for the permitting. It provides an education opportunity for all of the above. I've been down the cables 10 times or so (never tried going up them), and I'm always struck by the lack of water, storm gear, adequate footwear, and skill level of many people on the cables. Almost every time I observe at least one hiker literally on his/her knees "hanging on for dear life". This provides us with an outreach opportunity to better prepare Half Dome hikers.

With the money involved, it certainly doesn't seem much of a cash cow for the NPS - although its global budget is apparently being frozen.


Once again Anders, your right. The $1.50 goes to cover the costs of the company who is contracted to administer the permits. We have had to apply for different funding sources to pay for the seasonal rangers who will have to patrol Half Dome on theses weekends.
Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Jan 29, 2010 - 05:04pm PT
On your way down from sending the RNWFR in your record beating time, say hello to the Ranger, and ask him how the summer has been

OH SNAP!








BTW what is the record for the slowest ascent?
pyro

Big Wall climber
Calabasas
Jan 29, 2010 - 05:08pm PT
from personal past ranger encounters that I have had... the Ranger is always right...they know what they are doing....don't say stuff to make them mad....or else they will put you in the dirt.....they own the parks.
JesseM

Social climber
Yosemite
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2010 - 05:15pm PT
John Moosie,

I stand by my statement that the permits are free, but I understand your frustration of the "word game". Maybe we should state that walk up permits are free, but reserved permits cost $5 per person. Would that satisfy you?

The non-profit Yosemite Association (this year there name will be changing as they are combining with Yosemite Fund) charges the reservation fees. It goes towards paying for their (NGO) staff that run the reservation system.

If you want a free permit you will get one. You might not be able to follow the hundreds of other backpackers up to Little Yosemite Valley and the John Muir Trail, but you will get a permit to backpack to a less crowded and just as spectacular location of Yosemite. If you are willing to come a day before first thing in the morning your chances of getting a permit to the more crowded areas are very good....for free.

I used to work issuing permits, and know that most people are thankful for the reservation system, and have no problem paying a fee to cover the costs of this system. It speeds up their wait, ensures that they get to go exactly where they planned, and provides them with more time to plan that trip.

So the system covers the needs of the spontaneous and thrifty as well as those who want a more secure plan for their trip.

Thanks for helping me clarify.

Jesse
labrat

Trad climber
Nevada City, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 05:21pm PT
Thanks for your words, time, and patience Jesse!
Erik
tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 05:24pm PT
The permits are only for Friday Saturday and Sunday and Holidays.

I don't necessarily agree with the limits myself, but I can see why the park has concerns.

Maybe the number of people up there has become too high? I worked up there for a couple of months, and boy it could get crowded. I don't know if the crowds I saw were 800 people or 1100 people like they say on crowded weekends.

At first I hated the crowds as everyone does, but I grew to like them. I was just looking at them wrong. Instead of using Wilderness glasses, I watched the world walk by me everyday as a cultural experience.

There were so many people, with one goal in mind. Some were ultra fit, ultra prepared types with camelbacks and special moisture wicking clothes, others were old folks carrying just a few items in a plastic sack. Others were hiking with their families ad their parents had done with them.

For some,this might be the greatest adventure that they had ever been on. Others, this was their wilderness experience, learning what water to drink, learning that they should have brought a light.

After a while, I thought the stream of people was beautiful, but I wasn't in charge of cleaning the compost toilet, so my view could be more positive.

If you want to get away, try clouds rest, or head past LYV toward Merced Lake, go to lost lake, or just walk 100 feet off the main trail, cuz that's where everybody is.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Jan 29, 2010 - 05:29pm PT
I see your point Jesse, but I still think that it is a word game. If you have a group of ten who want to hike a popular trail, then to get a trail permit, you will need a reservation. The permit might be free, but to get one you will need a reservation and you have to pay money for the reservation. It is just a word game to say the permit is free if you need a reservation to get one. And yes, I understand that for most people the money is no big deal. That doesnt mean it sets well with me. I hope you wont think that I am bagging on you. I just feel frustrated with user fees and some of the systems we have created. I don't like the direction that we have gone with user fees. I don't know what to do about it, but that is another matter. I am grateful to have grown up without very many user fees.
Mojomonkey

climber
Philadelphia, PA
Jan 29, 2010 - 05:29pm PT
We have already been sued twice in the past ten years for not addressing user capacity issues in regards to the Merced Wild and Scenic River. These are your fellow Americans asking us through litigation to reduce the amount of use to the Parks.

It sounds like you are using the fact of two lawsuits in a decade as motivation/justification for the park to set policy. That seems flimsy. Two in 10 years is nothing, given that

We get 4 million visitors here a year

And I'm guessing the park successfully defended themselves in these suits?

JesseM

Social climber
Yosemite
Topic Author's Reply - Jan 29, 2010 - 05:32pm PT
Tom,

Still living on the Eastside? Awesome description of the Half Dome hiking experience. We get a more diverse crowd on that trail than anywhere else in the park by far. The family history is also so important. Another reason for the parks reluctance to do this.

Thanks for the comment,

Jesse
Gene

Social climber
Jan 29, 2010 - 05:35pm PT
Jesse,

Please clarify this for me. When I hike the JM Trail south to north I can't make a side trip to HD without a permit if it happens to be a Fri, sat, or Sun when I'm in the area?

Thanks,
g

I just got an email from Ken Yager to put my helmet on on the Supertopo forum.
Make sure you make a gear review post.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Jan 29, 2010 - 05:36pm PT
What time will the rangers get there in the morning to start enforcing? :0)
tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 05:41pm PT
Yep I'm on the Eastside. I just wrote up a story on the permits for Half Dome.

I don't expect many people to share my point of view on the half dome trail. It took me a lot of watching and talking to people to come up with that view. It was also not a view I expected to have. The whole thing is just kind of cool.

It won't go away with these permits.

The huge crowd will be at the base of Vernal, the less huge crowd will be at the top playing in the waterslide and walking across the lip of the waterfall.

The crowd will still be large on top of Nevada Falls, and will still be big on Half Dome, same as always. Less people the higher you go.

rlf

Trad climber
Josh, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 06:04pm PT
This whole thing is a sick joke.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Jan 29, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
"Many National Parks make you pay a fee for Wilderness Permits to recover the costs of managing Wilderness Areas in general. For the Half Dome Day use permits we are only covering the costs of the permit service. Nothing else."

Funny, I thought that was why I paid about $20K in taxes to the federal gubermint last year. If the fee for a permit to cover the cost of servicing the permit program because there isn't enough money in the budget to do it otherwise, a smart person would say - don't fricking instigate the program!

Part 2 of this rant - Don't outsource our parks! I deal with enough contracting, sub contracting, and sub-sub contracting. I know the games. It's costing us a fortune in our tax dollars.


"First of all, I (thankfully) am just a messenger announcing this 2 year interim measure."

Awesome... So it gets worse?


"These are your fellow Americans asking us through litigation to reduce the amount of use to the Parks."

Yeah, ones that probably haven't been there lately. Like the ones that like to protect frogs in their free time.



Thanks for keeping us informed, Jesse. I hope our collective dissatisfaction is passed on to descision makers.
LuckyPink

climber
the last bivy
Jan 29, 2010 - 07:05pm PT
Thanks, Jesse for this post .. bound to crank up some response..

I wonder how many permits are going to go unused. You get it in advance. You get sick, or you overwork yourself the day before and decide not to hike it. Kind of like the problems we have with empty campsites. Many people don't bother canceling because it is a bigger chore to cancel then the refund is worth.

it's reservation dot guv that's such a pain.. long waits on the phone, interminable future permitting details, no way to pick up canceled reservations..no info re the permit or campsite or terrain itself.. it's a nightmare of outsourced services.. the airlines will let me check myself in at the kiosk mere minutes before my departure.

I say go euro with self serve kiosks and a simple harness with a carabiner on a sling to clip in to the cable like every other via ferrate, all right there at the glove pile.
gunsmoke

Trad climber
Clackamas, Oregon
Jan 29, 2010 - 07:12pm PT
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
>>>>>>>>>>>>ATTENTION NPS<<<<<<<<<<<
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
The speed at which this thread is approaching triple digits should tell you something: this is an access issue that matters to a lot of the visitors you serve. Cutting back from an average of 840 visits per day to only 400 is a huge move. It means that the majority of those who would have enjoyed the wilderness experience won't. To take away all first come, first serve permits gives the impression that the loss of freedom that comes with restrictions on access to the wilderness is not on your radar screen.
gunsmoke

Trad climber
Clackamas, Oregon
Jan 29, 2010 - 07:19pm PT
>I say go euro with self serve kiosks and a simple harness with a carabiner on a sling to clip in to the cable like every other via ferrate, all right there at the glove pile.

They've got that one covered. Notice that the permit is needed to climb the subdome needed to reach the base of the cables.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jan 29, 2010 - 07:36pm PT
Meet the new boss, same as the old boss.
(just incrementally more in your face)

trouble is,.. gotta do sumptin!
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jan 29, 2010 - 08:13pm PT
Hopefully my reverse descent of the cables during the FaceLift will still be OK. It will be followed by a reverse ascent.
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 08:28pm PT
Hey Jesse,

Any idea how this might affect nighttime ascents? I'm assuming nobody will be checking permits in the evening, but would one get in trouble if, for some reason, there were a ranger around?

(I would hope not, since the Dome is presumably uncrowded at night)

-Val
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
You wanted to!
Jan 29, 2010 - 08:41pm PT
Remember, folks....Jesse is our Liason, our link to the powers that be.
Respect HIM.....He's a good man. But, Give "the System" Hell.
I trend towards the outlaw approach. But, then, when I go to 1/2 Dome, I'll climb the effer. Still, this will be huge friction.
Wait & see.
Scared Silly

Trad climber
UT
Jan 29, 2010 - 08:43pm PT
NPS has a conflicting management mandate - http://www.nature.nps.gov/Winks

"to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein [within the national parks] and to provide for the enjoyment of the same in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations"


Personally, I understand the quotas, they suck but then again too many people in the woods annoy me just I probably annoy them. It is all this damned breeding that is going on.

