Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
| Messages 1 - 84 of total 84 in this topic |
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Original Post - Feb 4, 2010 - 03:41pm PT
|
Day Use Permits
Steve Roper, Les Wilson, DR, Largo, Warbler, Chapman, WB, Shipoopoi, Coz, Maysho, Deuce4, Elliot R, G. Murphy, many, many others who've spent 100s of days in the Valley...would be great to have you weigh in either way, like Peter Haan did. This happens to be the site where yosemite climbers (and NPS lurkers) can read what other yosemite climbers think. I'm sure many will contact the NPS directly as well.
Amazing that this:
http://supertopo.com/climbers-forum/1072522/Half_Dome_Day_Use_Permits
has not generated more comments. It just falls off of the front page.
|
|
survival
Big Wall climber
A Token of My Extreme
|
|
Unfortunately, lots of great stuff falls off the front page.
The Half Dome permits would be kinda lame, but will affect the tourons a lot more than the average climber.
|
|
aspendougy
Trad climber
Los Angeles, CA
|
|
Ron Gomez idea to do away with them is great for climbers, but the NPS would never do it. Too bad, without the cables it is a nice 5.7 route isn't it?
You pay a lot more than $1.50 to drive into the Park. Seems like having a specific charge for Half Dome Cable climb is bureaucratic and cheesy.
|
|
Gunkie
Trad climber
East Coast US
|
|
And I thought this was to begin something like, "A Japanese hiking group...."
|
|
bvb
Social climber
flagstaff arizona
|
|
that photo makes the place look nightmarish. way smarter to solo the 5.2 flakes n' slabs off to the left of the cables.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 4, 2010 - 06:15pm PT
|
Dingus,
If you read the thread linked above, several people, particularly srbphoto, Moosie and Munge, make good points on this...
1. There is no need for these permits. Fatalities are inherent to any activity with risk, and are very low in this case. There is really no great problem with congestion and a wait on foot in any case. We all deal with these on a regular basis in all kinds of activities. It could mean higher fatalities in one big accident--same as it does in many other activities.
2. If the NPS wants to improve the route, physical solutions will best help with congestion. (Another cable, etc.)
3. More and better education will discourage those who are unprepared ("you are risking your life, etc.").
4. The increased bureaucracy, relation to technical climbing (the cables are really a technical climb with permanent aid installed), and additional fees (paid to a company for processing) are all terrible precedents. What will they come up with next? is the question.
|
|
jewedlaw
Trad climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
That picture must be a photoshop, because the ranger in the boot is wearing a blue cap instead of a flat-top.
|
|
David Wilson
climber
CA
|
|
another way to look at this, especially with the above picture in mind, is that given 84,000 people went up the cables in a year, people are actually being incredibly safe and careful. just give the people one more cable and a few foot boards and leave the rangers on the valley floor ( or better yet in modesto )
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
The question gets thorny once the conga line gets hundreds long. You know by the very nature of the Park Service that they will to control or try and control the numbers, because control is what authorities tend to do. There's good and bad to this.
Some of the bad is tied to the faux reasons that are often posited - like ecological reasons for cutting back on the Half Dome crowds, or that the ocassional death warrents rationing and permits. Also, though the park service says the permits are only a buck fifty and that this is not a money making affair - fine, but hold them to it, meaning any money generated from citations given for NOT having the permits, such proceeds MUST go to a charity. Do you think that will fly, or do you think there just might be a ranger stationed up at the Dome on weekends to check on those permits - and scribble out a hundred dollar (or more) ticket if things are not in order.
We all know as a simple and incontrovertible fact that once the Forest Service introduces the policy of exchanging money for day use rights, the business of fees and regulations, and enforcing same, can only escalate till (fill in the blank).
Maybe just put up with the high numbers on the Cable Route for those few weekends a year that the crowds are truly horrendous.
JL
|
|
Radish
Trad climber
SeKi, California
|
|
The Forest Service and the National Park Service are two different groups, the Forest Service is the Dept. of Agriculture and the Park Service is the Dept. of the Interior. Both I'm sure will be stretched to the max on budgets from the cuts coming. I think the permits are a good idea for the peak months. We topped out from doing Snake Dike and ran into 12 ladies in pumps and plastic water bottles getting ready to go down at 5 in the eve. one day in the summer. I wanted to stick around just to see if they made it back!
|
|
Rocman
Trad climber
Reno,NV
|
|
PERMITES,$$$ since I have not gone up the cables,just down will I need to get a permite before I leave the valley?
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2010 - 12:41pm PT
|
With just myself in mind, I'd like the cables removed and the holes filled. But that is impractical and would rob--now we know--roughly 84,000 novice climbers/year of what for many would be the final leg one of their greatest adventures.
I'm also not OK with chopping the bolt ladder off of Texas flake, etc. which is the same set-up--so I'd be a hypocrite. There are plenty of exclusionary purists who would want both. I think it was Kauk who said the bolts are no problem, try erasing the roads, or words to that effect.
As a starting point, just imagine better tread designs than sketchy, weathered 2x4s (last time I was there), making the stanchions less wobbly, and placing a well-designed graphic at the bottom discouraging those who might be in over their heads.
Then study the effects before and after--if the PS is so bent on ""fixing" this.
[edit: by bottom I mean in the Valley, not base of cables]
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
JL
Citations are very, very, very rarely given out for permit violations. A friend of mine is a volunteer ranger out in Humber Park, has been for years, and has never called in an LEO for a citation or heard of it happening. Even so, yes I agree that any money generated towards that should go to charity, and yes they would never do that.
