Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
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?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!