The service fees for permits are just like the service/handling fees for a concert ticket. I hated them. The concessionaire is certainly making some money on that gig. $1800 a weekend * 16 weeks is 28k per year. I am sure there are some dirt bag climbers who be willing to manage the tickets three days a week over the summer on a first come first serve for $600 a day.

I guess my only bitch is that there should be a daily walk up. 200 of the permits should be reservation, 100 wilderness with other 100 being first come first serve.

Also the permits should be available online right up to the day before.


But do I care - I never walk up the cables.
cragnshag

Social climber
san joser
Jan 29, 2010 - 10:37pm PT
Here is the solution. To be maintained and operated by Delaware North.




$15 bucks round trip
rlf

Trad climber
Josh, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 10:47pm PT
$15 round trip? No way. It will cost them at least $50 million to implement, then guess who gets to flip the bill...

Yosemite should be the poster child for HOW NOT to run a national park.
sarabina

Social climber
CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 11:12pm PT
"Specifically, there was both a visitor fatality and a visitor who sustained serious injuries on the cables during two consecutive crowded weekends last summer."

Let's be honest. The incidents last year were not about too many people up there, it was about weather. Consecutive days of afternoon thunderstorms. Hikers leaving too late in the morning and not paying attention to the weather forecasts. Permits are not going to change people being unprepared and making bad decisions.

Permit Required?

yep.

B.S.

For Sure.
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
You wanted to!
Jan 29, 2010 - 11:14pm PT
Hard to protect against lightning, huh?
Especially THERE.
Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Jan 29, 2010 - 11:15pm PT
I guess I can post this now that I have a signed contract with NPS

Only $5 to the top. NO PERMIT WILL BE REQUIRED!!!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7FOr49QNqds&feature=related

David Wilson

climber
CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 11:20pm PT
"Saturdays and holidays averaged 840 visitors per day. On peak days, visitor numbers were estimated at 1100 to 1200.....four hundred permits will be issued per day, 300 of these will be Day Use Permits and 100 will be included in wilderness permits"

So, the number of people is cut down to between a third and a half of current use. How was this arrived at, a 50 page report analyzing the safety of the cables? Do we now have LEO's up on the shoulder enforcing this new ordinance?
cleo

Social climber
Berkeley, CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 11:21pm PT
If anything, having a permit for TODAY AND TODAY ONLY will encourage MORE
people to try and summit in bad weather.



Jesse, has anyone suggested tripling the number of 2x4 footboards? I think that would improve safety dramatically, and I'm pretty sure people would speed up with more boards.

(I know of people who will not budge from one stance until the next one, 20' away, is completely clear).




David Wilson

climber
CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 11:42pm PT
as a logical extension to the half dome permits, should we consider permits for use of tenaya lake. i think that's in the 800 people per day use range and there must be water quality issues that arise from such a high use......
David Wilson

climber
CA
Jan 29, 2010 - 11:48pm PT
also, if we do those half dome permits, we should consider clouds rest. that may have only 200 people per day but certainly has a dicey summit ridge/trail.....and then there's cathedral peak. it has a lot of crowds on the south face mid summer and could definitely use an individual permit for say, $1.75 per climb.....what do you think the price should be?
David Wilson

climber
CA
Jan 30, 2010 - 12:06am PT
"During this interim program, visitor use and impacts to the park will be monitored. Yosemite National Park Rangers will be studying visitor use and safety, assessing the visitor experience, and compiling data that will be analyzed by park managers"

instead of the above, what i think you ( the NPS ) need to do is hang another set of cables, just left of the existing and the same width ( about 36" = compact ) , that clearly provide the round trip descent cables and eliminate the congestion that's a result of "passing" issues. then you let those people go up without some contrived permit process....
10b4me

Ice climber
Ice Caves at the Sads
Jan 30, 2010 - 01:28am PT
I think it's a good idea.
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
Jan 30, 2010 - 01:47am PT
Jessse huge thanks for providing the info!!! First I heard about it.




To Yosemite Policy Makers:

1. the policy does not address safety, it creates a ticketing system to push the demand to different days, nothing more. In effect following the law of supply and demand, charge money when the demand is highest. Typical exploitation. The cables are dangerous and "hikers" shouldn't do them. It is essentially a poor attempt to be a Via Ferrata. I've got a sh#t load of years under my belt and those things scare me.

2. making credit cards a requirement to permits is discrimination against the poor, and for those that have lost their credit due to health care issues, possibly discriminatory against those with disabilities. (not all disabilities prevent hiking or climbing in the first place)

3. the wilderness is not safe, and this issue is an issue made by NPS itself. I'm not necessarily advocating the removal, but if safety is the real concern, then there are other alternatives. At least one alternative is to create multiple 'safe' ladders. Some for up and some for down. Don't make slippery granite with cables and boards and poles some raison d'etre for an entire permitting process with year after year overhead costs that will only go up.

4. to instigate this program out of the blue WITHOUT an in place ready to go feedback mechanism is irresponsible in the internet age. Just like any internet fool, I have an opinion, and this thread will be lost to time and not reach anyone of decision making authority, yes?




edit - removed irritated tone side whine
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Jan 30, 2010 - 02:28am PT
THREE THINGS:

1) Jesse doesn't deserve anyone's flack

2) Anyone going to YV in Summer, especially on a weekend or holiday, deserves what they get. The place is a zoo, a nightmare, a monument to overpopulation as much as natural beauty or anything else, and they do have to do SOMETHING about it, if not a limit, than what?

3) If the NPS was worthy of people's trust in general, if it generally acted honorably, and was without some fairly blatant instances of conflict of interest in selling out the interests of public users for the interests of those seeking financial gain, maybe most everyone would have more faith in them.
Clint Cummins

Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
Jan 30, 2010 - 02:57am PT
I'm with John Moosie - add a 3rd cable to reduce congestion.
 slow lane on right, with more steps
 fast/passing lane in middle
 descent lane on left

Also, sandblast the surface to restore the original friction/texture.
It has gotten too polished from traffic over the years.
The slippery surface slows down the less capable folks and creates the congestion, and the risk/slipping problem.
Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber
Sprocketville
Jan 30, 2010 - 03:02am PT
this should have been done a long time ago.

when somebody tumbles, you have a whole gaggle of freaked out people.

when a climber falls, we just bury them in the dirt, and go drink beer.

maybe 1 or 2 post traumatic victims at most.

half dome gets 1000 freaked out kids, not good PR for the park.

sell 100 more permits than you want people, no shows taken care of.

extra cables means more work for the rangers, impact statements,

could take 20 years to get more cables, the way california is.

the permit process will weed out the undesirables, to a point.

now you can put a waiver at the bottom of the permit:

Caution: You Are Going To Die!
sarabina

Social climber
CA
Jan 30, 2010 - 03:53am PT
Thanks to JesseM for the news...and for following through with everyone's questions as best you could.

I never post up but MAN...Today is a Sad Day in Yosemite.

Shouldn't happen.

This is opening the flood gates...

Restrictions on all trails...

David Wilson

climber
CA
Jan 30, 2010 - 10:13am PT
well said munge....
tinker b

climber
the commonwealth
Jan 30, 2010 - 10:29am PT
jesse if you need a helmet to be on supertopo, think of the body armour the poor tool at subdome is going to need to turn back the irate folks. that poor tool should get hazard pay for that job...
i kinda like the dangerous mass of humanity heading up there. some people really push themselves to get to the top of halfdome. it is amazing to see the humanity making the pilgrimage.
i was just in disney world last week (don't ask) and being amongst the throngs of people i began to understand that these people are used to crowds and it probably dosn't bother them as much as the wilderness lovers i hang with. so if they want to wait two hours at the cables and potentially get bowling balled, i say have at it.
the permit sytem will most affect the lower class and mexicans who do not get on the internet six months before their trip to plan and hear about the whole permit system. dispite the fact that it is likely their water bottles that i keep picking up under the cables during the face lift, i love seeing the families in flip flops and t-shirts heading up the cables. they are truly bad ass.
i think the permit sucks, but at least we won't need one midweek.
gunsmoke

Trad climber
Clackamas, Oregon
Jan 30, 2010 - 12:27pm PT
"If the NPS was worthy of people's trust in general, if it generally acted honorably ..."

I suspect that this new restriction is no more about safety than the closing of 1/3 of the Valley's campgrounds after the Flood of 1997 was about flooding. It's about too many people walking and pooping in the backcountry. Is 1,000 HD trail users a day ok? What about 10,000? What about 100,000? At some point we have to conclude that limits must be set. The problem is that when the environmental impact report is made and the scoping period is over, we're going to find that the "right" number should be about 100. So enjoy the ability to freely hike Half Dome any weekday you want this summer, because pretty soon the difficulties of getting a highly limited permit will be too much hassle to be worth the effort. And if you've never done Snake Dike, this is your year before the conga line winds all the way back to Lost Lake.

Won't it be ironic when HD sees more rappelling deaths than we currently see from hiking deaths.
klk

Trad climber
cali
Jan 30, 2010 - 12:38pm PT
To Yosemite Policy Makers:

1. the policy does not address safety, it creates a ticketing system to push the demand to different days, nothing more. In effect following the law of supply and demand, charge money when the demand is highest. Typical exploitation. The cables are dangerous and "hikers" shouldn't do them. It is essentially a poor attempt to be a Via Ferrata. I've got a sh#t load of years under my belt and those things scare me.