Like Werner said, its an ugly thing, but there really isn't much else to do. Take down the cables? For hundreds of thousands of people that hike is their first experience to something magical in the wilderness, something that we cannot gauge the value of. How many people took a more sudden interest in their national parks and the natural world around them because of an adventure just like this? I agree that planning a few months ahead of time is a pain (if you only have weekends off, and decide that a weekend is a good time to go), would it be too difficult to issue the permits at the wilderness center? Why would any more employees be needed?
Looking at sister hikes (front trail to Whitney) I think there is really no perfect solution, and at least trying something different is a good step. The precedents being set here for park-climber relations are unheard of, it could not be easier to get around. On weekends, just for ASCENDING the cables, just in summer, only a buck fifty, climbers need not apply? Well, not sure what else you would ask for. You want them to pay you for going up the RNWF or what?
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
"Placing a well-designed graphic at the bottom discouraging those who might be in over their heads."
Doesn't even work.
I can tell you from experience.
I truly believe a large part of this fee and limit policy that is being enacted is due to the recent accidents and fatalities up there in the last couple of years.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2010 - 01:23pm PT
|
since I've never seen a well-designed graphic that conveys a complex message in the valley, it would be hard to conclude that it would not be at all effective. But I'll take your word for it.
The permit system will not affect the fatality number, statistically speaking. Too many other factors involved, and it's a tiny number. Fixing the cables, restoring the texture, adding a cable, etc. are good ideas.
As someone pointed out, people may even push their luck w/ regard to the weather because they finally got their permit...could directly lead to problems. Even if it happens just a couple of times, you'd see the uptick...
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
I truly believe a large part of this fee and limit policy that is being enacted is due to the recent accidents and fatalities up there in the last couple of years.
Yes, but permits wont completely fix that because now people will try to climb it in poor weather because it is the only day they have a permit for.
Create a different kind of problem is all it will do. Plus they will have to station someone to enforce the permits, which means they will need to raise the cost of the permit as the current fee only covers the reservation system.
If you want to reduce the chance of accidents, then roughen the surface, put in more cross planks and put in a down cable. No bureaucracy needed.
The pile up only happens for about 3 hours. From about noon to about 3. Hike early to avoid it.
With this system, how many permits are going to go unused because people twist an ankle the day before, and just wake lazy or yadda yadda yadda.
Whitney is a different problem because people have to overnight for the most part. Few can do it in a day.
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
"now people will try to climb it in poor weather because it is the only day they have a permit for"
Then they just wait till the weekday when they won't need one. Unless they are only there for that one weekend that year, in which case they will try to get up regardless of if they have a permit or not. But at least only 400 will, instead of 1100.
|
|
Srbphoto
Trad climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
Not everyone can just drop everything and go to the park on a weekday.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
My cousin used to be backcountry ranger, then chief ranger, in Yosemite, so I got an inside look at a lot of park service goings on. Not an easy job.
I agree that there are few citations given for permit violations by volunteer rangers in casual places like Humber Park, but move into Sequoia or Yosemite or Whitney and see how quickly you'll get written up for not having the proper paper work. Especially now, in this budget crunch, any potential revenue flow is milked. That's just human nature.
There is no solution, perfect or otherwise, for the Half Dome overcrowding. For all the people going up there, a few maniacs or bumblers are too be expected and a few accidents are a certainty. I'm sort of surprized a big domino ripper hasn't yet occured, where the entire conga line goes rag dolling down the slope.
Fact is, slogg up those cables is a high poinbt of many people's adult life. My brother in law, who is my age (50ish) trained all winter and baggd that noble peak with his neighbor this last year. It totally lit the guy's lamp.
So hell if I know what to do . . .
JL
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Unless they are only there for that one weekend that year, in which case they will try to get up regardless of if they have a permit or not. But at least only 400 will, instead of 1100.
Nope, my family would not break the rules, we just wouldn't get to go because the system has no flex in it and no first come first served permits and no motivation for people to cancel so others can go.
Didn't you at one point complain about all the empty camping spots that didn't get used when people couldn't go because there was no motivation for people to cancel or the method of canceling was so messed up that they didn't bother.
This is just more of the same.
|
|
Bad Climber
climber
|
|
The permits are a joke--except as ANOTHER tax on the citizens. Drives me nuts. Contrary to some, however, I think a second cable to allow an up and down side would be an excellent idea. It would be a pretty minimal change all things considered and would make the whole deal more manageable. I've never been up the cables. I've been down twice (after the NW face and Snake Hike), and I thought they were pretty sketchy!--at least with a haul bag slung over my shoulders.
I'll probably never be up there again. I much preferred topping out on Quarter Dome. We had the summit to ourselves and bivied up there in the mist. Waking up on top after and looking over to Watkins, the great satisfaction at topping out--one of the greatest mornings of my life. As we hiked down and picked up the HD trail, turon after turon kept asking if we'd climbed HD. Got damn tedious after a while explaining the QD thing, so my friend just started saying, "Yeah, climbed Half Dome." Cracked me up. We met one woman climber who understood the difference and gave us a few kudos for enduring the approach (the crux of the route!).
Slug it out on that approach, and you'll have one of the valley's great Grade V's all to yourself--hard free or very moderate 5.9/A2. Gotta be psyched for the brutal approach, however. We were so thrashed, I was determined there was no way we were backing down. The only way out was up and off!
Now, back to your regularly scheduled HD hikers thread...
BAd
|
|
GDavis
Social climber
SOL CAL
|
|
John... just go on the weekday.
|
|
Paul_M.
Mountain climber
The center of the universe
|
|
^^^
"I'm sort of surprized a big domino ripper hasn't yet occured, where the entire conga line goes rag dolling down the slope."
classic !!
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Unforeseen consequences GDavis. Half dome is a hike many many many people really want to do. It is a high motivator. Just look at Largo's story. What happens with the 1400 people a weekend who now can't do it? They figure out a way to hike it during the week. 1400 people spread out as 400 a day maxes out another 3+ days. Plus you have all those people who do it on the week days now. So pretty soon you need a permit for every day of the week. Then what happens to all those people who still love hiking and want to do a hike in the park. They find another trail. The next one would be Yosemite falls trail. It is already heavily impacted, so you will need a permit system for that.
yippie, I love permits.
I'm so glad that I am getting old and wont be alive for the coming mess. The park has been heading towards a reservation system to even enter the park during the summer. Those of us lucky enough to live here have been watching and fighting the slow inexorable progress towards this goal. It might take a long time to happen, but happen it will. In the nineties they did away with huge amounts of parking in the valley. This created logjams on the big weekends so the solution was to close the park once a certain limit was reached. This pushed people into midweek and slowly that will fill.
Like Largo, I dont know what the solution is. I just know that we could get a bunch of years more without permits simply by putting in a down lane and roughening the surface that has been polished by so many hikers.
|
|
David Wilson
climber
CA
|
|
Dingus,
Still think Munge probably said it best per below. So, I'm curious, you think all these points have no merit?
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?
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
I can't stand permits. But if we are going to have them, then at least make them easily accessible and flexible. Have some by reservation and some first come first served. A ranger sitting at the beginning of the trailhead with a box of metal tags. You get a tag, you get to go.
I don't know what to to about cancelations. Which I know will be a lot.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2010 - 02:34pm PT
|
Dingus,
Even if you like the permit idea (not saying you do), you have to acknowledge that the cables route is basically a technical climb, albeit french-free 4th class, being subjected to regulation. Thus the slippery slope. Largo said it well, and I think this is what concerns many of us who are against this permit idea.
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
There are potential hazards due to the weather that could easily, I think, produce Largo's ripper involving hundreds. As I understand it the area is classed as "wilderness" so statute alows no permanent construction. I suspect it is an open question as to whether a third cable can be installed. I expect the Sierra Club's installation may be a prior nonconforming utilization and may have been waived on that basis. Indeed, the dropping of the cables each winter may possibly figure into the issuance of a waiver. I don't know.
A permit system that somehow manages the number of people up there may be their only option. In the event of a really serious problem involving people on top, any staff there would end up being just a witness and would itself be a serious problem.
I also seriously doubt the NPS is anxious to fund what it would cost to maintain a presence on site. Ultimately it might require staff at both the top and at the bottom using radio communication so one way traffic would be possible.
The NPS is truly caught between a rock and a hard place.
For my own part I would never attempt to use the cables when there are that many people on it.
Too risky.
|
|
tom woods
Gym climber
Bishop, CA
|
|
Interesting that Largo goes with dominoes. When I was working up there, stuck in the rush hour traffic, I always thought bowling.
Then I went to write about this the other day. I used the bowling analogy, but then figured nobody would get it, so I changed to dominoes.
Everybody standing there, one knocking into another. It's amazing so few people actually get hurt up there.
On the other hand, there have been two fatalities and one near miss since 2007, so perhaps the situation has changed up there.
Somebody correct me, but I always heard that the previous fatality on the cables was in the 70's until this latest stretch.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
This is what I suggested last year.
An electronic message sign board. Messages can be wireless changed and enabled from the Valley as needed as conditions change. It will also have a live video real time camera. A 100 watt public address amp will also be implemented to provide real time audio broadcast if so wanted by the remote operator.
This would be a dedicated licensed wireless microwave link so there would be no interference with any other service. This would be 2.7-3.7GHz range. The system would be implemented into the NPS network for access to wilderness, SAR and dispatch only.
It can be done easily but it has the problem the area is classed as "wilderness" so statute allows no permanent construction as jstan and the NPS has informed me.
There should be exemptions for this type of service?
|
|
Colby
Social climber
Ogdenville
|
|
So, what some of you are saying is that removing the cables would be exclusionary? But you don't consider the permit system itself as exclusionary? Or it is somehow an acceptable form of exclusion? What? I'm not following.
I don't see the removal of the cables as exclusionary. It just means somebody has to be a bit more competent before they undertake such an endeavor. Nobody is there to say, "No you can't go up." Whereas with your way, there is somebody telling you that you are not allowed to do it.
But for the record, I don't see the problem of just putting in another cable line to the left, either. Who says there are too many people? I think there are too many people in this world, but on half dome... It would be hard to argue for ecological reasons. The trail is already super beat out and have dome is a piece of rock that's falling apart anyways. Let people have their fun. But let them also be responsible for themselves.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2010 - 03:48pm PT
|
Dingus,
Any scenario can be conjured up. Let's say the permits system goes into effect. On some Sunday, with no improvement having been made in the cables whatsoever, now it's the max number of 400, and there are 100 on the summit. Your thunderstorm comes in, panic, etc. as you describe. Huge problem avoided by permits system? I think knott.
How much would the proposed system reduce the probability of a major accident, given the current cables set-up (never mind dozens, just 6 deaths would be a huge catastrophe)? I say basically no difference...and a bad regulatory precedent.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Scenario - 200 people on top as thunder storm moves in, summit is struck, someone or some people are killed or injured, and a stampede for the cables happens....
Valid concern? Invalid?
totally valid imo... huge disaster just waiting to happen.
A permit system does not solve this. In fact, it makes it more likely to happen as people decide to hike it in iffy weather because that is the day they have a permit.