2. making credit cards a requirement to permits is discrimination against the poor, and for those that have lost their credit due to health care issues, possibly discriminatory against those with disabilities. (not all disabilities prevent hiking or climbing in the first place)

3. the wilderness is not safe, and this issue is an issue made by NPS itself. I'm not necessarily advocating the removal, but if safety is the real concern, then there are other alternatives. At least one alternative is to create multiple 'safe' ladders. Some for up and some for down. Don't make slippery granite with cables and boards and poles some raison d'etre for an entire permitting process with year after year overhead costs that will only go up.

4. to instigate this program out of the blue WITHOUT an in place ready to go feedback mechanism is irresponsible in the internet age. Just like any internet fool, I have an opinion, and this thread will be lost to time and not reach anyone of decision making authority, yes?


-Good job Munge. With a few tweaks, this language should get high-lighted during the scoping.

-Props to Tinkerb for pointing out what the NPS won't: The new regs are going to fall hardest on the newer Valley user groups, i.e., working and lower-middle class Asians and Latinos from the Valley who don't have the time/money, and tech-savvy of the average SF Subie driver to log permits ahead of time. (It is especially unfortunate that the SC, WS, and NPS all finally agree that the crowds are getting out of hand, and the "wilderness experience" degraded, just as ethnics start to become visible as a user group.)

-Gunsmoke's complaints are on the money.

-Props to Jesse for putting his face on this in the ST, knowing that he'd be getting a warm and fuzzy welcome. Of course, that's why the NPS pays him the big money.

heh

bmacd

Trad climber
Beautiful British Columbia
Jan 30, 2010 - 12:45pm PT
Looks like NPS got their answers, only question remaining is will they listen and implement the real solution ?
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jan 30, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
As the Sierra Club put up the cables in much like their present form in the 1920s or 1930s, it would be interesting to hear its take on the situation. Or at least fun to watch them wriggle.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Jan 30, 2010 - 01:21pm PT
Sounds like the Sierra Club has become a victim of its own success.
paul roehl

Boulder climber
california
Jan 30, 2010 - 01:57pm PT
It's really an interesting problem and one that points out the messy problems wrought by democracy. Over the last fifty years too much input has resulted in an inertia in the park that has resulted in too little long term planning and too little anticipation of increased use.

Follow the demise of the "Master Plan" and you'll see what I mean.

Making folks pay to go on a hike is nothing if not distasteful; it just seems wrong.

If not, I suppose there are basically two choices: somehow increase access or take the cables down.

Back in the days of MCI there was a proposal to put a cable car to the top of HD. Perhaps a cable car and a restaurant...?

Just maybe the present cables should go the way of the firefall.

If it were up to me the cables would be removed as an alternative to ticketing and safety controls.
billygoat

climber
cruzville
Jan 30, 2010 - 02:13pm PT
This "problem" would be practically non-existent if, as a nation, we could agree to pay a little more in taxes and restructure our federal budget to spend more on our social well-being and less on saving the world for "democracy." The problem isn't permits, of course we should have to get a permit to use our mutually-owned open spaces. The problem is the fact that the government can't even find the funds to manage such a system within their own budget. Instead, they get a "non-profit" organization to do what should be government's job, and that company (and it is run like a company) charges you a fee to go into the "wilderness." Bullsh#t.
Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Jan 30, 2010 - 02:16pm PT
We don't need "to pay a little more in taxes". How about "we" spend what we have more wisely.
bmacd

Trad climber
Beautiful British Columbia
Jan 30, 2010 - 02:24pm PT
If not, I suppose there are basically two choices: somehow increase access or take the cables down.


Thats not how Yosemite became what it is today, by taking stuff down. If only the people were around now that built those beautiful structures like Awahnee hotel, there would be no talk of permits or taking cables down.

Build it and they will come was their motto, and it was a successful one.

The old timers would be disgusted by the paper pushing bureaucrats running the park today.

Clint Cummins

Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
Jan 30, 2010 - 04:11pm PT
> think of the body armour the poor tool at subdome is going to need to turn back the irate folks.

Agreed. Imagine yourself in that job. It's 9am and there are hardly any people on the cables, but you have to turn people back because they don't have a permit. What if it's 6am? Do people still get turned around? Presumably there will be some time enforcement window, like 10am-dark.

At 1pm, with a huge queue at the cables, then it is not so hard to turn people back without a permit.

Maybe a better system for managing the congestion is to have the permits, but just create 2 queues. One for people with permits, and one for people without. People with permits get to go first, but if that queue is empty, people without permits get to go. (But still at a measured rate, so congestion is still controlled).

No doubt the rangers stuck with this job will figure out some system like this to accomplish the goal of cutting down the congestion, while letting a few folks through who didn't get their permit in advance.
Mighty Hiker

climber
Vancouver, B.C.
Jan 30, 2010 - 04:20pm PT
It may be possible for the ranger sitting on the subdome to communicate with the ranger in Little Yosemite regarding the situation, and for the latter to post information, e.g. at the trail junction. At that point hikers, if informed, can still do something else. Current information at the trailhead will of course also help, and presumably part of the plan.

Many make it a two day outing, which adds a bit of complexity to the permitting process. They may well make it that a permit is good for hiking anywhere past the subdome, but only for a given day. It would add complexity to have to tally the number of permit holders who actually show up (register at trailhead, or Little Yosemite?), decide a "must arrive by" time, and then open up unused permits then. By the time it's decided, say 9 AM, it's getting fairly late for day hikers.

Having a ranger on the subdome would at least allow some education of hikers.
billygoat

climber
cruzville
Jan 30, 2010 - 04:37pm PT
Srbphoto--yeah, you might be right. I was only thinking more taxes, 'cause the military-industrial complex seems so good at keeping their money. But, we probably could do a whole lot more for each other with what we have now or even less. Unfortunately, that would take such a drastic turn in our social thinking, I wouldn't wager my money on that likelihood.

bmacd--WTF are you suggesting they need to build?
Clint Cummins

Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
Jan 30, 2010 - 04:37pm PT
Yep, it would be helpful to have some type of forecast for the cables congestion, supplied to people at Little Yosemite or even Happy Isles, to help them understand what to expect at the base of the cables.

Having a ranger at the base of the cables might also be useful in sketchy weather. I.e. if it's drizzling, tell people that they will be cited and charged for "creating a hazardous condition" if they can't make it down by themselves and a rescue has to be called.
bmacd

Trad climber
Beautiful British Columbia
Jan 30, 2010 - 05:30pm PT
I am suggesting the NPS suck it up and actually put in a 3rd cable to facilitate two way traffic up and down the dome.

Everything else the NPS are talking about is utter bullsh#t.

This is a fine micro economic example of why the USA is taking the financial hit it has in the last year. You guys stopped building things and instead decided paper instruments, like half dome hiking permits, or financial derivatives like credit default swaps or MBS actually contribute to GDP.

Put up the 3 rd cable .... it's that simple

And get some old school leadership personnel back into the NPS that aren't paper pushing beaurcracts mortally stricken with fear of litigation, whom can make decisions without asking for permission.

Good luck ...
tinker b

climber
the commonwealth
Jan 30, 2010 - 06:10pm PT
it has been my experience on the busy weekends that people hear about the long wait before they get to the cables. folks heading down give the heads up. some people are dissuaded and turn around and others keep going too determined to turn back. i haven't gone up the cables during these busy times, i have just been running by on my way to or down from the meadows, or up there for the cleanup. the people i have talked to seemed to know about the long wait.

i wonder how many people actually complain about the wait, and how many just accept it as reality.
one of the studies i read said that most people would prefer that there were less people on the route, but did not want a permit system.

i still find it amazing the people who hike 16 miles round trip up 4000 ft of elevation to make it to the top of halfdome. the valley inspires greatness in all of us.

the biggest problem is not the people going up, but the folks going down who get freaked out and stop traffic in both directions. allowing people to head up after dark without a permit seems like an invitation for more rescues.

i am also curious as to how much information will be given to people over the phone from some call center in who knows where while they get their permits. the people who take reservations for the campground are somewhere in the midwest, and have no clue about the place they are talking about. it is hard to give information about a place they have never been.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Jan 30, 2010 - 06:10pm PT
I'm for another cable, but it would be used as another up route during congested periods.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Jan 30, 2010 - 06:12pm PT
"Is 1,000 HD trail users a day ok?"

Sure - How much of it is paved? The rest practically is.

"This is a fine micro economic example of why the USA is taking the financial hit it has in the last year. You guys stopped building things and instead decided paper instruments, like half dome hiking permits, or financial derivatives like credit default swaps or MBS actually contribute to GDP."

Agreed. While we're at it, how 'bout rebuilding the campgrounds we lost. It takes 10 years and a mound of beaurocracy and red tape to accomplish anything in the country. Meanwhile China is kicking our ass because they have no beaurocractic black hole - if a villager gets in the way of the construction of a steel mill, they just relocate him. Extreme, yes, but effective.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Jan 30, 2010 - 06:31pm PT
Unintended Consequences?


flakyfoont

Trad climber
carsoncity nv
Jan 30, 2010 - 07:54pm PT
sign zee papers please....real id holograms only....
no more box of infectious leather gloves....just dont forget your gamma globulin shots. Sgt Schulz at the sub domes. Colonel Clink at the top.
Colby

Social climber
Ogdenville
Jan 30, 2010 - 08:12pm PT
Jesse does not deserve any flack. I'm glad he was willing to post this.

Regulations and Restrictions - yeah, that's the true spirit of wilderness that was so well voiced by John Muir.

Only two "fair" options in my mind: add another cable or take the existing ones out. "Wilderness adventure" should allow for spontaneity.