An extra cable does more to solve this problem.
|
|
bmacd
Trad climber
Beautiful British Columbia
|
|
Many, many unintended consequences of the permit system will emerge after the fact.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2010 - 04:39pm PT
|
whether you like it or not, at least Werner's proposed solution is a serious attempt to solve the actual problem, unlike the proposed permitting system, which would solve nothing.
what's wrong with just getting rangers, volunteers, whomever, mobilized--when really bad storms are coming in--to close the cables and get people down? Is this already done?
|
|
Brendan
Trad climber
Yosemite, CA
|
|
Part of the Park service's mission - the organic act which allows for such incredible places as Yosemite to exist:
"The service thus established shall promote and regulate the use of the Federal areas known as national parks, monuments, and reservations hereinafter specified by such means and measures as conform to the fundamental purpose of the said parks, monuments, and reservations, which purpose is to conserve the scenery and the natural and historic objects and the wild life therein 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."
1) the park service is bound by law to "conserve the scenery... and wild life therein", and "in such manner and by such means as will leave them unimpaired for the enjoyment of future generations."
2) I know it is important to weigh in as climbers here, but this is a land management and wildlife issue as well as a safety issue. People overusing trails leaving trash, feeding and impacting wildlife are all reasons to NOT have over a 1,000 people up on the Dome.
3) Also remember that NPS doesn't charge people who need to be saved from hairy situations, that all comes out of the budget for the NPS. For example, when ti started to rain last summer when a fataility occurred, the line was so long to go down the cables that it stranded people up on top for the night. This may have been much less severe an issue if permits were in effect.
4) Another set of cables is not an option, since this would cause all kinds of problems with the aforementioned organic act.
I'm not saying that this solution is perfect by any means, but this is a very complex issue to look at from many perspectives.
Edit: Believe me that people like Jesse are looking out for your interests as climbers, because they themselves are bound to the same restrictions for their own trips.
I heard the superintendent once say, "If your getting sued by the environmentalists and the people who want to drive ATVs all over the park, your prolly doing something right". Meaning that it is important to moderate the views of all the people who enjoy Yosemite.
-Plus we are really only talking about a few days a week during the heaviest seasons of use.
|
|
SilasCL
Sport climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
That's the first time I've seen that picture in such clarity- that's insane. Are the Cables like that on a regular basis? Seems like a permit system wouldn't even be close to what that fixture needs.
-Pate
That picture is similar to what I saw when I hiked it a few years back. It was either late May or early June, and a Friday. When we arrived at the cables around 11 it was still pretty quiet, but when we tried to descend around 12:30, it was about as busy as that picture. I had been gym climbing for a year or so at that point, even climbed outdoors once or twice, so I felt pretty confident in my grip on the cables and was familiar with slab climbing technique. My girlfriend is a solid hiker, but couldn't trust her arms and felt a bit panicked at some of the steeper points. I've seen other pictures of the cables during peak weekends and it is way busier than that photo.
In my opinion, there are a few safety issues right now. The first is inexperienced people trying to do something they aren't capable of. Some of these people will always be there, it's unavoidable. The second is that the equipment is crappy. The metal poles set into the granite often pull out, especially at the steepest part about 3/4ths of the way up. This causes the cable to go slack in those sections, and can cause the planks to slide around as well. The third problem is the crowds. The trip up or down should take 10 minutes and while tiring it shouldn't be an exercise in endurance. With the crowds you end up standing at each plank for 30 seconds to a minute, and the trip takes a half hour. It's not surprising that people get tired, panicked, or make poor decisions in those situations. The crowds inherently make the situation more dangerous.
The permit system, while poorly implemented (no cancellations, no walk up, etc.) is one solution to the third problem. A better solution would be a second cable for people heading down, along with a reworking of the current hardware to make it more secure. To go along with this, you could set a designated cut off time when people are no longer allowed to ascend the cables. This would open up both sides to people descending, making it much safer and faster at the most dangerous time of day, when inexperienced and slow hikers are trying to head back down.
|
|
looking sketchy there...
Social climber
Latitute 33
|
|
I like Werner's idea. If a portable/removable system could be installed (goes up during high season and removed after), perhaps this could avoid the "permanent installation" problem. It could be placed on a single pole that goes into a hole and locked into place. In off season, the hole can be covered with a metal cap (which is locked in place).
Signs are allowed in Wilderness areas as minimum impacts to ensure safety. A seasonal system may get an OK?
Never liked the whole permit idea, but understand that it can help in avoiding over-use issues. The idea that a permit system could possibly compound safety concerns is real and if safety is the primary motivation (rather than human impacts), they should seriously look at this "solution" a little closer.
|
|
Slater
Trad climber
Central Coast
|
|
Anyone who has done the cable route KNOWS what a joke the actual cables are.
That design wouldn't fly ANYWHERE else, so what is it doing as the main source of protection on the most popular hike/scramble in California? MANK.
They need 4 times the 2x4s, and more cables connecting the rods.
People fall and slide UNDER the cables. They don't fly OVER them.
Easy fix, why are they so stubborn and playing dumb like this?
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2010 - 05:47pm PT
|
I'm not saying that this solution is perfect by any means, but this is a very complex issue to look at from many perspectives.
An empty statement. We could make an analysis of everything involved and end up back on 580 somewhere, or in downtown Los Angeles.
The question is: does a real problem exist, and what is the best way to solve it while encouraging people to experience wonder and adventure in their park.
The ecological health of the park would be improved not one iota by this permit idea. And breaking federal law--prompting a lawsuit by environmentalists--is not a "moderate" approach symmetrical with upholding federal law (keeping atvs out).
Assume a third cable is not possible. That leaves fixing the existing set-up, shutting down the cables on bad storm days, and dozens of other solutions offered here.
-Plus we are really only talking about a few days a week during the heaviest seasons of use. It's the precedent, the precedent, the precedent of regulating what is in fact a technical climb. And extending the permitting tentacles in general towards no good purpose.
|
|
Colby
Social climber
Ogdenville
|
|
Wow... good post Brendan.
But I think some of those assertions like too many people feeding animals don't necessarily follow.
What I mean is this... the trails have changed and will continue to change. How about those horse trails like the ones at mirror lake? The horses piss on, shat all over, and otherwise erode the hell out those trails. If you are a hiker or a runner, you have to step aside and let the cavalcade walk by (at a snails pace) while kicking up dust. I don't see the Park Service doing much to stop that. Probably because the horse trails bring in revenue. So it must be okay.
As far as and feeding animals... A lot of tourons feed animals, but that's much more of an issue at the Taqueria or anywhere else in Curry Village or the Lodge area. That issue seems to pale in comparison up there. Animals snaking people's food is always going to happen to some extent in the wilderness. What's the solution? Make a contrived limit on how much this can happen? I don't know. But I do know that arbitrary boundaries have never appealed to me.
Trash? Yeah, that's certainly an issue.
Safety? Could work out the other way. Read John Moosey's comment.
"A permit system does not solve this. In fact, it makes it more likely to happen as people decide to hike it in iffy weather because that is the day they have a permit.
An extra cable does more to solve this problem."
I should look at the pictures, but I'm guessing the park has already changed considerably since the Organic Act (1916) was passed. Besides I though one of the goals of the park system, at least wilderness type parks, is to let people connect with nature. I guess only certain people get to do this.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
-Plus we are really only talking about a few days a week during the heaviest seasons of use.
For now, until the other days are impacted and we have to have permits for them.
This permit system is blocking 1400 people every weekend from going. Do you really believe that a lot of them wont go on Friday and Monday?
Once a permit system is in place, it will be simple to expand it.
|
|
John Moosie
climber
Beautiful California
|
|
Reducing the number of people on the trail will most likely "improve" the ecological health of the trail.
Yep, but it will also negatively impact the health of other trails as people look for different places to hike. Which will mean you will have to put in a permit system for other trails.
Yosemite falls trail will be next.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 5, 2010 - 06:15pm PT
|
correct, former stzzo, if you want to get formal.
And, I would argue, a very solid null hypothesis paired with the alternative: the proposed permit system will improve the ecological health of the park. Rejecting the null is extremely unlikely in this case, imo.
|
|
Srbphoto
Trad climber
Kennewick wa
|
|
In 5 years...El Cap
At least the permits will be free, only $5.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
The Park will suffer the minimum amount of grief by adding another lane.
All other actions will get them very bad press.
|
|
Captain...or Skully
Social climber
شقوق واس
|
|
It's a circus, as it it is.
Bring on the elephants!
|
|
jstan
climber
|
|
Of late we have been hiking Mt Whitney. Don't know why but a guy where PT works does it every year. I guess because it is the highest. The place is a zoo, The last time there were abandoned bags of poo along the trail. When we got down the dempster for collecting them was locked. I expect that situation has since improved.
We did it as a day hike. Start any time between midnight and 2AM. It goes much faster and easier in the dark. I'll never do that hike again in daylight.
Much nicer to go in through Horseshoe Meadows and New Army Pass. No crowds at Guitar Lake.
No way to tell why people go where they go.
Almost any place can become a zoo.
|
|
Seamstress
Trad climber
Yacolt, WA
|
|
Once a permit/fee system is in place, it has a tendency to expand. Fee stations on your classic climbs won't be far behind....
|
|
landcruiserbob
Trad climber
Maui or Vail ; just following the sun.......
|
|
Remove the cables & let it be a climbers mountain again.
rg
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
From an earlier thread:
Great writing in the classic old highblown Victoria style.
From Summer Saunterings, by Frank Harrison Gassaway, San Francisco, 1882, p. 122:
As a standpoint for the landscape viewer, the polished summit of [Half Dome] is incomparably the finest in the whole range, towering as it does five thousand feet above the Valley floor and commanding its entire scope, from east to west. The drawback to its general enjoyment is the undeniably hazardous nature of the present means of ascent, which from the top of the horse-trail to the apex of the eminence is by means of a mean rope nine hundred feet long. This cordage lies upon the vertiginous ramparts of the bald granite monolith. The marvel of the matter is how this lead was first placed on that air-line trail by the spider-footed George Gordius Anderson, a guide of the greatest strength and most iron nerve.
A man ascending this dizzy slant presents about the relative appearance of a fly walking up the side of an inverted goblet. Very few visitors care to attempt it, unless under the supervision of this guide, Anderson (whose wonderful coolness was acquired as a ship’s carpenter on a frigate that frequently plied Cape Horn). The cord itself is hardly calculated to inspire confidence, being composed of seven thicknesses of ordinary, hay-bale-rope. This, however, is knotted every few inches to assist the hands, besides which the climber can rest at certain intervals and anoint the soles of his feet with sailor’s rye, a flask of which Anderson carries in his vest pocket for this and other purposes.
|
|
Belay Vobiscum
Trad climber
Seattle
|
|
Late June 1993 we headed out to do the NW Face. When we got to the top of the falls there was a ranger there who asked to see our backcountry permit. We told him we didn't need one, we were climbing the NW Face of HD and would be bivying on the route. He refused to call down to double check our insistence that a permit wasn't required to climb HD and told us in no uncertain terms that we needed one and would not allow us to pass (he was armed--we were not) and sent us down to get a permit. We stashed gear and wasted the afternoon going down and getting a permit. Of course at the ranger station they then refused to issue us a permit since it wasn't required. Fortunately the head ranger there was a woman so common sense eventually prevailed. She called the idiot seasonal ranger and straightened him out, apologized to us, and issued us (at our insistence) a permit--just in case. I still have my commemorative HD permit.
So here's the deal, if the masses need permits to do the cables, we'll need permits to do HD too--you can bet on it.