I've been on top of 1/2 dome a couple times in late June. I didn't encounter another person either time. People who go up during peak times(of the day) will get the traffic, but good on them for going.
Homer

Mountain climber
Santa Cruz, CA
Jan 30, 2010 - 09:40pm PT
Corniss - it's already like that. Biggest group I saw last time was the group coming down at 10 am.

The NPS is making an honest effort to resolve the situation to our benefit, same as they did with backpacking. Thanks for that Jesse. It bums us all out that it needs to be done. We might just need to accept that.
aguacaliente

climber
Jan 30, 2010 - 10:47pm PT
I think it sucks but I also don't see what other choice the NPS has.

People will b-tch at first if they hike up and discover they can't actually get on the cables, but they will adjust to it, the way we have adjusted to other things like backcountry backpacking permits, or the way tourists have adjusted to planning ahead to get a campsite in a crowded park. I don't love those either but the rationales to keep limited natural resources from being trodden over are legitimate. I think per-trip permitting systems probably don't exist primarily to raise money since they cost a lot of labor to administer. Use fees, like the bogus National Forest parking fees, I have a bigger problem with.
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Jan 31, 2010 - 12:07am PT
More NPS bullsh#t. Total intrusive crap. as#h&les.
Michelle

Social climber
The sucking black hole that is Tuolumne County
Jan 31, 2010 - 04:17pm PT
construct a tram and a bar at the top.
gunsmoke

Trad climber
Clackamas, Oregon
Jan 31, 2010 - 04:33pm PT
Believe it or not, there was talk about a tram back in about 1990.
Dr.Sprock

Boulder climber
Sprocketville
Jan 31, 2010 - 04:46pm PT
if the park service can make half dome more like the wilderness experience it should be,

plus, what a drag to hike all the way up there and have to bail because of the other freaks on the hill?

maybe they should install an electric fence transformer up there,

just shock the people every 5 seconds so the travel time goes down?

Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Jan 31, 2010 - 05:09pm PT
"I think it sucks but I also don't see what other choice the NPS has.

People will b-tch at first if they hike up and discover they can't actually get on the cables, but they will adjust to it, the way we have adjusted to other things like backcountry backpacking permits, or the way tourists have adjusted to planning ahead to get a campsite in a crowded park. I don't love those either but the rationales to keep limited natural resources from being trodden over are legitimate. I think per-trip permitting systems probably don't exist primarily to raise money since they cost a lot of labor to administer. Use fees, like the bogus National Forest parking fees, I have a bigger problem with."

Realistic options, disregarding the ridiculousness of gubermint beaurocracy, have been given by a number of supertaco-ans. There's choices, if the beaurocrats have the cojones to make them.

The loss of freedom that permits systems represent has sent me and others out of California on to other climes, where the likes of Western Slope No Fee Coalition still have the wherewithall to keep up the fight. I guess you guys don't mind having to wait in line and pay to access lands that are fundamentally ours. John Muir would weep.
10b4me

Ice climber
Ice Caves at the Sads
Jan 31, 2010 - 06:58pm PT
Also, sandblast the surface to restore the original friction/texture.
It has gotten too polished from traffic over the years.
The slippery surface slows down the less capable folks and creates the congestion, and the risk/slipping problem.

totally opposed to this option.
why modify the rock to make it safer for someone that shouldn't be up there?

the vast majority of people that hike to the top of Half Dome are the same type that hike to the top of Whitney.
they aren't seeking a wilderness experience, they just want to call the wife, gf, mom from the top.
Clint Cummins

Trad climber
SF Bay area, CA
Jan 31, 2010 - 08:56pm PT
>> Also, sandblast the surface to restore the original friction/texture.
>> It has gotten too polished from traffic over the years.
>> The slippery surface slows down the less capable folks and creates the congestion, and the risk/slipping problem.

> totally opposed to this option.
> why modify the rock to make it safer for someone that shouldn't be up there?

The hiking traffic has already modified (polished) the rock from its original condition, and you are opposed to modification, right?
This would be a restoration.
(Though I'm no expert on sandblasting; I just heard this might work.
Some testing would be needed, of course.)
David Wilson

climber
CA
Feb 3, 2010 - 10:59pm PT
so JesseM, climbing ranger, where do you stand on this, or can you safely venture an opinion?
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 4, 2010 - 02:22pm PT
JesseM wrote:

We have already been sued twice in the past ten years for not addressing user capacity issues in regards to the Merced Wild and Scenic River. These are your fellow Americans asking us through litigation to reduce the amount of use to the Parks.

Les Wilson and many others here know the full story, and I was not involved in the litigation, but a few points:

Jesse indentifies himself as just the "messenger" but apparently feels enough long-term kinship with the Park Service to use "we."

If I remember correctly, the NPS and its subcontractors were breaking federal law by wantonly dumping sediment into the Merced.

Setting up straw men--citizens who would litigate--to subtly smear those who are now criticizing this new Half Dome proposal is underhanded in my book. This is a separate matter, and would just concentrate angry people who didn't know about the Half Dome permit system on the Valley floor. They'd still come into the park.
the Fet

climber
Tu-Tok-A-Nu-La
Feb 4, 2010 - 02:29pm PT
They should just remove the first 50 feet of the cables at the bottom. People who shouldn't be there will be freaked out and turn back, no paperwork or ranger needed. :0)
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 4, 2010 - 02:52pm PT
Munge is spot on.

Others have good ideas for solving the problem--insofar as it exists. Ideas that they came up with while chewing on the last crust of their sandwich. How many weeks--months--did the Park admin take to come up with this ridiculous (and insidious) permit idea?

Instead of an interim plan, how about just a good plan from the start?

For 84,000 visitors, 1 or 2 fatalities is a tiny number, as tragic as they are (traffic accident fatalities are around 12-15/100,000 pop./yr.). But the PS could start by bringing the cables up to snuff at least. Missing rungs? Too much play in the stanchions? Fix it.

Add a cable, improve the texture, design better steps--all would improve the flow of people, as others have said. But you probably won't touch the fatality rate.

The PS is using the safety issue to set a very dangerous precedent that will lead to a permit process for technical climbers on popular routes. Who are we compared to 84,000 Half Dome hikers? Haven't we all been in line at the base of the Snake Dike? And isn't the cable route on Half Dome a climb of sorts--the kind that many average people can engage?
Shingle

climber
Feb 4, 2010 - 03:12pm PT
Are the permits transferable?
"Yes. You can give a permit to anyone else, but each permit can only be used once. Permits cannot be resold or auctioned."



Hmmmmmm.....

I suppose a guide service would not be precluded from obtaining permits in advance for use by their clients John and Jane Doe of Fresno?
Mungeclimber

Trad climber
sorry, just posting out loud.
Feb 4, 2010 - 03:13pm PT
"Permits are not available in the park or on a first-come, first-served basis."

Further thought on this.

The NPS has backcountry 'FCFS' permits, why not HD from the same locations? What additional overhead would their be? I'm not saying that all 400 need to be available FCFS, but new programs should be made to accomodate actual visitor usage as already done here...

First-Come, First-Served Permits
Permits are also available at any permit issuing station starting one day prior to the beginning of your hike. All wilderness permits must be picked up in person by a member of the hiking group. Priority for permits for a particular trailhead is given to the closest permit issuing station, though it is possible to obtain a permit for any trailhead at any permit issuing station. This mainly affects the most popular trailheads that fill up quickly each morning, such as Little Yosemite Valley trailheads, Lyell Canyon, Cathedral Lakes, among others.

http://www.nps.gov/yose/planyourvisit/trailheads.htm


still does not address the purported safety impetus, but I'm very surprised at the approach.

Does the cost of the Credit Card permits account for the cost of additional signage that will be needed to turn hikers away? Signage that will be needed at permit stations, trailheads, park entrances and to re-print Yosemite hand out printed materials at all entrances? [The cost of enforcement at the base around the weekend is an obvious cost already factored.]

again, not addressed at Jesse as the messenger.



Chris McNamara

SuperTopo staff member
Feb 4, 2010 - 03:18pm PT
As far as i can tell, an appropriate place to post some of your opinions about the permit system is in the Merced River plan. The first comment period ends today!

Learn more here: http://parkplanning.nps.gov/projectHome.cfm?parkId=347&projectId=18982

Here is the direct link: http://www.nps.gov/PWR/sendmail.htm?o=54HK%28OJ%2B%23H[V%3AM1JA_C%3EEO57308!*%0A&r=/yose/parknews/mrpscopingextended2.htm

And a thread about the plan
http://www.supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1079061/Public_Scoping_For_Yosemite_Ends_Today
healyje

Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
Feb 4, 2010 - 07:25pm PT
The perfect place for a pair of all-weather escalators. Could be a stimulus package deal with good jobs for climbers for a year or two.
the kid

Trad climber
fayetteville, wv
Feb 4, 2010 - 08:16pm PT
boy are we f*^#ed....
good bye sudden impulse..
i bet there's an app for that!
WBraun

climber
Feb 4, 2010 - 08:24pm PT
The public caused this mess in first place.

The Park service is bound to manage the mess.

When a big mess comes up the Park service ends up having to do something about it whether they want to or not.

The NPS is bound by their nature to have to manage for better or worse.

This is what happens when there is over use ......
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
شقوق واس
Feb 4, 2010 - 08:26pm PT
critical mass.
Splater

climber
Grey Matter
Feb 4, 2010 - 08:37pm PT
If you charge a fee and there is no option for a free walkup system,
then it amounts to a user fee for the cables.

Charging use fees may mean the land manager is no longer protected from liability by the California Recreational Use Statute.
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Feb 4, 2010 - 08:59pm PT
All this bitching about a $1.50 service charge, man you guys are starting to sound like conservatives!


"
We need more earthquakes. Seriously.
"

Not cool dude, not cool at all.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 4, 2010 - 09:02pm PT
Werner,

The point is: there ain't no mess. Unless humanity is a mess, which is a given. But in this case, there are practical solutions that are clearly miles better than the proposal we are hearing about.