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Late June 1993 we headed out to do the NW Face. When we got to the top of the falls there was a ranger there who asked to see our backcountry permit. We told him we didn't need one, we were climbing the NW Face of HD and would be bivying on the route. He refused to call down to double check our insistence that a permit wasn't required to climb HD and told us in no uncertain terms that we needed one and would not allow us to pass (he was armed--we were not) and sent us down to get a permit. We stashed gear and wasted the afternoon going down and getting a permit. Of course at the ranger station they then refused to issue us a permit since it wasn't required. Fortunately the head ranger there was a woman so common sense eventually prevailed. She called the idiot seasonal ranger and straightened him out, apologized to us, and issued us (at our insistence) a permit--just in case. I still have my commemorative HD permit.
So here's the deal, if the masses need permits to do the cables, we'll need permits to do HD too--you can bet on it.
----
I promist not to mention it again, but the above story basically tells us about the slippery slope we are plunging down with the permit business.
It is incomprehensible and unheard of for a government agancy to issue ANY kind of permit, and not to have an enforcement policy in place - or for one to eventually come into existence regardless of what is now being said to the contrary.
I've seen it 1,000 times. Maybe there is no current plan to write up people with no permits who are caught on the public trail to the Dome, but someday, some official is going to imagine the possible cash stream, is going to feel the park service is getting done out of money by "law breakers," and a ranger with a gun and a hip full of citations will soon start appearing on the shoulder of Half Dome for "security" and ecological reasons.
Really too bad it's come to this but perhaps there's no other way to "manage" the crowds.
JL
|
|
Homer
Mountain climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
This permit system is blocking 1400 people every weekend from going. Do you really believe that a lot of them wont go on Friday and Monday?
That seems to me to be a great argument in support of the permit system - like altering people's commute schedules instead of building more freeway lanes.
Largo and Belay - I'm not sure I follow your reasoning. A seasonal ranger made a mistake 17 years ago that was then corrected, and that infers what?
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
"Largo and Belay - I'm not sure I follow your reasoning."
"Reasoning" only makes sense, as a term, if you have some desired goal in mind. My desired goal is freedom. That means any visitor to the Park is not restricted by what oficials have decided what we can and cannot do in our public parks. This also includes the freedom of not being shaken down for money when we are not following the "rules."
I recognize that this was a sustainable policy when I was climbing in Yoz in the 70s and early 80s. Crowds have forced the Park Servises hand, in some cases, because apparently, Yoz cannot sustain such large numbers. I highly doubt the crowds hiking to the Dome are "ruining" the place (it's mostly just a granite massif), or are creating anywhere near the visible or long term impact of pack animals on other parts of the Valley, so my sense of this is we're talking about a control issue. The idea that the permit system will somehow limit the few deaths that are bound to happen is to not understand the nature of climbing accidents.
All told, I'm neither arguing for or against anything, but I am lamenting the lack of freedom to park visitors this new permit system implies, and the inevitable policing it will involve, sure as day follows night. I've always bucked against anything official, but understand the need in certain cases - but it doesn't make me like it.
JL
|
|
guido
Trad climber
Santa Cruz/New Zealand/South Pacific
|
|
Be forewarned, what will eventually happen if you indeed, fail to obtain a permit?
|
|
Homer
Mountain climber
Santa Cruz, CA
|
|
Fair enough. Not that different than how I feel. We never like to be regulated, maybe I'm just more resigned to it.
More people, more rules. The slippery slope we're on might be more the people one than the rules one.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
We need the ranking
Chairman for the Subcommittee on National Parks, Forests and Public Lands
Rep. Raul M. Grijalva AZ.
to call the Supe in Yosemite and issue instructions to add another lane on the Half Dome cables to stop the flood of emails and phone calls from outraged citizens that are annoying his staffers.
|
|
SilasCL
Sport climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
I've seen it 1,000 times. Maybe there is no current plan to write up people with no permits who are caught on the public trail to the Dome...
-Largo
Anyone can still walk up to the subdome, or shoulder, or whatever you want to call it. This permit is for the cables only.
No wilderness permit is ever needed for any kind of day hike in Yosemite. That some idiot seasonal ranger thought so 17 years ago is irrelevant.
|
|
corniss chopper
Mountain climber
san jose, ca
|
|
Half Dome Mandatory Day Hike Permits may cause Yosemite to lose $280,000
in entrance Fee's per year and lost Concessionaire revenue of over $1,000,000.
$20 Park entrance Fee w/ 2 hikers per car average lost
1400 hikers per weekend who never enter the Park due to denial of access
to Half Dome cables
20 weekends when the cables are up in the summer average
Lost money from hotel/campground revenues and amenity purchases
|
|
Largo
Sport climber
The Big Wide Open Face
|
|
Feb 8, 2010 - 04:23pm PT
I've seen it 1,000 times. Maybe there is no current plan to write up people with no permits who are caught on the public trail to the Dome...
-Largo
Anyone can still walk up to the subdome, or shoulder, or whatever you want to call it. This permit is for the cables only.
No wilderness permit is ever needed for any kind of day hike in Yosemite. That some idiot seasonal ranger thought so 17 years ago is irrelevant.
--
My bad. I glossed the first official report and didn't realize the permits really only apply to climbing the cables.
It does say that the crowds averaged 840 a day, swelling to 1,100-1,200 on peak weekends. That's an incredible number, and I wonder if cutting that figure in half will somehow make the ascent safer for folks. It's sure to cut down on the hour's wait to make the trudge. But I wonder if the crowds were thought responsible for the death and injury that occured last year, and if so, how?
Imagine being a policy maker and having to sort through this?
JL
|
|
cleo
Social climber
Berkeley, CA
|
|
//They need 4 times the 2x4s, and more cables connecting the rods.
People fall and slide UNDER the cables. They don't fly OVER them.//
Slater nails it: More 2x4s and cables would make it safer and would make people FEEL safer, which would eliminate a lot of the frozen and hyperventilating people that create the traffic jam in the first place.
|
|
hatestocarry
climber
gunks
|
|
What's NOT clear is what the permit status is of climbers who only DESCEND the cables after summiting by another route? If the proposed permit system doesn't include that scenario, then bring it on!
My wife & I were racing an afternoon thundershower off the summit after doing Snake Hike, and the touron clogged cables were one of the hairiest climbing things we've ever done.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2010 - 11:23pm PT
|
Pip TD:
To a purist who adheres to the idea of pristine wilderness untouched by humans (a ridiculous concept in the Western U.S.), Snake Dike and the cables route are the same: metal in the rock that should be removed. Seen Snake Dike at high season recently? The line of ropes, gear and people would mar the view for said purist. Doesn't matter if only a few small bolts remain fixed.
Those people and ropes would not be there were it not for the few bolts on the route.
Anyhow, the issue on the table is down and dirty: permits and boots, people sliding down steep granite, how to get new revenue started (processing cost now, and then?), and how they all relate in a small world where the NPS has enormous power.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 8, 2010 - 11:44pm PT
|
Somewhat redundant summary of my opinion plus what I've learned from others with similar views:
1. Proposed permit system would not reduce the potential for a major accident (6 dead would be on the nation's eyeballs for at least 1 24 hr. news cycle) because the cables are in terrible shape (sagging, wiggly stanchions, missing/worn 2x4s). Also because there's only 1 lane.
2. Permits might actually increase the probability of accidents as people imprudently continue with their hike in bad weather--to make use of their permit.
3. The cables route is a technical climb. Thus, those who ascend the cable are climbers. It follows that the proposed permit system regulates climbers. We can expect more of this regulation. Climbers buy gear--expensive gear--why shouldn't they buy permits? And the gumby cable climbers we didn't defend--will they be there to help stop that?
4. A smarter interim approach would be to:
(a) Close the cables when major storms come in during peak season (what’s that, a dozen days?)
(b) Tighten up stanchions, fix steps/improve their design.
(c) Announce at the Valley start in a well-done graphic (i.e., not done by the NPS), with photographs that exaggerate the angle of the cables (we’re good at that), that the cable route is a technical climb where you could die.
5. For the long-term, study:
(a) putting in another cable (don’t recite rules—they are broken all the time).
(b) employing a first-come-first-serve, free, early morning lottery system if it is determined that crowds must be limited on certain weekends (I still don’t buy it). This would at least get people hiking early.
(c) the importance of maximizing the freedom of our fellow citizens to experience as much of the wonders and difficulties of nature as possible.
|
|
Fluoride
Trad climber
Hollywood, CA
|
|
BUMP!!
This needs to be on the front page.
|
|
SilasCL
Sport climber
San Francisco, CA
|
|
1. Proposed permit system would not reduce the potential for a major accident (6 dead would be on the nation's eyeballs for at least 1 24 hr. news cycle) because the cables are in terrible shape (sagging, wiggly stanchions, missing/worn 2x4s). Also because there's only 1 lane.
While I don't think the permit system will be some kind of panacea, I think it's a pretty safe bet that it will reduce the potential for a major accident. I read a first hand account of a recent accident on there, and one of the key factors was how fatigued and panicked everyone became after spending a long time on the cables. By decreasing the traffic, you are solving one of the many problems with the cables...IMO.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2010 - 12:48pm PT
|
Silas CL
As per previous posts:
If there are "only" 100 people on the summit of Half Dome and a major storm comes in suddenly, given the condition of the cables, etc., the potential for a major accident would not be reduced compared to 200 people on the summit. The magnitude of the accident might change, but it would still be terrible with 100 people trying to descend. We've all seen it: a few people bottle the thing up, others would panic, try to go outside, or might slip under trying to pass, etc.
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.
A better solution, again, imo, would be to shut the cables down when a storm is imminent.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
Cross posted.
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.
|
|
hossjulia
Social climber
Eastside
|
|
The cables are a human installation in the wilderness, no?
Or is Little Yosemite Valley conveniently out of the wilderness zone?
Make it wilderness and get rid of the damn cables, they are a disgusting eye sore and should not be there. Period.
|
|
WBraun
climber
|
|
The cables are a human installation in the wilderness, no?
And all the bridges to cross the streams and the trails are human installations etc.
hossjulia seems you ran into a very angry extreme out of the ball park rant.
The whole planet is a wilderness in true reality .......
|
|
hossjulia
Social climber
Eastside
|
|
you nailed it Werner.
Bad mood today and the whole permit thing seems really silly to me.
|
|
gonzo chemist
climber
a crucible
|
|
Moosie wrote:
"Whitney is a different problem because people have to overnight for the most part. Few can do it in a day."
But what bums me out is that I CAN do Whitney in a day, via the Mountaineer's Route. And yet I still have to get some permit. That's lame...
As for HD, the permitting idea is dumb. I'm with Largo. Many people really look forward to doing the hike. And I do believe that for many people getting to do something like that could really be an eye-opener for them about how precious and beautiful our national parks are, and how we should strive to protect and expand them...
Fact is, the accident rate is pretty damn low on the cables...might as well leave it alone...
my opinion doesn't count for much, but there ya go...
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 9, 2010 - 09:53pm PT
|
Is reducing the magnitude not a goal worthy in itself?
It would be, if that were possible. A major disaster has not happened, and so it is impossible to say whether the permit system as designed would function as you describe, to proportionately reduce the magnitude of an accident.