As a climber, I like the idea that the average non-climber can go on an adventure--on a whim--and do a life-changing aid climb...might awaken in that person an appreciation that will help support parks in the future.
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Feb 4, 2010 - 09:16pm PT
GDavis, it ain't the buck fifty. It is having to make a reservation. It is having to decide 6 months in advance that you want to hike half dome. It is how the system is set up with no first come first served day of the hike spots. It is the simple fact that with reservations, there will be plenty of no shows everyday, just as there are in campgrounds, but no way to let people use them. It is the fact that they claim to want to avoid people getting hurt or dying, yet the system will force some to make foolish decisions and push the weather window because it will be the only chance they have to make the hike.

There are tons of reasons that a permit system is messed up and one simple thing which would fix the current problem, and that is put in a third cable for those going down and roughen the surface that has been polished by so many thousands of hikers.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Feb 4, 2010 - 09:44pm PT
and there's more-

what fee, that any of you are aware of, is currently the same amount as it began?


"ONLY $1.50"
"doesn't apply on weekdays"
"doesn't apply to climbers"
" X # of slots / day"

etc
etc

and all of that applies only until "they" change their mind, or the next budget crisis, or they need to "fund" the "new signage", or pay for the ranger(s) time to administer the permits, or pay for the costs of rescues, or the replacement of the cables,


you want fewer people going up and down?
simple!
remove the bars and 2x4's and let the cables lie on the granite, like in the off season. i have batman'ed up and down them in sneakers in that condition, and it's fine.

WBraun

climber
Feb 4, 2010 - 09:56pm PT
tarek and people

There is a mess in the eyes of the NPS otherwise this permit thing would not be happening.

Don't look at Jesse or me we have nothing to do with this thing.

Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Feb 4, 2010 - 10:09pm PT
Charging use fees may mean the land manager is no longer protected from liability by the California Recreational Use Statute.

The first thing we were told at orientation with the Curry Company was "You no longer are in California, California's liberal laws do not apply here." Granted they were talking about drugs but I think it applies.

OT the second thing they told us was "be careful what you do in a tent cabin, everyone can hear you".
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
شقوق واس
Feb 4, 2010 - 10:13pm PT
There used to be trees on top of Half Dome.
Not Many, But they were there.
Matt

Trad climber
primordial soup
Feb 4, 2010 - 10:24pm PT
big beautiful SIGNS!!!!




...everywhere...
jiimmy

Boulder climber
san diego
Feb 4, 2010 - 10:41pm PT
Start a thread, half dome cables come down...for good. See if more people bitch about that than, half dome day use permits thread. Make decision based on which of the two threads get the least bitches. More people bitch about the permits, just close er down. More people bitch about closing half dome, keep permit idea alive. This is really the only fair way to decide the fate of HD.
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
شقوق واس
Feb 4, 2010 - 10:45pm PT
Well, actually, it'll STILL be there.

The Jerry's just won't be able to get there.
NOBODY can go everywhere. Or can they? Hmm.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Feb 4, 2010 - 10:47pm PT
Thanks jimmy - for telling the Interior Dept that the decision making
process revolves around the SuperTopo servers.

It was supposed to be a secret!
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Feb 4, 2010 - 11:10pm PT
To see how easy it is to drill holes in granite to install
another lane on the HD cables -check out this demo of a rock drill-
Would need a generator for power but a mule can carry that up also.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lB_uXm8ZFj4
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
شقوق واس
Feb 4, 2010 - 11:12pm PT
Maybe WE should just put one up?
Eff The Man, It's OUR park. Let's just do it ourselves.
Gotta kill that last tree.
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Feb 4, 2010 - 11:17pm PT
It is having to decide 6 months in advance that you want to hike half dome

on the weekends...
E Robinson

climber
Salinas, CA
Feb 4, 2010 - 11:55pm PT
The Half Dome cables make for an awe inspiring wilderness and adventure pilgramage. Many plan and work towards it for years. I suspect managing the fee, the fee breakers and all that will take away a lot of dreams from people of all shapes, sizes and backgrounds who aspire to touch that incredible summit. I hate to think of fines and paperwork and arguments at the base of Half Dome. What a crappy job for the person who has to check the paperwork (I guess the incredible view may offset the crappy moments, but yuck.) Better just respect the importance of the pilgramage, add an up and down lane...and keep the crowds from going to Clouds Rest or Mt. Clark.
Elliott
Dirka

Trad climber
SF
Feb 5, 2010 - 01:58am PT
I'll play:
My rant and 2 cents.

I hate how Yos is the cash cow for many of the other parks. It sets a horrible example for the other parks and keeps the beuros addicted to the steady flow of $. I mean, you cant shake a stick in the valley with out hitting a concession stand, food mart, or gift shop. Luxury hotel, how about a 5 star experience. Let's throw in a couple of swimming pools, day cares, etc... ad nausium.

This mentality also robs visitors of a "genuine" wilderness experience. I vote strip it down to more of a Jtree style. A large part of the problem with over crowding in Yos is that it is virtually an alpine city with all the perks and problems. If the park were allowed to return to a more natural state, I'd bet that many of the awanhi (sp) style visitors would go elsewhere (NPS: it is not a resort!). Think bare bones and let the park leave the impression on the visitor, not the Gov't leaving their impression on the park. Teddy and Muir did not envision the modern spectical that is now Yosemite Valley.
Captain...or Skully

Social climber
شقوق واس
Feb 5, 2010 - 08:32am PT
Right on. I like dirt, trees, rocks, etc.
I'd go along. no road? Hike in.
Talk about adapting, huh? The numbers would drop like flies.
DNC would be bummed, but, oh well. You had your turn.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 5, 2010 - 12:50pm PT
of course the Park Service sees a mess that they want to fix, Werner. And no one is blaming you or JesseM. But I would ask you both: what could the Park Service ever do that would cause you to openly protest or blow the whistle? It's a question that I ask respectfully.

tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 5, 2010 - 01:10pm PT
Imagine the following:

There exists a spectacular climbing route with the grade A0. It's weird and flawed, but allows around one million novice climbers per dozen years to experience the most basic of french-free aid and shoes on slippery granite. And now imagine--it's a stretch, but bear with me--that the Park Service decides it wants to limit these novice climbers by imposing a permit system, with its shuffling bureaucracy, fees, fines, scoldings, recorded messages, press one, press 2, tedious walks across valley asphalt, impatient children, worn pencils, sad disappointment meals with ice cream, promises, accusations of bad planning by spouses, rain-outs on the appointed day and a swirling cloud of unintended consequences.

Would you, as a climber, sit still and watch this happen?
bmacd

Trad climber
Beautiful British Columbia
Feb 5, 2010 - 01:24pm PT
If the permit check is at the trail head in the valley, how does that impact folks going to solo snake dike ? Or folks whom have no interest in hiking the cables but wish to make it to the shoulder ?
John Moosie

climber
Beautiful California
Feb 5, 2010 - 01:37pm PT
If the permit check is at the trail head in the valley, how does that impact folks going to do snake dike ? Or folks whom have no interest in hiking the cables but wish to make it to the shoulder ?

It wont affect those doing snake dike. You will still be able to hike anywhere and climb anything except the subdome/shoulder and the cables. If you reach the top of halfdome by snake dike, or any other climbing route, you will be allowed to descend the cables. Going down the cables wont be limited, but going up the shoulder and the cables will be.

For now..
Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Feb 8, 2010 - 07:03pm PT
the first encounter...


http://www.xtranormal.com/watch/6084969/
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Feb 8, 2010 - 09:33pm PT
"The public caused this mess in first place.

The Park service is bound to manage the mess.

When a big mess comes up the Park service ends up having to do something about it whether they want to or not.

The NPS is bound by their nature to have to manage for better or worse.

This is what happens when there is over use ...... "

So, Werner, since you were so quick to jump to the defense of your bosses and blame "the public" for the supposed problem, why is the de facto answer of the Interior Department and the Dept. of Agriculture always a fee and a permit? There have been plenty of good alternative solutions to the "safety concern" that the NPS raised to institute this fee/permit program that do not require permanent increases in staffing, outside constractors, or loss of freedom to the public. Please answer when or if these will be considered, or if they are not to be considered please tell us why.
Dave

Mountain climber
the ANTI-fresno
Feb 8, 2010 - 09:51pm PT
Oh, come on Jeff. "The public caused this mess in first place"???

Ya'll are in California. There's 38+ million of you guys. If if ain't elbow to elbow yet, including in Yosemite, its dang close. Ya can't blame "the public" for a couple d-bags that fell of the cables.

I appreciate all that Jesse does to keep us informed.

Just got to call BS on this one from Werner.
Toreador

Trad climber
York, UK
Feb 9, 2010 - 10:07am PT
To those suggesting installing a second lane:

Do you really think that people will take any notice of the one-way rules?

If there's one lane with a big queue, and the other lane is quiet, would everyone really stand in line? Or just go up the down lane?

Note, I'm from England. Maybe in the US, people behave differently from over here...
Byrner

Mountain climber
Berkeley, CA
Feb 9, 2010 - 10:35am PT
I'm glad to see NPS taking action. When people die, the local media wonders why guides aren't on every stretch of the trail evaluating people and their abilities. When NPS issues a permit and charges 1.50, climbers moan even though we'll be on other routes. I admit, the Ticketmaster pricing needs to be changed.

How is this different from Whitney? Any other area in the Sierra?

Sure I hate more regulation, but it's needed. That trail looks like a stockyard on most summer days and the impacts are everywhere. Hopefully we'll see less pooped toilet paper 3 feet from the "highway".
ATS

Social climber
escondido, ca
Feb 9, 2010 - 10:48am PT
Seems unenforceable...or worse yet, randomly enforced
tom woods

Gym climber
Bishop, CA
Feb 9, 2010 - 11:45am PT
It actually seems pretty enforceable to me. Just have to have a guy sit at the shoulder between 11:00 am and 3:00 pm three days a week.

As far as the plan goes, I think it will work. So a couple of people sneak by the rangers at 5:00 in the evening? The point is to reduce the crowds that come pretty much in one big afternoon chunk.

400 people, a quarter of whom will bail, means 300 people will summit on the weekend days. That's a drastic reduction.

This plan will work to reduce crowds, the question is of necessity. Does the park really need to do this?

If yes, then the question becomes is the number right?
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 9, 2010 - 01:02pm PT
Dingus,
Yes I really care. It's the precedent: I regard the cables route as a technical climb and this proposed regulation of a technical climb. And I don't think you want to get into what grades people who are opposed to these permits climb (e.g., Coz opposes). I feel strongly that the number of people climbing this route should be safely maximized, not reduced, with provisions for closing the cables entirely in case of bad storms. Plus all that has been written.

Also, for me personally, the freedom to be able to run up there whenever is important to protect.
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Feb 9, 2010 - 01:11pm PT
If you are going to have a ranger up there enforcing, why not just have him/her meter traffic onto the cables, like commute time freeway onramp meter lights?

Might just speed things up, but if not, the longer lines will prompt people to start earlier.

No permits bs needed. The freedom to fire up there anytime retained.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 9, 2010 - 01:18pm PT
because, monolith, that would involve too much common sense, and not enough absolute creeping control.

WBraun

climber
Feb 9, 2010 - 01:33pm PT
I believe the rangers had no power to enforce the ascension of the cables except in extreme emergencies only ( could be wrong), hence this permit thing.

When we were recovering one of the victims a couple of years ago who slid/fell all the way down to west side base we came back to the shoulder to wait for the helo back to the valley floor.

A storm was now approaching again and these 4 people show up and walk by us in sneakers and Venice Beach clothing. I asked "We're not letting them up there?".

The ranger in charge said we have no authority to stop them.

So I tell the 4 people what the conditions are (terrible, ice and snow, and for how they were prepared) and suggested they not go as we just recovered a body from the accident day before.

It took them a while to get it into their head that it wasn't a good idea to go up there with a snow storm approaching. Also told them if something happened later after we left we will be hours before we could respond as we would loose the helo due to the weather.

They turned back.


Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Feb 9, 2010 - 01:54pm PT
I guess the crux of the problem (gratuitous climbing lingo) in Werner's example is: if they had a permit they purchased 4 months ago and this was their only shot, would they have continued?


Fortunately, we will never know.
David Wilson

climber
CA
Feb 9, 2010 - 02:22pm PT
Dingus, I don't buy the argument that if we are not immediately affected by these permits, we should have no complaints. After all, much of what's being discussed is that these permits are a bad precedent as well as a bad solution to the actual problem. So I ask, are you for these permits as they are proposed in the first post from the NPS?
other

Trad climber
LA, CA
Feb 9, 2010 - 02:40pm PT
How much is the fine for non-compliance?

FangnClawed

Ice climber
High Falls, NY
Feb 9, 2010 - 02:56pm PT
hmmmm
as a granpop and veteran of getting arrested in Yosemite for not following lame ranger stipulations
I would claim a weightier voice on this issue. I am surprised that there has not been at least one death every week since the '50s. The scariest thing I ever did on Half Dome was descend the cables - you can still find the bloody death grip indentations of my fingers on selected lengths of the cables. While recovering across the saddle I recall observing a tittering ditzy lady in some kind of Miami Vice pumps skidding from wooden cross piece to wooden cross piece, laughing merrily - unaware that she was a centimeter and a millisecond from DEATH! I would never allow my grand kids OR MYSELF to be below anyone on these cables whose safe climbing ability I was not 100% confident of. So I would never go there except early in the morning or way late in the PM on a non peak season weekday. Which is pretty much how everything out of doors has to be approached nowadays - even a visit to the North Pole. That is the way it is - too much population - too much popularity. These kinds of proposed regulations are already prevalent throughout the NPS and Baxter State Park and most anywheres. I would propose the solution is to reduce the population - grease the cables - promote death and other forms of population reduction - promote birth control - promote solo climbing for uninitiated novices- promote skinny 3 mm ropes with carborundum coated flimsy carabiners. If we don't start now you might have to wait in line for an hour just to drive past the entrance gate of some National Park -- Oh? you have to do that already ??
Loomis

climber
*_*
Feb 9, 2010 - 02:58pm PT
Lame and shame on the NPS!
Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Feb 9, 2010 - 03:41pm PT
It's all REI's fault. The NPS should fine them.
GDavis

Social climber
SOL CAL
Feb 9, 2010 - 03:51pm PT
I really don't buy the "if they only had the permit for that one day, they would be more willing" argument.

Sounds a lot like "This is their only day hiking in yosemite, so they will be more willing."

If they indeed have multiple days that they are in the park, they can go on a monday or a thursday. I'm sure many people can only visit the park on weekends, but if you've ever been in the park on a weekday, you would see its not 'much' different.

Does having that permit push people up the Whitney trail who would otherwise not be as psyched on it? Hard to tell, but I would venture that it has more to do with their limited vacation days and time in the parks rather than the chance of having a permit on their hands.
corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Feb 9, 2010 - 03:56pm PT
Denied your dream of standing on top of Half Dome by the new NPS permit quota on Day Hikers?

Call/email your Congressman & Senators. Ask them to instruct the NPS
to install another cable to solve the congestion issue on Half Dome,
and remove the denial of service Half Dome Day hikers Permit restriction.
.
Suggest you'll vote for his/her challenger in the next election if action isn't taken to stop denying access to Half Dome.


corniss chopper

Mountain climber
san jose, ca
Feb 9, 2010 - 04:05pm PT
Well true.
but can't hurt to grease the bureaucratic skids.
ron gomez

Trad climber
fallbrook,ca
Feb 9, 2010 - 04:06pm PT
So if most of us here are CLIMBERS and Jesse says the permits won't pertain to TECHNICAL routes, we're doing a lot of wining about something that won't effect us...........right now! Maybe later the technical routes will fall under this, but I'd be the first to admit, too much traffic. The first time I did Snake Dike there was hardly a trail to the base(early 80's), the last time I did it(2008), I followed cairns all the way from Little Yosemite to the base of the route...and it was dark! My first comment was to take the cables down, that would eliminate most of the traffic going to the top, reduce the safety concern as far as hikers go and remove unnatural gear in the back country. Largo had a good counter about a relatives trip up there. I wish some other alternative solutions would come up here that might lead to some constructive criticism(I've seen add another set of cables). Jesse delivered a good message, let's come up with some solutions! There IS too much traffic back there.
Peace
qigongclimber

climber
Feb 9, 2010 - 08:39pm PT
Didn't see that anyone else had posted this: More background information on the NPS decision to institute permits is in this blog: http://mrhalfdome.wordpress.com/ , which includes graphs, Checkpoint Charlie at the start of the Sub Dome steps, and more.

My own personal opinion on this is ambivalent. I remember in the early 70's when the first voluntary permit system showed up for backpacking in the Washington Cascades. At that point, it was obvious we were screwed. Then the permits became mandatory. Then they spread all over the place. In the mid-70's, they were already required for climbing in the Tetons. You have to get a day-hiking permit for Whitney now. There are many other examples. If you look at the big picture here, climbers hate the idea of a bureaucracy interfering with their experience of the wilderness, which should be free and accessible for everyone, anytime. That's the nature of the experience. On the other hand, let's all realize that times have changed and there are way more people in the world. i've come to terms with the permit system, fees and all, only because it has, in fact, kept the places i like to go and enjoy from becoming overrun and enjoyed to death. I don't like the permit system, but I put up with it. I think that requiring permits for HD on the weekend will probably just move the problem to mid-week so that eventually, it will end up being from May to September or so, just like Whitney. Good luck to the NPS on trying to control it.
Miwa

climber
Feb 9, 2010 - 08:40pm PT
Tarek - A) Everyone agrees that the number of people climbing the route should be safely maximized. It seems that the NPS is trying to come up with that number and has started at 400. The fact that this is a temporary fix while a more long-term plan is developed has been clearly stated in the press release. B) Close the cables in a storm??? Are you honestly suggesting that slippery slope? Close The Nose when storms are anticipated, close the park when it looks like rain. This will succeed in saving lives. I agree with your line of thinking that the potential of a massive accident cannot be eliminated. Reducing the number of people only succeeds in decreasing the magnitude. Listen to former stzzo. C) And you want to talk about your freedom to run up whenever you want? Try "running up" on a Saturday afternoon when there are 1100 people on the trail/cables. The crowds have already stomped all over your precious freedom. D) There is no slippery slope of permits on climbing routes unless they are dangerously crowded. We've all had ugly days on crowded routes but we can thank condensed classics-only guide books with a 5-star rating for making our favorite routes uber-popular and crowded. But nothing is as dangerously crowded as Half Dome. I don't think you could argue that. Your suggestion to close the route in storms presents a far more slippery slope than a permit system.

Werner - You are probably correct that LE can't forbid people to access any wilderness area, they can only strongly recommend against it. But in the same moment, SAR staff must accept risks, and lots of them, when rescuing the ja-mokes when they enter into an epic that they aren't prepared for. Helicopters in t-storms, short hauls/rescue rigging on slippery steep rock. I'm sure you know better than anyone here what those risks are all about.