For all we know, the great Half Dome disaster will happen when there are 15 hardy souls on the summit, and five of them perish.
|
|
MVM
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 12:37am PT
|
The original intent of the National Park Service (NPS) system was to protect these areas from the destructive greed of self-interested entities, such as the logging, real estate, and cattle industries. In the intervening years since the founding of the NPS, modern transportation has made these areas more and more accessible. Unfortunately, the Park Service, the automobile industry, and the tourism industry have grown up side-by-side and are now inextricably linked. Tax-payers are half right in believing they have a right to drive cars on Federally maintained roads into the Valley and pull on Federally maintained cables to get them up Half Dome, simply because they pay taxes. Guess what, the tax-paying timber industry made the same complaints when the Forest Reserve system was originally set up. We, as a society, preserved the forests anyway, at least to a certain extent. We need to do the same thing for the National Parks: pull back and take an honest look at what is threatening them. The inevitable conclusion of any EIS or other analysis is that the most basic threat to these globally-significant resources are the roads built by the National Park Service which provide access to unsustainable numbers of tourists. Let the roads disappear and most of these issues disappear as well. People can only do so much damage when they have to carry all of their crap around on their back. If you can hike 15 miles to get to the base of Half-Dome and then pull your way up an ancient, unmaintained cable ladder to the top, go for it! Think of how challenging big aid walls now become! It ain't Disneyland and there is no reason the Federal government has to make it easy for you to thrill or kill yourself. The primary threat to most of the National Parks in this day and age is the NPS's apparent mandate to facilitate tourism at any cost and they do this through road construction and maintenance. I have worked for the Federal government (incl. the NPS) as an archaeologist for 18 years, so I don't need any civics lessons, but will someone please tell me why we can't just get rid of the f!@#ing cars!?!?!!
|
|
landcruiserbob
Trad climber
Maui or Vail ; just following the sun.......
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 02:19am PT
|
Rip them out; if they don't some wired climber who just finished snake hike will be making a hurried decent & freak out some yahoo & 20 people will fall to their death. National news coverage = Bill O'Reilly plastering this all over the air & web. Remember all of the coverage on Mt Hood?The NPS will then close all climbing in the park. It's F'd but big brother wants us alive & paying taxes.
rg
|
|
Don't let go
Trad climber
Yorba Linda, CA
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 03:51am 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?
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Feb 10, 2010 - 11:34am PT
|
The primary threat to most of the National Parks in this day and age is the NPS's apparent mandate to facilitate tourism at any cost and they do this through road construction and maintenance. I have worked for the Federal government (incl. the NPS) as an archaeologist for 18 years, so I don't need any civics lessons, but will someone please tell me why we can't just get rid of the f!@#ing cars!?!?!!
Because the NPS and the very idea of National Parks need an electoral and economic constituency. The original political will to create an NPS depended on the efforts the railroads and others in the tourist industry. And the Route 66 cmapaigns of the 1950s helped to marshal public support for the Wilderness Act of 1964.
Without the support of a large chunk of the electorate-- and local campaign-contributing, lobbyist-wielding, lawyered-up business owners and special interest groups --the Parks will disappear. And for the last century, that constituency has been the folks who drive their families to the park, and the service industries that support them. Remove the roads and you remove a lot of support for the very idea of a Park, especially in local districts.
The Valley is one of the best PR resources the NPS has, when it comes to "everyday" voters.
As for wilderness, that horse left the barn more than a century ago. As an archeologist, you probably know better than most folks on this board, the degree to which the NPS forced out local Natives (and removed an array of squatters and structures) to make the place feel more "wild."
Let's be real: The Valley is a sacrifice zone. Restrict access and you'll push those cars and their occupants out into King's Canyon, Sequoia, the 108 corridor, and other areas that are currently buffered by the mosh pit we know and love as the Valley.
|
|
MVM
Trad climber
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2010 - 12:47am PT
|
KLK: True, true, true. Everything you say is true. However, I am also a car-driving constituent, but one that can appreciate the need to protect areas that I may never go to. There are many people like me as well (most likely you are also a car-driving, tree-hugging, nature freak) and we shouldn't underestimate our strength to accomplish what is best for the resource. David Brower (a climber) had as much to do with the passage of the Wilderness Act as any advertising campaigns. How do we know it won't pass unless someone suggests it? I am sure we could come up with some pretty good fiscal reasons to ban cars. E.g. The crazy-ass road into Mesa Verde NP? It costs nearly $1,000,000 per mile to MAINTAIN. Anyway, there are only 100 Senators who vote on this stuff and a couple of hundred members of the House.
In the end, I guess it really doesn't matter: sooner rather than later, the Earth is gonna swallow up our little plague-of-a-species and everything will be back to normal. Half Dome will far out-last our sorry ass species and that sorry ass cable route. Time to go climbing and let the NPS attempt to justify their existence by implementing more useless regulations. And I say that with love, Parkies.
|
|
klk
Trad climber
cali
|
|
|
Feb 11, 2010 - 12:31pm PT
|
All that? Over some cables and poles on the side of Half Dome to keep open an one hundred year old route?
No-- personally, I don't really care and I think that the short-term, at least, is already in place.
The cables debate is just an opening into a bigger issue about land management that I work on, namely the problems we face with "wilderness" management.
|
|
tarek
climber
berkeley
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Feb 11, 2010 - 01:06pm PT
|
klk,
What's your take on having free permits right there at the cables, as I outlined in the other thread?
Certainly some people would shine this system, just as they will the other permits, just as people dirtbag illegally, etc. But this is free and simple and might pair well with the via ferrata approach.
I also liked monolith's idea of needing no permit at all if you are on the summit before 9am.
|
|
| Messages 1 - 84 of total 84 in this topic |
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!