Toreador - I'm glad that you pointed out that 2 lanes will double the problem. Why didn't anyone else see this? Two lanes will have twice the capacity and people will go up or down whichever one looks less crowded and the traffic jams/accidents will continue, or increase.

corniss chopper - As far as I know, DNC has nothing to do with the management of Half Dome and there are no financial motivators in the permit system. $1.50 per permit seems like it is just recovering the costs of operating the reservation website and doesn't stuff anyone's pocket. Campgrounds will always be full with or without Half Dome hikers, have you ever tried to deal with the reservation system? Campsites sell out in a matter of nano-seconds.

People in favor of more signs and more holes/stanchions/cables in the rock - While I imagine that safety will always trump wilderness or any other law out there, putting more signs and more infrastructure so more people can hike to the most cliche summit in the park is like building another pizza deck. How many languages would you convey your message on your sign? How would your magic signs be different from the stern warning already at the base of subdome? Electronic? I'm telling you that other people's cell phones impinge on my wilderness experience and I can assure you that an electronic fixture of a sign would be a thousand times worse.

--jm2c--
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Feb 9, 2010 - 08:51pm PT
Two lanes will not double the problem.

The park is already at capacity(campsites, lodging, parking) during those months. There won't be double the number of people going up to half-dome because the word is out that there are two lanes.

A simple keep to the right sign(and peer pressure) should keep the two cable death grippers in the right lane. Passers will spill into the left lane, but the far left cable should be relatively free for descenders.

In short, two lanes will reduce the congestion which has been blamed for the safety problem and unless the park increases overall capacity, there won't be more people up there.
WBraun

climber
Feb 9, 2010 - 09:04pm PT
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
Feb 9, 2010 - 09:18pm PT
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
Feb 9, 2010 - 09:33pm PT
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
Feb 9, 2010 - 09:35pm PT
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
Feb 9, 2010 - 09:41pm PT
"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
Feb 9, 2010 - 09:46pm PT
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
Feb 9, 2010 - 09:56pm PT
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
Feb 9, 2010 - 10:06pm PT
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?
monolith

climber
Berkeley, CA
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:49am PT
An announcement on SFGate.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2010/02/09/BAE11BUUF9.DTL

Now let's see what the internet morons have to say in the comments.
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."
Srbphoto

Trad climber
Kennewick wa
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:25pm PT
In the 20's the Valley was considered crowded.
WBraun

climber
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:35pm PT
jstan

The lines at the entrance gates on busy weekends in the mornings are unreal.

The traffic flow into the Valley on Saturday mornings on those busy weekends from the outside are unreal.

We have gridlocks of traffic flow trying to leave the east end Valley parking areas in the evenings on those weekends as you wouldn't believe sometimes. Without the traffic control unit operating nothing would move at all.

Traffic control manages just that and it's a huge job on those weekends.

All that outside lodging created a lot of traffic during the peak hours.
jstan

climber
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:36pm PT
Humanoids are, frankly, nuts.

Climbers, included.

Some of us, at least, like to appear to be doing something godawful. Of course on the sly we get real good or we use those long stringy things so we are really not as crazy as we appear.

HD hikers are the same. Take a picture of the cables home to show the people at the office what you "DID." Then say very offhandedly, "People die on this!"

It is like having a christmas tree in your cubicle.

Edit:
Yeah John that's what I used to think. A gasping 17 mile hike for that? Till we met the little old lady from Tokyo. Smiling, having the time of her life in a place filled with only hundreds of people. Not thousands.

She was not even out of breath.

If I had had a rope along she would have wanted to go do a climb.
Largo

Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:43pm PT
He wrote: "As a result, Half Dome has become a weekend playground with children, flabby tourists and the elderly clambering up the slick granite on the sloping, 8,842-foot elevation mountain."

For starters, that's a 17 mile slog that features a litle altitude, so not so many flabby and elderly duffers are really up there. What's more, it's not true that young and hale means safe. Go up to those cables and watch Charles Atlas death gripping those cables while Fatty Calhoon scampers by like it's nothing.

"The weekend menagerie has turned one of the world's signature hikes into a flirtation with death as masses of climbers jostle around on the summit cables."

"A flirtation with death?" Really. Because of all the folks crammed on the cable? I do wonder why the whole conga line hasn't been taken out by a big porker ripping up top and starting the dominos falling - but who can say if it's more dangerous with more folks?

JL



klk

Trad climber
cali
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:43pm PT
HD has become a destination. Thirty years ago it was just another rocky bump.

That's true, even though thirty years ago was the peak of visitation and backpacking. What changed was the 1990s pop enthusiasm for peakbagging. Corporate America began to believe that climbing Everest was a metaphor for business success. Then you started seeing middle-management n00bs out of Texas doing corporate seminars in the Himalayas.

But I don't believe that the explosion of peakbagging-- and hence HD cables --will continue anymore than backpacking did. Corporate investment in mountaineering has crashed. After the depression, management psych will move on to the next fad. And the number of folks who can stay outside the park, then drive in, find a parking spot, and get up and down HD, is probably not statistically significant. HD cables will remain on the map, much as Whitney has, but in this particular case, the limits on total possible visitation make me less pessimistic than you.

Or maybe I'm just cynical. I'd much prefer to see those crowds swamping the Valley, turning the main trails into ant lines (or doing the same at Whitney), than to see them spread out in adjacent areas. I'm fine with having designated sacrifice zones to buffer the surround. The Valley in season is already an urban experience.

Each time I get out into the high Sierra, barely an hour or so away from the Valley, and find myself in quiet territory packed with wildlife and plants right off the road, I am grateful for those conga lines in the ditch.

The only other alternative-- muscle up the Wilderness Society and SC and litigate the doors shutin an attempt to keepy everyone out of the Park-- strikes me as political suicide. If we want to have a functional NPS system, we need to have broad political support, especially from the new demographics that now make up the San Joaquin Valley.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:57pm PT
It was about time someone wrote something really funny...

Largo:
What's more, it's not true that young and hale means safe. Go up to those cables and watch Charles Atlas death gripping those cables while Fatty Calhoon scampers by like it's nothing.

and, more seriously, klk:
I'd much prefer to see those crowds swamping the Valley, turning the main trails into ant lines (or doing the same at Whitney), than to see them spread out in adjacent areas. I'm fine with having designated sacrifice zones to buffer the surround. The Valley in season is already an urban experience....If we want to have a functional NPS system, we need to have broad political support, especially from the new demographics that now make up the San Joaquin Valley.

exactly on target, imo.
don't see how others are so willing to discount the value of having so many people summit HD
jstan

climber
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:58pm PT
Kerwin:
You are absolutely right in most of what you say. I don't think, however, corporations having climbers come talk to them plays much of a role.

But what people here on ST seem to be missing is that for the NPS, and for us, this is

a decision point.

Are we consciously going to decide to make HD Disneyland North.

Or shall we choose another path?


I don't want to draw attention away from the line immediately above as that is the core of what is happening. But you all are familiar with pictures of the ratty ferrata in China that keeps cropping up on the net? Some have asked why all those locks are clipped into the chain. The locks are sold to the tourists for that use. So that at the end of their adventure they can feel something permanent has been accomplished. Something of themselves has been left behind in that forbidding place.

Climbers who want so badly to do a FA do nothing different. We all were struck from the same mold.

People are desperately in search of something. So this is the decision we have to make.

HD is a natural resource.

Do we commit HD in the attempt to fill that need? Or do we use HD to fulfill some other, equally important - need.

Edit:
DMT beat me on mentioning the ferrata in China. Got to learn to type faster.

Hate these miserable buggers who type faster than me.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:04pm PT
It's remarkable that many who have posted here in favor of the NPS permit proposal are so willing to sign on wholesale. They don't dig in and try to improve it, say making it a first-come-first-serve system, or reserving a certain number for 6 am, or the night before--whatever. They don't even question the numbers, 300 for day hikers, 100 included in Wilderness permits (how many with heavy packs are gonna climb HD?).

From my stance, I'm inherently suspicious of those who are instantly ready to sign on the NPS's dotted line, no adjustment to the fine print.
Maysho

climber
Soda Springs, CA
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:05pm PT
When I worked with Huell Howser on the Half Dome show (doing my part to attract more hordes), we spent an hour mid-way up the cables interviewing folks as they went by. I couldn't believe the way some people were equipped, and was inspired in a weird way to see a smiling 10 year old, who made it up there and back in a day in flip flops, and the grandma's, and the sweating fat men, and the whole wild mess of international humanity who were seeking that experience of summit accomplishment that we all live and breathe regularly.

Sorry I don't go along with the herd here that likes to slam NPS, and assumes that any regulation is only going to make things worse. I am for more education always, and a simple permit system might be the most efficient way to get info into the hands of the masses. Multi-language brochures that explain the realities and dangers should improve the odds, and some info steering some folks to the less crowded days should have a positive impact.

I even think a simple permit to climb El Cap, with poop-tubes for sale at that point, would also be an effective way to spread good info reducing trash, traffic jams, and possibly some rescues. Go ahead and throw your stones, I am good at ducking!!

There are so many cliffs and peaks to climb away from the hordes, I like to go to those places, and when I want to climb in the Valley Circus, I don't blame NPS for seeking solutions to help keep more of us clowns from trashing the place or triggering a rescue.

Peter
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:14pm PT
Peter,

You are mistaken to say that those critical of the NPS permit proposal simply like to bash the NPS.

I'm sure, if you thought about it, you could come up with a critique of some NPS policies.

You also make my point: you are too ready to sign on the dotted line. This thread is full of ideas--most of them written by people against the proposal. Let's see you improve the permit idea, if you like it--or otherwise engage. It wasn't hatched perfect, that's for sure.

As for El Cap permits, having actually made an incredibly bold statement there, I hope you won't be ducking, but defending it.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:24pm PT
Dingus,
A knee-jerk reaction against the NPS would not involve as many constructive ideas as produced here by the crowd "against." Fact is, the NPS has the power, ain't goin' nowhere, and don't need yer kind assistance--except to improve their proposals.

A knee-jerk reaction against would be: "the NPS is inherently bad, stay with the stautus quo," which would make no sense, as you point out.

Ready to maybe lead you up After Six, my man, after maybe a bit more work on the pink route in the kiddy corner.
klk

Trad climber
cali
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:26pm PT
John--

The corporate seminar phenomenon is just the visible layer of a real causal force.

The peakbagging and Outdoor Industry boom of the last two decades has been driven by two things: Unprecedented corporate investment and a war economy that includes an alpine theater. The faddish corporate investment is over. I don't expect the peakbagging spike of the 1990s-2000s to continue at the same pace, absent one of its primary economic drivers.

And I wish we were at a decision point, but I think the NPS has already done what it's going to do and will continue to do in incremental steps, namely introduce more and more specialized permits, licenses, and user fees.

The end game? Eventually a permit/lottery system simply to even enter the Valley as we now have for Whitney.

Disneyland on HD? The Valley (in season) has been nothing else since the early Curry era.

I just don't see good functional alternatives. I wish I did. Where should those people go instead? Up 108? Conness? King's Canyon? Sequoia? So we can zoo out seven or eight areas instead of one? Should they stay home and play video games? Grow vegetables at home? In a perfect world, I'd be happy with those last two alternatives, but then you'll give up any popular investment in or support for National Parks.

We could take Ed Abbey's line, and urge the federal government to end all immigration, seal the borders, and institute a one family-one child procreation policy along the Chinese model. A small but active faction in the environmentalist movements has been pushing this idea for several decades now. But it's not a physical let alone a political possibility.

DMT-- Yes, the Chinese example is on point. As would be other Via Ferrata in Asia or the Alps.


jstan

climber
Feb 10, 2010 - 01:31pm PT
Way to go Maysho!

So it looks like we have all reached agreement? Tarek is on board. Wants to make suggestions on the permit system. Cool. Send them in or even post them here. Without a doubt they will get transmitted to the NPS.

Kerwin:
Much of the driving force behind all of this is something within each person.

(Until Moosejaw's Pink Lady came along I was able to safely say the corporates had never influenced me at in any way. Ah well. Nothing lasts forever.)

Everything can be changed. Everything. Literally.

We need only ask what is that something in each of us.

What is it?

In forty years of arguments about bolting, for example, no one has ever actually asked that question.

Indeed it seems very few, even here on ST, understand,

What is it that we seek?

Why do we seek it?
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 10, 2010 - 03:02pm PT
Tarek is on board. Wants to make suggestions on the permit system.

yes, if the full array of possibilities includes not having a permit system for the long-term.


klk

Trad climber
cali
Feb 10, 2010 - 03:40pm PT
Kerwin: Much of the driving force behind all of this is something within each person.

John, that's the residue of yr Scots Protestantism talking.

Heh.

Studying cultural history has left me with little faith in self-improvement as a basis for politics, on the crag or off. You are one of the only folks I know who regularly models a constructive alternative. I try to do the same when I'm actually at the crag. Locally, it can be influential as you demonstrated in the Gunks.


Peter, your suggestion that each permit contact is good because it provides a visitor education opportunity, is the best argument I've seen for permits. But I'm still not persuaded. I've watched enough tourists on enough kinds of via ferrata in the Alps, and in big enough numbers (all running w/o permits), to become really unenthused about our current approaches to visitor management in high visitation areas.

Beef up the stanchions on the Cables route and folks could run via ferrata rigs in four lines w/o even needing extra cables. It happens all the time in the Alps w/o the handwringing and grief and the soon-to-become-mandatory-NPS-how-to-climb-our-substandard-pos-american-made-via-ferrata-pamphlets that will be littering HD by the thousands.

Some of the posters here will immediately complain that Yos isn't the Alps, that the Alps are crowded and full of foreigners, Europe is socialist, etc.

But the Valley is and has been the Alps for almost a century now. Except that it has worse food, more regulations, and a crummier, stupider, and more dangerous via ferrata.
gunsmoke

Trad climber
Clackamas, Oregon
Feb 10, 2010 - 04:23pm PT
http://www.mount-whitney.com/mt_whitney_permits.php

"A Permit For The Mt. Whitney Zone Is Required No Matter Where Or When You Start.

"A lottery, beginning each February 15th, assigns advance reservations for the quota period on the Mt. Whitney Trail.

"The Mt. Whitney Zone limits day use (100 daily); overnight (Mt. Whitney Trail, 60 daily); Trail Crest exits (west entry - east exit, 25 daily) while quotas are in effect.

"All applications must be submitted by snail mail. No fax, internet, email or phone applications are accepted.

"Applications must be submitted with a $15 fee per person; payable by Visa, Matercard (sic), or check to “USDA Forest Service”.

"There are NO REFUNDS"

Mt Whitney is higher elevation and may not support as much traffic, but what makes us think that, in the end, the NPS will permit 400 daily HD permits in addition to the traffic from traditional climbing routes?
Homer

Mountain climber
Santa Cruz, CA
Feb 10, 2010 - 04:38pm PT
Hey klk. Thanks for your posts. How can we apply the Alps model to HD? What do you feel is preventing that from being "a good functional alternative"?
klk

Trad climber
cali
Feb 10, 2010 - 05:07pm PT
How can we apply the Alps model to HD? What do you feel is preventing that from being "a good functional alternative"?

I think the best sites in the Alps do a better job of managing high visitation mountain environments than we do. I think we do a better job of managing low visitation environments. I'd prefer to see most of the Sierra remain a low visitation environment. But for the one place that's already running Euro-style numbers, Yosemite Valley, I'd rather see something closer to a European model.

On HD cables route, that might mean beefing up the stanchions so that hikers could run (optional) via ferrata rigs. Since you could run either side of either cable, you'd immediately double capacity. Build in a limited number of pullouts for emergency use. Total capacity would remain restricted the way it is in Zermatt, by the total number of beds available in the Valley. Let the concessionaires rent and sell vf gear like they do all over the Alps. Some folks would use them, some wouldn't. C'est la vie. Someone w/o gear dies on route, the survivors have that much less ground for suing NPS. You'd probably reduce fatalities to lightning strikes.

Since the NPS has already instituted a permit system, this ain't gonna happen. And even if the permit system wasn't already grinding into motion, the other imaginable objections:

First, the stanchions might have to be fixed, which would violate the fiction that by taking the thing down in the winter, it doesn't constitute a permanent structure, installation or improvement.

Second, the anti VF crowd would go all Pavlov over the degradation of climbing, the rise of consumerism, etc.

Third, the folks who hope to reduce all Valley visitation to something like 19th century levels might threaten litigation or even sue to prevent it.

other

Trad climber
LA, CA
Feb 10, 2010 - 05:12pm PT
Night hike!!
What is the penalty for not having a permit? If you attempt to hike beyond the subdome or up the cables without a valid permit, a ranger will turn you away at or near the subdome. Additionally, you could face misdemeanor charges—up to a $5,000 fine and/or six months in jail.

The ranger may not be stationed 24 hours per day, however, other rangers will be patrolling the corridor and rangers may be stationed at the subdome at any time. Regardless of whether a ranger is present, you must have a permit in possession in order to hike beyond the base of the subdome (including the Half Dome cables). The ranger checking the permits will be stationed in the area of the subdome and will not allow any person without a permit beyond the base of the subdome.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 10, 2010 - 05:38pm PT
Beefing up the stanchions might be possible while still keeping them temporary. Some adjustable screw expansion sleeve.

klk has really nailed it on the desirability of keeping visitation high to HD and similar places. I still question the need for permits at all, but, for those who support them, consider this low-bureaucracy "permit" idea, maybe someone else came up with it and I missed it:

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.

Fire away...yes some people will take them, ignore them, etc. But get busy improving the permit approach, if you like it. I might grumble about this approach, but I would accept it. It's simple, free to the user, and does not involve hoofing it around the Valley or listening to some tedious lecture.
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
CA
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.
tarek

climber
berkeley
Feb 12, 2010 - 11:45am PT
Wow, I'm beginning to think Mayfield was serious about ducking.
klk

Trad climber
cali
Feb 12, 2010 - 11:55am PT
john muir's yosemite did not have this many people tho.

Neither did his America.

His Valley did have loggers, sheep, a sawmill, a hotel at Vernal Falls, and a via ferrata up Half Dome. Or it did once the government and squatters had forcibly removed most of the Indians.

It's a double bind-- tourism is almost as hard on beautiful areas as logging or mining might be. But without tourism, you can't maintain public support for the very idea of a National Park System.

Would I prefer a pristine Valley? Of course. I hardly see the place anymore because i don't want to deal with the urban environment. But the popularity of the area helps to keep National Parks popular, and it keeps the crowds out of other parts of the Sierra.

Americans haven't yet reconciled themselves to the difficulties they are facing with visitor management. We're ending up with the worst of both worlds: The big crowds AND an endless series of legal and bureaucratic civil wars to try and maintain the fiction that the Valley floor and popular trails are "wilderness."

truclimber

Trad climber
Nevada/Washington
Apr 13, 2010 - 10:47pm PT
I wonder how many people will find out about the death slabs?
couchmaster

climber
pdx
Apr 14, 2010 - 12:25am PT
What cragnshag says is spot on and the only solution is to defund, seriously restrict the money, that the NPS sucks out of us. Fire a bunch of workers and get the ones that remain back to working for us.

Sure, people will still die on half dome, and they will with the permit system as well, but it's all about control. One step at a time they take take take. I'm tired of it, lets defund the bastards and start becoming a free people again. With freedom comes responsibility though. You chose to hike up half dome in the snow, tough titty if it don't work out for you.
Messages 1 - 243 of total 243 in this topic
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
spacerCheck 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks

guidebook icon
Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Recent Route Beta